Comments on: Vote No on 1

By: Captain Holly

Captain Holly — Mon, 30 Oct 2006 02:55:06 +0000

Brutal Hugger is wrong — as usual — about the demographic trends in the US. True, young folk are far more liberal than their elders, and it’s not surprising that unmarried twnety-somethings would be more supportive of gay marriage than retirees.

But there’s a key statistic that most “gay-marriage-is-the-wave-of-the-future” advocates like BH tend to ignore: For the first time in American history, the solid majority of births in the US are to people who belong to conservative, nominally anti-gay marriage denominations (Catholics, Evangelicals, Mormons). Polls also show that religious people are not only far more likely to have children, they’re also far more likely to have conservative views and (more importantly) to vote than secular persons. While kids from these families might be amenable to gay marriage to “fit in” while in college, when they get married and have children they will likely return to the values that they were raised with.

Which raises the question: If the pro-gay marriage secular liberals aren’t having very many children, where are all those pro-gay marriage votes going to come from in 20 years? Immigrants? Really? What immigrant group is going to be enthusiastic about gay marriage? Arab Muslims? Latino Catholics? African Anglicans?

If you don’t think this is relevant, just look at the complete reversal of public support for abortion over the past 30 years. Back in 1972, polls showed some two-thirds of young people supported abortion; just a few years ago, polls showed a majority of young people opposing abortion, the first time such results were reported. Such results aren’t surprising, considering that only the only women who would have an elective abortion are the ones who would vote in favor of it. In effect, the pro-choice generation necessary to provide the votes to support such a controversial court decision for the long term was killed in utero. Public support for abortion is rapidly approaching the tipping point; Roe v. Wade is kept alive only by the Supreme Court. It’ll be overturned within the next 15 years.

So, using this example, instead of being an unstoppable wave that will cover the nation, gay marriage is rapidly reaching its high-water mark. There will be a few liberal states that will enact it (MA, NJ, VT, CA, IL, NY), but the rest of the country will push back and the issue will eventually die for lack of support. Unless there’s a massive pro-gay baby boom in the next few years, it will follow the same trajectory as abortion.

Or, to put it more simply, my wife and I have four children. Andrew Sullivan and his boyfriend have a beagle. In 20 years, which household will wield more political influence? When Andrew is gone, my grandchildren will still be voting.

And in all likelihood, they’ll be voting against gay marriage.

By: drstrangegun

drstrangegun — Fri, 27 Oct 2006 19:07:35 +0000

Let’s have the state issue civil union contracts for *everyone*, exclusive to one per couple. Leave marriage to the church, leave contract law to the state. Gay couples can either just get their contract from the state and leave it at that or do that and find a church that would give them a marriage ceremony. Mixed sex couples would do exactly the same.

The way I see things, violating a tenant of God, whichever god that might be for you, brings it’s own punishments. As long as there are no corporeal damages, the state has no business there. And for all the people who push for the state to coopt corporeal punishments for acts that have spiritual punishments, I point at you and label thee heretic, because for you have just said that God’s punishment isn’t good enough for *you*.

By: JustinB

JustinB — Fri, 27 Oct 2006 17:10:27 +0000

Finally, when it comes to civil rights, of which I�d argue the choice of whether and whom to marry ought to be one, the �will of the people� is subservient to the protection of those basic rights. If 65% of Americans favored an outright ban on guns, the �will of the people� in this regard is trumped by the protection of that basic right. True, guns are explicitly enumerated and marriage is not, but in matters of conscience the same underlying principle holds, and I�d argue that the latter is more a matter of conscience than the former.

I think you nailed it on the head. Too many people (xrlq and his ilk) think it will be the end of the world and a takeover of the USA by the UN and the New World Order because unelected judges go “hog wild” with rulings re: civil rights.

Yours truly,

married and straight but not a homophobe-JB

By: tgirsch

tgirsch — Fri, 27 Oct 2006 16:33:39 +0000

Finally, when it comes to civil rights, of which I’d argue the choice of whether and whom to marry ought to be one, the “will of the people” is subservient to the protection of those basic rights. If 65% of Americans favored an outright ban on guns, the “will of the people” in this regard is trumped by the protection of that basic right. True, guns are explicitly enumerated and marriage is not, but in matters of conscience the same underlying principle holds, and I’d argue that the latter is more a matter of conscience than the former.

By: tgirsch

tgirsch — Fri, 27 Oct 2006 16:30:36 +0000

I disagree that marriage is just a religious institution. The word marriage has some religious connotations, no doubt, but all of the "civil union" aspects of marriage, which I'd argue is just about all of them (e.g., taxation, inheritance, POA, medical decisions, privielge, custody, etc.) are aspects in which the state has a legitimate role. In that much, the state generally is minding its own business, except when it makes mostly arbitrary exclusions. Further, even if marriage were primarily about children, that's still no reason to exclude same-sex couples, and more than it's a reason to exclude infertile couples or couples who adopt.

By: bob

bob — Fri, 27 Oct 2006 14:27:56 +0000

“That is why I think the state just needs to mind it�s own business (church & state and all of that).”

I would agree with that wholeheartedly. It also doesn’t have much to do with whether the N.J. supreme court got it right.

I have not read the N.J. state constitution but the constitiutions that I have read do not in any way give the courts authority to direct the legislative branch to do anything. I have no doubt that the marriage laws on the books in most states violate “equal treatment under the law” but the courts only remedy to that is to declare said laws as being in violation of the constitution and, therefore, null and void; they do not have authority to direct the legislature to pass additional legislation.