Please explain this to me

[_The Nehor]

I don't think we're co-opting marriage. I think it's important to note that we're defending what marriage HAS ALWAYS been understood to mean. We have all of recorded history on our side as to marriage meaning man + woman who share responsibility for raising children. Our opponents are the ones that wants to reinterpret the institution to be much broader. I think they are co-opting marriage for a narrow cross-section of homosexuals. They want to redefine the word to suit their political and personal agendas.

I didn't say (or at least didn't mean to say) that conservative Christians are attempting to co-opt marriage. Rather, I said that they are attempting to co-opt the state. There's a difference. I can understand wanting to conserve the traditional Christian/American family unit. (I say "Christian/American" because it's one man + one woman, which certainly does not have "all of recorded history" on its side.) But to accomplish this goal by limiting the rights of others to the free exercise of speech and religion is to miss the point of being an American. These are battles that must be fought on the battleground of public discourse, and that must be won by winning hearts and minds. Use of the law to force conformity to a particular way of life-- however traditional-- is the lazy man's way out. And, ultimately, a betrayal of the Constitution.

Who's co-opting the state? The side that's using the legislative process to create laws and amendments by majority rule or those relying on sympathetic unelected judges? I agree that this battle must be fought on the battleground of public discourse. That's what we're doing when we campaign. It's why we spend money and try to get the word out. In some areas we are even winning though I have my doubts as to how long that will last.

[_CaliforniaKid]

Who's co-opting the state? The side that's using the legislative process to create laws and amendments by majority rule or those relying on sympathetic unelected judges? I agree that this battle must be fought on the battleground of public discourse. That's what we're doing when we campaign. It's why we spend money and try to get the word out. In some areas we are even winning though I have my doubts as to how long that will last.

I think you're missing the point. Let me try citing Rawls, instead:

For the purposes of this discussion, I take it as uncontroversial that we all have a right to free association. While citizens freely choose to be members of churches, clubs, and other groups, they don't choose to be part of a given society. Moreover, moving to a different country is hard; joining a different country club isn't. If I can't find a group that I like (politically, philosophically, or whatever), I can start my own; but I can't do the same for my society. I don't mean to say that the "easy" examples are actually easy, but they seem to be of a different kind than changing your citizenship. People switch jobs, peer groups, and generally move within society more-or-less freely, even changing their familial ties; this isn't seen as odd. Emigration, on the other hand, is a bit more unusual.

This means that we don't have much of a choice but to affirm whatever policies our society insantiates (assuming we want to be good citizens). That doesn't mean we can't question various policies, but given that we can't do much to challenge them, we have no choice but go along, for the most part. Everyone is in the same boat, here. This means that we have an obligation to present reasons that others can accept (or at least recognize as good reasons), whatever their religious or moral commitments, since we want them to be able to affirm the policies of society (and we want them to do the same).

Political Liberalism, Lecture VI, §3, part 2.

Obviously, the very concept of a democracy opens up the possibility that the majority will impose its moral (or other) values upon unwilling minorities. This is not a desirable situation, especially when one finds oneself in the minority. (Think Mormons and polygamy, for example.) It is a stock American narrative, in fact, that persecuted religious minorities fled to America as a place of refuge where they built a pluralist society in which they could all coexist freely. In order to guarantee peaceful co-existence and the liberty of both the majority and of minorities to pursue their chosen values, the Founding Fathers created the Constitution and the judiciary branch of the federal government. The Constitution is a document designed to limit the extent to which a majority can impose its will upon minorities, by guaranteeing minority rights and giving judges the authority to strike down laws that violate them. Your facile dismissal of "unelected judges" would have the Founding Fathers rolling in their graves; you are spurning one of the most important checks and balances our nation has available to it, and are denying the validity of minority liberties as guaranteed by the Constitution.

Best,

-Chris

[_asbestosman]

Obviously, the very concept of a democracy opens up the possibility that the majority will impose its moral (or other) values upon unwilling minorities. This is not a desirable situation, especially when one finds oneself in the minority. (Think Mormons and polygamy, for example.)

You talk about the end of polygamy like it was a bad thing that it ended.

[_The Nehor]

Who's co-opting the state? The side that's using the legislative process to create laws and amendments by majority rule or those relying on sympathetic unelected judges? I agree that this battle must be fought on the battleground of public discourse. That's what we're doing when we campaign. It's why we spend money and try to get the word out. In some areas we are even winning though I have my doubts as to how long that will last.

I think you're missing the point. Let me try citing Rawls, instead:

For the purposes of this discussion, I take it as uncontroversial that we all have a right to free association. While citizens freely choose to be members of churches, clubs, and other groups, they don't choose to be part of a given society. Moreover, moving to a different country is hard; joining a different country club isn't. If I can't find a group that I like (politically, philosophically, or whatever), I can start my own; but I can't do the same for my society. I don't mean to say that the "easy" examples are actually easy, but they seem to be of a different kind than changing your citizenship. People switch jobs, peer groups, and generally move within society more-or-less freely, even changing their familial ties; this isn't seen as odd. Emigration, on the other hand, is a bit more unusual.

This means that we don't have much of a choice but to affirm whatever policies our society insantiates (assuming we want to be good citizens). That doesn't mean we can't question various policies, but given that we can't do much to challenge them, we have no choice but go along, for the most part. Everyone is in the same boat, here. This means that we have an obligation to present reasons that others can accept (or at least recognize as good reasons), whatever their religious or moral commitments, since we want them to be able to affirm the policies of society (and we want them to do the same).

Political Liberalism, Lecture VI, §3, part 2.

Obviously, the very concept of a democracy opens up the possibility that the majority will impose its moral (or other) values upon unwilling minorities. This is not a desirable situation, especially when one finds oneself in the minority. (Think Mormons and polygamy, for example.) It is a stock American narrative, in fact, that persecuted religious minorities fled to America as a place of refuge where they built a pluralist society in which they could all coexist freely. In order to guarantee peaceful co-existence and the liberty of both the majority and of minorities to pursue their chosen values, the Founding Fathers created the Constitution and the judiciary branch of the federal government. The Constitution is a document designed to limit the extent to which a majority can impose its will upon minorities, by guaranteeing minority rights and giving judges the authority to strike down laws that violate them. Your facile dismissal of "unelected judges" would have the Founding Fathers rolling in their graves; you are spurning one of the most important checks and balances our nation has available to it, and are denying the validity of minority liberties as guaranteed by the Constitution.

Best,

-Chris

I didn't mean my mention of judges to mean that I consider their position or powers unimportant. I think they not only should but MUST strike down unconstitutional laws. I'm also a strict constructionist and there is nothing in the federal Constitution (and I'm guessing most state constitutions) about marriage. Marriage has meant the same thing since the beginning of civilization. Yes, there was polygamy but it was still one man and one woman (though men were not limited in the number of marriages contracted at times). Marriage has never meant anything else. How can you constitutionally support changing what an institution is? Where's the basis? The most common comparison is to the struggle of African Americans for rights. The difference is that the current practices were in violation of the Constitution. Denying gays the right to marriage (which as I've said means changing what marriage means) is NOT unconstitutional.

[_CaliforniaKid]

You talk about the end of polygamy like it was a bad thing that it ended.

I obviously don't think polygamy is the ideal way to live one's life, and I oppose any effort to coerce people into a polygamous relationship, but I am not in principle willing to say that all polygamy should be outlawed. I think it should be closely regulated, and I oppose it in public discourse, but I also recognize people's right to formalize other-than-monogamous relationships if they desire to do so.

EDIT: I'm afraid I'm running out the door, Nehor, but I'll get back to you later.

[_Gazelam]

How about we all opose Gay Marriage on the basis that we do not wish to legitimize Sodomy. I mean shouldent we all be united in the idea that one man placing his penis in another mans anal cavity and pushing his stool around is pretty disgusting? Is this really something we want to say is ok?

[_Jersey Girl]

How about we all opose Gay Marriage on the basis that we do not wish to legitimize Sodomy. I mean shouldent we all be united in the idea that one man placing his penis in another mans anal cavity and poushing his stool around is pretty disgusting? Is this really something we want to say is ok?

Okay, since it looks like no one else is gonna address this...Gaz, please look up the definition of sodomy.

[_GoodK]

How about we all opose Gay Marriage on the basis that we do not wish to legitimize Sodomy.

Sodomy is illegal? That is news to me... what about heterosexual sodomy? Is that equally repulsive? Should it be illegal?

You know that not all homosexual men engage in anal sex, right?

I mean shouldent we all be united in the idea that one man placing his penis in another mans anal cavity and poushing his stool around is pretty disgusting?

Frankly, I find man on man anal sex a little gross too. But there is a lot of heterosexual sex that is equally or even more disgusting. How about your parents? Get a good visual. Should we make it illegal for your parents to have sex? Or to get married?

Is this really something we want to say is ok?

Just because you don't like something doesn't mean you get to tell people if it is OK or not. I can't see why adults can't grasp that concept.

[_GoodK]

How about we all opose Gay Marriage on the basis that we do not wish to legitimize Sodomy. I mean shouldent we all be united in the idea that one man placing his penis in another mans anal cavity and poushing his stool around is pretty disgusting? Is this really something we want to say is ok?

Okay, since it looks like no one else is gonna address this...Gaz, please look up the definition of sodomy.

It's hard to respond to something this brazenly homophobic... but I was working on it ;)

[_Gazelam]

How about we all opose Gay Marriage on the basis that we do not wish to legitimize Sodomy. I mean shouldent we all be united in the idea that one man placing his penis in another mans anal cavity and poushing his stool around is pretty disgusting? Is this really something we want to say is ok?

Okay, since it looks like no one else is gonna address this...Gaz, please look up the definition of sodomy.

Sodomy (IPA: /ˈsɒdəmi/) is a term used today predominantly in law (derived from traditional Christian usage) to describe the act of anal intercourse, as well as bestiality.

In modern French, the word “sodomie” (and in modern Spanish, the word “sodomía”) is used exclusively for penetrative anal sex (where the penetration is performed with a penis or a substitute of similar shape such as a dildo, possibly a strap-on dildo, thus any gender can be on the giving or receiving end). The matching French verb is "sodomiser" (Spanish "sodomizar"). In modern German, the word “Sodomie” has no connotation of anal or oral sex, and refers specifically to zoophilia. (See Paragraph 175 StGB, version of June 28, 1935.) The same goes for the Norwegian word “sodomi” and the Polish "sodomia". “Sodomy”, therefore, can be considered a 'false friend,' a word that English speakers will think they know the meaning of, but which actually holds a different, though in this case related, meaning. Responsible for this was the broadening of the term sodomia by Benedictus Levita



François Elluin, Sodomites provoking the wrath of God, from "Le pot pourri de Loth" (1781).