June 5th, 2009 at 8:54 pm

“You should be ashamed. Truly. Hang your head, and keep it there. You need to re-read and re-think. Have you any idea the numbers of adopted people in our American (and world-wide, for that matter) society? According to your logic, adoption itself is opening a door for abuse. Sue and Mark adopt a little girl, and this is bad because Mark might abuse the little girl (I mean, hey, he

Just read your well-reasoned response to my arguments from last Friday. A few thoughts: I think you’re misconstruing my free speech analogy. The Supreme Court has recognized that the right to free speech does not cover all classes of speech. The “fire in the crowded theatre” is just one example. Violent threats, words that produce a clear and present danger to national security, and words that are meant to incite violence are others. These are classes of speech that do not enjoy constitutional protection, and can therefore be banned, even if no harm or violence actually occurs. This doesn’t mean that all speech is banned; only that the constitutional protection on free speech does not apply to all classes of speech. Likewise, marriage is a right that the government can (and has) legitimately put certain limits on (e.g., marriage between close relatives, children, etc.) That doesn’t mean that we have to ban all marriage; only that the right to marry does not apply to all classes of marriage. I agree with you that any limitations on these rights would have to be narrowly-tailored, and that is why I ultimately agree with you that gay marriage should not be among the classes of marriage that is not constitutionally protected, but to argue that no such limitations can exist flies in the face of decades of constitutional jurisprudence. Finally the issue of societal interests is one that courts taken into account all the time when considering limitations on rights. For example, the courts have found that the government can place limits on fundamental rights, if doing so would advance a compelling state interest. Also, one of the key factors in weighing anti-obscenity statutes is whether the material to be banned has absolutely no redeeming value when judged against contemporary community standards. These are considerations about what is good for society at large. While I would agree with you that a ban on gay marriage would not advance a compelling state interest, that does not mean that the question cannot even be asked. Thanks for indulging me.

Throughout history since the fall of the Roman Empire, the church has used the irrational fears of their masses to place individual groups in a less-than-stellar place. Gypsies, Jews, African-Americans, American Indians, Indian Indians, Hippies, Gays and beyond have been the result of this irrational fear (and entirely rational grip on the reins of power.)

The rights of gays, lesbians and the transgendered are no different, except that our government, in the separation of church and state, has made “reason” the foundation for how we live. We, the people, tend to forget that, and when the zealots start going down the path of brimstone and fear mongering, we, the people tend to forget that they are a small part of the group known as Christians.

Regarding the “reason” part of our government. If gays, lesbians and the transgendered pay taxes and don’t kill people, or engage in activities that harm people, they should be allotted the same rights as anyone else. They serve up their share of the responsibility portion, through taxes, through closeted services in the armed forces, through productive work in our society. How can a rational society deny them the rights their share of the responsibility has earned them? The answer, according to reason, is that we, the people can’t. And shouldn’t.

However, there is a fairly large group of people who see marriage as the last straw, the last strand in a losing right that began to unravel with Brown vs. The Board of Education, and continues to unravel. Mind you, this is not a rational fight, which is why we hear fearmongering phrases that we need “to protect society,” or “there’s a slippery slope,” or “God doesn’t want it this way,” or “y’all are going to Hell.” Mind you, any of the aforementioned arguments has been used before: to keep African-Americans from full civil rights, to keep women from full civil rights, to keep gays from full legal rights, and to keep [insert next group to be demonized here] from full civil rights.

That’s because there is no rational argument against granting full civil rights to people who pay taxs, don’t hurt people, or don’t kill people. None. Not liking what is perceived to be deviant behavior doesn’t count. I don’t particularly like religious people. They freak me out. I don’t “get” them, and find the pursuit of non-knowledge to be both a waste of time and a freakish, stupid group of behaviors that we define as “faith.”

But, that doesn’t matter. Do those people pay taxes, not hurt people and not kill people? For the most part, yes. And that’s why they have full rights under the law. I don’t have to like them. They don’t have to like me. But we all have to pay taxes, not hurt people and not kill people. Once we’ve lived up to that responsibility, we all should get the rights afforded to us.

Reason. It’s what for dinner.

Good that you value reason above petty, stone-age superstition and bigotry.

“I am not against homosexual men and women combining sperm and egg to have their own biological children

As a GLTB person who got married in Portland OR years ago but then they returned our check one year later and said no thank you — I can tell you the humbling experience to have a real judge confirm your union. recently my partners family didn’t want me to attend a wedding because I’m pregnant. you can’t imagine the constant humiliation we face every day. We have to pay thousands of dollars to a lawyer in legal fees so that we can take care of each other in a hospital, etc, etc. I hope we win in DC. It’s time and we need this.

What’s next? Gay marriage depletes the ozone?

Black, I’m begging you. Let them have marriage. If they are busy picking out china patterns and fighting over whether Aunt Thema gets an invite then maybe they’ll be too preoccupied to implement a national dress code or get Celine Dion a prime time show. The consequences could be devastating.