Monster Hunter Nation

This one will probably get me hate mail from both sides, Gay Marriage

Because of the cases at the Supreme Court, lots people have asked me what I think of gay marriage. I suppose that’s what I get for being the politically outspoken writer guy.

Personally, I’m not offended by it. And what other people do is their own business. I don’t think marriage should be the federal government’s business at all. The governement doesn’t own the concept of marriage.

Two people want to enter a contractual partnership where they share assets, responsibilites, benefits, visitation rights, and tax burden. Awesome. Knock yourself out. Heck, if seven people want to marry each other and have a harem, great. Have fun. As long as they are consenting adults, I don’t care. If it wasn’t for the government screwing around in everything, this would be a really pointless question, because then some religions would have it and others wouldn’t, and people would be free to determine their beliefs for themselves.

HOWEVER… don’t make it my business, as in since it really shouldn’t be the government’s affair at all, don’t start bossing around religious institutions and telling them what to do. One of the big reasons many Christians are against the redefining of the term marriage is because they are worried that then their churches will somehow be persecuted for not performing gay marraige…

Presposterous you say? That could never happen here!

You want to know why most Mormons are worried about the government redefining marriage? It isn’t because they hate gay people. It is because the last time the government redefined the definition of marriage, Mormons got screwed over, imprisoned, invaded, and had their property confiscated for not following along with the federal government’s definition of marriage. The feds said you have to perform marriages like we tell you to, or you’re not a real religion, and we will throw you in prison. And for the people who say this could never happen, that’s super comforting, since it has before. So if you want to know why the Mormons in California voted against gay marriage, they weren’t scared of gay people. They were scared of the feds.

For as much as the left likes the paint the right as knuckle dragging hate mongers, you’ll note that the minute you call this contractual hook up between two individuals any word other than marriage most people, including most Christians, really don’t care what people do, and don’t really get worked up about it.  Christians are perfectly used to other people doing stuff that their God doesn’t approve of. Even if somebody thinks what you’re doing is a sin, that’s pretty much irrelevant, because they don’t have the power to come in and arrest you and seize your assets like the government does.

To most Christian denominations, which is still the predominant belief system in America, marriage is between a man and a woman. If you come along and tell them that their religion is wrong, and they are stupid hate mongers, why should it shock you when they get offended and they fight back?

Tell a Catholic or a Baptist that they are wrong and their God is wrong and the country they live in has redefined their religious beliefs of what something means and they’ll fight against it. You ask for all the rights and privledges and tax benefits and all that jazz that make up the legal side of the marriage partnership today, and most Christians in opposition will just shrug.

Sure, no matter what somebody will be all super offended and will protest and speak out and hold rallies and parades, but good for them, this is America where you have the right to free speech. Here’s the thing, lots of people do stuff that other people think are sins every minute, and somebody somewhere is offended by that. This shouldn’t really matter to either side, as both sides should be allowed to argue freely.

Newsflash left wing readers, regardless of what you read on HuffPo, the right wing despises the Westboro Baptist douchebags too.

Personally, homosexuality isn’t my thing. I don’t care if somebody else does it, but I can still teach my children that I think it is a bad life choice. Somebody else wants to do it, fine. Have fun. That said, I despise the bossy ass busy body nanny state federal government telling anybody what they can do, gay or straight, and people should have the free agency to choose whatever sin they want to participate in (and pay the repurcusions obviously if your sin is something really stupid like murder, theft, or playing chicken with trains).  I also don’t think premarital sex is a good idea, so you can see how completely irrelevant my bigoted hate mongery is in other people’s lives. I can think it is a mistake, but what you do is none of my business, and certainly not the business of federal regulators.

Here’s the real problem I see with all of this controversy, when you make an issue of civil rights and freedom into a battle of definitions and terms, then of course people who have strong moral and religious beliefs about redefining those terms are going to fight it.

Duh.

The fact that the media and activists care more about redefining the term “marriage” and telling Christians that they are backwoods klansmen, than assuring gay peoples’ civil liberties to enter into contractual agreements tells me that this controversy is mostly being used as a smoke screen. You’ll note that when you call it something other than marriage, and it does pretty much all the same things as marriage, even Utah and Alabama doesn’t get particularly spun up in opposition. If you’ve got a ballot initiative that says Gay Marriage, you’re shocked when Catholics vote no? Why not have a ballot initiatve that says consenting adults can form a civil partnership that allows visitation rights, joint filing of taxes, parental custody, and coequel property ownership? GASP! But where would be the controversy in that? Then we wouldn’t be able to scream about hatey hate mongers and stuff.

My sincere belief is that this wouldn’t even be any issue at this point if it didn’t benefit the democrats to have a controversy which takes attention away from fiscal matters. Sure, in a few years you’ll be able to marry a bucket of fried chicken if you want, but we’ll be too broke to buy the chicken… Don’t worry gay people, the minute you cease to be a useful diversion for the progressive movement they’ll drop you like a hot potato. Ask an illegal immigrant Mexican or a kid in the innercity. 🙂

Information about that novella I've got coming out next week
Grading Fight Scenes
tjic (@tjic)
Guest
Larry, 100% agreed. As a traditional Catholic, I agree with my church’s position. As a libertarian, I support my neighbor’s rights to make whatever contracts they want. Here in MA we’ve already seen how the legal bullying works – after MA got gay marriage Catholic Charities, which had done most of the adoptions in the state, was told that they must place kids into male/male and female/female homes. Catholic Charities protested that this was against their beliefs. They were told to stuff it. …so Catholic Charities stopped doing adoptions, and left parentless kids and childless families unserved. It CAN and… Read more »
gingeroni
Guest

This is what’s wrong with gay “marriage” rights.

stef
Guest

The problem with this statement is that Catholic Charities wanted to choose who would and wouldn’t be the recipient of federally funded assistance. If it’s private money – do whatever you like. But if money comes with rules like “we the Gov’t don’t discriminate against same-sex couples, so neither than you”, well… you either stop taking the money or you use it appropriately.

tjic (@tjic)
Guest
No, they didn’t. They wanted to choose what work they would do. They had no stance on how other charities who were doing placements should go about their business. This “if you take even one drop of government money, you have to adopt the dominant ideology” stance means that the government can (and does) force every non-profit to toe the ideological line. If there are five soup kitchens, and the government has a 1:1 matching program, where “conforming” soup kitchens get free food…but to be “conforming” you have to allow activity X on your premises, or in your medical plan,… Read more »
lujlp
Guest

“If the Federal government is going to take taxes from EVERYONE, then hand them back to charities IF AND ONLY IF they conform to a certain ideological stance, that’s wrong”

Right, unless of course that ideological stance is one you happen to agree with

Kristophr
Guest

Which ignores the question: What possible constitutional justification is there for paying for soup kitchens?

Answer: None.

The constitution does not even mention marriage, so why is the federal government trying to regulate it?

As a libertarian, I would like to see the government get completely out of marriage at all levels, including state and local. Marriage should be a simple contract, and optionally, a private religious ceremony.

lujlp
Guest

Umm, catholic charities was taking in non catholic babies and government funds, which means they were a defacto state agency not a private religious orginization. They could have just as easily refused to accept state funds and infants from non catholics and continued to adopt out kids.

David W Lawson
Guest
I couldn’t reply directly to peavybob, so replying here. peavybob, on March 28, 2013 at 7:23 pm said: “Instincts are the result of genetics. homosexuality is a genetic dead end as from a natural selection standpoint, it has significantly lower chances of passing itself on to another generation. The steadily increasing numbers of homosexuals in our society would thus indicate it as a lifestyle choice rather than genetic interaction. I don’t care what they choose to do, but at least own up to the decision.” I think you don’t understand genetics or natural selection. Also, where’s your proof that there… Read more »
Martin Grover
Guest

Shared!

Nightcrawler
Guest

Hoo boy.

This one might get interesting.

Julie
Guest
Larry, I am a pretty fundie fundamentalist. Which is shocking, I know, considering what I write. And I can’t see a thing to disagree with here. I’ve frequently said that if you don’t call it “marriage,” then I don’t care. And maybe it’s dumb to quibble about a word, when I make them up all the time, but they do mean things, dammit. Call it a civil union, call it life linking (my particular favorite), call it anything but “marriage,” and I’m cool with it. What I find amusing is that the “Marriage Equality” advocates get upset if you say… Read more »
perlhaqr
Guest

As a polyamorous person, I agree. Let’s open the door all the way.

So, what do you think of my idea (mentioned below) of calling all governmentally solemnized unions “Civil Unions”, and leaving “Marriage” to churches?

David W Lawson
Guest

I agree 100%. The government has no business in “marriage”. That should be a concept left to each of our philosophical and moral compasses. I have no concept with my marriage being a civil union.

Heather Stearns
Guest

Exactly!

Julie
Guest

I’m with Larry; I can’t think why this isn’t a good idea, at this point in history.

My husband came up with the concept of “life linking” where any two (or more) people could enter into a legally binding contract that conveyed all the contractual and legal things that marriage does–but separates it from the bedroom. Therefore, if a pair of brothers wanted to take care of each other, or a grown child and parent, ANYONE, they could enter into this contract.

I don’t see a downside to this.

NKR
Guest
I am in full agreement except I think it gets sticky where the sharing of benefits is concerned when you add in multiple spouses. As it stands, spouses can share benefits like health insurance, but it’s one to one. If you have one woman married to five men and she’s the one providing the benefits through her job, her company or the tax payers (if she works for the government) are going to be paying for five spouses instead of just one. And it opens the door to a lot of fraud as she could add another two or three… Read more »
Woodman
Guest

Yeah, I expressed that opinion on Scalzi’s site and got loved and tolerated to death.

Woodman
Guest

NKR, the solution to that problem is to go back to the old school method of charging per dependent instead the traditional 2 or 4 (Or 3 or 5) tier methods.

So Suzy with 5 husbands plays for coverage for 6 people.

Kristophr
Guest

Woodman: No, the solution is to end the government subsidy of “benefits”.

If a company wants to make you take part of your salary as health insurance, the IRS should still tax this.

Once the government subsidy of such things ends, the cost of such things will drop to where people can afford to pay for it themselves again.

Government tax subsidies are why health insurance costs skyrocketed … the cash was now there, so the insurers, and by extension, the medical industry hoovered it all up.

Austin Davis
Guest

So because my wife and i are not affiliated with a church and had a non-religious wedding would we be rolled back into “Civil Union” status? would i have to change my tax form from “married filing jointly” to “Civilly Unionized filing jointly”? Marriage has been happening for longer than Christianity, so why is it only allowed by Christians? Its just a fricken word, get over it.

Paul (Drak Bibliophile) Howard
Guest
Paul (Drak Bibliophile) Howard

Marriage is older than Christianity and never included “same sex unions”. On the other hand, some people have been claiming “opposite sex unions” as marriage is Christians forcing their beliefs onto non-Christians.

Tierlieb
Guest
I agree, from my standpoint, Larry has pretty much nailed it. And, personally, I agree that legalized polygamy should not be much trouble (once potential financial exploits are fixed). But I wonder about one thing you said: I understand you believe the word “marriage” belongs to a certain Christian version of “life linking”? This confuses me, since it is a wee bit older than that. I fondly remember learning “marito, maritavi, maritare = to marry” in school. That describes the “one man, one woman” life link that was so popular in ancient Rome that early Christianity adopted it. The Romans… Read more »
nikola1172
Guest

Agree completely.goverment should not bar ppl from forming unions(marriage)according to their culture/religion/race/gay or straight.but also no religion can be forced to go against their creed.my freedom stops at your nose,and reverse holds true too

BHPshooter
Guest

I agree with you, Larry.

One point: In the past, when “domestic partnership,” which had all of the duties and privileges of marriage, was discussed, the LGBT community about had a come-apart. I worked with a few members of that community that were near apoplexy over it. To them, it didn’t matter if it was the same damn thing, it wasn’t called “marriage,” and so they were still being discriminated against.

I believe, for many of them, it’s more than just wanting equal perks.

roninjoseph338
Guest

For a long time, it has been over the word “marriage” and nothing else.

Luke Falk (@luke_falk)
Guest

I won’t end until they can force Cardinal Dolan to perform a marriage mass in St Patrick’s

NKR
Guest

But I think it changes things if the law reads that ALL unions must get a domestic partnership or civil union license if they are to share assets, benefits, joint file, co-parent, etc … That’s including heterosexual, two-partner unions, not just the non-traditional.

Then the sanctification of the union is up to the participants and their church. No church is required to sanctify any union they choose not to.

Philip
Guest

Hey Larry, big fan and I love your post, just simple sense like your gun control post. Thanks! In your post you talked about the beliefs of Christians and Mormons together. I was wondering can you sometime write a post about Mormonism, Christianity and how you see it as a practicing Mormon? I know I probably have a lot of misconceptions about Mormonism, I don’t know any practicing mormons but I am a practicing Lutheran and would like to be better informed. Can you help?

roninjoseph338
Guest

Pretty much my feelings and I’ve argued that if that one word were not a part of the argument, it wouldn’t be the big deal that it is. Who want’s to use logic though, let’s just go with emotion.

jr_bull
Guest
Amen! As an active Baptist (I am my church’s worship leader), I couldn’t agree more. Marriage should be a personal and church issue, and since America is supposed to have Freedom of Religion, then Americans should be able to practice freely! You can’t have it both ways – either your freedom of religion protects what you believe and what you don’t, or it doesn’t protect you at all. I think that’s what many of the “religious right” seem to forget. The best thing we could do is get the government (state and Federal) out of the marriage business and give… Read more »
Donna K. Weaver
Guest

You nailed it, Larry.

steve
Guest

“Gay Divorce”

With court and custody battles. I vote HELL YES!

But yes, I agree with you. On the bright side, Muslim Polygamy will be legal immediately afterwards. Then Mormon Polygamy.

Then I get to watch all the fun when LDS church leaders have to explain to congregations why they’re still not allowing it, even though it will then be legal.

Fun times… I’ll bring the popcorn.

Deena
Guest

Active LDS all my life, with polygamous ancestors. And I can tell you – there’s pretty much nobody in the Church who wants polygamy back – unless they’re the sort to want to play around. The rest of us are quite happy to only have to deal with one spouse…

pkudude99
Guest
Most people don’t realize that polygamy in the early LDS days was something your local bishop came to to you and your wife and asked you to do, and told you who he wanted you to marry. Then both you AND your wife had to agree to it, as did the lady who “needed a husband” (often a young widow with no means of supporting herself). And if he was asked to marry a 3rd wife, the both the 1st and 2nd wives had to sign off on it, and so forth. Each wife got her own house and kept… Read more »
steve
Guest

Hey pkudude99, do you have docs/historical sources on the specifics of signing off, spousal consent and 1on1 only rules? Not arguing, just interested. Something I’ve always wondered about.

salgak
Guest

Heck, “Gay Divorce Court” on TV. . . it would be a ratings-buster. . . . (evil grin)

perlhaqr
Guest
“Separate but equal isn’t.” Personally, I want to get the government out of the marriage business entirely. Leave the religious sacraments and ceremonies to the churches, and leave the civil contracts to the governments. But if what Adam and Eve walk into the County Clerks office and ask for is called a “Marriage License”, then what Joe and Mike ask for should be too, and likewise Sarah and Jennifer. Anything else is discrimination against citizens who are nominally equals before the civil law, and even if it’s just discrimination in the form of terminology it’s still unacceptable. Can you honestly… Read more »
Alan
Guest

Um…did you even read the blog post?

perlhaqr
Guest

Twice. Any further questions?

(Oooh! Oooh! How about something snarky involving the phrase “reading comprehension”?)

lissakay
Guest

I was wondering if I was the only one confused by that response …

strega42
Guest
I want to see my current partnership legally defined as a civil union. I was married by a justice of the peace. There was no religious leader present. I was not married in a church. The vows were not religious in nature, beyond phrasing chosen by the JotP. I want to see ALL couples (triads, harems, whatever) to have to file a civil union, if they want the legal rights of being in a civil union. I want religious marriage to have no legal standing. That’s not *terribly* far from what we have now – where the marriage is filed… Read more »
Daniel C
Guest

No hate mail from me Larry, you summed up my feelings perfectly.

Greg Wirtala
Guest
Hmmm, interesting. So a rant about government (again) intruding in on one’s life. Not really about the argument about gay marriage. Here’s my issue with comparison to Mormon’s and other religious institutions; one chooses to be a part of that religion, and most evidence supports that homosexuality is not a choice but rather who you are. A better comparison would be early American law and Jim Crow laws which hindered people of color from marrying. It is not equitable to exclude one group of people from the same entitlements others enjoy. It is a shame that certain religious institutes do… Read more »
Luke Falk (@luke_falk)
Guest

Are you trying to argue that the church should be forced to perform nuptials for gay partners?

Curlywolf
Guest
seriously? you really don’t comprehend what he’s saying? Historically[up until the never to be sufficiently damned goddamned government stuck it’s nose] marriage was a religious ceremony celebrating the uniting of two people. If you can FORCE a church, or an entire religion to have a ceremony for a union they don’t agree with then, WHERE THE FUCK IS THE FREEDOM OF RELIGION? You know…that pesky 1st amendment? All Larry is saying and those of us that agree with him is if you want a license or contract stating that you get all the benefits[tax breaks etc] and obligationsof a marriage… Read more »
Weather March
Guest
Civil unions were preformed by governments for thousands of years before the birth of Jesus. Sure, they’re nothing like we have now, but you just can’t claim that the Church suddenly came up with the idea of of creating a union between two people and sanctifying it. I’m not a religious person, and I don’t plan to get married, so take my opinion with a grain of salt, I agree that the churches can have their marriages, but that those marriages should be separate from civil unions. In other words; get the religion out of government and the government the… Read more »
Jareth
Guest

Err…For the vast majority of history, marriage was primarily a civil institution. Even in Christiandom, there was no requirement for religious ceremony/oversight until the mid sixteenth century.

Deoxy
Guest

Jareth – not to be rude, but either you made that up completely from scratch, or someone else did. Seriously – marriage has had a big place in many religions for millenia (literally). Easiest example is the old testament, but there are plenty of others.

Jareth
Guest
Deoxy, In the Old Testament, marriages are indeed very important…but they are primarily handled as civil contracts…Agreements made by the father of the bride. In ancient Jewish tradition, when the mohar was exchanged the couple was considered married without any interaction with a religious organization at all. No registration with the temple, no talk with a Rabbi, no ceremony at all save for a traditional toast with wine. In Europe, church officiation was not required for marriages until the Council of Trent decreed it so in the 16th century. Before that, it was common practice for marriage to be a… Read more »
Brian
Guest

Pretty much hit the nail on the head.

How can you be considered free if you have to ask the states permission to marry? People seem to miss that every time.

steve
Guest
Historically, for reasons of social stability, sex outside of marriage was almost invariably seen as a crime. In muslim countries, they’ll still stone you to death for it. Many states still have “unlawful sexual intercourse” on the lawbooks as sex between unmarried people. The crime was generally perceived as a male stealing, by persuasion or force, the most valuable possession of a woman, which was her virginity. Her virginity was the only real assurance a man marrying her had of being sure that the children were actually his. The woman was literally the property of the husband. This all got… Read more »
Deoxy
Guest
The woman was literally the property of the husband. That’s a VERY selective view of history – true (for all practical purposes) in some places at some times, completely utterly ridiculously untrue at some places in some times, and usually somewhere in between. The “sex outside of marriage is a crime” bit is also quite overstated – prostitution is called “the world’s oldest profession” for a reason, eh? In fact, the closer women are to property, the less problem there is (legally) with sex outside of marriage, from what I can tell from history – when women are property and… Read more »
Adam Meyers
Guest

Yeah, I completely agree. I think it’s about time we started living in a libertarian country. But yeah, if we really did make everything legal and allow people to make their own decisions, where would the lovely controversy be, and how would activist groups drudge up funding? You can only legislate morality, and get funding to do so, if you can convince people the issue is life or death for the country as we know it.

Curlywolf
Guest

more to the point how would the people that head those activist groups make their money?

Adampm
Guest

Yes please. Move towards a libertarian country. Please get the government out of my bedroom and most definately out of my wallet.

Unfortunately we have to get people to be responsible and self-reliant. Really difficult when people are being encouraged to believe that their failures belong to somebody else and schools spend all their time developing ego in the name of self-esteem.

Jack Lovell
Guest
I am not for or against gay marriage until the “if you’re not with me, you’re against me” charge gets thrown out. Then I’m against it enough to vote, albeit not against it enough to campaign. That seems to be the most contentious point in this issue. I personally think that all religions except Missouri Synod Lutherans have their scriptures wrong or have the wrong religion. I’m sure others disagree with me. It is, or should be, understood that we are all allowed to have a difference of opinion on this. With gay marriage, only full acceptance seems to be… Read more »
Tom Hunt
Guest

How, precisely, does polygamy violate any sort of equality?

For that matter, even under the current system where polygamy isn’t allowed in marriage, there (mostly) aren’t any laws about who can actually cohabit and regularly have sex. Which means the perverse partnerships you cite aren’t actually prohibited by law, they’re just unable to achieve a specific sort of legal recognition. Are they actually a problem to anyone right now, and if not, why would they become so if they could achieve that legal recognition?

Jack Lovell
Guest
Mathematical inequality to begin with. Everyone (assuming gay marriage or civil union) has an equal right to put one spouse on their insurance. Multiple spouses on insurance wouldn’t be a level field. If you go for multiple partners, more power to you. I don’t want that enshrined in law. Nor a Warren Jeffs style polygamy or a Koran blessed set of 4 wives. I don’t doubt that such relationships are workable and happy in some cases. Constitutionally, I don’t see where they are not allowed, unless you go with the “all created equal”…which seems iffy.
Tom Hunt
Guest
(Apparently you can’t reply more than three deep. Hopefully this gets displayed in an intelligent place.) How “marriage”, or whatever civil union is proposed, interacts with insurance should be a matter between the insurer and the people paying. If you want a policy that covers your (one) spouse, then negotiate with your insurance company. If you want one that covers N arbitrary adults, whether these be your partners in some polyamorous arrangement or roommates or siblings or whatever, you’ll probably have to pay more, but again, negotiate it with the insurer. That is essentially irrelevant to the actual interest of… Read more »
Kristophr
Guest

Jack Lovell: Why is the government subsidizing insurance?

Where in the Constitution is this allowed?

Answer: Nowhere.

If non-traditional marriages cause problems with federally subsidized or federally required insurance, then the problem here is not the marriages.

The federal government should not be requiring people to have insurance, and they should not be providing tax subsidies to employers that force employees to take part of their salary as insurance.

thomaspainelives
Guest
“Why not have a ballot initiatve that says consenting adults can form a civil partnership that allows visitation rights, joint filing of taxes, parental custody, and coequel property ownership?” Like any other thing, marriage involving the government, whether the county clerk making you buy a marriage license, or the federal government telling you who to marry, it’s a matter of control. El Paso had a huge brouhaha over this exact issue. City wanted to pay medical for domestic partners. A LOT of people got teed off they were including gay partners in it. I thought that the city shouldn’t be… Read more »
lwk2431
Guest
“Two people want to enter a contractual partnership where they share assets, responsibilites, benefits, visitation rights, and tax burden. Awesome. Knock yourself out. Heck, if seven people want to marry each other and have a harem, great. Have fun. As long as they are consenting adults, I don’t care.” Sounds like you are a Libertarian. I agree with a fair amount of Libertarian ideas. However I think society has a right to define a relationship called “marriage” in order to define a particular relationship that has since the beginning of recorded history been a major benefit to all societies. It… Read more »
David W Lawson
Guest

Unfortunately for your ‘bottom line’, marriage was indeed recognized as a fundamental right by SCOTUS in the 60s ruling 9-0. See Loving vs. Virginia.

Fed_Up
Guest
Wow, wrong on all accounts. Marriage, as an institution, was established before the idea of “one man & one woman” came along – I suppose you missed the whole Mormon reference up there? Well, they got that from Jews, who were around before you were. Yes, each women had her own marriage with a man, but said man could have other marriages with other women. The “privilege” to bear children? Unmarried people are doing that in greater numbers. probably because people like you are souring them on the concept of marriage with your narrow, elitist, selfish definition of it. Studies… Read more »
peavybob
Guest

Kinda have a hard time accepting that they don’t have a choice. There’s that whole science and genetics thing that would indicate otherwise. I don’t care what they choose to do, but they should at least take responsibility for their decision.

Deoxy
Guest
Historically speaking, marriage has exactly two points, and the first I’ll mention is largely a subset of the second: 1) who gets your stuff if you die 2) children. Seriously, if you look at laws and traditions around marriage, the point was to keep it determined whose children were whose and to encourage and support family units. One man with multiple women still works for that (other way around is not – the number of societies that practiced that could probably be counted with one hand), but in actual practice, that’s something that a few rich men would do, and… Read more »
steve
Guest

Muslims are practicing plural marriage right now and the UK is legally recognizing it. Not to mention all the formally Islamist countries.

It happens in the US too. Polygamy is legal right here, right up until somebody says “married”. Until then, it’s unmarried adults having sex and kids, legal as church on Sunday.

Jeremy VG
Guest

Hate mail? Not from me…SPOT ON!

DanD66
Guest

Another great column, Larry. You pretty much nailed my feelings 100%. Interestingly, Dr. Keith Ablow on Fox News posted a column that echoes your thoughts:

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/03/27/when-it-comes-to-marriage-government-should-divorce-itself/

Maybe we’ve got the start of something here, if SCotUS doesn’t screw things up all over again.

robitille
Guest

I agree with you entirely, and you put it well enough that I might even be able to point to this post to explain my viewpoint to my friends on both sides of the issue. 🙂

lissakay
Guest
My husband and I entered into the Covenant of Marriage with God 8 months before we got a certificate from the state and held a formal ceremony. We view the two events as completely separate, and only one of them will matter when we stand before God in judgment. We are Biblical Christians and agree fully with you, Larry. I was just now making these very same arguments in the comments on a Facebook post (by Dan Joseph, if you follow him) … and was called hateful, bigoted and various other insults before the gay atheist stomped off in a… Read more »
Radioactive
Guest

always cool when you can get some yahoo to stomp off in a virtual huff

Aaron Moore
Guest

Eh…I hate the fact that I wasnt born with the mental magnitude required to know and understand all of this political Crap that goes on, but I do understand simple ideas. Agreed, let people do what they want with religion and their own Matters involving marriage and so forth. The minute the government waves is brought red Cape inviting the bull that everyone is watching to charge through, there is always a sword hiding behind said cape that noone knew or had seen was waiting for it. Government lines to control everything through loop holes. Bah…

Curlywolf
Guest

that was a beautiful visual metaphor dude.
well spoken

steve
Guest

Aaron, your understanding of political crap is spot on. Far better than most, in fact.

alathIN
Guest
Don’t disagree with anything above, but I would further add: The root of the problem here is that ‘marriage’ the way we’ve done it for years is actually a mix of two very different things: 1) a legal/civil/contractual arrangement between two people, and 2) God consecrating two people’s love relationship. These two things aren’t mixing nicely any more. I don’t think we can have a free society where two people’s preferred sexual arrangements make them ineligible for an important set of legal contractual benefits that other people with different sexual preferences do get to enjoy. Or, as in the SCOTUS… Read more »
NR Pax
Guest

Let’s see…bonfire, scrap wood, alcohol. This should be fun to watch.

Personally, I don’t care enough about this issue to say much. As long as the churches and businesses are free from legal hassles over this, I’m not very bothered.

steve
Guest

The churches and businesses are right now being sized up for discrimination lawsuits. It’s already happened, in fact. A favorable supreme ruling will open floodgates.

Paul (Drak Bibliophile) Howard
Guest
Paul (Drak Bibliophile) Howard

But we’ve been told that gays don’t want to force churches to marry them. [Sarcasm]

BikerDad
Guest
Larry, you are mistaken, albeit not terribly so. The problems, overlooked almost without fail by those coming from the libertarian perspective, are two fold. First, you disregard the role of government in “providing for the general welfare.” Leftists, of course, like to claim this justifies all sorts of welfare to individuals, a position with which you would no doubt disagree, as do I. What it does mean is to undertake activities/support institutions/etc that, broadly speaking, benefit ALL of society, aka those nebulous “public goods.” Thus, we can distinguish between public health activities such as epidemic contagious disease research (a public… Read more »
Milo
Guest
http://news.stanford.edu/news/2010/august/gay-study-083010.html http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/09/25/us-adoption-children-idUSTRE58O3MK20090925 http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/children-of-gay-couples-academically-disadvantaged-studyhttp://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1994480,00.html In these studies only one shows that children raised by homosexual couples fare worse than those raised by heterosexual couples. That indicates that there is no strong case for denying homosexual couples the right to a contract identical in function to marriage. That heterosexual couples raise better children is in fact an assumption that lacks evidence to support it. And to deny somebody a right on the premise of public good, you better be able to prove that your stance is in fact undeniably for the public good. Not just maybe, or probably. Definitely. Kinda like a… Read more »
Scott Bragg
Guest
The third party being referred to here is not a third signatory on the marriage contract, but all of the agencies, employers, and organizations affected by, regulated by, and constrained to act in specific fashions through the over 1,100 federal and gods know how many state and local laws tied up with that marriage ‘contract’. Family and marriage law is an insanely complex thing that affects everything from your employment (FML) to schools to medical, taxes, habitation, insurance, inheritance, banks, etc. There is an entire body of law that specifies how an organization must act in relation to a married… Read more »
perlhaqr
Guest
I’m going to just skip the rest of this entry and concentrate on this one part here: The public good of traditional marriage has, over millennia of human history, met that bar. It is pure speculation whether or not gay marriage will do so, although given the dearth of historical examples, I’m leaning towards “no” on that question. So, your argument is: “We can’t grant this particular group a set of legal benefits provided to other groups because there’s no evidence that this thing we don’t allow to happen has benefits for society, and we can’t possibly allow it until… Read more »
peavybob
Guest

Actually, certain historical records would indicate that when homosexual activity reaches a certain concentration, fire falls from the heavens and obliterates the entire area. This would contraindicate gay marriage contributing to the public good.

//sarcasm// (reference to sodom and Gomorrah from the biblical old testament)

BikerDad
Guest
Except it can be allowed. Any state can allow it. The CITIZENS of any state can choose to embark on the experiment. What has been happening is the citizens have been asked whether they want to do so, and have said “no” repeatedly. They did so in reaction to gay marriage advocates turning to the courts (Hawaii), and in response to the citizens saying “no”. Repeatedly, the advocates have: Turned ot the courts even more, using the votes of a few black robed high priests to overturn the votes of millions of citizens. In doing so, they have corrupted the… Read more »
David Lawson
Guest

There is no compelling govt interest in banning gay marriage. You have the cart before the horse.

jabrwok
Guest

There is no compelling governmental interesting in rewarding or encouraging same-sex relationships. There IS such an interest in rewarding opposite-sex relationships, or more specifically, committed opposite-sex relationships that produce and socialize children. IE “marriage”.

No one (serious) is arguing for a prohibition on same-sex relationships. Marriage though, that’s for producing new members of society. Otherwise it’s just room-mates who have sex, and why should the rest of us subsidize that?

Calvin Dodge
Guest

For now, the only “love that dare not speak its name” is Big Love. If Intrade was operational, this would be a good time to bet on “how long before polygamy/polyandry/Heinleinery is legal?”

Cadeyrn
Guest
Separation of Church and State – not taught in schools anymore? @ lwk and BikerDad – nobody would care how people hold themselves out except for the preferential treatment provided by some elements of the tax code and for the HIPAA health care privacy acts barring non-family members from their loved ones’ bedside and for the insurance restrictions and rejection of benefit applications and all of the myriad other hurdles which interpose themselves between the married and unmarried folks. Children have a “right” to be raised by heterosexuals? What about orphans? What about the warriors of the Sacred Band? Really,… Read more »
Joseph Capdepon II
Guest

Where does it say in the Constitution or Bill of Rights anything about the separation of Church and State? Now mind, I’m not a Christian. You have Freedom of Religion, not Freedom from Religion. We do not have a state religion obviously but there is nothing that says Separation of Church and State, unless of course you are referring to a letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote to some Baptists who were worried about the new country adapting a State Religion.

Cadeyrn
Guest

Beg pardon? You’re suggesting I cannot be free from religion if I want to? Are you claiming that the Ecclesiastical Courts or better yet, the Sharia courts ought to be re-established??? Because that’s the deal, if you allow one, you have to allow all. So – allow none?

Stuart the Viking
Guest
First Amendment. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” Right there dude. This says that Congress (later extended to the states via the 14th) can not impose a religion, or religious ideals, upon the people. Any law that can be seen as imposing a religion or religious ideal upon the people should be reviewed using the “Strict Scrutiny” standard of review (since the freedom of religion is considered a fundamental right). In order to pass strict scrutiny, the law must show a “compelling government interest”, it must be “narrowly tailored” to… Read more »
SJW75126
Guest

DOMA is indeed unconstitutional. The case is “U.S. v. Windsor” and Kennedy delivered the opinion June 26, 2013. There was another case – “Lawrence vs Texas”. The court made Texas law criminalizing same sex sodomy unconstitutional. Justice Kennedy delivered that opinion June 26, 2003. Anyone seeing a pattern here? Justice Kennedy delivered the opinion on “Obergefell v. Hodges” legalizing gay marriage on June 26, 2015. Anyone seeing a pattern here? June 26th is liberty day.

lissakay
Guest
HIPAA does not bar non-family members from the hospital bedside. The patient can decide for him or herself who they wish to be allowed with them in the hospital. If one is concerned that in the situation they cannot speak for themselves, their family members would bar certain people, one can easily draw up legal papers that would supercede the family wishes, to allow non-family members. Or even bar family. I’ve worked in the healthcare field since the inception of HIPAA. We get to review it’s draconian policies each and every year. You should try it … And as for… Read more »
Cadeyrn
Guest

If you read carefully, you’ll note I asked a question. I didn’t accuse anyone of actually being irrational, illogical, unsupported or completely ridiculous. Guilty conscience?

lissakay
Guest

Oh I read the implication alright … it was quite clear. So, you are implying that Larry is being “irrational, illogical, unsupported and sometimes completely ridiculous” … Care to explain that?

perlhaqr
Guest

Lissa, he explicitly aimed his response at LKR and BikerDad, not Larry. Perhaps you should read the comments you’re going to respond to a bit slower, and not gloss details, if you’re going to end up missing things like that.

Ad Astra
Guest

@Cadeyrn
“As a species, humans have shown a remarkable proclivity to choose irrational, illogical, unsupported and sometimes completely ridiculous positions regarding any number of topics. Are you sure you’re not doing that again?”

Yes a totally non-accusatory rhetorical question, yup.

Slublog (@Slublog)
Guest
Excellent post – I share the same basic opinion on the issues involved here. I’ve been thinking a lot about this issue, since I am a Christian, a notary public and I live in a state where same-sex marriage is legal. Here, notaries can perform marriage ceremonies and I have performed two marriage ceremonies – one for a Christian couple and one for two atheists who were living together before they were married. Ultimately, the core of ANY wedding ceremony comes down to the simple question asked of the couple – “do you take this person to be your lawfully… Read more »
Craig Cicerello
Guest
How about removing “Marriage” or “Married” from legal terminology. The Federal nor any state recognizes “marriage” as a legal term, nor does it have any legal standing. The Fed and all 50 states recognize “civil union” or “civil partnership” or whatever term is chosen. Civil Unions will have the exact same standing and rights currently given to marriage. Any two (or more) adults can enter into a civil union. Then the religious can keep their term, and everyone else can have the rights and privileges without hurting religious feelings by using their pet term. “Marriage” for man and woman, Civil… Read more »
Slublog (@Slublog)
Guest

Grrrr…

“giving your word in front of a state official” should be “giving your word in front of someone recognized by the state as having the power to solemnize that relationship.” I’m not saying pastors and such are state officials.

Jo
Guest

You speak my mind. Thank you.

J.Peter
Guest
I agree, but for this to work you need to separate the two ceremonies. Don’t let churches perform civil unions and don’t let government perform marriages. If you want the benefits of a civil union go to the courthouse. If you want God’s blessing go to your church. If you want both then you will have to go both places. Marriage can then be defined by God ( or religion) and civil unions can be defined by government. If your church doesn’t have a problem joining two people in a homosexual marriage that is fine with me, as long as… Read more »
blogblogettyblog
Guest

Although I disagree with much of what you say, I think a lot of people are more supportive of civil unions than marriages. Although not always, as in Florida which made same sex marriages AND civil unions are against the state constitution. The problem with having some people’s unions called something different than other people’s is that it still separates out people and is inherently unequal. That is why if they want to call any marriages, legally, cival unions then all marriages should legally be called civil unions and whether you call it a marriage is a personal/religious choice.

blogblogettyblog
Guest
Although a disagree with much of what you say, I agree that more people would be willing to support civil unions for same sex couples. Although that’s not always true, as Florida specifically bans civil unions as well as gay marriages. The problem with calling some people married and some in a civil union is that it singles out a group of people and is inherantly unequal. So if you want to call same sex unions civil unions legally, then ALL unions should be legally called civil unions and whether a couple uses the word marriage should be a personal/religious… Read more »
Deena
Guest
The only reason the state cares about marriage is because it is a net good to society. It binds a man and woman together, and their children to them, particularly the father, since his is the more nebulous relationship. The stability provided to the children by that arrangement benefits society through defining the rights and responsibilities of the parents and the children to each other. Since women bear the all the physical burden of child bearing, and the majority of the care of the children, particularly when they are young, the tax code and various other benefits recognize this inequality,… Read more »
Rebecca
Guest

Best comment on this post (IMO).

MRex21
Guest

Bravo! I 100% agree. Best post in this thread.

Sandy
Guest
My personal favorite is ‘domestic partnership.’ Two straight women with children could enter into it and one stays home with the kids while the other works and provides coverage until one meets Mr. Right. I sometimes think the insistence on calling it marriage is so polite society is forced to acknowledge that two people are having illicit sex. Consider a man’s mistress: she is not welcome at his daughter’s wedding while the lawful wife is. People may know about her but only similarly misbehaving sinners will allow her to openly join their social circle. If we don’t know you are… Read more »
mechgogogames
Guest
You’ve every right in the world to feel awkward about it. What you’ve NO right to do is try and deny people their fundamental rights just because it makes you feel ooky. Part of being an adult is accepting that people are going to do things you don’t care for. “Me no likey” isn’t the same as “You’re harming me” and the last time I checked **that** was supposed to be the standard in a free society. Two gay people holding hands or kissing in public does nothing to harm you or your kids. A gay person trying to hold… Read more »
Malcolm Robertson
Guest
Here’s the problem. This issue isn’t being driven by libertarians. The force behind it is the politically correct crowd. The people behind it are the same people who’ve successfully sued bakers who refused to make cakes for same-sex ceremonies. People have told me that gays wouldn’t want to get married in churches where they weren’t wanted, but that’s pure b.s. Anyone who’s been involved in a church with a nice building will tell you that all sorts of non-members want to get married there all the time, and we’ve already seen gays complain that they can’t be wed in the… Read more »
DaveP.
Guest

The problem I have is that while everyone is talking about SSM, they’re ignoring the real issue in this case: should a state judge (with a personal investment in the outcome of the case) be allowed to set aside his own state’s constitution -an act which usually involves cooperation by most of the state legislature?
Don’t get distracted, folks. If the Supremes decide to be popular rather than abiding by their oaths, it basically eliminates the whole concept of a state constitution and gives any corrupt state appellate judge an override switch. SSM isn’t worth it.

Jareth
Guest
While I agree in theory, I have to admit that the idea of allowing religious institutions to steal ownership of a word rankles. The word ‘marriage’ does not now (and never has in the past) referred solely to unions solemnized by a religious authority. Civil marriages have existed alongside religious marriages for as long as this country has existed, and can be demonstrated throughout most of history. But, hey, if the religious folks want to redefine ‘marriage’ to mean something that it has never meant in the past…I suppose that I have no real objection (beyond the aforementioned rankle-ment) so… Read more »
worldsbeforethedoor
Guest

I have friends in England – Baptist like me – and they have cops sitting in their church services to make sure they don’t say anything “hateful”. That’s not freedom of religion. It is going to happen here if we don’t wake up.
Thanks Larry!

robertpinkerton
Guest
Mr. Correia, your use of the term, “stalking horse,” is apt in another controversy much closer to home with us. So it is likely that legislative demonization of street-legal almost-clones of modern military longarms, is a stalking horse for universal background checks and draconian penalties for transferring a firearm to a “prohibited person.” At the age of sixty-nine, having watched fifty-five years of social change, I seriously fear that the latter, universal background checks and consequent sub rosa registration database, will go through for two reasons: 1. It will be sold to FFL holders as an additional source of incidental… Read more »
salgak
Guest

Makes perfect sense to ME. The real problem out there, is all to many equate freedom OF religion with freedom FROM religion.

Stuart the Viking
Guest

salgak,

That’s because the people should have the freedom to be “free FROM religion” if that is their wish. Choosing NO, is still a valid choice. Do you really believe that a law requiring someone to have SOME KIND of religion would pass constitutional muster?

s

Adampm
Guest

So does somebody wanting to be free from religion mean that they can sue me if I have Christmas decorations on the front yard? Will a statue with religious meaning have to be removed from a public park? Will prayer in public schools need to be banned so that children who might have different beliefs don’t feel alienated?

At what point does somebody wanting to be ‘free from religion’ infringe on my right to practice that religion or display items of my faith in public?

Stuart the Viking
Guest
Adampm, No, YOUR decorations in YOUR front yard are part of YOUR freedom to practice YOUR religion. That was completely not what I was talking about (and i suspect you know that and are being a little dishonest with your argument). What I was talking about is the government legislating religion. So, that religious statue in the public (city/state owned) park? Sorry, I know you don’t like the idea, but it represents the government’s preference of one religion over another. If you want a public-accessible park with religious statuary, maybe your church should provide one that isn’t payed for out… Read more »
Paul (Drak Bibliophile) Howard
Guest
Paul (Drak Bibliophile) Howard

Atheists play the “victim card” as well. Whining about how terrible us Christians are. When atheists claim that our current definition of marriage is “forcing Christianity” onto others, they show their stupidity.

Stuart the Viking
Guest
The institution of marriage is older (and more universal) than Christianity, and hasn’t always been strictly defined as “one man, one woman” (I’ve even heard tales about a man who was married to his goat*). The American definition of marriage comes from the Judeo-Christian tradition. So, indeed our current marriage laws ARE legislating Christian morality. I can see where they are coming from. The argument against gay marriage generally boils down to two basic ideas. On one hand, you have “OMG, it’s a SIN!” On the other is “mumble mumble insurance mumble mumble money mumble mumble”. So, you have one… Read more »
Adampm
Guest
Stuart, No, I wasn’t being dishonest. I was curious to what point you were getting at. I’ve seen quite a few people of the ‘freedom of religion’ people wanting to be free from religion, even at the expense of other people’s 1st amendment rights. I’m Pagan and there with you in most of your arguments. I also think that this is one of the many things that in another generation or 2 it will seem absurd that it was even generating controversy. I would love to see God/Goddess statues in a public park. Of course with pagans then you’ll get… Read more »
salgak
Guest

Stuart. . . .

What do you have against Goats. Goats make many otherwise lonely Taliban LOVELY wives!!!

My biggest gripe with the whole Gay Marriage movement is not the goal, but the tactics.

Claiming opponents are haters. Trying their luck at the ballot, and when they lose, go to the courts to overturn the vote. Looking up opposition donors and destroying their careers,

THAT is my issue: the means, not the end. . .

Stuart the Viking
Guest
Adampm, Sorry if I misunderstood where you were coming from. And you are right, for the most part a lawsuit over something like a Jesus statue in a park is a little bit much. However, I see it as a symbol of a larger struggle of Americans who are outside the majority to be treated fairly by our own government. It’s a struggle that we pagans share with gays, and atheists, and many other small groups that are outside the “norm”. It is said that one man’s freedom stops at the end of another man’s nose. Freedom of religion, and… Read more »
Jaime Finch
Guest

Well said. If only political leaders thought this way we wouldn’t have that many problems.

Anonymous
Guest

“I think it is a bad life choice”

It is NOT a choice. Don’t know how you haven’t figured that out by now. So teaching your children this will only make them misinformed.

B.E. Sanderson
Guest

I don’t see how you could get hate mail from this, Larry. It’s a rational and reasonable post… oh yeah, because the people who leave hate mail are neither rational nor reasonable. Thanks for the great post, though – and here’s hoping the irrational people go play amongst themselves.

MamabearCali
Guest

Good post. Bible believing Christian and I can’t find one thing to disagree with.

RetroGrouch
Guest

Being someone who isn’t real religious (but a member of a Christian church), what Larry has posted here is exactly how I feel and view this whole issue. As I understand it historically, the original reason the government first got into the marriage business was to prevent inter-racial marriage, so I think it is time they got out of it.

Steve B
Guest
Larry – great post, just absolutely on point. We have allowed our government to intrude far too much into the social and religious fabric of our lives, and to my friends who don’t share my orientation I say this: A great wrong has been done to you, and it has been done to all of us. “Marriage” in the secular context should be a right and privilege of all people, and it should (like all rights) come with some degree of responsibility. As long as the Government isn’t forcing a church to change its statement of faith and doctrine, I… Read more »
Loki
Guest
The most important thing from a workability standpoint has to do with employer supplied benefits. It has been mentioned above but the killer issue has not been touched. Let us say that the government does get out of the marriage business and everything becomes unions or contracts from a governmental standpoint. Where does that leave employers, especially religious employers, with their benefits? Lets say we have a gay or polygamous or whatever contract that a religious employer doesn’t want to recognize and pay for benefits for the partners? What if they only want to pay for benefits for traditional marriage… Read more »
Stuart the Viking
Guest

yes, that sure is a difficulty. One that will take some thought, but it’s not a problem that is insurmountable.

Does it really make sense to restrict the liberty of an entire class of Americans just because giving them that liberty will be too hard?

s

Loki
Guest
It does when you have to make a change that infringes on someone elses liberty to do it. The object is to extend more liberty to people not take liberty away from one class and give liberty to a more “protected” class. I am all in favor of the change but you have to minimize “unintended consequences” when you do it. Religious freedom is a founding principle of this nation enshrined in the Constitution. Marriage, civil unions, and what have you are never mentioned in the Constitution. Therefore, religious freedom trumps marriage freedom. My point was that you can’t constitutionally… Read more »
Murphy7
Guest
Larry, another great post. I was attending St. Michael’s College in Vermont way back when the Burlington Episcopalian church wanted to consecrate Mary McLeod as their first female bishop, and wanted use of the chapel on campus as the largest church-venue in the area. The Edmundites and Biship Angell politely refused, saying that it is not something that the Catholic church agrees with, so no you cannot have use of their house. The furor and nonsense that erupted, and people calling on making it a legal case to force the Edmundites to allow use of the church for that purpose… Read more »
Wulf
Guest
This argument is so much bluster, and here’s why: The First Amendment protects your church’s right to determine whom they will marry in a religious ceremony. The case law concerning polygamy is over a century old, and would probably not withstand constitutional muster today. The justification for opposing gay marriage for the unfounded fear that your bishops will be forced to perform ceremonies for same sex couples reeks of desperation. Riddle me this–would you support a law that allowed such unions if it were coupled with a law stating that no church would be forced to perform the ceremony? I… Read more »
Jareth
Guest
In another post, Larry wrote: > Heterosexuals choose to become homosexual all the time. > Talk to anybody who has ever worked in the prison system. To which I reply: No they don’t. The prisoners are heterosexuals who choose to engage in same-gender sex acts for purposes of domination or for physical (or emotional) gratification. With whom an individual is copulating is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT to that individual’s status as heterosexual or homosexual. Sexual orientation is about the individual’s inclinations, not that individual’s actions. > And honestly, after being married for fifteen years now, there’s a > whole lot more complexity… Read more »
Kristophr
Guest

Then explain the concept of “latent homosexual” to me.

Apparently homosexuals can be convinced to engage in heterosex, and even get married. They are just supposed to be desperately unhappy about it.

Maybe people can decide to ignore genetic “destiny”?

The human brain is your number one sex organ. It can convince you to consider all sorts of weird stuff to be “sex”.

Nick
Guest
TBH, I haven’t read through all of the comments here (once it gets over 100 I usually just skim them), but I’ve seen a few people advocating that all “marriages” become civil unions and we leave the idea of holy matrimony to the churches. I’m completely fine with that, but unless and until all instances of the word “marriage” in the law, tax code, etc. are replaced with “civil union/partnership/whatever,” creating a separate class of unions for gay people is unconstitutional. Loving v. Virginia, back in 1967, ruled that anti-miscegenation laws were unconstitutional, because the legal rights and privileges afforded… Read more »
RHJunior
Guest
A remarkably sensible and well-balanced column on the matter. I’ve been saying something rather similar for some time: the gay marriage movement has never been about gay “rights”– it’s been about making it a federal crime to dissent with the gay activists. I do have to make a point, though: talking about how marriage isn’t the government’s business is… inobservant, I suppose is the correct word. The default necessity of human civilization, of the human species, is to recognize that the institution of marriage is different from any other human institution. Older than the state OR the church, and bearing… Read more »
Chris quin
Guest
Hi Larry. After having read your posts on gun control and now gay marrige I find myself disagreeing with you on almost everything. I thought I was Libertarian but you make me look like I am hard core Left Wing. Aren’t we a sophisticated enough society to tolerate mutiple definitions of the word marriage. The repression against the Mormons was over a hundred years ago. It seems to be a weak example of where tolerating gay marriage could lead. The modern US is a different place from way back then. I know you review all first time posts so I… Read more »
JSF01
Guest

Alright I could kind of understand where you might be in disagreement with Larry here. Saying you disagree with Larry on Gun Control while calling yourself a Libertarian does not compute. Could you please explain why in your opinion why Larry is wrong on gun control?

Kristophr
Guest

Sorry, Chris, but if you feel that victim-disarmament is somehow libertarian, you have been lied to about what libertarianism is.

Owning a firearm without State permission is a victimless “crime”. In fact, it is not even a crime. Owning the means to self-defense is a basic human right.

You might want to actually attend a local Libertarian Party meeting. I guarantee you that voicing any support for gun control will get you verbally bitch-slapped by everyone in the room.

Chris quin
Guest

Hi guys. I don’t want to derail Larry’s topic by talking about guns but you are reading the wrong things into my comment. I like guns. I just disagree with Larry’s arguments however well written.

I can talk about it on the other thread if people are interested but my position is not very incendiary, if fact it is kind of bland.

Chris

mk
Guest

All the bigots turn out to be such assholes, even — or especially — the smug ones who pretend to be “tolerant, but”.

unicornblues
Guest

A friend from twitter brought me here. From the title of your post I expected it to be a lot more….I don’t know. Something that I’d be offended by at any rate. Instead I found myself in complete agreement. Even though I have a lot of gay friends and relatives, and personally don’t think it’s wrong, I can’t find myself disagreeing with anything you’ve said.

It’s good to see that reason and rationality hasn’t entirely abandoned human beings.

Thanks for this post, I’ll be sharing it.

dragonchilde (@dragonchilde)
Guest
You’re lying to yourself. You say that you “don’t have a problem with homosexuality” but in the same breath, talk about it as a “bad lifestyle choice.” I won’t even get into the whole “choice” thing (because your ears are quite closed on that point, as demonstrated by your own comments to others). But you are making a judgment when you call something “bad”, and that means that you DO, in fact, have a problem with it. A problem so large that you don’t want to be associated with it, have your children involved in it, or allow the law… Read more »
JSF01
Guest
Larry I pretty much agree with you. About the only part I disagree with you is your opinion that homosexuality is bad. That of course does not matter, since as you stated individual freedom is far more important. There is no Right to marriage. If I am a miserable, completely unlikable person that no woman would want to marry, then I can not get married. If it were a Right that would mean even if no one wanted to marry me I would still be able to be married if I chose to, which would only be possible in this… Read more »
Jerry Smith
Guest

Larry, you really hit the nail on the head with this post with your typical smart, streamlined thinking. You have put things in perspective for me, and I appreciate it. Great post! I would like to share this with my liberal friends. To that end, would you mind fixing a few typos in the piece? “Repercussions,” “inner city,” etc. I couldn’t care less about typos and to me they don’t affect your message. But I’d hate for some snarky douchebag liberal to tell me, “Repercussions wasn’t spelled right and that negates the entire article!” Would you consider it? Thanks!

Jareth
Guest
In our side-discussion regarding the nature of homosexuality, Larry wrote: >> However, you will never sway me into believing in predeterminism. and: >> Using predeterminism as an excuse for ANY activity or behavior is >> an insult to that person’s intellect. Good! We are in absolute agreement here. Here’s the thing…I’m a middle-aged software engineer living in Silicon Valley, but I’ve also been a gamer and LARPer, worked as an artist, volunteered at theaters, etc. In my youth, I was also somewhat politically active before the extreme liberalism/socialism of most of the LGB rights activists drove me away. The point… Read more »
Jareth
Guest
Larry wrote: >> Let’s take a hypothetical person who has feelings and inclinations >> where they are sexually attracted to young children… They say >> they are born that way. That is how they feel. They say they didn’t >> choose it. All the same arguments. Now, if this person never acts >> on this inclination their entire life, and they exercise the self control >> neccesary to never act on this inclinaiton, and they make the active >> choice to not have sex with kids and they stick with it, would you >> say this person is a pedophile?… Read more »
Roy Lang
Guest

Very well articulated. I agree

Josh Leavitt
Guest

I like your thoughts here, Larry. It is interesting to me that the LDS Church (of which I am proudly a member) has no problem with gay rights—equal protection under the law for gay couples who choose to enter a legally binding civil union—but is entirely against the idea of redefining what “marriage” means. If only the people championing gay (and so frequently demonizing their opponents) could realize that.

JN7
Guest

So if sexuality is choice, when did you choose to be heterosexual? Do you remember the exact moment, or did you just find yourself attracted to the opposite sex and go with it? That argument holds no water.

Jareth
Guest
In regards to my statement that the state of being homosexual is not a choice, Larry wrote: >> And how do you determine that, exactly? Decades of soul-searching and self-evaluation, time spent talking with dozens (if not hundreds) of other people who have dealt with similar issues, time spent talking with people who *haven’t* dealt with similar issues, research in medical journals, the dictionary and encyclopedia definitions of ‘homosexual’, reading fiction and non-fiction and other scholarly works on the subject, etc. >> Where did your feelings come from? I don’t know. >> You know of a surety that you were… Read more »
Bob Wagner
Guest
Larry, first things first, while I don’t agree with everything you’ve said here I do respect how you expressed it and your right to instill your values in your kids even if I disagree with some of them. That being said can I ask what it is about being gay that makes it, in your opinion and own words a bad life choice? Is it a matter of religious conviction or are there factors unrelated to your faith that come into play? And yes, as a deeply religious man myself I know it can be hard, if not impossible to… Read more »
Bob Wagner
Guest
I wanted to address the pedophillia question separately. Yes, I would consider a person who is sexually attracted to little kids a pedophile even if they never acted on the impulse. Who we are attracted to determines our sexuality to my way of thinking. I also need to take modest exception to your remarks on predeterminism . The example you cite of sitting in a trailer drawing a welfare check is one of personal action, not personal inclination. You and I both come from circumstances where, yeah, we should be dependent on the state for our needs. Instead our *personal… Read more »
Susan Tyler
Guest

What a refreshing post to read regarding gay marriage! I wish I could have said it so well. My hat is off to you my friend and I am proud to call you a friend!

trackback

[…] This one will probably get me hate mail from both sides, Gay Marriage […]

ThoughtSo
Guest
Maybe this was brought up before, I only skimmed, but the reason government should be involved in “marriage” is because of its potential to produce children. Yes, I know, they don’t all produce children, but the government has an interest in encouraging and strengthening institutions that offer the best chance for children to become well-adjusted, happy, productive, etc. Study after study has shown that the best chance children have is when they are raised by a man and woman who are committed to each other in a marriage. If the studies had been done earlier, its possible that laws making… Read more »
monkeyfan
Guest

State.god apparently fancies itself to be building the ‘One Church’ -The Unifier- but its really becoming a sort of Mordor on the Potomac with an Isengard in every state…I’ve heard it told.

“Ash nazg durbatulûk, ash nazg gimbatul, ash nazg thrakatulûk, agh burzum-ishi krimpatul”.

trackback

[…] This one will probably get me hate mail from both sides, Gay Marriage […]

Blake
Guest
I used to buy into the argument of opposing gay marriage because it would open the possibility of churches being forced to honor and/or perform homosexual marriages. But I don’t anymore. Here’s why: Pre-marital sex is not illegal, BUT I haven’t seen any lawsuits against the Church for not allowing unrepentant couples get sealed/married in the temple. Same goes for ALL temple recommend questions. I also haven’t seen women sue the Church for discrimination relating to not being able to hold the priesthood. So frankly, I don’t completely understand why we as Mormons are afraid of federal or legal persecution… Read more »
Pete
Guest
Simply because you have not seen these court cases doesn’t mean that they haven’t happened. People have been trying to sue the LDS church for the things you have listed (and many, many others) almost since day 1 of its organization. Since the LDS Church isn’t using any form of illegal discrimination they have consistently won these cases. So much case history has been built up over these issues that these lawsuit attempts cannot be brought to court any more. One of the reasons why Mormons in general are against redefining marriage is because it has the potential to overturn… Read more »
nikola1172
Guest

BTW I am reading your books cos they are great and fun but if you ever run for office you have my vote

Jeff Wynn
Guest

LOL. Marry a bucket of fried chicken. My sides ache from laughing so hard.

I’m a Democrat and fully agree with your explanation. Well, a Blue Dog Democrat, anyway. In June the Supreme Court will decide not to decide. Not sure where that will leave us. I expect more persecution however – we’ve already seen some vicious persecution in California.

mechgogogames
Guest
There’s a number of things that have been sticking in my throat, not about this specific post but about the topic in general. The most prominent one is the recurrent argument that “I’m not against them having the same rights, I just don’t want it called a marriage.” . Well there’s a couple problems with that. The first one is that if you’re ok with them having the same rights then you need to be ok with it being called a marriage. Because that’s a right we, as straight people have. Otherwise you’re getting into separate but equal territory and… Read more »
Steve Alligood
Guest
The government has already started to “get away with” forcing churches to do things they don’t want. Massachusetts allowed gay marriage, and immediately started enforcing the catholic church to place babies for adoption into gay couple families, even though it is against the catholic beliefs. The catholic church in Massachusetts stopped doing adoptions after that. That is only one example, but sufficient to show not just a “Me no likey”. I get so tired of people saying “it’s no skin off your nose, just give in to what I want”. No. The break down of society, morals, and honor are… Read more »
mechgogogames
Guest
Steve, what the government did was step in and prevent discrimination against a minority. That’s part of their function. You say it hurts you that gay people get equal rights. **How** precisely? Does it, as I mentioned in my post open cuts in your flesh? Does gay people getting equal rights burn down your house, poison your dog, force you at gunpoint to cheat on your spouse? Anything remotely like that? You mention that it harms the American Way Of Life. How precisely does giving American citizens equal rights under the law in ANY WAY run contrary to the American… Read more »
Steve Alligood
Guest
mechgogogames, I see that you have read Larry’s list of all the things a liberal will do during an argument, and made sure to do them all. restate to a different argument (“equal rights” versus “gay marriage”, not the same thing), ignore examples you don’t like, casually dismiss the bits you can’t ignore, and demand proof to specific things that have general answers (Sorry, Larry, for the paraphrasing). Religious institutions should be able to follow their own belief system, and not be forced to the latest PC thing to do. Redefining a multi-millennial old tradition to make a small group… Read more »
mechgogogames
Guest
Ok Steve, one point at a time. How is marriage equality not an equal rights issue? We’re talking about people wanting equal protection and equal recognition under the law. I’m no ivy league graduate but I’m pretty sure that’s textbook equal rights. This whole nonsense of “Let them call it a civil union or domestic partnership?” 21st century Jim Crow. Separate but equal for the modern age. And NOT ACCEPTABLE, And while I wouldn’t say that either side of political aisle has a monopoly on it doing everything BUT answering the question-in this case “How does two gay people getting… Read more »
David
Guest

I think some of the people here, and in particular the author of this article, may be interested in this Facebook Group:
https://www.facebook.com/GovernmentOutOfMarriageEntirely

Ulrik
Guest

If you want to take the word ‘marriage’ out of the debate, wouldn’t the logical conclusion be to take the word ‘marriage’ out of all laws and regulations? Because doing otherwise leads to the ‘separate but equal’ bullshit other people have noted that is mostly remniscent of Jim Crow.

So assuming government no longer deals with marriage in any way…what is stopping gays and lesbians from calling their civil union marriage? And would really those who are opposed to gay marriage really be comfortable with government no longer recognizing marriage?

Allan Zezula
Guest

Well put, I’ve been saying the same thing to people when the subject comes up. And yet the fight over semantics is too important apparently. Gun control, and now gay marriage…2 things we agree on Larry. Keep writing, love your books!

Jon Kanders
Guest

If you get to call your recognized union marriage, and i have to say I’m civilly unioned, you’ve created a second class, a lesser class. You call it semantics, but try reading any court decision addressing the issue and maybe you’ll recognize it’s about dignity.

trackback

[…] Gay marriage: a non-issue made into an issue for political purposes. […]

trackback
[…] Okay, here’s the thing. Personally, I don’t care who anybody shacks up with.  I’m not even against gay marriage. Yet I still don’t really want to put my equipment in some other dude either because I like women. I should be able to say that and it be okay! But as I’ve seen here before, it isn’t enough to tolerate somebody else’s lifestyle choices, if you call them a lifestyle choice, you’ll be attacked. I did a blog post about gay marriage back when that was the topic of the day, and I wrote it from the perspective of… Read more »
Caleb Colemen
Guest

Its a shame that people spend so much money and time into gay rights instead of helping people in need. What an arrogant country America is.

Jon Kanders
Guest
“So if you want to know why the Mormons in California voted against gay marriage, they weren’t scared of gay people. They were scared of the feds.” Larry, love your books and will keep buying them. However, what you wrote there is a crock of shite. No church has ever been ordered to perform a certain type of marriage, they have only been precluded from performing certain types of marriages. That’s a big difference. No church will ever be required to marry a gay couple in this country. Ever. It is not possible, and no, it can’t happen here. No… Read more »
Paul (Drak Bibliophile) Howard
Guest
Paul (Drak Bibliophile) Howard

“It is not possible, and no, it can’t happen here”?

Not possible is a crock of shite.

Anything’s possible with the Left.

The Left accepts no limits on their ability to create their version of the “Perfect World”.

All the written protections in the Constitution are meaningless where the Left is concerned.

The Left believes in the “Living Constitution” where the Courts can rewrite it.

Now what would likely happen if the Courts attempted to force Churches to marry Gays is another matter and I doubt that the Lefties would like what would happen.

AdamPM
Guest
The sad thing is I doubt if the lefties actually give a crap about gay rights. It’s just a social engineering tactic used to guilt people into letting government tell churches what to do. Stating it bluntly “We want the government to dictate what religious organizations can and can’t do or say” Would rile people up. By using an issue of ‘fairness’ they get the same result and actually get some support. Instead they show you ‘victims’ of ‘discrimination’ saying look at poor John and Fred. They are deeply in love but church x refuses to acknowledge their love and… Read more »
Paul (Drak Bibliophile) Howard
Guest
Paul (Drak Bibliophile) Howard

Yep, no argument.

Of course, what really annoyed me about that gentleman was his idea that it was *impossible* to happen as if even if the Lefties wanted to do it, they were unable to do it. [Sad Smile]

AdamPM
Guest
Paul, I tend to agree with you on that. Since the ACA passed I’ve been much more cynical about what our government will and will not do. The NSA revelations topped with the IRS being used as a political weapon haven’t helped either. (That’s not even getting into crimes by Democrats or Democrat groups being ignored and seemingly exempt from prosecution). I’ve got little faith that the Republicans are any better since only a few seem concerned. Makes you wonder what it is going to take before the rest of the country starts paying any attention to it.
gingeroni
Guest

It’s already starting in England.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2383686/Millionaire-gay-fathers-sue-Church-England-allowing-married-church.html
Millionaire gay fathers to sue the Church of England for not allowing them to get married in the church

Radioactive
Guest

only to bake a cake

SJW75126
Guest

Well said.

SJW75126
Guest
Obergefell v. Hodges was a well thought out and well argued decision. Congratulations to Justice Kennedy for striking a blow for liberty and to all the gay people to whom this was important. Love wins. As to churches, now they will be able to perform a gay marriage ceremony and in some churches (mine) I suspect this will be happening immediately. Texas will have to issue the license and respect the individuals. No – no church minister will be required to perform a gay marriage. They are not required to marry people of different faiths if they don’t want to… Read more »
wpDiscuz