Tuesday, March 15, 2005

Quick Points about the Gay Marriage Controversy

1. Having a judge in San Francisco saying that California cannot ban gay marriage is like a judge in Milwaukee saying that Wisconsin can’t ban Miller Lite.

2. Gays are allowed to marry already in every state in the country. They can have their ceremonies and say to everyone that they meet that they are married. Having their marriages recognized by the state is what they are after. Any ban would not and could not stop private ceremonies and personal vows to take place.

3. Gays are not prevented from getting a marriage that is recognized by the state. They just can only marry an opposite sex partner. Now, they might not enjoy the marriage that much, but many don’t enjoy their marriages if they are heterosexual. Half of all marriages end in divorce anyway... :-p

4. A slippery slope is a reasonable reason to oppose gay marriage. There is little difference between polygamy and gay marriage. Both are deviations from the norm. (I don’t necessarily mean this in a pejorative way). The main difference between the two is that polygamy can actually lead to reproduction. That it is fashionable to accept one and not the other is a bit hypocritical.

5. Having a gay couple adopt a child is less-preferable than an adoption by heterosexual parents, but it is significantly better than having no adoption at all for a child.

6. Pushing for marriages instead of civil unions was a smart political move by the gay rights movement. In the late 90s, civil unions were controversial in the most liberal of states, Vermont. Now, conservatives view it as a compromise. One of the oldest psychological strategies in the book…

7. The most recent constitutional amendment proposed would just keep the status quo frozen in every state besides Massachusetts. It will not affect civil unions.

8. A compromise constitutional amendment would probably pass if it simply said that courts could not decide the gay marriage issue in each state and in the nation. Having a popular consensus decide whether or not to change the status quo is the right thing to do, IMO.

9. And finally, if they called it anything besides marriage, most people would be fine with it. Call it “fabulous love commitment” or “superlove” and they could get most Americans behind their cause.

Volokh refers back to the ERA and how people dismissed concerns that it would lead to gay marriage. Amazing what a difference Massachusetts Supreme Court decision can make.

| << Home