News-Record.com

Does it not embarrass you that, each time you try to justify your opposition to equal rights on this issue, you throw reason and logic out the window?

This time we have a return of the straw man. You could offer up a "belief" of how these issues should be decided, perhaps even make a substantive case for one method over another. Instead, you insert the marriage to siblings canard. Nobody is advocating that. That is not what is being considered, but it is a lot easier to argue against that and gin up fear than it is to explain your objections to what is actually at issue. (Not to mention it is stupidly weak as even a straw man. Defining marriage as between a man and a woman only does not open up the door to a man marrying his sister.)

If we remove your straw man, we have to ask, why should gays be denied equality in civil marriage? Is there a good reason?

1. The issue I've raised is not a straw man or a canard, and your contention that "nobody" advocates for sibling marriage is only your guess. Why, under your understanding of "equality," should that not be an issue or not be allowed if anyone desires it?

2. "Equality" is not an issue. Equality exists in North Carolina's marriage laws. What's happened in Vermont is the creation of a new and different definition of marriage.

3. I believe further redefinitions of marriage are likely to occur until the point when the institution of civil marriage will be rendered meaningless and finally will be abandoned, to society's detriment.

Roch, you sound like a broken record - "Straw man! Straw man!"

However, Doug is wrong here. Protecting the rights of individuals is long-standing and valid practice of the courts and the law. It's the whole reason the Bill of Rights exists, to protect individuals from they "tyranny of the majority." Putting civil rights up to a popular vote is a just a bad idea.

I agree with your point, js, but there's a balancing act. The Bill or Rights, after all, was written by representatives of the people and ratified by elected states legislatures. The same process can be used to amend the constitution, and the courts are expected to uphold legally approved constitutional changes to reflect the will of the people.

The courts can overturn an act of the legislature or the results of a referendum to negate a constitutional conflict.

If same-sex marriage were clearly an issue of equality, there would be no debate. But it's not that simple, by a long shot.

Just saying, I know. It bores me too. But straw men and red herrings are Doug's stock in trade on this issue.

Doug, don't make me disprove your canard. You prove it. Who is advocating that sisters be allowed to marry as a matter of equality under marriage laws?

Also, if your straw man is legitimate, please explain to me why your logic should not create concern that defining marriage as between a man and a woman will not lead to brothers marrying their sisters.

If you wish to assert that this is not a matter of equality, that, just like blacks were once as equally free to marry people of their own race as were whites, I'll let that opinion speak for itself. It still is not an argument against allowing gay people civil marriages though.

The only argument you offer against gay marriage is your fear that it will lead to a further changes in civil marriage. Okay. I acknowledge your concern. But, that still leaves us wondering, is there anything inherent to gay marriage that leads you to oppose it? We understand that you oppose sisters getting married. But is there a reason other than your opposition to sisters getting married that makes you opposed to gay people getting married? Do you have an objection to gay marriage itself? Is there anything other than being opposed to what you think it might precipitate? Can we at least get that cleared up?

Roch, if you even bore yourself with your constant repetition of the straw man argument, then think of something else. You apparently can't tell the difference between a straw man, canard or red herring and a logical progression. It is important, especially in matters of law, to consider how one thing leads to another. That's often how courts reach important decisions, such as Griswold v. Connecticut leads to Roe v. Wade.

I don't have to prove that there are any siblings who want to marry today to assert that some might -- perhaps desiring some financial benefits that might accrue -- and then to ask what legal principle recognized, say, in Iowa would not also apply to their case.

Your reference to laws discriminating against blacks isn't pertinent, in my opinion. Black does not equal gay. There's a difference between condition (although defining racial status is fraught with insurmountable difficulties in the first place) and orientation, preference or behavior.

I don't have a different objection to gay marriage than I would to legalization of polygamy. I think the definition of marriage should remain as it is because I believe one fundamental and substantive change is bound to lead to more. I don't believe it's possible to argue for same-sex marriage and stop there unless one is willing to apply his principles selectively and inconsistently.

Didn't Vermont once threaten, oops I meant promise, to secede from the union. I think that now, since they've finally completed their ongoing secession from common sense, would be a good time. I vote aye!

Doug, I can't say that this decision won't open the doors for polygamy or sibling marriage. Maybe it does set that legal precedent.

But c'mon - let's be realistic here. How many people truly engage in such behavior? Does preventing a miniscule number of unsavory unions truly justify discriminating against millions of gay Americans? You are focusing on the hypothetical, rather than the real-world reality.

You're right, and that's a fair criticism. I am focused on the principle because I think it's important.

Also, just to be clear, I'm not characterizing any unions as unsavory.

"Also, just to be clear, I'm not characterizing any unions as unsavory."

Well, you don't really need to, do you?

Society has already determined that incest and polygamy are unsavory. That part's been taken care of for you. All you (and others) have to do is flash a mental picture of these things in the mind of the reader, and the negative reaction will follow.

But why is it necessary to do this? I'll tell you why—because, thanks to the growing number of gays, "coming out", a large percentage of our population can now claim a personal acquaintance who's gay. The mystery/fear factor is waning, what was once alien is now familiar, and the empathy for these folks is growing stronger every day.

This is not a moral decline of society, it's society growing up and discarding the cloak of unfounded fear. Unfortunately, and I'm not trying to impugn organized religion with this, fear is the cornerstone of conservative and religious dogma. That's your slippery slope, Doug. A society that no longer embraces childish fears is unpredictable, and that scares those who still cling to their fears.

So: homosexuality no longer evokes the fears it once did, so now it has to be "dangered up" by associating it with incest and polygamy. You say the interracial marriage issue has nothing to do with this, but, if you look back, many of the same slippery slope arguments were used back then. Fear then, fear now, it comes from the same place. And it's a place we should no longer cling to.

Spirited counterattack, Steve.

The object of your attack seems to be organized religion, which of course you are impugning as a source of fear-mongering.

But why your affirmation of incest and polygamy as unsavory? What's to fear?

I've always been careful when discussing this subject to separate the issue of marriage from sexual relations/procreation. People can get married for other reasons, which is one argument for same-sex marriage as I understand it. A marriage is a civil union that extends certain rights and benefits. Some of those rights and benefits may be available without marriage, but certainly not all. How people conduct themselves within that union is their own business. They don't even have to live together, let alone have intimate sexual relations. It's no business of the state what goes on between them, which is true whether they're married or not.

At any rate, we're going to disagree. I'll simply repeat my original premise in this post. The better way to bring about change, if it is to occur, is through the legislative process. If the N.C. legislature follows Vermont's example, I'll accept it.

No one has addressed the benefits of marriage in its currently accepted form of one man and one woman. An untold number of laws will have to be re-written if marriage is redefined. This is my objection to gay marriage. To achieve the "benefits" they want a civil partnership is possible and will not create havoc with our current laws.

If people would just remove themselves from the emotional haggling and look at the broader picture.

And I totally disagree that the act of marriage and the benefits and protections garnered with such a union is a "civil right". Talk about
red herring and straw men! A civil right is the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness with no restraints placed on anyone or any group to hinder the right to any of the three. Not allowing gay couples or any other than one man and one woman from the traditional act of marriage does not hinder anyone or any groups from the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. In the case of Blacks their civil rights were indeed being denied by the Jim Crow laws. They were allowed life but their liberty and their pursuit of happiness was hampered considerably. That is an example of a "civil right".

How does not being given the right to a the traditional act of marriage deny gays or any other group life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? They are free to form a legal union or legal partnership to take care of any problems with inheritance and visitation rights to hospitals and burial rights given only to family members which are the concerns that gays have expressed.

We as a society can not start down that path of re-defining "civil right" as stated in our Constitution. We have tampered with Constitutional law in many cases and it has always been to our detriment and caused needless years of redefining and adjustments to over come the problems created. This gay marriage issue is such a redefining that should be avoided. Brenda Bowers

"The object of your attack seems to be organized religion, which of course you are impugning as a source of fear-mongering." -- Doug Clark

Straw man.

Sharrison says nothing about religion. He refers to shrugging off the "cloak of unfounded fear." That's hard to argue against, so, true to form, Doug fashions it into something he would rather argue against instead of what is actually said.

Thanks for your response to my questions, Doug. It is helpful to know that your sole objection to gay marriage comes down to the slippery slope argument. I wonder why though, in states that have defined marriage as between a man and a woman, a slippery slope hasn't developed leading to legalizing brother marrying sister; why, when 18 year-olds were given the right to vote, that didn't result in 12 year-olds being allowed to vote; why, when the speed limit was raised to 65 mph, that didn't result in it being raised to 100 mph.

So, have at it. We shouldn't allow gay marriage because it may mean that sisters will be allowed to get married some day. Thoughtful adults will give that the consideration it deserves.

" There's a difference between condition (although defining racial status is fraught with insurmountable difficulties in the first place) and orientation, preference or behavior."

The problem with this is that being gay falls into the former category, that of condition. That's what research clearly shows and everyone I know who's gay would concur. People don't wake up one morning and decide that they'd like to become a member of a group of people that's routinely discriminated against. Basically I think these "there's already equality in marriage" arguments don't wash. No one would make that argument if the law said, for example, that you were only allowed to marry someone who is from a different state. That would be horribly unjust, but everyone would have "equal rights" to go find someone from another state to marry.

As for the Iowa court, you often had pointed out that the other decisions were all 4-3, but it should be noted this one was unanimous. That's pretty significant. And of course it's not just up to the legislature to decide what is a "legitimate government objective." That's the whole reason the courts exist! It's called checks and balances.

Roch, I'll resist the urge to call straw man on you because you're probably just trying to goad me into doing so. On the other hand, I doubt you could present a sensible argument why, if the speed limit is 65, it shouldn't be 66. Or if it's 70, why it shouldn't be 71. Logical progression. Get it?

Please read scharrison's comment again. You obviously missed something the first time.

You may wonder why a slippery slope has not yet developed in other states that have allowed same-sex marriage. That might be because only a few other states have allowed same-sex marriage, and that has been very recent. Because it hasn't happened yet is not an argument proving it won't happen in the future.

Brenda, thanks for joining in.

Andrew, I agree with you that the unanimous decision in Iowa is significant.

Judges in other states have made the argument that there is no strict inequality in male-female marriage laws that apply equally to all, so it is a position with legal validity. At this point, I would consider it the prevailing legal position in most states.

There is a stark difference in race-sexual orientation when it comes to this issue.

A black man is always black and therefore could not bridge a law that prohibited black men from marrying white women. A gay man may always be gay, but he can marry a woman. He has the same legal right as any other man to do so. I understand that he may not want to, but is there a constitutional right to always have what you want?

The object of your attack seems to be organized religion, which of course you are impugning as a source of fear-mongering.

**************

Doug, is there any dispute that some churches and religious organizations have engaged in fear-mongering on this issue? Not all, but some?

Actually, I haven't seen any real criticism of gay marriage that doesn't boil down to, "I oppose gays on religious grounds." In other words, people trying to impose their beliefs on others.

Doug, how is your example any different? By your logic, a black man could always marry a black woman. So why should he be allowed to marry a white woman? It's the same flawed logic.

There isn't a Constitutional right to always have what you want. There is, however, a Constitution protection of equal treatment under the law, and that's all the Iowa decision did - create equal treatment under the law.

Doug, you are right, I missed Steve's comment that he was not impugning organize religion (which you took to mean he was). Not a straw man.

Will you please reread my previous post. I was not asking you why the allowance of same sex marriage has not lead to brother being allowed to marry sister, I am asking you why, in states that have defined marriage as between a man and woman, marriage between brother and sister has not come about.

"A black man is always black and therefore could not bridge a law that prohibited black men from marrying white women. A gay man may always be gay, but he can marry a woman." -- Doug

Now you are back to the moronic. I think what you meant to write was: "A black man is always black and therefore could not bridge a law that prohibited black men from marrying white women. A gay man may always be gay, and therefore could not bridge a law that prohibited a gay man from marrying a gay man."

"An untold number of laws will have to be re-written if marriage is redefined." -- Brenda

I hadn't thought about that -- that allowing equal marriage rights for gay people would just be too much of a hassle. Good point. But just to make sure, can you give me some examples of some of the laws that will have to be rewritten if gay people are allowed to marry?

just saying,

Yes, some religious groups have engaged in fear-mongering. Some proponents of same-sex marriage have engaged in tactics of intimidation. There's a lot of emotionalism on both sides.

We seem to get down to the question of equal treatment under the law. That is a disputed point of law. If the issue were exactly the same as it was when applied to racial discrimination, it would not be disputed. The debate would be over in favor of same-sex marriage in all 50 states.

"Not allowing gay couples or any other than one man and one woman from the traditional act of marriage does not hinder anyone or any groups from the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

Okay, let's talk about happiness for a minute. Happiness is subjective emotion, right? Some misguided souls find happiness witnessing the emotional pain and despair of others, and some sociopaths derive happiness from the physical pain (and even death) of other living "things".

So we need to put happiness in a comparable context, in an effort to pinpoint just exactly what our forefathers meant with this.

Even though we didn't really need them, studies have shown that there is a direct correlation between love and happiness. Being loved, and loving in return, are core psychological needs. This understanding is so prevalent that society views someone who does not have a lover (married or not) as an oddity, and possibly flawed in some way.

So society not only embraces romantic love, it celebrates it. The wedding and engagement announcements in the paper make us feel good, because we know that romantic love is still alive. Their happiness is so apparent that we derive happiness from it ourselves, and silently wish them Godspeed and good luck.

We would never dream of telling those couples, "This wedding is not necessary. You should be just as happy without this public demonstration of affection, which is blatantly an attempt to seek acceptance for your lifestyle, and strengthen through artifice this "love" that you claim to have for each other."

What level of happiness could you attain under that harsh countenance?

There is another prerequisite for happiness, and once again I'm going to dip into Maslow a little bit: security. We can't truly achieve happiness unless and until we take steps to shield ourselves from current and future threats to our security. It's why we buy life insurance—so we won't have to worry (as much) about what will happen to our loved ones when we die. The plan is for the future, but the comfort is for the now. Unfortunately, it's also why many (young) people long for marriage, but that's a story for another time.

Back to that couple again. We would never dream of telling them, "You can't expect society to be concerned about the "rights" you think you deserve because of this "marriage" partnership you've concocted. Whatever happens between you and doctors and lawyers and crazy relatives is really none of our business. If you're worried about something that might happen in the future, then sit down with a lawyer and draw up a damned legal contract."

What kind of happiness would such uncertainty and lack of concern by the establishment produce?

Those are rhetorical questions, Brenda. I don't require answers or solid debate, I only ask that you think about them.