What Gay Marriage Means
| Thu Aug. 20, 2009 1:05 PM PDT
When Steve Chapman asked same-sex marriage opponent Maggie Gallagher to offer a few "simple, concrete predictions" about what would happen if SSM were legalized, she "politely declined." However, now that Chapman has gotten the ball rolling, she's taken to The Corner to offer a few "preliminary predictions about the short-term effects of SSM":
- In gay-marriage states, a large minority people committed to traditional notions of marriage will feel afraid to speak up for their views, lest they be punished in some way.
- Public schools will teach about gay marriage.
- Parents in public schools who object to gay marriage being taught to their children will be told with increasing public firmness that they don't belong in public schools and their views will not be accomodated in any way.
- Religous institutions will face new legal threats (especially soft litigation threats) that will cause some to close, or modify their missions, to avoid clashing with the government's official views of marriage (which will include the view that opponents are akin to racists for failing to see same-sex couples as married).
- Support for the idea "the ideal for a child is a married mother and father" will decline.
Of these, #4 strikes me as almost certainly mistaken. Interracial marriage bans were struck down more than 40 years ago, but so far as I know, churches are still legally free to marry whomever they wish without interference from the government. I expect the same will be true as same-sex marriage bans are overturned.
Gallagher's other objections are more plausible, but what's striking about them is how self-referential they are. The balance of her list all boils down to about the same thing: if social attitudes become more tolerant toward SSM, then.....social attitudes will become more tolerant toward SSM. Which is hard to argue with. I don't think anyone will be "punished" for opposing SSM, but it's almost certainly true that as SSM becomes more widely accepted, people who remain unreconciled will feel somewhat socially marginalized — something that happens anytime there's social change of any sort.
Widespread acceptance of gay marriage, then, will result in widespread acceptance of gay marriage. Aside from that, though, Gallagher doesn't really predict any concrete harm to society. So what's the problem?
Advertisement
Advertisement
Comments
"I don't think anyone will
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu Aug. 20, 2009 1:45 PM PDT.
"I don't think anyone will be "punished" for opposing SSM,"
I guess Carrie Prejean wasn't punished (and I guess she didn't state the same views as President Obama.)
Prejean is your counter arguement?
Submitted by rawls (not verified) on Thu Aug. 20, 2009 2:04 PM PDT.
Laughable
I favor gay marriage, and I
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu Aug. 20, 2009 2:33 PM PDT.
I favor gay marriage, and I also favor reality.
It only takes one data point to disprove a hypothesis. Instead of laughing at my data point, you should be crying at Kevin's ignorance and your own tolerance of bullying and punishing others.
Yeah, it was so horrible
Submitted by Art Eclectic on Thu Aug. 20, 2009 2:45 PM PDT.
Yeah, it was so horrible that we bullied and punished people for opposing integration and interracial marriage.
That sure was a tragedy and look how it turned out?
If the time line holds, in another 40 years we'll have a lesbian couple in the White House ;)
Why can't they understand what being gay really means?
Submitted by colonelduke on Sun Aug. 23, 2009 10:48 PM PDT.
A gay man had a pleasurable past life as a woman, and a gay woman had a wonderful past life as a man. What is so hard to understand? Why do they have to condemn it without understanding it?
Leucedendra at www.betweendeath.com explains that there is NOTHING wrong with same sex marriages. It is the institution of marriage itself that should be renewable every three years.
What is so difficult to get here?
Colonel Harold Duke
She lost a well paying,
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu Aug. 20, 2009 2:36 PM PDT.
She lost a well paying, prestigious job, and she lost it for stating views equivalent to the President's. She lost that job explicitly because Perez Hilton condemned her point of view in responding to a question put to her. He didn't condemn how she put it, he condemned the content itself.
Yes, she may have gone on to get other jobs and other support. The support she didn't get was from liberals that often claim to be defenders of free speech but that are fundamentally hollow, such as yourself.
Carrie Prejean Was Fired for Being Bad at Her Job
Submitted by Michael B. Cooke (not verified) on Fri Aug. 21, 2009 11:37 AM PDT.
Part of Ms. Prejean's job is to be agreeable and diplomatic. She also is paid to be humane and tactful--and to win beauty pagents for California. If someone had asked her what she thought about football, she would have said something middle-of-the-road about it, whatever she thought. But she told an openly gay man that she thought, because of his lifestyle, he did not deserve the same rights as every other American. That's stupid any level related to her job performance. The California pageant does not pay her to LOSE pageants.
Astonishing...
Submitted by MaryContrary (not verified) on Thu Aug. 20, 2009 2:31 PM PDT.
Right-wingers think that we're "punishing" them, when the rest of us look at them funny when they tell a Ni**er or Fa**ot joke.
Sorry Mary about your
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu Aug. 20, 2009 2:38 PM PDT.
Sorry Mary about your strawman. But there are no conservatives in this discussion that I can see, just different liberals with different views on what freedom of speech and punishment really mean.
You apparently believe that pointing out Prejean's punishment could only be done by conservatives. I know now not to look for an ACLU card in your wallet.
Prejean got the exact same
Submitted by Art Eclectic on Thu Aug. 20, 2009 2:51 PM PDT.
Prejean got the exact same reaction she would have gotten to making statements that Mexicans don't belong in America or Blacks should stick to the ghetto where they belong.
Bigotry is bigotry. Human rights are human rights.
She has every right to speak her mind and society has every right to condemn her for being a bigot, which is exactly what happened.
I mostly agree with you.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu Aug. 20, 2009 3:12 PM PDT.
I mostly agree with you. But let's not pretend she wasn't punished for her statements. She clearly was.
A more honest statement is that she was punished for her opinions and you are okay with that.
On the other hand though, considering the venue in which she was asked that question, I think the question if a deal breaker for her job, should not have been asked unless it somehow is relevant to the job she has/was applying for as Beauty Queen. Maybe you can make the case it does as a representative of Trump or whoever.
But if you took a typical employee whose job was pushing TPS reports or making TPS widgets and they were fired after they gave a politically incorrect question that was unrelated to their job, I'd say that was quite unfair and not something we should be happy about.
I live in a very red state and listen to very red attitudes all day long. I have a great employer, but I keep my mouth shut about my personal very blue views.
Neither Prejean nor I have the first amendment backing us up, but that doesn't mean getting fired for stating a viewpoint is not punishment or is a treatment we should endorse.
I hate to re-hash the Prejean thing, but I'm not so sure she was "punished" in any real way for her opinions. There was no guarantee she was going to win the competition anyway, and to the degree her answer affected her chances, it was because she expressed an controversial opinion on a controversial subject when the whole point of pageant questions is to express non-controversial non-opinions. It's stupid, but pageants are stupid.
Perez Hilton acted like an idiot, which is why he was hired of course, but his point was basically correct: she answered in a way that was going to offend lots of people, and the goal of pageant competitions isn't to be correct, it's to be non-offensive even to the point of total inanity.
After that, she lost the Miss California crown not for her opinions, but because she was making so much money on the right-wing circuit she didn't want to perform the duties. When you say she was "fired", I'm not sure whether you mean Miss USA or Miss California, but I think you're wrong on both counts.
As for the bad press she got or the fact that lots of people were offended, that seems to be Gallagher's point. If gay rights becomes accepted, those who oppose gay rights will be seen as intolerant by many people. I don't see the
first amendment issue there.
Please tell me what I missed
Submitted by Healthcare is a TAX (not verified) on Thu Aug. 20, 2009 9:30 PM PDT.
Please tell me what I missed because I didn't hear Miss Prejean tell any off color jokes while she was answering Mr. Hilton's question or at any time after but I DID hear Mr. Hilton do quite a bit of ranting and raving and calling of names aimed at Miss Prejean. Maybe liberal ears hear on a different frequency from everyone else's. Do you hear dog whistles, too?
Prejean wasn't punished ....
Submitted by dcsusie on Thu Aug. 20, 2009 9:29 PM PDT.
.. people disagreed with her and ridiculed her views - she didn't like it, but that's not 'punishment'. She was removed from her position because she was not fulfulling her contractural requirements, and I believe her successor holds the same position on gay marraige as she does.
how was she punished?
Submitted by ruckthefegents (not verified) on Fri Aug. 21, 2009 9:48 AM PDT.
She was fired by Miss USA because she broke her contract, not because she opposes gay marriage.
If you're referring to her Beauty Queen Title...
Submitted by QMF (not verified) on Fri Aug. 21, 2009 1:23 PM PDT.
Prejean wasn't "punished" for opposing SSM, she lost her crown because she breached her contract.
Kevin asked: "So what's the
Submitted by SecularAnimist (not verified) on Thu Aug. 20, 2009 1:46 PM PDT.
Kevin asked: "So what's the problem?"
Maggie Gallagher is a homophobic bigot. That's the problem.
As for church marriages, a church can "marry" anyone or anything they want. You could probably find a neo-Druid priest who would officiate at your church wedding to a tree if you want. And the government is prohibited by the First Amendment from saying or doing anything whatsoever about it.
Of course, the government is also prohibited by the First Amendment from recognizing any church marriage in any way, since sacramental marriage is by definition an "establishment of religion".
The ONLY form of marriage that the government may recognize or regulate or legislate about is "civil marriage" which is nothing more or less than a legal contract between consenting individuals. And as such, with regard to civil marriage the government cannot withhold equal treatment under the law based on gender, gender orientation, race, or any other irrelevant factor.
What do public schools teach
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu Aug. 20, 2009 1:46 PM PDT.
What do public schools teach about marriage currently?
It's really quite shocking
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu Aug. 20, 2009 2:06 PM PDT.
It's really quite shocking how selfish that line of argument is. Gallagher wants the government to deny gay couples the right to marry simply so that her bigoted views towards them will enjoy greater social acceptance.
Ms. Gallagher objects
Submitted by etaoin shrdlu (not verified) on Thu Aug. 20, 2009 2:07 PM PDT.
Ms. Gallagher's objection beg the fundamental question "so what?"
Well, yes, people who speak
Submitted by Bloix (not verified) on Thu Aug. 20, 2009 2:19 PM PDT.
Well, yes, people who speak out against SSM will be treated as troglodytes. Maggie Gallagher thinks that it's so important to protect bigots' right to be offensive in public that gay people must not be allowed to marry.
I find it interesting...
Submitted by jaysays (not verified) on Thu Aug. 20, 2009 2:37 PM PDT.
...that they are afraid to be the one's discriminated against for their opinions, belief and life choices but would instead condone discrimination against another group of people. It seems to be a "It's o.k. to discriminate, as long as it isn't against me." type argument.
Data is there
Submitted by Go, Sestak! (not verified) on Thu Aug. 20, 2009 2:25 PM PDT.
C'mon, Kevin -- just look at the states where SSM is legal. We don't have to hypothesize, we have the data: social chaos, children abandoned, churches banned, etc.
Ah, the Bender Rodriguez gambit....
Submitted by Davis X. Machina on Thu Aug. 20, 2009 2:47 PM PDT.
It seems to be a "It's o.k. to discriminate, as long as it isn't against me." type argument.
As explicated by Bender Rodriguez, and Adam Serwer
teaching gay marriage in schools
Submitted by MIles (not verified) on Thu Aug. 20, 2009 3:18 PM PDT.
Numbers 2 and 3 are bullshit and irrelevant. As always, when it comes to sexual education in schools, parents are sent notification that it will be happening and can excuse their kids from the classes if they object.
As always, when it comes to
Submitted by Rieux (not verified) on Thu Aug. 20, 2009 10:13 PM PDT.
As always, when it comes to sexual education in schools, parents are sent notification that it will be happening and can excuse their kids from the classes if they object.
Well, no, not really. Gallagher isn't particularly focusing on full-blown "sexual education." She's talking about much less nuts-and-bolts classroom stuff, such as reading "Who's In a Family?" or "King and King" to young kids in elementary school--or similar early-grade introductory stuff.
Gallagher's point in #2 and #3 is that, in an America where SSM is widely accepted, school officials will have little interest in accomModating (hey, Maggie: spellcheck is your friend) anti-gay parents' views in such lessons. And, contra your assertion about sex ed, gay-friendly teachers aren't going to be eager to allow homophobes to opt their children out of "King and King." (As Gallagher no doubt knows, that precise fact pattern was at issue in a recent federal lawsuit in Massachusetts filed by David "Mad Dad" Parker and three other anti-gay parents. The 'phobes lost: schools don't have to let parents opt their kids out of "Who's In a Family?" or "King and King.")
Gallagher is wrong, and Kevin is right--but opt-out is no answer to what she's saying.
teaching gay marriage in schools
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri Aug. 21, 2009 10:15 AM PDT.
reply to MIles Parents only have that right in some states not NY you can excuse your kids only from the birth control part and if you do that they will be bullied for being different.
#4 is not irrational
Submitted by Bruce Webb (not verified) on Thu Aug. 20, 2009 3:19 PM PDT.
The point is not that churches can be forced to perform marriages but that they might well run afoul of rules governing public accommodations.
(l had a lot more but couldn't phrase it in a way that didn't sound like a defense of haters.)
How about poor Strom?
Submitted by Nat on Thu Aug. 20, 2009 3:34 PM PDT.
Imaging how uncomfortable and marginalized Strom Thurmond felt after Loving vs Virginia!
I think #4 may refer to
Submitted by anandine on Thu Aug. 20, 2009 3:42 PM PDT.
I think #4 may refer to having to offer marriage benefits to married gay employees and to have gayness as a fully qualified protected minority. These are likely to happen, and a good thing.
I must admit,
Submitted by WoofWoof on Thu Aug. 20, 2009 4:03 PM PDT.
It really surprises me how the right doesn't even bother to make anti-gay-marriage arguments anymore. A few years ago, it was all about if we allowed gays to have rights then the entire civilization would collapse and we'd all start rutting in the streets or something, which was insane but at least a syllogism. Now it's just "we know we've lost, but please let us be bigots for a few years more." There's no content to the argument at all.
Go, Sestak! said: " just
Submitted by fingerfood on Thu Aug. 20, 2009 4:22 PM PDT.
Go, Sestak! said: " just look at the states where SSM is legal. We don't have to hypothesize, we have the data: social chaos, children abandoned, churches banned, etc."
The sky fell, too. It's still all over the backyard and stuck in the tree branches.
WoofWoof has made a good observation. The Massachusetts I now know is not the Massachusetts I moved to in 1968. I can recall a campaign for gay rights in the very early 1970's about a lavender rhinoceros, featuring a cartoon drawing of ... well ... a lavender rhino. A Boston group wanted to buy ad space on the subways and buses to feature these cartoon rhinos. The idea was that rhinos were ugly and scary to look at but were really nice animals, in fact - like gay people. The transit commission turned them down. I doubt that kind of thing would happen now.
Yes, back then, in Massachusetts, anything gay-related was a touchy subject; even cartoon rhinos.
Kevin, Re: #4: Catholic
Submitted by David Appell (not verified) on Thu Aug. 20, 2009 4:37 PM PDT.
Kevin, Re: #4: Catholic agencies in Massachusetts have already stopped arranging adoptions, due to Mass. anti-discriminations laws. I'm in favor of the laws, but institutions have been affected there.
And what if ...
Submitted by dcsusie on Thu Aug. 20, 2009 9:35 PM PDT.
Catholic insititutions wanted to exclude adoptions by interacial couples? They would be forbidden from doing that also to the extent they were acting as agents of the state, which they are when arranging adoptions. When they are engaging in strictly religious activity, such as determining who can receive the chuch's sacraments, they are protected. When they are engaging in secular activity, they have to follow secular laws. If they don't want to do so, they can refrain from engaging in the activity, but they don't get to make their own rules on the basis that they are a religious organization - that would consititute discrimation IN FAVOR of religion, not against it.
They did that to themselves.
Submitted by Rieux (not verified) on Thu Aug. 20, 2009 10:41 PM PDT.
That was a totally voluntary decision of Catholic Charities. The Commonwealth government merely told them that they could not legally discriminate against same-sex couples. CC was perfectly welcome to continue operating, as long as they did so legally--i.e., non-discriminatorily. But they consider bigoted discrimination to be a fundamental part of their mission, so they closed up shop rather than operate tolerantly. It was entirely their choice.
Likewise, I presume plenty of justices of the peace in states with anti-miscegenation laws quit after _Loving_v._Virginia_, when they learned that they wouldn't be allowed to refuse to adjudicate marriages between members of different ethnic groups. Quitting, unlike discriminating, was entirely within their legal rights--so swell. But it's a bit perverse to claim that there's something wrong with a government forcing bigots who perform services for the public to choose between their bigotry and their livelihood.
First, accept the premise without question.
Submitted by Trippp on Thu Aug. 20, 2009 4:50 PM PDT.
It has always been thus - if you buy the premise then you'll get the argument and you'll take the conclusion home and feed it to your children.
I know that ain't logic, but authoritarians ain't the reasonin' kind of folk anywho.
Tripp
Bigotry indeed
Submitted by nerd on Thu Aug. 20, 2009 4:57 PM PDT.
The whole gist of all 5 of the predictions is "my world view will not be considered acceptable anymore".
While I can understand the sentiment, I also have to point out that to receive respect you first have to give it. Oh, that violates your world view, too.
Man it is tough to be you. Please just get over it.
Interesting, so you replace
Submitted by Healthcare is a TAX (not verified) on Thu Aug. 20, 2009 9:51 PM PDT.
Interesting, so you replace one form of bigotry with another and you think it's ok? Marginalizing the point of view of those who are against gay marriage and making them feel threatened outside their own homes is in no way better than them doing the same to you. You wouldn't like being the only gay in a town and being followed around by straights and ridiculed and terrorized by them, so how do you think they would feel if the situation were reversed and they were the minority? When a bunch of stupid rednecks grab a gay guy and drag him from a truck (which WAS a horrible thing), do you now have the right to grab a random straight guy off the street who did you no harm and do the same? How quickly we forget how badly it makes us feel when evil is done to us and how quickly we do evil to others when given the chance.
What utter nonsense.
Submitted by Rieux (not verified) on Thu Aug. 20, 2009 10:24 PM PDT.
Recognizing the ugliness and hate inherent in particular IDEAS--such as anti-gay sentiments--is not "bigotry," because Ideas Are Not People.
The notion that one ethnic group is superior to all others and that therefore interracial marriages are evil and should be outlawed... is a disgusting notion, and there is nothing the slightest bit wrong with "Marginalizing the point of view of" anyone who supports anti-miscegenation laws or any other overtly racist policies. Homophobic policies are no different.
When a bunch of stupid rednecks grab a gay guy and drag him from a truck (which WAS a horrible thing), do you now have the right to grab a random straight guy off the street who did you no harm and do the same?
Get a clue. No one is going to be dragging homophobes from trucks. Gallagher's whine is that homophobes see society increasingly recognizing that the phobes' IDEAS are hateful and wrong. There is nothing the slightest bit morally troubling about that. Bigots SHOULD feel ashamed to hold the beliefs they do; it's a crucial step toward creating a world with less bigotry in it.
Eliminating or harassing "bad" people is outrageous and wrong. Eliminating or at least marginalizing bad ideas is a very good thing.
You're forgetting one thing
Submitted by Healthcare is a TAX on Fri Aug. 21, 2009 4:39 AM PDT.
and it's called the Constitution. The same Constitution that guarantees you your right to your opinion on gay marriage or any other contentious issue, also protects the right of those who disagree with you to hold their views. Once you start saying that there is only one correct viewpoint, you start down the road to regulating the thoughts and speech of others which the government is forbidden from doing. So what you are basically saying is that everyone who agrees with you can have free speech, but once they disagree with you that right is revoked.
Clueless on free speech
Submitted by karog on Fri Aug. 21, 2009 6:58 AM PDT.
I see you inhabit the world of the clueless on free speech.
The Constitution protects the speaker from penalties by the government. You cannot be jailed or fined by the government for what you say.
It most assuredly does not protect you from others exercising their free speech rights to ridicule you.
And after you are ridiculed, you can exercise your free speech to once again demonstrate your bigotry. In what way has your right to free speech been revoked?
"Gallagher's other
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu Aug. 20, 2009 6:24 PM PDT.
"Gallagher's other objections are more plausible, but what's striking about them is how self-referential they are. The balance of her list all boils down to about the same thing: if social attitudes become more tolerant toward SSM, then.....social attitudes will become more tolerant toward SSM.'
And bigots will be subject to opprobrium - not the same as punishment but it feels the same to bigots.
Marriage Equality better than SSM
Submitted by Bose on Thu Aug. 20, 2009 6:25 PM PDT.
Not going for political correctness here, but it's worth noting that progressives have an opportunity to use better language here.
Marriage Equality is what progressives are fighting for. Not some different new-fangled same-sex thing, the same old-fashioned marriage thing.
The crux of the issue isn't that Maggie Gallegher and her peers are anti-gay or anti-SSM as much as they are anti-equality, anti-justice, anti-fairness.
Not all gays are atheists
Submitted by skeptonomist (not verified) on Thu Aug. 20, 2009 6:55 PM PDT.
Not all gays are atheists and those who are religious want acceptance in their religion as well as in civil law. This is a major part of gay activism and can't be ignored. If religious people are sincere in their belief in biblical (or other) strictures against homosexuality - and who is to say whether those strictures are more or less binding than any other part of religious doctrine - then there is clearly danger to their religious beliefs and practices in accepting gay marriage, since marriage is a religious as well as civil institution.
So?
Submitted by Rieux (not verified) on Thu Aug. 20, 2009 10:35 PM PDT.
Yes, gay religious people will presumably push their religious bodies to accept gay marriage. What does that have to do with the debate about how the *law*, and the *secular government* that maintains it, should deal with gay unions?
If a given religious body can't accept gay marriage, they are perfectly within their First Amendment free-exercise rights to say "Sorry, Sodomites: we don't care what that awful worldly Caesar says about your right to marry one another. As far as *we're* concerned, you're a bunch of disgusting sinners, and if you're not willing to repent, the church exit is right there."
You're correct that not all gays are atheists. However, plenty of us *Americans are* atheists, and as such I suggest the *deeply vexing problems* faced by homophobic religious groups who are going to have to figure out how to deal with uppity queers in their ranks aren't a terribly relevant or troubling matter of political concern.
Post new comment
MoJo Comments: Send Us Your Feedback
We changed our spam software to better filter comments. Should you encounter any issues, please let us know.
