LAist: Obama-Biden Oppose Gay Marriage & Gay Marriage Ban

beth321321

Sat, 18 Oct 2008 10:01:59 -0800

The questions “what’s the harm?” is perhaps most frequently asked question in the debate over same-sex marriage. You will hear people say things like “The Netherlands, Canada & Massachusetts have legalized same-sex marriage and the sky didn’t fall, so what’s the harm. There are three flaws with this argument. First, it is an attempt to switch the burden of proof about harm to those who defend marriage rather than those who are proposing a radical change. Second, it diverts attention; the enduring harms of same-sex marriage become evident over decades, not overnight. It will take as long to clearly document the detrimental consequences of legalizing same-sex marriage, just at it took to document clearly the harm of unilateral, no-fault divorce on demand which many American states adopted 30-35 years ago. Third, Already we can identify some harms. Perhaps the best quick answer to the “what’s the harm from legalizing SSM” is – that it will harm you and your family and your community the same way that legalizing polygamous marriages with 13-year-old girls or legalizing marriage between fathers-and-daughters would harm you and your family and your community. Legalizing SSM changes a critical social institution, and changes the common understanding of what that social institution is, and changes the script for marriage and for how we expect to live our lives when we marry, it changes the social understanding of the responsibilities we undertake by entering the institution of marriage. It changes the meaning of marriage by the transformative power of inclusion; it weaken and lowers expectations of marriage by accepting/including gay-lesbian lifestyles as marriage; it undermines the principle that children deserve to have both mother and father. The morality and behavioral expectations of gays and lebsians differ markedly from married men and women. For example, promiscuity, infidelity, multiple sexual partners, and dangerous sexual practices are the behavioral norms among gay couples (and also, to a lesser extent, lesbian couples), rather than monogamy and sexual self-control which are the norms fostered by and nurtured in heterosexual marriages. For example, a study by Dutch AIDs researchers, published in 2003 in the journal AIDS, reported on the number of partners among Amsterdam’s homosexual population. They found: - 86% of new HIV/AIDS infections in gay men were in men who had steady partners. - Gay men with steady partners engage in more risky sexual behaviors than gays without steady partners. - Gay men with steady partners had 8 other sex partners (“casual partners”) per year, on average. - The average duration of committed relationships among gay steady partners was 1.5 years. Numerous other studies confirm that same-sex relations do not conform to the social expectations of male-female marriages but differ in terms of fidelity, monogamy, stability, promiscuity, domestic violence, alcohol and drug abuse. Including same-sex unions as legal marriages will transform the meaning and social expectations of marriage in negative ways for the stability and integrity of all marriages. One of the best summaries of the harm of SSM comes in a book published recently by David Blankenhorn, entitled The Future of Marriage. Using a poll of data reporting interviews with 50,000 adults in 35 nations, Blankenhorn created four categories of countries according to their laws regarding same-sex unions and analyzed attitudes towards marriage. He reports: The correlations are strong. Support for marriage is by far the weakest in countries with same-sex marriage. The countries with marriage-like civil unions show significantly more support for marriage. The two countries with only regional recognition of gay marriage (Australia and the United States) do better still on these support-for-marriage measurements, and those without either gay marriage or marriage-like civil unions do best of all. In nations without gay marriage, people are twice to say married people are happier than in nations with gay marriage, and nearly twice as likely to say that people with children ought to marry.

beth321321

Sat, 18 Oct 2008 09:56:59 -0800

As the Reverend Walter Fauntroy, who marched and worked with the Rev. Martin Luther King, put it: “I am one of gay rights’ strongest advocates . . . [b]ut . . . it’s a serious mistake to redefine marriage as anything other than an institution between a man and a woman.” General Colin Powell described the difference between black civil rights claims for equality and gay rights claims for equality. “Skin color is a benign, non-behavioral characteristic; sexual orientation is perhaps the most profound of human behavioral characteristics. Comparison of the two is a convenient but invalid argument.”

msmerymac

Fri, 17 Oct 2008 15:48:53 -0800

You're correct that most of those things can be done separately legally, but family members can also challenge them in court. For example, a sibling who is the "legal" next of kin can try and overturn the will, or try to deny visitation.

phdiaz

Fri, 17 Oct 2008 12:47:01 -0800

We file separate tax returns as there is no benefit for us (well, in my case, me) to file jointly. Each of us still get back (or owe) the same amount if we are married or single. Why complicate it? Not to sound like a dick - but we have clients that have had all their legal documents prepared that cover power of attorney, inheritance/next of kin(stranger by blood) and custody of adopted children - which means that's all possible without legally marrying each other - except maybe hospital visitation since we don't need to see that. There may be a way on that as well. Who knows.

msmerymac

Fri, 17 Oct 2008 12:03:04 -0800

I'm all for eliminating civil marriage and just using the term "civil union" for all civil ceremonies. "Marriage" can then be retained by religious groups. So if you want to be married in a church, go for it. If you want to be legally bound to someone by a justice of the peace, cool. As long as it's all equal. Which is why I'm voting AGAINST prop 8. It's inequality. To the married guy above: Do you file a joint tax return? Because that's something gay couples can't do, regardless if the state recognizes their marriage, because the federal government doesn't. There's also hospital visitation, inheritance, custody, power of attorney and next of kin, which are commonly cited rights that are granted to legal spouses, but not gay couples. Some are solved with civil unions, but not all (notably the tax issues). This is why the feds should have some kind of blanket equal civil union law for all couples.

Cornet Mustich

Fri, 17 Oct 2008 11:32:12 -0800

Messrs Obama & Biden....LOL Kudos to CT and its Supreme Court. In 2005 the CT Legislature enacted a civil union law, and now in 2008 the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of marriage equality. And I look forward to officating at the marriages of same-sex couples now. Cheers, Joseph A. Mustich Justice of the Peace POB 1266 Washington CT 06793 USA

BingosDingo

Fri, 17 Oct 2008 11:18:27 -0800

I think it's time for marriage contracts with options for renewal. If there are problems the contract provisions would provide for automatic dissolution, saving divorce costs and much of the acrimony. If the marriage is working then the parties can exercise the option for renewal.

phdiaz

Fri, 17 Oct 2008 10:55:52 -0800

As a married man - although I enjoy being married - there is no real benefit for anyone to get married. I say just get rid of marriage. That would be fair right? Gay or straight - no marriage. I'm all for that. You can still be with the one you love, you just don't have to be legally obligated - and if that's a reason to leave - well, then you shouldn't be with that person to begin with!

rachel80

Fri, 17 Oct 2008 10:25:52 -0800

i think obama/biden have associated the word "marriage" to all the crazy religious folks that are for prop 8 passing. in all the new yes for prop 8 ads, they keep saying to protect "marraige". because of this, i think this is why they're saying they're not for same sex marriage. did that make sense? d'oh. :) but they both are for civil unions, equal rights for the GLBT community. i still wish they would say they're for same sex marriage though. maybe even explaining why they're not for same sex marriage. blug. :(