Click here for the Huffington Post article.
Submitted with a cheer! - Cindy McCain step out against Prop 8
Posted by
CCL
on Thursday, January 21, 2010
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Facebook
All My Deals Are Live on Facebook
It's a logo!
About Us
Bored at work? Odds are we at AMDAL are too. Don't be selfish - share your wit with us either as comments or in email form (allmydealsarelive@gmail.com).
Authors
LInks and Things
Blog Archive
-
▼
2010
(304)
-
▼
January
(64)
- SNL: Back in the Saddle (for one night, at least)
- Over/Under Rated: The Microsoft Surface
- AMDAL Update: "Thoughts"
- Friday Five
- If you love the Jersey Shore...
- Wall Street 2: Money Never Sleeps
- Random Thoughts
- Apple iPad: Unwieldy iPod Touch? 2nd Tier eBook Re...
- Upcoming NYC Charity Events
- Snappy Answers To Stupid Questions
- Jam of the Week: KiD CuDi - "cudderisback"
- Ask Google
- Phoenix liveblog: from jordies camera
- Her Hair is So Big Because It's Full of Secrets
- Remix to Fried Chicken
- Oh Joy of Joys- They're Back!
- Daily Show Slams... Olby?
- Friday Five
- Hot Tub Time Machine: Red Band Trailer (Very NSFW)
- Chicks dig the long ball
- Helping Haiti + Hot Charity Babes = Everybody Wins
- Submitted with a cheer! - Cindy McCain step out ag...
- Google WILL Take Over Your Digital Life
- Random Thoughts
- Cleavage & Abs: Crunching The Numbers On Profile Pics
- Jam of the Week: M.I.A. - "There's A Space For Ol ...
- A Plea For Haiti
- Chicken Sate with Peanut Sauce
- Who's this guy?
- Friday Five
- Ho In One
- Vicarious liveblog: FNL Night @Professor Thoms
- Submission for the Wookies
- Random Thoughts
- Submission for the Men: Blake Lively
- Submission For The Ladies: Jon Hamm
- Helping Out the Haitians
- Do the Jets Stand a Chance?
- The Debacle at The Tonight Show
- Roofie Yourself
- Miss "The Wire"?
- My iPhone Sin Page
- He's No Riggins
- F!re @ Phi Delt
- She's Out Of My League [Trailer]
- Brooklyn:Mission::Bocce:Shuffleboard
- Happy Birthday [Apple Symbol]
- Good Movie/Better Movie: Sherlock Holmes
- Random Thoughts
- Submitted Without Comment
- Submitted with a little backstory
- Push Notification for iPhone's Facebook App
- Jam of the Week: Fly.Union ft. Big Sean - "Poed Up"
- Three hilarious images to start the day
- Have You Tried Posterous?
- This Just In
- 2010 Predictions
- NO FATTIES: BeautifulPeople.com
- Submitted Without Comment
- 2010 In Food
- Happy New Year
- Less Hanover, More Roadtrip
- 2009 Recap: Winners & Losers
- AMDAL liveblog: Reunion!
-
▼
January
(64)
Copyright 2009 All My Deals Are Live. All Rights Reserved. Powered by Blogger
Blogger Template created by Deluxe Templates. Wordpress theme by Andrei Luca, modified by Chris Allen
Blogger Template created by Deluxe Templates. Wordpress theme by Andrei Luca, modified by Chris Allen
45 comments:
Yay for taking a stand on an issue that is contrary to your husband's. Boo for looking like an alien while doing it.
Besides being provocative, what does the "NOH8" tattoo mean? Is Obama a H8-er because he believes marriage is the union between a man and a woman? Can one be for civil unions and not be a H8-er?
Yup, Obama is a hater. Sucks.
NOH8. It's just branding. I wish Barack Obama would change his mind o this subject, it's an embarrassment that the President of the United States is against gay marriage.
The NOH8 is a pretty great branding effort. It's direct, memorable, and instantly communicative. I think most people have learned to deal with the whole "using numbers in words" phenomenon and moved on, especially in the Twitter age.
And damn, C-Mac looks like an alien. Are her irises white?
Yeah, I understand NOH8 is a marketing gimmick. I was just trying to make the larger point that labeling those who disagree with your position as "haters" isn't the best way to promote, uh, tolerance.
Its not about tolerance, its about equality. One can continue being intolerant at one's pleasure if it passes.
"I am here today because of a conversation I had last June when I was voting. A woman at my polling place asked me, "Do you believe in equal, equality for gay and lesbian people?" I was pretty surprised to be asked a question like that. It made no sense to me. Finally I asked her, "What do you think our boys fought for at Omaha Beach?" I haven't seen much, so much blood and guts, so much suffering, so much sacrifice. For what? For freedom and equality. These are the values that give America a great nation, one worth dying for."
-Philip Spooner, 86-year-old WWII veteran speaking to the Maine Legislature
Can anyone make or point to a reason why gays and lesbians should NOT be allowed to marry that isn't based on tradition?
Admittedly I haven't followed this too much but I have read a bit, including prosecutor Theodore Olson's article in Newsweek last week. I'd like to hear a rational argument to the contrary.
I've always thought that David Blackenhorn, a liberal Democrat and author of "The Future of Marriage", had an interesting take on the issue. Here's an op-ed he wrote in the LA Times a couple years ago.
I think this op-ed is a cop out... saying that gay marriage is violating childrens' rights is ridiculous. For that argument he should also oppose adoption - which is clearly crazy.
The bottom line is that people who are against gay marriage do not think gay people are equal members of society... there is no way around it, it is a case of bigotry.
Can you explain in your own words why you find this persuasive? I'm seeing "kids of gay parents will think they're normal" ... sort of not convincing:
"Every child being raised by gay or lesbian couples will be denied his birthright to both parents who made him. Every single one. Moreover, losing that right will not be a consequence of something that at least most of us view as tragic, such as a marriage that didn't last, or an unexpected pregnancy where the father-to-be has no intention of sticking around. On the contrary, in the case of same-sex marriage and the children of those unions, it will be explained to everyone, including the children, that something wonderful has happened!"
Wow, the debate rages on.
Let’s just be clear that I haven’t given my opinion on this controversial subject. I have a number of thoughts on the issue, but given how polarizing and heated gay-marriage debates often get, I do not think that a blog is the best forum for them. Nevertheless, some comments should be addressed.
I never said Blankenhorn was persuasive, I simply said his take was interesting, by which I mean it made me think a little bit deeper about the issue. I think his book is a fascinating read – especially given his politics – and I encourage everyone who’s interested in this debate to take a look.
Blankenhorn talks about what marriage is and why it matters for society – something that same-sex marriage advocates seldom do. In his book, he argues that marriage, which has evolved over thousands of years, is about two things: 1) socially sanctioned sexual intercourse between a man and a woman; 2) the upbringing of the child or children that result from that union. He argues that marriage is society’s most pro-child institution. By that he means that a child who is raised by his biological mother and father does much better in life than a child who is not. He cites a plethora* of studies that support this, as well as those that show that support for marriage is by far the weakest in countries with same-sex marriage. Maybe this research is flawed or biased, maybe it’s not. Either way, I found it eye-opening and something to consider in the debate.
Redefining marriage radically changes this important institution, not to mention parenting in general. Consequences abound. Some of the consequences are negative (e.g. if marriage is not unique and can defined as love between any two people, why can’t it be defined as love between groups of people or people who are related?), some positive (e.g. homosexuality loses whatever stigma is still attached to it) and the rest neutral (e.g. honestly I don’t even remember – it’s been like three years since I read the book). He actually lists over fifty of them.
Anyway, the point here is that redefining marriage will have significant, far-reaching consequences. Whether those consequences are on a net basis good or bad for society is up for debate – a debate worth having. However, let’s have respect for both sides. Assuming those with whom you disagree are primarily motivated by hate or bigotry is a lazy argument. Plus, you look like a douche bag.
*punch me in the chest for using that word
Disagree. Equality before the law used to be one of America's crowning achievements-- I'm hoping we can get back there some day. No number of asserted, unsupported, allegedly dire consequences could induce me to actively deprive others of the same rights I can enjoy as a citizen. But each to his own.
Scos,
Thanks for expounding on Blankenhorn's theories a bit more - the LA Times left me confused. While I still don't necessarily agree with his take, I do appreciate the point that there are a bunch of unknown consequences that may come from all this. That said, that's sort of the definition of change and I think throwing kids under the bus in this argument seems to incite an emotional response.
I guess we could wait and see if any numbers can back up the fact that kids do indeed need a mother and father in their lives and not just a stable family unit. But that would just seem like delaying something that, to me, falls under the same category as interracial marriage, women's suffrage, and desegregation - equality over all else.
Either way, thanks for a new approach. If anyone non-anonymously wants to chime in with new thoughts on all sides of the debate, please do so.
Another interesting debate on the issue: Perez Hilton, flamboyant blogger, v.s. Dennis Prager, Jewish talk-radio host. Both address the issues of equality and interracial marriage, while an old corpse moderates.
Anyway, I wouldn't regard this as a "new approach" but rather an old approach to a new debate, historically speaking.
Anyway, that's enough out of me. Feel free to chime in.
I think using the statistic that a child who is raised by both their mother and father is better off as an argument against gay marriage is bogus - I think that what the data from that study is saying is that children are best off when they have a stable family unit that they can consistently rely on, regardless of the gender of those parents.
Question for all - in your views of marriage equality for all, do you agree that polygamous marriages should be legalized? Just saying, IF there is a line to be drawn in the sand, why is it so hard to believe that some people want it drawn a little closer to the historical and religous tradition of marriage than you do?
Yours truly,
Married Brah
To bring up an equally as important point on marriage in general -
I find it so incredibly annoying when chicks who are about to get married leave facebook status updates on a daily basis that say "Weeee! 94 days till Bobby and I get married!!!" or "OMG I'm sooooo excited to tie the knot with my lovely fiance :)" Then they make their profile pic themseleves in a wedding dress for like 5 months after the wedding. News flash ladies - no one gives a shit except for you.
As long as gay dudes dont pull this kind of shit, I'm perfectly happy letting them tie the knot.
This is surprisingly similar to Rick Santorum's man-on-dog argumentation.
I repeat: you are denying fellow citizens rights enjoyed by you on the basis of "tradition". To me this is repugnant-- BBag has it right... why the F do you care? Could you really look J.R. '06 in the face and tell him he can't have the same rights as you because you are worried about the slippery slope to polygamy?
This doesn't make any sense some people, which is why finding no convincing argument advanced, they tend to impugn less savory motives to those saying things like this.
This is a great debate and while the questions and thoughts provoked are all interesting I realize that i should not contribute and must bow out - because I can see no other side to this issue.
To me, marriage is a human right and a status in America. Denying gay people (who I see as equal citizens with equal rights) that status and right is a civil rights violation and is equivalent in my mind to denying someone a civil right based on their gender or race.
CCL, you didn't respond to my question.
and WOHJR, I'm perfectly okay with civil unions and the healthcare benefits that come along with such, but leave the institution of marriage alone...
I appreciate the Brah's comments re: polygamy b/c I think that's the one thing that's left overhanging in my mind. To which I don't have an answer. Is it so bad that that happens? is it polygamy and not gay marriage that which tips the balance in "family values" and "what America stands for?"
I'm sure someone back in the interracial marriage argument days made the argument "Soon we'll be letting gays and lesbians marry."
The first point is more one for the lawyers and obviously there's a point where it gets ridiculous to go down that road. For me, I side with some of the discussion here where it just seems right. No, I can't look anyone who I know and say, "No you can't marry."
I disagree with "the institution of marriage" comment though, because that connotes a religious slant, which should be out of government control anyways. Since the term "marriage" IS under government jurisdiction, anything less than that for a gay / lesbian couple to me seems like they're being shortchanged.
Sigh. Brah, your marriage won't be affected at all, I assure you. You will not actually be forced to get a gay marriage if rights are extended to gays and lesbians. In fact, if you are really concerned, by all means get re-married in your local NO GAYZ ALLOWED church.
I repeat: the practical effect of what you are supporting is that rights that you are able to enjoy continue to be denied to your fellow citizens. I don't think that is worthwhile for any reason.
However, I find the talismanic power you assign to the word 'marriage' itself less than convincing on its own terms as well. What's the divorce rate up to now anyways, 50+%?
I ask you again, could you look at a brother and tell him he can't have the same rights as you? I push this not to be annoying but because I do believe that viewpoints on this particular issue can change when you think about it in terms of people you actually know rather than [insert gay stereotype here].
hi Brah, i will answer your question... I don't think I am qualified to say that polygamists shouldn't marry. While I personally can't see that situation working out - I do see it happen frequently and legally in other cultures and I think it comes down to religious differences.
In America and all states of America marriage is defined as a union between two people. So going by that legal clause - than I see polygamy and gay marriage in two very different lights. One that could fall in the legal definitions of our country (a gay marriage between two people) and one that could not.
Here here CCL! I'm with you on the whole "marriage equality is really the only option as far as I'm concerned" thing.
As a child, I was raised in what Blankenhorn would deem a less-desirable family (my mother was a single parent and raised me 100% on her own); due to my own experience, I like to pay attention whenever writers challenge non-traditional families. Blankenhorn makes no original points in this op-ed. But several interesting perspectives have been voiced here and I want to make a couple points.
POLYGAMY: As for why raising the issue polygamous marriage is a crock is that a polygamous marriage undermines the very issues of equality that many of us believe in. Polygamy leads to oppression and suppression of women's rights, healthcare, and education. Similarly, polygamy in the U.S. has an astonishingly destructive impact on children: girls are barred from education while young males are shunned and expelled to create the gender imbalances polygamous society's demand. We know this from the prevailing polygamous sects that exist in the United States and their rigorous efforts to deprive women of their human rights by barring education and healthcare.
Cosign Bmar's comment on polygamy!
Ohhh you guys have read "Under the Banner of Heaven" too many times... CLEARLY you guys aren't watching Big Love which shows how awesome it is to have sister wives and a big house with a pool!
But for serious - my dad lives in Sandy Utah, which is a nice suburb of salt lake and the same town where Big Love is supposed to take place and there is legit a mini polygamist family compound just down the street from him.
CCL,
What does he think? Is everybody getting laid?
B-Mar, your points on polygamy are judgmental generalizations that avoid the real question. Under the same arguments, abusive men should not be allowed to marry because domestic violence oppresses and suppresses women's rights and has an astonishingly destructive impact on children. Where is the equality in that?
From the american bar association website...
•Overall, African Americans were victimized by intimate partners a significantly higher rates than persons of any other race between 1993 and 1998. Black females experienced intimate partner violence at a rate 35% higher than that of white females, and about 22 times the rate of women of other races. Black males experienced intimate partner violence at a rate about 62% higher than that of white males and about 22 times the rate of men of other races.
I'm pretty sure everyone gets laid. Pretty sure.
And brah, I agree with you- in this world there is no family structure that guarentees that a child will not be abused or neglected.
The U.S. does allow criminals, even terrorists or mass murderers, to marry. We do not allow them to abuse their wives. While I think you're comparing apples to oranges here, I will (in the spirit of honest debate) follow up on your comparison and play it out.
We have criminalized spousal abuse. We have, in many states, laws that rightly go to great lengths to prevent men who batter women from harming those women, such as by imprisioning spousal abusers for years. A polygamous marriage and a polygamous society is inevitably harmful toward women and we have criminalized the conduct and we go to great lengths (in some states) to prevent polygamy. I've had the opportunity to closely examine a polygamous society in upper New England during my studies. The sect relied on keeping women ignorant of their rights and on depriving its members (including its children) from proper healthcare. The state government eventually raided the sect because of the amount of child abuse. Its the same story over and over again in the U.S. This is not merely a "generalization"; it is an accurate description of the state of polygamy in modern society. We outlaw polygamy to prevent child abuse and to protect women's rights. We outlaw spousal abuse or child abuse for similar reasons. A polygamist is free to marry one woman, but not to marry several; a wife-batterer is free to marry one woman, but not to beat her.
Bmar, you are projecting your negative experiences with one polygamous group onto the the entirety of polygamous society. Not a very open-minded, liberal thing to do.
Sorry to burst your bubble, Brah, but in the context of closely examining one specific polygamous sect I (of course) researched cases raised all over the country on large-scale polygamy sects. Time and again, child abuse and women's oppression reocccur.
While you clearly have nothing but conjecture and irrelevancy to add to this debate, I'll conclude my point on polygamy by again noting that comparing polygamy to gay marriage elevates polygamy to a legitimacy that no credible thinker has, while suggesting that gay marriage harms human rights (which couldn't be further from the truth). It makes your perspective look purposefully ignorant, as though you haven't thought this through (which is probably the case) and that you don't know what you're talking about (which is certainly the case). Good luck figuring out why gay people are different from people that want a dozen wives.
Anyway, one of the things that started this whole debate was a poorly written op-ed that by a "liberal" that Scos posted in the Comments. 7 years ago, David Brooks the conservative columnist for the New York Times, wrote this op-ed: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/22/opinion/the-power-of-marriage.html?pagewanted=1 (sorry I don't know how to hyper link a comment). He writes a conservative defense of gay marriage: if marriage/two-parent families are the bedrock of American society, then gay marriage will only encourage more marriages and hopefully, add to cultural and social stability.
baaaaahzing... just enjoying a good debate there bmar... regardless, i believe you are purposefully ignoring my point while trying to render it irrelevant with a personal attack / straw man arguement that i'm sure the educated readers of AMDAL will see through (if they aren't so blinded by hatred toward another way of thinking about things).
in all honesty, i don't really have an opinion on gay marriage one way or another... i'm not religious and am somewhat socially liberal (but hardline fiscally conservative), but i can respect the educated arguement of someone who does care as long as its not fueled by the rhetoric of the religious right freakshow...
its interesting to see the reactions of certain supposedly open-minded, socially liberal individuals when you challenge their beliefs. i for one, enjoy stirring the pot...
And I'm glad there are intelligent people on all sides of the debate. Like Brah, I like to poke and prod at all issues.
The polygamy thing was part of the argument I didn't quite understand and while I probably fall somewhere below the intensity of BMar's take on it. I think it's a worthwhile point to raise.
Did everyone watch the HTTM trailer yet? I said there were boobies right?
40 comments - is this an AMDAL record?
ps - thanks for the ( . )( . ) MLR
Don't worry guys! MLR to the rescue to end debate and give everyone a ribbon!
We are ALL winners today! :-D
WOHJR - although I agree with your sentiments regarding this issue, as a future lawyer, it might benefit you to realize that you can't condescend people's beliefs and viewpoints; style counts. You endanger your own views, no matter how rational, of being delegitimized. The very first thing I learned 1L year was that no matter how repugnant you find another viewpoint you better behave in a way that reflects a maxim integral to the legal field: there is *always* another side, regardless of it being correct or not - and you better know it and respect it in order to be able to better deconstruct it.
Just call me AOG ;)
Eel, thank you-- that is one of the best pieces of advice I've gotten in recent years and I take it seriously to heart.
That being said, I am talking to Brah. We both know Brah. I am not hoping to convince Brah of anything (he wouldn't believe it no matter what I say). I speak to those who read but do not comment.
*I am NOT talking to Brah*
Post a Comment