Gay marriage and the debates

[angus]

Both candidates have good reasons for not wanting to talk much about the issue to a general audience. Which is an interesting development in itself, actually.

True, but their wishes do not affect the agenda of the debates.

[RI]

Gay marriage is one of the least important big issues in American politics.

I'm guessing you're not LGBT.

Yep, just like 98% of the population.

[Ogre Mage]

Gay marriage is one of the least important big issues in American politics.

I'm guessing you're not LGBT.

Yep, just like 98% of the population.

That number is arguable, but we won't get into that.  Perhaps it is easy to be dismissive since it doesn't directly affect you.  As someone who is LGBT, I find your statement insensitive.

Let's imagine we're in the 1960's.  How does this sound?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[RI]

Gay marriage is one of the least important big issues in American politics.

I'm guessing you're not LGBT.

Yep, just like 98% of the population.

That number is arguable, but we won't get into that.  Perhaps it is easy to be dismissive since it doesn't directly affect you.  As someone who is LGBT, I find your statement insensitive.

Let's imagine we're in the 1960's.  How does this sound?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm well aware that there is not an accurate census of the true gay population, but I am fairly confident that the number of African-Americans dwarfs it. Regardless, I probably would have considered interracial marriage a fairly insignificant issue in the 1960s compared to the Soviet Union, Vietnam, Medicare, Voting Rights, and racially-motivated violence.

[Ogre Mage]

Gay marriage is one of the least important big issues in American politics.

I'm guessing you're not LGBT.

Yep, just like 98% of the population.

That number is arguable, but we won't get into that.  Perhaps it is easy to be dismissive since it doesn't directly affect you.  As someone who is LGBT, I find your statement insensitive.

Let's imagine we're in the 1960's.  How does this sound?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm well aware that there is not an accurate census of the true gay population, but I am fairly confident that the number of African-Americans dwarfs it. Regardless, I probably would have considered interracial marriage a fairly insignificant issue in the 1960s compared to the Soviet Union, Vietnam, Medicare, Voting Rights, and racially-motivated violence.

So civil rights is just a numbers game to you? 

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Frankly, I'm with RI on this. I wish gay marriage were legal nationwide right now, but we've got bigger things on our plate right now. We can let the courts deal with that stuff and maybe legislate some stuff once we institute universal healthcare and save the economy.

[Alcon]

There's no reason to beat up on him.  He's saying that gay marriage is a relatively trivial issue in terms of consequences.  That doesn't mean it isn't obviously morally compelling.  I think gay marriage is about as cut-and-dry as a policy issue comes, but I recognize that it's of small-to-moderate consequence for a small-to-moderate number of people compared to some other issues.

[angus]

I think gay marriage is about as cut-and-dry as a policy issue comes

How so?  Some would say that marriage is a religious institution and that the state has no business getting involved in any way.  Among those who view it as a strictly religious institution, there are those who favor allowing it because they believe that lesbian and gay people were created as such by God and should have the same rights as others and there are those who are against because they see same-sex relationships are immoral, against God's will, and subvert the goal of human sexuality, which is to produce children.  Others might argue that marriage is a civil matter with economic consequences that avail themselves to government regulation.  Still others see it as a matter of justice.  Moreover, some would argue that the tenth amendment makes it a state-by-state matter, while others would argue that it is affected by interstate commerce laws and therefore a federal matter.  I think it's hardly as simple as your post implies.

I agree with Becca that it is worth asking about.  I also agree with realistic idealist.  It's fairly low on my personal list of priorities.  But that doesn't mean that it's low on everyone's list of priorities.  It's a pretty hot issue just now, and it would be interesting to hear what the candidates have to say.  Whether or not this is one of your top five issues, both candidates have been rather shifty on the subject of same-sex marriage.  Not that there's anything wrong with shifting a bit--tectonic plates do that all the time, but I still respect the Earth.  However, a candidate's thought process on this issue gives the voter an idea of how the candidate thinks about things, in general.

[afleitch]

However, a candidate's thought process on this issue gives the voter an idea of how the candidate thinks about things, in general.

Which is how I feel. Politicians have had a tendency to move towards supports for civil unions/equal marriage and LGBT rights in recent years. This is either a genuine change in belief or the product of changing attitudes in society so that expressing support doesn't result in sh-t being shoveled onto you (see Gerald Ford for details)

So when a national politician starts going backwards on LGBT rights in order to compete for the highest office in the land that gives me a clear indication of the sort of politician someone is.

[BM]

I'm tired of people trivializing social issues and saying there are more important things to discuss. On an individual basis, sometimes those meaningless social issues are the most important to people and their quality of life.

Life is short. I'm willing to admit I care about eradicating bigotry and improving the lives of individuals more than I care about my country's economic/military standing in the world.

[Alcon]

How so?  Some would say that marriage is a religious institution and that the state has no business getting involved in any way.  Among those who view it as a strictly religious institution, there are those who favor allowing it because they believe that lesbian and gay people were created as such by God and should have the same rights as others and there are those who are against because they see same-sex relationships are immoral, against God's will, and subvert the goal of human sexuality, which is to produce children.  Others might argue that marriage is a civil matter with economic consequences that avail themselves to government regulation.  Still others see it as a matter of justice.  Moreover, some would argue that the tenth amendment makes it a state-by-state matter, while others would argue that it is affected by interstate commerce laws and therefore a federal matter.  I think it's hardly as simple as your post implies.

As arguments against civil marriage rights for gays and lesbians, I just don't find any of those remotely compelling...in fact, most of those don't strike me as arguments against equal civil recognition so much as other related issues.  The arguments against civil recognition of gay marriage, while maintaining civil recognition of straight marriage, just are awful.  This is something I say very rarely.  Political decision-making is incredibly complicated to an extent that many of us sometimes sometimes are pretty flip about.  I know civil marriage rights touch on some pretty complicated philosophies and feelings.  So did interracial marriage.  I don't have any remotely feelings about civil recognition of interracial marriage, and I don't about civil recognition of gay marriage.  The fact that there are multiple sources of ambivalence for people on personal philosophy doesn't mean I think there's a wit of an argument to be made for prohibiting same-sex marriage rights as a political philosophy.  Like I said, that's the sort of thing I say very, very rarely.

It just additionally frustrates me because it's bad social policy and it's incredibly condescending to gay people who are only trying to make the sort of stable commitment that society (rightly) idealizes.  I recognize that doesn't make it life-or-death, but that doesn't mean it's a non-issue.  Right is right and wrong is wrong.

[angus]

Right is right and wrong is wrong.

But what is right is not always legal, and what is legal is not always right.  You know that.

I stood before the judge that day
As he refused me bail
And I knew that I would spend my time
Awaiting trial in jail
I said there is no justice
As they led me out of the door
And the judge said, "this isn't a court of justice, son
This is a court of law."

[Penelope]

Gay marriage is one of the least important big issues in American politics.

I'm guessing you're not LGBT.

Yep, just like 98% of the population.

That figure is pretty inaccurate, but I'm way more concerned about the idea that you seem to think that a majority of people being unaffected by this issue is a legitimate reason for it not to be included in a presidential debate.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I'm tired of people trivializing social issues and saying there are more important things to discuss. On an individual basis, sometimes those meaningless social issues are the most important to people and their quality of life.

Life is short. I'm willing to admit I care about eradicating bigotry and improving the lives of individuals more than I care about my country's economic/military standing in the world.

What makes you think legal recognition of gay marriage will eradicate bigotry?

[Alcon]

Right is right and wrong is wrong.

But what is right is not always legal, and what is legal is not always right.  You know that.

I stood before the judge that day
As he refused me bail
And I knew that I would spend my time
Awaiting trial in jail
I said there is no justice
As they led me out of the door
And the judge said, "this isn't a court of justice, son
This is a court of law."

Uh, yes, right.  Like civil marriage rights for gays and lesbians, for one...

(translation: huh?)

[angus]

Right is right and wrong is wrong.

But what is right is not always legal, and what is legal is not always right.  You know that.

I stood before the judge that day
As he refused me bail
And I knew that I would spend my time
Awaiting trial in jail
I said there is no justice
As they led me out of the door
And the judge said, "this isn't a court of justice, son
This is a court of law."

Uh, yes, right.  Like civil marriage rights for gays and lesbians, for one...

(translation: huh?)

Do you think I feel that the sanctity of my heterosexual marriage is diminished when we allow two men (or two women) to marry?  Do you think I'm afraid that allowing same-sex marriage will lead to inter-species marriage, legalized bestiality, and the like?  Of course not.

I'm saying that while I agree with you on the question of whether same-sex marriage should be allowed, I do not think it is as simple as you make it.  The law is complex.  If you randomly chose a hundred lawyers, you'd find them all over the place.  Some would cite precedents supporting the rights of the individual legislatures to decide these matters.  Others would cite precedents supporting federal intervention.  Voters don't like shades of grey, and their attention spans are short, but rarely are legal matters as simple as a 30-second ad makes them out to be.

We should not try legislate morality, in my opinion.  Republicans often try to do this and Democrats often try to do this, but it leads to disastrous consequences.  The government should stick to law, and leave morality to the individual. 

It's worth hearing the candidates address this issue, and yes, both will use morality as part of their answer.  They always do.  ("It's a moral imperative to deliver medical services to the people."  "It's a moral imperative to protect the unborn."  "It's a moral imperative to use whatever means are at our disposal to prevent the spread of Communism.")  It's all hogwash.  The only moral imperative is to be honest with yourself and to others, and to respect the constitution.  Unfortunately, politicians rarely do either.  They sell themselves to the highest bidder, and ameliorate their beliefs, whittling complex ideas down to one-sentence soundbites, easily digested by the masses.  Nevertheless, hearing what they say about this issue will allow us to judge their ability to reason and to judge their thought processes.  That is why I think the question should be asked.

[Lambsbread]

Frankly, I'm with RI on this. I wish gay marriage were legal nationwide right now, but we've got bigger things on our plate right now. We can let the courts deal with that stuff and maybe legislate some stuff once we institute universal healthcare and save the economy.

Yup yup yup. I may not agree with the instituting universal healthcare and 'saving' the economy in which you probably mean it, but I'm definitely in agreement with the sentiment behind this post.

[Maxwell]

I kind of hope they ask if Romney plans to marry Benjamin Natanyahu. Otherwise, yeah, the positions on the issue are fairly solid for both of them, and neither have a plan on it, since Obama has called states rights on this issue, so thats probably why they haven't made a discussion of it.

[Stranger in a strange land]

I'm tired of people trivializing social issues and saying there are more important things to discuss. On an individual basis, sometimes those meaningless social issues are the most important to people and their quality of life.

Life is short. I'm willing to admit I care about eradicating bigotry and improving the lives of individuals more than I care about my country's economic/military standing in the world.

What makes you think legal recognition of gay marriage will eradicate bigotry?

The Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights act didn't eradicate racism but they were still necessary. They were all the more necessary because some attitudes, like racism and homophobia, are so strongly held that they literally have to die out, which takes generations.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

Gay marriage is one of the least important big issues in American politics.

I'm guessing you're not LGBT.

Yep, just like 98% of the population.

That number is arguable, but we won't get into that.  Perhaps it is easy to be dismissive since it doesn't directly affect you.  As someone who is LGBT, I find your statement insensitive.

Let's imagine we're in the 1960's.  How does this sound?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm well aware that there is not an accurate census of the true gay population, but I am fairly confident that the number of African-Americans dwarfs it. Regardless, I probably would have considered interracial marriage a fairly insignificant issue in the 1960s compared to the Soviet Union, Vietnam, Medicare, Voting Rights, and racially-motivated violence.

A better comparison might be the size of the gay population to the number of people who want to marry someone of a different race.