NY passes same sex marriage

[_EAllusion]

Cal -

Not only is it the case that Democrats stand along side Republicans in legislating all manner of moral decisions. Not only do they have their own stereotypical "force people to make the right decision for themselves" quirks just the same. It's also true that things you imagine as the Republicans "legislating morality" can be defended in the same manner you choose to defend Democratic policy.

What of the Republican who says that gay marriage is a private decision anyone is free to make, but they are opposed to being forced to recognize it as legitimate? Well, the response is that there is no sound justification to discriminate the rights and status that are entailed by marriage and the state should by default provide equal opportunity before the law. Both these are really moral arguments, but even if we said they weren't, lots of people you hear making this argument actually has a problem with state recognition signaling that homosexual relationships are morally Ok. The argument I would describe as moral, but you seem to think is not, is really just a sham for their primary motivation. Much in the same way, lots of people who favor smoking bans in private establishments think that smoking is a wrong choice for a person to make and want to limit their capacity to do it. That's true even if they think they are protecting innocent workers (who voluntarily choose to work there) or whathaveyou.

Case in point, the local smoking ban here also bans chewing tobacco. Obviously, there's no secondhand smoke concerns with that and that gives away the principle motives of the ban.

[_Some Schmo]

Case in point, the local smoking ban here also bans chewing tobacco. Obviously, there's no secondhand smoke concerns with that and that gives away the principle motives of the ban.

Yeah, but nobody likes to look at second hand spit cans.

[_CaliforniaKid]

EAllusion,

I think the philosophy of the party makes a distinction between public health and morality.

I understand that you can make an argument for viewing the regulation of public health as "morally" motivated, since it reflects a judgment that health is more important than certain kinds of self-determination. Similarly, the opposite judgment-- a refusal to regulate public health because such regulation infringes upon liberty-- is also a moral judgment. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness constitute a kind of consensus moral establishment in this country, and while not everyone agrees about how to balance these things, nearly everyone agrees that they are moral goods which must be balanced and protected by government. On the whole, I think Democrats are actually more likely than Republicans to prioritize public health over liberty, but they are also less likely to support an out-an-out ban on harmful behaviors, preferring a gentler and seemingly more effective carrot-and-stick approach involving taxes, restrictions, and education.

In any case, you're correct that Americans' valuation of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is ultimately a moral and perhaps even a religious valuation. But that's not what we're talking about when we say "you can't legislate morality". Morality in this context refers to moral standards that are not part of our country's moral establishment, such as sexual purity and avoidance of blasphemy, profanity, and flag-burning. These are particularistic moral standards that not everyone can agree upon. Democrats generally reject the legislation of such standards, whereas Republicans are more likely to support it.

[_Yoda]

Heaven forbid that people realize the human-ness of their gay neighbors.

Good grief.

It has very little to do with humanness. But much to do with pushing an agenda. And that was my point. The american public was softened by the recent sitcoms because these sitcoms brought the gay lifestyle into their living room. Hollywood had an agenda and they have did very well in pushing it.

It has everything to do with their humanness. Explain the "gay lifestyle" you speak of because in my experience their "lifestyle" could in everyway, aside from sexuality, be called mainstream. They have careers they apply themselves to, they have homes they care for and improve, friends, family and co-workers whose company they enjoy and spend time with. They are concerned about the same issues that heterosexuals are concerned and like heterosexuals have views all over the spectrum out them. They are interested in the same everyday aspects of living, the price of gas, what to have for dinner, good books to read, movies to see, whether or not the park district should sell a park to company to build a crematorium, or build a pool on it, should the school district get more money.

Your point is that homosexuals are underhanded simple as that.

I would like to hear Why Me's answer to this, myself. It sounds, Why Me, like you have a stereotypical view of what "the gay lifestyle" is. Having a best friend who is gay, I can tell you that his "lifestyle" doesn't differ much from mine. He has a house payment. He is passionate about his work.

What do you picture gay people doing? Going to the gym, having random sex on the floor?

Oh, and, for the record, one of my favorite sit-coms is "Will and Grace". :-)

[_JohnStuartMill]

I think it would be more fair to say that the religious right was strangely silent on this, including, but not limited to Mormons.

What were religious people supposed to do? Many catholics interviewed were against same sex marriage but they had no vote. The liberal gay agenda did not want a democratic debate and voter participation because they knew they would lose.

Putting minority rights in the hands of the voting population isn't the best of ideas. You'll want to have some constitutional protections in place when another Missouri mob attacks the Mormons, don't you? Mormonism's cultural conservatism is fast becoming widely disdained. The political leaders of cultural conservatism are starting to realize they're fighting a losing battle on the whole gay marriage thing. Who's going to protect you and your family after gay marriage opponents become an embattled minority?

[_why me]

I would like to hear Why Me's answer to this, myself. It sounds, Why Me, like you have a stereotypical view of what "the gay lifestyle" is. Having a best friend who is gay, I can tell you that his "lifestyle" doesn't differ much from mine. He has a house payment. He is passionate about his work.

What do you picture gay people doing? Going to the gym, having random sex on the floor?

Oh, and, for the record, one of my favorite sit-coms is "Will and Grace". :-)

Being in New York in the 1970's before the AIDs crisis, the gay lifestyle was far from mainstream. I still remember the gay bathhouses where gay men would have sex with many partners. Plus the problem of going into a public toilet with gay men attempting to pick up other men in the toilet area.

One reason for the devastation of the gay community in the early 1980's in the Greenwich Village area of NYC was the fact that they slept with many partners. Thus, the HIV problem took many lives.

You have proved my point with your comment about Will and Grace. By hollywood bringing gayness into the living rooms of straight people, the tone was set for a softening of understanding for gay people and their lifestyle.

[_Buffalo]

I would like to hear Why Me's answer to this, myself. It sounds, Why Me, like you have a stereotypical view of what "the gay lifestyle" is. Having a best friend who is gay, I can tell you that his "lifestyle" doesn't differ much from mine. He has a house payment. He is passionate about his work.

What do you picture gay people doing? Going to the gym, having random sex on the floor?

Oh, and, for the record, one of my favorite sit-coms is "Will and Grace". :-)

Being in New York in the 1970's before the AIDs crisis, the gay lifestyle was far from mainstream. I still remember the gay bathhouses where gay men would have sex with many partners. Plus the problem of going into a public toilet with gay men attempting to pick up other men in the toilet area.

One reason for the devastation of the gay community in the early 1980's in the Greenwich Village area of NYC was the fact that they slept with many partners. Thus, the HIV problem took many lives.

You have proved my point with your comment about Will and Grace. By hollywood bringing gayness into the living rooms of straight people, the tone was set for a softening of understanding for gay people and their lifestyle.

Right, that was representative of the majority, and you never find straight people doing that.

What about lesbians? Don't they have the lowest instances of STDs? I guess god loves them best.

[_Morley]

Being in New York in the 1970's before the AIDs crisis, the gay lifestyle was far from mainstream. I still remember the gay bathhouses where gay men would have sex with many partners. Plus the problem of going into a public toilet with gay men attempting to pick up other men in the toilet area.

One reason for the devastation of the gay community in the early 1980's in the Greenwich Village area of NYC was the fact that they slept with many partners. Thus, the HIV problem took many lives.

You have proved my point with your comment about Will and Grace. By hollywood bringing gayness into the living rooms of straight people, the tone was set for a softening of understanding for gay people and their lifestyle.

Perhaps promoting an different lifestyle...say, hmm, monogamous marriage...would help to end the promiscuity you condemn?

edited to add: Of course, then we'd have to legalize it.

[_EAllusion]

Cal -

I think when people talk about not wanting to "legistlate morality" they are speaking in an incoherent fashion, but intend to communicate that they are opposed to the government intruding on specific kinds of moral concerns. While all laws ought to be moral, not every moral concern ought to be the purview of law. People disagree over the scope of what the law should involve, but nearly everyone agrees that certain things are a private matter, such as some forms of lying.

Some libertarians and some liberals are fond of saying they are opposed to the government legistlating morality, but what they really are saying is they are opposed to the government being involved in abortion, sexual practices, etc. This is roughly parallel to Republicans saying they favor government respect of family values even though "family values" is just a code for a particular set of positions they favor, such as opposition to gay marraige.

I think the line you are attempting to draw is arbitrary. Your specific argument, "Morality in this context refers to moral standards that are not part of our country's moral establishment, such as sexual purity and avoidance of blasphemy, profanity, and flag-burning. These are particularistic moral standards that not everyone can agree upon..." makes no sense in this context. The examples I brought up have had periods of heavy dispute, indicating they are not part of a universal or near-universal agreed upon set of values. Heck, smoking bans were far more contraversial than banning flag burning. The latter enjoys a great deal of popularity and almost certainly would pass if not for the first amendment. Hillary Clinton came out in favor of an anti-flag burning amendment last election cycle precisely because that was a safe way for her to triangulate even as a Democrat. How is this not universal where a smoking ban in a private establishment would be?

[_CaliforniaKid]

EAllusion,

While not everyone agrees on whether smoking should be banned in private establishments, nearly everyone agrees that the government should regulate public health. Public health is an agreed-upon American value; the only debate is how it should be balanced with other agreed-upon values such as liberty.

Bans on sodomy, profanity, etc. are different because these behaviors don't violate any agreed-upon American value. There are people who feel these behaviors are immoral because they violate the honor of God, or nature, or whatever, but it's difficult to argue against them in terms of America's established values.

I agree that the saying "you can't legislate morality" is naïve in the sense that it fails to recognize that our established, consensus values are themselves moral values. But I also think there's a substantive difference between our established values and the moral values of particularistic sects. The established values were chosen because they were perceived-- rightly or wrongly-- to be a kind of minimal set of practical requirements for the functioning of an orderly, successful pluralistic democracy. In other words, these are pragmatic values designed to solve certain problems in the game-theoretical structure of human social relations. Other, sectarian moral values don't share the same pragmatic, rational quality. JMO.

Peace,

-Chris