Prop 8?

No Marriage for Straight People Too Reverands react to gay marriage ruling

By OLSEN EBRIGHT

Updated 3:31 PM PDT, Fri, May 29, 2009
Related Topics: LGBT Issues | Special Interest Groups

165 Comments Post a comment Post a Comment
Print Email Share
Share

* Del.icio.usDel.icio.us
* Buzz up!
* MySpaceMySpace

* DiggDigg
* Fark
* FacebookFacebook

Buzz up!

Getty Images

Two pastors refuse to perform any wedding ceremonies.


Straight couples will not be allowed to wed.

That’s the plan from two Southern California pastors, who are getting out of the marriage business.

Rev. Art Cribbs of San Marino Congressional Church and Rev. Anne Cohen of the First Congressional Church in Glendale will no longer be performing wedding ceremonies.
From the LA Times

Gay, straight, traditional, opposite -- no ceremonies of any type will be performed.

The pastors’ decision is in response to the California Supreme Court’s decision to uphold Proposition 8, the ban on same-sex marriage. The justices also ruled that about 18,000 same-sex couples who married between June and the November 2008 election -- a period when the high court had ruled in favor of same-sex marriages -- would remain legally betrothed.

The pastors have scheduled a news conference for Friday afternoon to discuss the decision. Check back this afternoon for more information from that event

The New Republic
Until Logic Did Them Apart by Jonathan Chait
The definitive case against gay marriage critics.
Post Date May 28, 2009

Beauty pageant contestant Carrie Prejean, asked about gay marriage a few weeks ago, summed up her view this way: "In my country and in my family, I think that I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman." It's a pretty simple answer--what you'd expect, intellectually, from someone who had just successfully completed a bikini walk rather than a dissertation on the topic at hand.

Around the same time, Rudy Giuliani framed his own thinking in similar terms: "Marriage, I believe, both traditionally and legally, has always been between a man and a woman and should remain between a man and woman." (In Giuliani's case, he means a man and one woman at a time, though some romantic overlap may be unavoidable.)

Gay marriage opponents have made that formulation their mantra. It's a really strange way for them to summarize their argument, because it's not an argument at all. If we're debating health care, one side will have a line about big government, and the other will have a line about the uninsured or spiraling costs. If we're debating torture, advocates will mention the need to make terrorists talk, and opponents will invoke American values. Soundbites, by their nature, can't express much logical nuance, but they do tend to give you a reason to agree with the position.

The anti-gay-marriage soundbite, by contrast, makes no attempt at persuasion. It's like saying you oppose the Bush tax cuts because "I believe the top tax rate should be 39.6 percent." You believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman? Okay! But why?

The ubiquity of this hollow formulation tells us something about the state of anti-gay-marriage thought. It's a body of opinion held largely by people who either don't know why they oppose gay marriage or don't feel comfortable explicating their case.

In a liberal society, consenting adults are presumed to be able to do as they like, and it is incumbent upon opponents of any such freedom to demonstrate some wider harm. The National Organization for Marriage, on its website, instructs its activists to answer the who-gets-harmed query like so: "Who gets harmed? The people of this state who lose our right to define marriage as the union of husband and wife, that's who." Former GOP Senator Rick Santorum, arguing along similar lines, has said, "f anybody can get married for any reason, then it loses its special place."

Both these arguments rest upon simple tautologies. Expanding a right to a new group deprives the rest of us of our right to deny that right to others. If making a right less exclusive devalues it, then any extension of rights is an imposition upon those who were not previously excluded--i.e., women's suffrage makes voting less special for men.

Another objection holds that gay marriage would weaken the link between marriage and child-rearing, therefore encouraging out-of-wedlock births. If true, this would at least provide some weight on the scale against gay marriage. But it suffers from two massive flaws. First, it's hard to imagine how the tiny gay minority's behavior can materially influence the way the vast majority of heterosexuals view marriage. Second, if you think about it, the causality gay-marriage opponents imagine is running the wrong way.

Suppose we had a social epidemic of young adults who moved back into their parents' houses and watched television all day rather than finding a job. You might want to strengthen the link between adulthood and work. You'd be concerned about anything that weakened this link by letting adults not work--say, early retirement. But you wouldn't be concerned about the social signals sent by teenagers finding summer jobs. That would be weakening the link between adulthood and work, but not in the harmful way.

Likewise, marriage proponents might worry about anything that expands childbearing to the non-married, but they have no reason to fear expanding marriage to the non-childbearing. This is why approximately zero people in the history of the human race have ever expressed concern about allowing old or otherwise infertile heterosexuals to marry, even though they account for a far larger percentage of marriages than gays ever could.

The most striking thing about anti-gay-marriage arguments is that they dwell exclusively on how heterosexuals would be affected. Heather Mac Donald of the conservative Manhattan Institute writes, "I fear that it will be harder than usual to persuade black men of the obligation to marry the mother of their children if the inevitable media saturation coverage associates marriage with homosexuals."

I suppose you could imagine, somewhere, a black man telling his friends he's going to propose to his pregnant girlfriend, only to be taunted, "Marriage? That's so gay," and think better of it. I don't find this very likely. Neither does Mac Donald, actually. "f someone can persuade me that the chances are zero, then I would be much more sanguine," she writes. "But anything more than zero, I am reluctant to risk."

This is the One Percent Doctrine of social policy. If you place zero weight upon the preferences of gays, then all you have to do is suggest a possible harm, however remote, associated with gay marriage. The same sensibility was on stark display in a recent National Review editorial. Dismissing the argument that marriage might foster more stable gay relationships, the magazine's editors replied curtly, "[T]hese do not strike us as important governmental goals." There's a word for social policy that disregards the welfare of one class of citizens: discrimination.

Some hard-core conservatives are willing to openly discriminate like this, but most people aren't, which is why public opinion is warming to gay marriage. Most opposition arises from simple discomfort. When I first started hearing about gay marriage, I didn't oppose it, but it seemed sort of strange and radical--and only after several years did I realize I supported it.

The line "I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman" is an expression of that sensibility--a reflection of unease rather than principle. As people face up to the fact that opposing gay marriage means disregarding the happiness of the people most directly (or even solely) affected by it, most of us come around. Good ideas don't always defeat bad ideas, but they usually, over time, defeat non-ideas.

Jonathan Chait is a senior editor of The New Republic.


© The New Republic 2009

That's not totally true; opponents to gay marriage say it'll destroy the "family values" of the heterosexuals. That children "must have" a father and a mother for the child to be raised "normally."

Weak arguments on all counts; they have never shown that gay marriage destroys heterosexual marriage or that gay parents do not raise healthy children. Most of us have seen heterosexual parents who have mistreated their children in all the ways humans are capable of treating other humans; rape, violence, abuse, and isolation.

They learn to parrot what they learn "marriage should be between a man and a woman." Now, please give us the reasons why?

They can't see the hypocrisy a) it's discrimination, b) it de-humanizes gays and lesbians, and c) they are denied legal rights of heterosexual marriage.

Homosexuality and especially open homosexuality has in almost all cultures and in almost all times been punished and discouraged. There was good reason to do so at the time, punishing and discouraging homosexuality is not a "non-idea". The question is does it make sense now? Mocking and insulting the intelligence of all of those who question the wisdom of allowing open homosexuality and rewarding it is not helpful. It is showing the very same intolerance of those who don't agree or may not agree that homosexual rights groups label as bigotry.

Fair and open debate requires respecting the opposition, and being grown up enough to allow for others to not agree with you. Demanding that all agree with your position is ubber childish.

Which it does. What's his point? Some people think "less special" is a gross understatement. What does he think the age limit for voting ought to be reduced to?



Is he trying to say that these people's happiness is dependent upon a Propostion being voted on and a decision of a few judges? Those are odd things to have your happiness depending on.

Anybody can claim that their happiness is dependent on something, like being bought an expensive present or getting another ice-cream. It's called emotional blackmail.

It's a stunt. Something to rant about with sexual undertones and displays of liberal style loyalty to the Constitution. Sells well. It's got legs. And as long as it has legs there is no practical purpose in deciding anything definite.

A "senior editor". Gulp.

hawkeye wrote:

It's already been "fair and open debate," but that doesn't make the opposition to gay marriage right or ethical.

Yes, it does make sense to provide all groups equal rights under our laws.

Homosexuality is a normal and natural part of animals as are believing in religions and killing. The difference is when one individual hurts another human that is not justified in any manner that we declare as wrong and unethical.

How does homosexuals hurt you or any one of your family or friends? Why do you wish to impose your ignorance on strangers you don't even know or care about?

This is fair and open debate; please show me why your position doesn't stem from ignorance>?

Well there you go again, insisting that everyone must agree with your value scheme. You are not any less of a bully just because you are sure that you are right. Well you agree to let everyone make up their own mind then you will be ready for the grown-up table. Showing respect and civility are not optional.

Only a few people in the thread want to deny someone else's rights, Hawkeye.

I'll humor you while you talk about "fairness."

T
K
O

Carlos Watson

Publisher of The Stimulist, MSNBC Anchor
Posted: May 27, 2009 10:37 AM

I know a lot of people are saddened and angered by the California Supreme Court's 6-1 decision yesterday to uphold Prop 8. In my mind, it's not that different from Plessy v. Ferguson's tragic "separate but equal" ruling that confronted my great-grandfather and millions of other African-Americans looking for simple equality in the late 1890s.

But despite this backward decision, I am optimistic--and it's not because I'm writing for the Optimist's Daily Brief. I believe the ruling will hasten national acceptance of gay marriage. Let me explain.

Progressive Californians, embarrassed by falling behind states like Iowa and Maine, will no doubt challenge yesterday's decision at the ballot box in 2010. And next year no one--from Ellen Degeneres to the least-known supporter of gay marriage--will take victory for granted. I see an enormous grassroots effort emerging in California, the type of transformative campaign rarely seen in American politics. Think Obama 2008 or RFK 1968. I'm talking about emotions, about people reaching out to family members and neighbors because they feel so strongly, about a ballot measure that will dominate conversation in coffee shops and barber shops and gubernatorial debates--I predict that both the Republican and Democratic candidates will come out in support of the measure. Not everyone will agree, and not everyone who agrees will show up to vote. But just as in the Obama campaign, enough people will be inspired to turn the 48% loss in '08 into a 55-60% win in 2010.

And that win will have a huge impact beyond California. By that point, Cali will likely be joining a dozen other states in affirming marriage equality. And the 2010 movement against Prop 8 will garner national and global headlines, shifting the conventional wisdom in states still on the fence. Just as Iowa prompted Maine, Connecticut, and Maine to legalize same-sex marriage this spring, California's decision will push its neighbors in the Pacific Northwest to find the courage to join the Change Generation in the 21st century, as well as the remaining Northeastern states and a few Midwestern progressives like Minnesota and Wisconsin. By 2014, the movement will be so strong even states like Georgia and Florida will be forced to relent. The logic just won't hold up any longer.

A good friend of mine who covers these issues for a leading LGBTQ magazine doubts that change can happen so quickly. It took 21 years between the first thawing of anti-interracial marriage laws and the Supreme Court's historic intervention in 1967 outlawing interracial marriage bans across the country. But just as the famous Moore's law says that computing power doubles every two years, the speed of social change is increasing at an astounding clip thanks to technology. Twenty years ago, there's no way Barack Obama could have gone from newly elected Senator to President in just four years. Bill Clinton spent 16 years in politics before winning the nomination, Gore 24. Everything happens faster now--companies go public sooner, stories break earlier, stars become A-list quicker. And the same goes for political movements.

We no longer need to wait for change.

Yesterday was a bleak day in California, one among many right now for a state with 11% unemployment. But next year we'll see Cali make history by becoming the first state to legalize gay marriage at the ballot box. And that emotional victory will clear the way for an unbelievably rapid season of change--first at more ballot boxes, then in the cloaked chambers of the nation's highest court.

We deny individuals constantly, tens of millions of Americans do not have health care, many tens of millions don't have a reasonable wage and some not even a job, hundreds of thousands are rotting in jail as their families made to suffer for doing nothing that hurts others... for instance doing dope or engaging in unapproved sexual practices.

Your argument fails. You need to explain why gays should not continue to be deny, and convince others. If you want to argue that all individuals should be able to do what ever they want then that is another kettle of fish, to which the counter arguments are many. Gays however can not attach their star to the presumption of full individual rights when full individual rights do not exist, probably should not exist, and when there is no sign that this right ever will exist.

I think there's a few people here who need a list of where homosexuality is still a crime so they can move there -- seems like their utopian society.

From CBC News:

Before the Criminal Law Amendment Act was passed in 1969, homosexuality was a criminal offence in Canada, as it remains to this day in many other countries.

Four decades later, this country and six others " Belgium, The Netherlands, Norway, Spain, South Africa and Sweden " grant marriage rights to same-sex couples on an equal footing with heterosexuals. Many other countries, as well as most American states, have laws restricting access to same-sex marriage.

Here are some key dates in the story:
May 26, 2009: The U.S.

In a 6-1 decision, the California Supreme Court upholds the state's same-sex marriage ban. But it also rules that the roughly 18,000 existing same-sex marriages carried out in the state before the ban can stand.

Supporters of same-sex marriage vow to press on, hoping to put another proposition over the issue on the 2010 state ballot and eyeing another legal challenge before the Supreme Court in Washington, D.C.
May 18, 2009: The U.S.

Washington state Gov. Chris Gregoire signs into law a bill that extends all the domestic rights and benefits of heterosexual marriages to same-sex couples. The "everything but marriage" law will take effect in July 26, unless opponents can gather enough signatures to force a referendum on the question.
May 13, 2009: The U.S.

The New York State Assembly passes a same-sex marriage bill, bringing New York one step closer to legalizing such marriages.

The bill, which passed 89-52, will now go on to the state Senate for a vote. If passed there, it will go to Gov. David Paterson, who has made it clear he will sign the bill.
May 9, 2009: Hungary

Hungary's official government publication announces that gay couples will be able to register domestic partnerships beginning July 1, provided both partners are at least 18 years old.

Under the law, same-sex couples will not be able to adopt children together. Partners will be required to provide care for each other’s children from earlier relationships if the children are recognized as belonging to the partnership.
May 6, 2009: The U.S.

Lawmakers vote in favour of same-sex marriage in New Hampshire and Maine.

Maine Gov. John Baldacci signed the bill less than an hour after the legislature approved it, making his state the fifth to legalize gay marriage. New Hampshire's governor has not yet signed his state's bill.
April 7, 2009: The U.S.

Vermont becomes the fourth state to recognize gay marriage. At the same time, Washington D.C. also moves to recognize same-sex unions performed in other states.

"I think we're going to look back at this week as a moment when our entire country turned a corner," activist Jennifer C. Pizer told the Washington Post. "Each time there's an important step forward, it makes it easier for others to follow."
April 3, 2009: The U.S.

Iowa becomes the third state to allow same-sex marriages after the state's Supreme Court unanimously upholds a lower court's decision to strike down a 1998 state law defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

Several couples rushed to tie the knot on April 27, the day the ruling took effect.
April 1, 2009: Sweden

Sweden's parliament votes 226-22 to recognize same-sex marriage, becoming the fifth country in Europe to do so.

Sweden gave gay couples legal "partnership" rights in the mid-1990s, and allowed them to adopt children from 2002. The new law, which comes into force May 1, lets homosexuals wed in either a civil or religious ceremony, though individual churches can opt out.
Nov. 4, 2008: The U.S.

A majority of California voters " 52 per cent " support Proposition 8, a ballot initiative that defined marriage in the state constitution as a union between a man and a woman. Spending for and against Prop 8 reached $74 million US, the most expensive social-issues campaign in U.S. history.

The passing of Proposition 8 leaves Connecticut and Massachusetts as the only two states to allow gay marriage.

Amendments to ban gay marriage are also approved in Arizona and Florida. Arkansas voters approve a measure banning unmarried couples from serving as adoptive or foster parents. Supporters of the Arkansas measure make it clear that gays and lesbians are their main target.
Oct. 10, 2008: The U.S.

Connecticut becomes the third state, after Massachusetts and California, to legalize same-sex marriage. The move came after eight same-sex couples sued the state, which had only allowed them to be joined through civil unions. The state Supreme Court ruled 4-3 in their favour.
Aug. 19, 2008: Argentina

Argentina grants gay couples the right to collect the pensions of their dead partners, provided they can show they have lived with their partner for at least five years.
June 16, 2008: The U.S.

A month after California's Supreme Court struck down the state's ban on same-sex marriage as unconstitutional, dozens of couples exchange vows at San Francisco City Hall. California becomes the second U.S. state, after Massachusetts, to grant equal marriage rights. Opponents of the decision, however, say they have enough signatures on a petition to call for a statewide vote on a constitutional ban in the fall.
June 11, 2008: Norway

Norway's parliament passes a law allowing same-sex couples to marry and adopt children, by a vote of 84 to 41. The legislation replaces a 1993 "partnership" act that allowed same-sex civil unions.
Feb. 9, 2007: Italy

The Italian cabinet approves legislation to grant legal rights to unmarried couples " both same-sex and heterosexual " but stops short of allowing gay marriage.
Nov. 21, 2006: Israel

Israel's High Court of Justice rules that two gay men married in Canada, as well as four other same-sex couples wedded abroad, should have their union recognized in Israel.
Nov. 14, 2006: South Africa

South Africa's parliament passes a bill giving same-sex couples the legal right to marry or to have a civil union, making it the first African country to approve same-sex marriage.
Nov. 7, 2006: The U.S.

Voters in Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia and Wisconsin are asked whether they support a ban on same-sex marriage. The ballot measure passes in all states except Arizona.
Oct. 25, 2006: The U.S.

New Jersey's Supreme Court rules that same-sex couples are entitled to the same civil rights as heterosexual couples. The ruling does not approve gay marriage in the state and gives the legislature six months to decide on a definition of marriage.
July 6, 2006: The U.S.

Top courts in two U.S. states " New York and Georgia " hand down decisions against the gay marriage movement. The New York Court of Appeals, the state's highest court, rules same-sex unions are not allowed under state law. Georgia's Supreme Court reinstates a voter-approved ban on gay marriage, reversing a lower court's ruling.
June 30, 2005: Spain

The Spanish parliament makes gay marriage and adoption legal. The law also allows people to inherit the property of their same-sex partner.
April 14, 2005: The U.S.

The Oregon Supreme Court throws out nearly 3,000 marriage licences issued to same-sex couples by Multnomah County. It says laws governing marriage are a state matter and the county didn't have the authority to issue the licences.
March 15, 2005: The U.S.

A judge in San Francisco Superior Court rules that California's ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional and has "no rational purpose," comparing it to laws requiring racial segregation.
January 2005: The U.S.

The Indiana Court of Appeals supports a state law prohibiting recognition of same-sex marriages, including those that take place in states where they are legal. Louisiana's Supreme Court reinstates a state constitutional amendment prohibiting gay marriage. A judge in Florida throws out a lawsuit filed by two women who want their Massachusetts marriage recognized there.
Dec. 9, 2004: New Zealand

New Zealand passes the Civil Union Bill to recognize unions between homosexual couples and unmarried heterosexuals, giving them the same rights as married couples in child custody, taxes and welfare.
Nov. 30, 2004: South Africa

The Supreme Court of Appeal rules in favour of a lesbian couple seeking to have the common-law definition of marriage changed to a "union between two persons." The government would later announce plans to appeal the decision to the Constitutional Court, the country's highest.
Nov. 29, 2004: The U.S.

The Supreme Court rejects a challenge to the ruling of the Massachusetts Supreme Court allowing same-sex couples to get married. The challenge was launched by conservative religious groups and 11 state lawmakers.
Nov. 2, 2004: The U.S.

In the U.S. national election, voters in 11 states " Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Oklahoma, Ohio, North Dakota, Oregon and Utah " pass amendments to state constitutions banning same-sex marriage.
Oct. 18, 2004: The United Kingdom

The Anglican Church criticizes the U.S. Episcopal Church for consecrating Gene Robinson, who is openly gay, as bishop of New Hampshire. The report also suggests the 38 national churches that make up the Anglican Communion sign an agreement to support the church's current teachings, which also prohibit same-sex marriages.
Aug. 12, 2004: The U.S.

The Supreme Court of California voids more than 4,000 same-sex marriages performed in San Francisco between Feb. 12 and March 11, 2004. The justices rule that the city's mayor overstepped his authority by issuing marriage licences to gay couples.
Aug. 3, 2004: The U.S.

About 72 per cent of Missouri voters support an amendment to the state constitution banning gay marriage, making Missouri the first state to do so. Missouri already has laws defining marriage as only between a man and a woman, but some opposed to gay marriages say an amendment is the only way to prevent courts from legalizing it, as they did in Massachusetts.
July 14, 2004: The U.S.

The U.S. Senate rejects a bid to amend the constitution to ban gay marriage. Before the vote, Republicans said a setback in the Senate would not deter their efforts to get the amendment passed. Six Republicans voted with the Democrats against the measure.
May 24, 2004: Australia

Prime Minister John Howard asks Parliament to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman. The government also takes steps to block gays from adopting children from overseas. However, homosexuals would be allowed to name their partners as beneficiaries for pension and death benefits.
May 17, 2004: The U.S.

After a state Supreme Court ruling that struck down Massachusetts' gay marriage ban, city clerks across the state hand out marriage licence applications to gay couples, making it the first state to legalize same-sex marriages.
April 13, 2004: Zanzibar

The parliament of this semi-autonomous and mainly Muslim island unanimously passes a bill outlawing homosexuality. The penalty for being in a homosexual relationship is a prison term of 25 years for men and seven years for women.
March 11, 2004: The U.S.

The California Supreme Court orders San Francisco to stop same-sex marriages, nearly one month after the city issued its first same-sex marriage licence to a lesbian couple. In that time, more than 3,700 same-sex couples were wed, including comedian Rosie O'Donnell and her partner Kelli Carpenter.
March 3, 2004: The U.S.

New York's attorney general, Eliot Spitzer, says gay marriage is illegal in his state. The mayor of New Paltz, a village outside of New York City, faces 19 criminal charges for marrying 25 same-sex couples.
Feb. 24, 2004: The U.S.

President George W. Bush calls on Congress to prepare a constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriage, and "define and protect marriage as the union of a man and woman as husband and wife."
Feb. 12, 2004: The U.S.

City officials in San Francisco marry a lesbian couple in a closed ceremony at City Hall, defying a state ballot measure defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman. In the following days, more than 3,200 same-sex couples are married.
July 31, 2003: The Vatican

The Vatican issues a 12-page set of guidelines, approved by Pope John Paul, warning Catholic politicians that it is immoral to support same-sex unions. "There are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God's plan for marriage and family," it says. "Marriage is holy, while homosexual acts go against the natural moral law."
April 1, 2001: The Netherlands

The Netherlands jumps to the forefront when its lower house of parliament enacts the world's most comprehensive legal recognition of gay rights. The Dutch law allows same-sex couples to marry and gives them the same rights as heterosexuals when it comes to adopting. The only restrictions to the new law are that same-sex couples can only adopt Dutch children, and foreign same-sex couples can't come to the Netherlands to marry unless one of them lives there.

The law tops Denmark's law, which allows gays and lesbians to adopt their partners' children but not children outside the marriage.

Pope John Paul II criticizes the new law saying no adult relationship other than that of a man and a woman should be recognized as marriage.
July 1, 2000: The U.S.

Vermont's civil union law comes into effect making it the first state in the U.S. to provide same-sex couples with rights, benefits and responsibilities similar to those of heterosexual couples, including medical decision-making, tax breaks and inheritance. However, the unions won't be recognized in other states.

Hawaii allows adults who can't legally marry to register as domestic partners.
Oct. 1, 1989: Denmark

Denmark becomes the first country to legally recognize same-sex partnerships, essentially sanctioning gay marriages. The Danish Registered Partnership Act states "Two persons of the same sex may have their partnership registered" and "the registration of a partnership shall have the same legal effects as the contracting of marriage."

By 2001, Norway, Sweden, Iceland, the Netherlands and France will recognize registered partnerships.

Why are you equating marriage rights to health care rights? People choose to marry for the purpose of committing themselves to their loved ones. Health care in the US is now based on other factors that has nothing to do with "legal rights" - yet. Many countries now provide universal health care - legal rights that benefits the whole society. People do not marry for the same reasons as health rights. Otherwise, you are equating marriage rights for all children, and the responsibilities inherent in a marriage.

The only equation there at all is gays and lesbians are in the same boat as straights on all those social problems. Or is someone dumb enough to believe all gays and lesbians are employed, all are paid fair wages, all have affordable health care, and none are in jail for victimless drug abuse. However, there were two gays previously arrested and in jail for a consenting adult, victimless sex crime in Texas that the USSC overturned for everyone (as if the police would have previously broken into a private residence and arrested a man and woman for committing sodomy). Or is it being suggested that all sex offenders who are straight should have rights, released from prison and not be put on the sex offender list?

Too many of the conservative minds, or regressive minds is more like it, sense of fairness and logic is somewhere between slim to none.

You are free to argue that homosexual unions are a valuable to the society as heterosexual unions are, thus should be rewarded in the same manner. It is not clearly evident that this is true however. Fairness demands that behaviour is rewarded and punished based upon value, if homosexual behavior is not as valuable to the society as heterosexual behaviour is then making homosexual unions less rewarding to the individuals who practice it is the "fair" position.

The legality of actions is not determined by the value of that action to society, but instead, the harm of an action. You have it completely backwards.

Freedom dictates that all actions which do not actively harm society should be free; it is the burden of those who would deny an action to prove the harm, not those who would promote it to prove why it should be legal.

Under your theory, all actions are determined to be legal by some nebulous 'collective' who is undefinable and unaccountable for their decisions. This is a poor way to run a supposedly freedom-loving society.

Cycloptichorn

It's the notion of the regressive conservative that the Mobocracy will prevail.

Okay, what the heck is a "Mobocracy?"

A term used most famously by Frank Lloyd Wright in editorial comments and used for a title of his book, "Genius and the Mobocracy", but its' etymology goes back to the late 1700's. It means political control by the mob or the mass of the common people as the source of political control. Robespierre's reign in France if not very close was a certainly given to it several times during that period. Majoritarianism is related and it was addressed by Ayn Rand in "The Fountainhead."

Gotcha, thanks.

That is just another example of the RIC. The reverse invidious comparison.

It is felt that discussing the "mob" or the "mass" contemptuously distances the spouter from membership of either entity. The more popular such strategies become the more ridiculous they appear.

It is snobbery but of a very low order in that it is now practiced, as a result of media prompts, by such a large number of people that the very notion of "mob" and "mass" has ceased to exist unless it comprises exclusively of practitioners of the trick.