Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Current Events & Hot Topics Current Events & Hot Topics

Gay Marriage is Good for America

Posted by   + Show Post

Old but I'm tired of the bull and hate being posted


http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2008/06/21-gaymarriage-rauch

The Wall Street Journal

Gay Marriage Is Good for America

By order of its state Supreme Court, California began legally marrying same-sex couples this week. The first to be wed in San Francisco were Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon, pioneering gay-rights activists who have been a couple for more than 50 years.

More ceremonies will follow, at least until November, when gay marriage will go before California's voters. They should choose to keep it. To understand why, imagine your life without marriage. Meaning, not merely your life if you didn't happen to get married. What I am asking you to imagine is life without even the possibility of marriage.

Re-enter your childhood, but imagine your first crush, first kiss, first date and first sexual encounter, all bereft of any hope of marriage as a destination for your feelings. Re-enter your first serious relationship, but think about it knowing that marrying the person is out of the question.

Imagine that in the law's eyes you and your soul mate will never be more than acquaintances. And now add even more strangeness. Imagine coming of age into a whole community, a whole culture, without marriage and the bonds of mutuality and kinship that go with it.

What is this weird world like? It has more sex and less commitment than a world with marriage. It is a world of fragile families living on the shadowy outskirts of the law; a world marked by heightened fear of loneliness or abandonment in crisis or old age; a world in some respects not even civilized, because marriage is the foundation of civilization.

This was the world I grew up in. The AIDS quilt is its monument.

Few heterosexuals can imagine living in such an upside-down world, where love separates you from marriage instead of connecting you with it. Many don't bother to try. Instead, they say same-sex couples can get the equivalent of a marriage by going to a lawyer and drawing up paperwork – as if heterosexual couples would settle for anything of the sort.

Even a moment's reflection shows the fatuousness of "Let them eat contracts." No private transaction excuses you from testifying in court against your partner, or entitles you to Social Security survivor benefits, or authorizes joint tax filing, or secures U.S. residency for your partner if he or she is a foreigner. I could go on and on.

Marriage, remember, is not just a contract between two people. It is a contract that two people make, as a couple, with their community – which is why there is always a witness. Two people can't go into a room by themselves and come out legally married. The partners agree to take care of each other so the community doesn't have to. In exchange, the community deems them a family, binding them to each other and to society with a host of legal and social ties.

This is a fantastically fruitful bargain. Marriage makes you, on average, healthier, happier and wealthier. If you are a couple raising kids, marrying is likely to make them healthier, happier and wealthier, too. Marriage is our first and best line of defense against financial, medical and emotional meltdown. It provides domesticity and a safe harbor for sex. It stabilizes communities by formalizing responsibilities and creating kin networks. And its absence can be calamitous, whether in inner cities or gay ghettos.

In 2008, denying gay Americans the opportunity to marry is not only inhumane, it is unsustainable. History has turned a corner: Gay couples – including gay parents – live openly and for the most part comfortably in mainstream life. This will not change, ever.

Because parents want happy children, communities want responsible neighbors, employers want productive workers, and governments want smaller welfare caseloads, society has a powerful interest in recognizing and supporting same-sex couples. It will either fold them into marriage or create alternatives to marriage, such as publicly recognized and subsidized cohabitation. Conservatives often say same-sex marriage should be prohibited because it does not exemplify the ideal form of family. They should consider how much less ideal an example gay couples will set by building families and raising children out of wedlock.

Nowadays, even opponents of same-sex marriage generally concede it would be good for gay people. What they worry about are the possible secondary effects it could have as it ramifies through law and society. What if gay marriage becomes a vehicle for polygamists who want to marry multiple partners, egalitarians who want to radically rewrite family law, or secularists who want to suppress religious objections to homosexuality?

Space doesn't permit me to treat those and other objections in detail, beyond noting that same-sex marriage no more leads logically to polygamy than giving women one vote leads to giving men two; that gay marriage requires only few and modest changes to existing family law; and that the Constitution provides robust protections for religious freedom.

I'll also note, in passing, that these arguments conscript homosexuals into marriagelessness in order to stop heterosexuals from making bad decisions, a deal to which we gay folks say, "Thanks, but no thanks." We wonder how many heterosexuals would give up their own marriage, or for that matter their own divorce, to discourage other people from making poor policy choices. Any volunteers?

Honest advocacy requires acknowledging that same-sex marriage is a significant social change and, as such, is not risk-free. I believe the risks are modest, manageable, and likely to be outweighed by the benefits. Still, it's wise to guard against unintended consequences by trying gay marriage in one or two states and seeing what happens, which is exactly what the country is doing.

By the same token, however, honest opposition requires acknowledging that there are risks and unforeseen consequences on both sides of the equation. Some of the unforeseen consequences of allowing same-sex marriage will be good, not bad. And barring gay marriage is risky in its own right.

America needs more marriages, not fewer, and the best way to encourage marriage is to encourage marriage, which is what society does by bringing gay couples inside the tent. A good way to discourage marriage, on the other hand, is to tarnish it as discriminatory in the minds of millions of young Americans. Conservatives who object to redefining marriage risk redefining it themselves, as a civil-rights violation.

There are two ways to see the legal marriage of Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon. One is as the start of something radical: an experiment that jeopardizes millennia of accumulated social patrimony. The other is as the end of something radical: an experiment in which gay people were told that they could have all the sex and love they could find, but they could not even think about marriage. If I take the second view, it is on conservative – in fact, traditional – grounds that gay souls and straight society are healthiest when sex, love and marriage all walk in step.


by on Mar. 15, 2013 at 2:50 PM
Replies (71-78):
..MoonShine..
by Redwood Witch on Mar. 19, 2013 at 12:09 PM
So let me see if I have this right...

Lesbian couple walks down the street holding hands and they're putting their "intimate business" on blast for everyone to see.

A straight couple walks down the street holding hands is keeping theirs behind closed doors.

Is that right?
Posted on the NEW CafeMom Mobile
Momniscient
by Ruby Member on Mar. 19, 2013 at 12:10 PM

Stop oppressing me holding hands homosexual couple!!!!!!

Quoting ..MoonShine..:

So let me see if I have this right...

Lesbian couple walks down the street holding hands and they're putting their "intimate business" on blast for everyone to see.

A straight couple walks down the street holding hands is keeping theirs behind closed doors.

Is that right?



..MoonShine..
by Redwood Witch on Mar. 19, 2013 at 12:11 PM
You bet.

Quoting Momniscient:

Is that like those conservatives who are determining legitimate rape?

Quoting ..MoonShine..:

I'm sorry...didn't you realize she gets to determine what "legitimate" civil rights are?? Silly you.





Quoting Momniscient:

Your intimate business isn't a fight to gain equity. This attitude only has one purpose... to marginalize.

If you don't want to know peoples intimate business quit marginalizing them so they have to fight for equity. It's simple really.

As for the Rosa Parks and others argument... how silly. The Civil Rights 'train' doesn't have one stop or only allow a certain 'type' of person. What a joke.

Quoting TranquilMind:

 Nor do I, when actual civil rights are involved.  Here, we are talking about the redefinition of marriage.



Rosa Parks didn't take a stand so women could have sex with women, nor men with men.



Nor did Martin Luther King, Thurgood Marshall, Harriet Tubman, the Little Rock Nine or any of the others.  It wasn't remotely contemplated that people who wanted to engage in behaviors would attempt to jump the Civil Rights Train..but they did.  And still are trying.



I'm very interested in legitimate civil rights.  People who want to be acknowledged for their sexual activities and gender of partners instead of their immutable characteristics like skin color, national origin,gender, etc, don't interest me. 

I come from a generation where you are nice and polite to all, but you keep your business to yourself.  I don't care who has intimate relationships so keep it to yourself.  I'll keep my intimate business to myself as well. 






Quoting autodidact:



not everyone finds civil rights trivial or boring. 



Quoting TranquilMind:



Snore.



Don't you have ANY other topics?



You even admit it is old (um, hello...FIVE YEARS old) , but you haven't stirred the pot for a couple of days, so it's time for another extremely biased blog vomit. 



Sigh. 



Have a nice weekend.















Posted on the NEW CafeMom Mobile
..MoonShine..
by Redwood Witch on Mar. 19, 2013 at 12:14 PM
I don't want to know your intimate business. Keep that hand holding shit private. When you do in public I know everything you did in the bedroom last night.

Quoting Momniscient:

Stop oppressing me holding hands homosexual couple!!!!!!

Quoting ..MoonShine..:

So let me see if I have this right...



Lesbian couple walks down the street holding hands and they're putting their "intimate business" on blast for everyone to see.



A straight couple walks down the street holding hands is keeping theirs behind closed doors.



Is that right?


Posted on the NEW CafeMom Mobile
Momniscient
by Ruby Member on Mar. 19, 2013 at 12:15 PM
1 mom liked this

So... what of parents who hold hands with their children?

Doesn't that kind of suggest that this conservative attitude is making something shameful WHERE THERE IS NO SHAME????

Imagine that.

Quoting ..MoonShine..:

I don't want to know your intimate business. Keep that hand holding shit private. When you do in public I know everything you did in the bedroom last night.

Quoting Momniscient:

Stop oppressing me holding hands homosexual couple!!!!!!

Quoting ..MoonShine..:

So let me see if I have this right...



Lesbian couple walks down the street holding hands and they're putting their "intimate business" on blast for everyone to see.



A straight couple walks down the street holding hands is keeping theirs behind closed doors.



Is that right?




autodidact
by Platinum Member on Mar. 19, 2013 at 1:00 PM


BOO! holy crap, you're a coward. 

Quoting Mom0485:

Holy crap, you're scary. Right, that reminds me why I don't hang out with angry, Judeo-Christian value hating, self aggrandizing, liberal media zombies. You can have your change and when you're standing in the picket line in your new Euro-American tax bled, overfed government led country you can think about real change. Oh, and how to spell shoe!


Quoting AdrianneHill:

I would suggest that most of the women who only get their information from conservative sites to look around the world a bit. Go outside of the comfort zone and research to see if what you have been told as true is really the truth.



Listening to conservative talk radio gives one a very skewed view of the world in general and the united states in general. Hell, if one listened to only talk radio, it would have seemed that Romney was a shoo in to the presidency and would carry as many states as Reagan, but that was not true. The world is changing, as it always does, and now the pendulum is swinging away from using government as an enforcer of religious ideals, at least in countries that aren't theocracies. If people are so devoted to the thought of government being informed and ruled by a book of old religious ideals, there are many theocracies piddling around these days. They range from vaguely religious to absolutely psychotic devotion to a bloodthirsty god. I'm sure you will find a place that suits your distrust of humanity and technology and will also be happy to keep you in the place that god intended for you to forever be. Enjoy your stay






Momniscient
by Ruby Member on Mar. 20, 2013 at 4:15 PM

Shoo

lol.

Quoting autodidact:


BOO! holy crap, you're a coward. 

Quoting Mom0485:

Holy crap, you're scary. Right, that reminds me why I don't hang out with angry, Judeo-Christian value hating, self aggrandizing, liberal media zombies. You can have your change and when you're standing in the picket line in your new Euro-American tax bled, overfed government led country you can think about real change. Oh, and how to spell shoe!


Quoting AdrianneHill:

I would suggest that most of the women who only get their information from conservative sites to look around the world a bit. Go outside of the comfort zone and research to see if what you have been told as true is really the truth.



Listening to conservative talk radio gives one a very skewed view of the world in general and the united states in general. Hell, if one listened to only talk radio, it would have seemed that Romney was a shoo in to the presidency and would carry as many states as Reagan, but that was not true. The world is changing, as it always does, and now the pendulum is swinging away from using government as an enforcer of religious ideals, at least in countries that aren't theocracies. If people are so devoted to the thought of government being informed and ruled by a book of old religious ideals, there are many theocracies piddling around these days. They range from vaguely religious to absolutely psychotic devotion to a bloodthirsty god. I'm sure you will find a place that suits your distrust of humanity and technology and will also be happy to keep you in the place that god intended for you to forever be. Enjoy your stay





Momniscient
by Ruby Member on Mar. 27, 2013 at 3:58 PM

Bump for SSM week

Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)