Same-sex marriage proponents have finally won a victory yesterday the old-fashioned and constitutionally legitimate way: through legislative action. On April 7, state legislators overrided a veto by Gov. Jim Douglas (R), making Vermont the fourth state with legalized same-sex marriage and the first through the consent of the governed as expressed through their legislature.
It didn't take long for USA Today religion blogger Cathy Lynn Grossman to seize yesterday's win for gay activists as an occasion to repeat a left-wing talking point. Grossman concluded her April 7 blog post by asking readers:
Should you be able to vote on who loves whom or how they live together?
Of course the loaded question automatically puts proponents of traditional marriage on the defensive. Legislate love? How un-American!
But states regulate who can "love" whom all the time in both marriage and age of sexual consent laws. That's why fathers can't marry their own daughters and first-cousin marriages in many states are not allowed. It's also the same reason the state can insist that no matter how much a 14-year-old "loves" her perverted 25-year-old boyfriend, she's a victim of statutory rape.
These laws vary from state to state, of course, which is perhaps why Grossman seeks to take gay marriage out of its strictly legal and constitutional concerns and imbue it with grander, metaphysical implications:
It comes back, perhaps, to how people view what is "true." As usual, I've got lots of questions:
Is there only one true definition of marriage? Can it change across time? Across state boundaries? Can there be multiple and conflicting "truths" in the laws of one nation?
—Ken Shepherd is Managing Editor of NewsBusters
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
The Question
April 8, 2009 - 13:36 ET by GothampcThe question is not "can you vote on who someone loves". The question is "Who pays to read this crap?"
Can you vote against religion of the masses?
April 8, 2009 - 13:52 ET by Daniel BakerTo enforce the homosexual belief system
-------------------------------------------
Google and Apple officially fought traditional marriage: . Please Boycott them. A Boycott changed McDonald's mind.
It's not solely a religious
April 8, 2009 - 14:24 ET by moderncommentaries83It's not solely a religious thing, Daniel.
In California - a heavily Democratic state - and Wisconsin - also a heavily Democratic state - marriage amendments passed by margins that had to include a diverse spectrum of people.
Including Democrats and, yes, irreligious or liberally religious people.
Religion aside, some recognize that the state has a vested interest in the traditional family structure. Others believe in the states' right to vote on such issues. Others object to the judicial branch of government overstepping its bounds. Even some in the gay community have said gay marriage is not necessary, desirable, or right.
There are a slew of reasons. Not just religious. It's easy for religions to be blamed, because we have the most set parameters of morality available, but religious people alone did not carry those ballot measures (and, if we did, why do media always gleefully report our numbers are in decline?).
Aut viam inveniam aut faciam
My first sex teacher.
April 8, 2009 - 14:01 ET by sevenThe teacher can love her students but not touch. We have far too many that have no boundaries. since they want to drag sex education into kindergarten, no wonder schools foster misconduct.
The homo marriage issue
April 8, 2009 - 14:05 ET by robert108The homo marriage issue isn't about love; there are many kinds of love, and they don't automatically create "marriage". What homos do will never be marriage, no matter what lies they tell.
Um, so far as I'm aware,
April 8, 2009 - 14:12 ET by moderncommentaries83Um, so far as I'm aware, legislation voted on around the nation has not prohibited gays from loving one another or living together.
They've only prohibited a minority from hijacking an institution set forth by the state (including nations wholly uninfluenced by Western culture and/or Christianity) that says the best arrangement for man, woman, and child is to live in a traditional, nuclear family where the parents are married and the children are raised by the same.
Most don't care what goes on behind the door in your house.
But with the thinking of the gay-rights movement, that we cannot "dictate" who "loves" one another and how they "live together", each and every one of these arrangements is not only worthy, but equal to, and deserving of the same rights as traditional marriage. And we have, according to gay rights supporters, no "right" to say it's wrong for fathers to marry their daughters, first cousins to marry, or for adults to marry underage children.
Why? Because if they say it's wrong to discriminate against them on the basis of their sexual orientation, we cannot legitimately or "constitutionally" discriminate against any other relationship, no matter how detrimental, perverted, or dangerous it may be. They are just alternative sexual lifestyles, and it's so horrible for us to create laws limiting them!
And has anyone noticed the subtle shift in discussion? First, the argument for gay marriage dealt with tangible things - like being able to leave your will to your partner, hospital visitation, etc. Since many have said civil unions/partnerships could cover those legal issues, the argument is now framed in abstract terms like "love" and the varying definitions thereof.
Aut viam inveniam aut faciam
That's exactly what marriage is
April 8, 2009 - 14:11 ET by KC MulvilleMarriage is the state's recognition of a relationship. The terms of what the state agrees to recognize are not open-ended. You can't ask the state to certify, uphold, and support a relationship, but then turn around and tell the state that it has no business "getting involved." If you didn't want them to get involved, you shouldn't have involved them by applying for a marriage license.
If you want to have a relationship with your gay partner, fine, no one's stopping you. But when you come to the state, hoping for the people of the state of [pick state here] to endorse your relationship, you're asking something from the rest of us. The people of the state, not you, will determine what we choose to recognize and what we don't. That's for us to decide, not you.
Marriage
April 8, 2009 - 14:26 ET by JDWWhen will states permit marriage to pets?
JDW
DAILY WAVE
The government works for me, not the other way around
Pshaw, it's all about
April 8, 2009 - 14:53 ET by Ken ShepherdPshaw, it's all about marrying inanimate objects now:
ABC has a history of pushing the boundaries between normal and abnormal sexuality - the pregnant man, transgenderism, bisexuality, incest - but the April 8 "Good Morning America" pushed the line to a new level with its report on "objectum sexuals."
Wait a second
April 8, 2009 - 16:01 ET by KC MulvilleWe may be missing an opportunity here. This has now become flypaper for the truly stupid.
→ KC
April 8, 2009 - 16:08 ET by Cool ArrowAnd if you're really confused about your leanings, you get your own Reality Show.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE!
Unbelievable
April 8, 2009 - 18:17 ET by KC MulvilleThis whole country is becoming a Reality show. Never mind the transgender thing; what idiots gave the mayor a Reality Show?
Why should the state even be involved?
April 8, 2009 - 14:34 ET by Kingfish17I'm just guessing here, but I would be willing to bet that when the Constitution of the United States, and the 13 orginal states, was written, marriage was a religious ceremony and not a state sponsored, "tax raising" story. So it was a social thing, and not a legal institution.
So if there were no legal benefits for state sanctioned marriage, then no one would care one wit if two kinds of any people got together and said, "Hey! We are married!"
Good for you!
"When will Barack Obama apologize to the American people for destroying their once great nation?" - MSM 2012
The state encourages
April 8, 2009 - 14:51 ET by moderncommentaries83The state encourages marriage because it is better for the financial/emotional/physical well-being of the man, woman, and child(ren).
Which is why the state encouraged traditional marraige. At one point, they recognized its benefits and wanted to encourage people to have and raise children to become productive citizens.
A lot of our social decay is due to the undermining of that traditional family structure.
Aut viam inveniam aut faciam
Statist
April 8, 2009 - 15:10 ET by Kingfish17I'm not really a Statist. I'll leave that to the Obamafiles.
"When will Barack Obama apologize to the American people for destroying their once great nation?" - MSM 2012
But there's a difference
April 8, 2009 - 15:17 ET by moderncommentaries83But there's a difference between being a "statist" and someone who recognizes the right of the state to promote what is beneficial.
Aut viam inveniam aut faciam
Sounds like...
April 8, 2009 - 16:07 ET by Kingfish17I trust you didn't mean it like this, but that sounds like something Lenin or Woodrow Wilson would have said.
"When will Barack Obama apologize to the American people for destroying their once great nation?" - MSM 2012
No, that's not what I
April 8, 2009 - 16:15 ET by moderncommentaries83No, that's not what I meant.
What I mean is - in an era before the entitlement mentality was bred into the culture - it was the family unit that was primarily responsible for the financial support of itself and children, as well as contributing to the well-being of other families.
I'm hesitant to use the word "morality" here, but in this sense, it is the state setting parameters for morality in order to take the burden of caring for individuals off the government (taxpayer) and putting the responsibility on families.
The traditional family is also the best way to order society.
So it isn't communistic, facist, socialist or otherwise to acknowledge there are - with limits - things the government should encourage people to do. The difference is I know where the line is drawn and not to cross it.
Aut viam inveniam aut faciam