Comments on: Gay Marriage

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 22 May 2008 18:14:48 +0000

This whole discussion has gone way to far. Gays should not get married because it is not natural.

By: yaman

yaman — Wed, 21 May 2008 16:36:16 +0000

Fullmer: I can’t help but feel that that is just a way to rationalize excluding same-sex couples from marriage.

Anonymous @ 9:29pm: Thanks for the clarification, and of course there was same-sex sex in the Ottoman Empire. I wasn’t trying to be “condescending” (I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that), I was just trying to point out that it existed in Europe and the US long before there were calls for same-sex marriage–and, my intuition is that this had less to do with openness about the fact, and more to do with a changing idea of marriage.

By: yuri

yuri — Wed, 21 May 2008 06:18:39 +0000

“Next decades the issues will be animals and humans and so on to the bizarre.”

the slippery slope argument is the fastest way to kill one’s credibility

By: Fullmer

Fullmer — Wed, 21 May 2008 05:18:05 +0000

I am aware of that, Yaman, and I support the decision in Lawrence v. Texas, because I do think the government should stay out of people’s personal lives as much as possible.

That’s why I think that love and companionship, primary components of marriage though our society may hold them to be, are not valid reasons for the government to get involved in marriage at all. What I’m arguing is that the societal benefit of having men and women marry is a reason for the government to recognize marriage - even if this wasn’t the original reason.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 21 May 2008 04:29:55 +0000

Actually marriages between ethnicities or races, per state, were legislated for much of the U.S. development period. Since the founding colonies, Marriage was of most important. It was not lightly discussed or “free” for people to chose who and where. It has only been after 1950s, and later the 1060s Rights revolution that marriages became much different than they were in U.S. history. State and Federal have been into peoples’ lives more than the average citizen knows. If anyone of you had any clue about U.S. history you would be talking about the Miscegenation laws in US history. US supreme courts had stringent rules, not only between blacks and whites but a host of other races and ethnicities. So same-gender marriage is just part of the new rights revolution. Next decades the issues will be animals and humans and so on to the bizarre. The point is government, be it federal or state has always been into people’s lives. And Yaman, The Ottoman Empire had many homosexuals, including the dominating race/ethnicity. It is not only Europeans and westerners – although nice try in framing a condescending picture.

*Not the same anonymous that posted, this is the first on this thread.

By: yaman

yaman — Wed, 21 May 2008 01:42:08 +0000

Anonymous: Is there actually any scholarship about this distinction between right and privilege, or was it invented on a talk show? In any case, the “right” people are alluding to is equal protection under the laws, specifically in this case, marriage laws.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 20 May 2008 20:19:22 +0000

If I’m not mistaken marriage licenses in the United States first came into being after slavery. Ex-slaves and whites needed permission to marry eachother. Thus, the grating of permits. From what I have read, marriage between whites or between blacks was a right, but marriage between races was an immunity granted case by case.

Also note that Section 1 of the 14th amendment does NOT mention “rights.” “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States…”

If marriage truly is a “right,” then one needs not ask permission from the government. You only need permission for something that is a privilege. If you have the right to something (life, property, marriage, arms, etc), then you don’t have to ask permission from the government. This confusion between rights and privileges is widespread and destructive.