Jonah Goldberg on gay marriage

Alex Moon · Post by **Alex Moon** » 2003-07-01 04:35pm

http://www.nationalreview.com/goldberg/ ... 070103.asp

The worst thing that could happen for gays is for the Supreme Court to do for gay rights what they did for abortion rights. A top-down imposition of same-sex marriage across the country would guarantee endless fights. Anti-gay (and anti-Christian) rhetoric, would go through the roof just as anti- and pro- abortion rhetoric did, in part because both sides of the argument would be funded nationally and speak to their national bases. Gay marriage would become a permanent issue of presidential politics which, whatever the legal victories of gays, would culturally be a disaster for gays.

Thoughts anyone?

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-07-01 04:51pm

I don’t think it would be a disaster for the gay community, but it certainly would ensure the issue was never resolved in the minds of many and would be a permanent figure in politics for at least a few decades.

The Albino Raven · Post by **The Albino Raven** » 2003-07-01 09:17pm

If the Supreme Court made a decision in favor of gay marriage, at least it couldn't be ignored by those who don't support it.

Andrew J. · Post by **Andrew J.** » 2003-07-01 10:20pm

A top-to-bottom decision might cause lots of resisitance, but bottom-to-top would probably take longer anyway.

Sobbastchianno · Post by **Sobbastchianno** » 2003-07-02 12:14am

I read the entire article. As conservatives go, he is pretty benign and pretty well reasoned, though I disagree with is assertion that the Bible gives fewer admonition on incest than it does on homosexuality. He must be getting is misinformation from the NIV Bible, which makes every effort to loosely translate certain words to the English, homosexual. Such a word does not exist in biblical Greek, Latin, or biblical Hebrew. That argument for another thread, at which time I will have my concordance with me for the actual text.

I too disagree with his assessment that the Supreme Court deciding gay marriage should be allowed would have the same effect as the Row v. Wade issue. No one argues anymore about interracial marriage, at least not on the scale of the abortion issue, and that decision was a Supreme Court decision (Loving v. State of Virginia) made in 1969. Until then, many southern states banned interracial marriage. I think that the decision on same sex marriage would be felt more deeply, but would too be gotten over.

I also disagree that there is no law that could be created that would prevent two same-sex brothers from marrying each other. One thing he neglects to mention is that homosexuals want marriage rights as a means of legally forming a family. Two brothers, sisters, or a mix, already have legal status as a family, hence marriage between them is totally unnecessary. So maybe the HRCF couldn't come up with a good reason to ban incest, other than the icky feeling, but I just did.

Alex Moon · Post by **Alex Moon** » 2003-07-02 12:33am

Sobbastchianno wrote:
I too disagree with his assessment that the Supreme Court deciding gay marriage should be allowed would have the same effect as the Row v. Wade issue. No one argues anymore about interracial marriage, at least not on the scale of the abortion issue, and that decision was a Supreme Court decision (Loving v. State of Virginia) made in 1969. Until then, many southern states banned interracial marriage. I think that the decision on same sex marriage would be felt more deeply, but would too be gotten over.

I also disagree that there is no law that could be created that would prevent two same-sex brothers from marrying each other. One thing he neglects to mention is that homosexuals want marriage rights as a means of legally forming a family. Two brothers, sisters, or a mix, already have legal status as a family, hence marriage between them is totally unnecessary. So maybe the HRCF couldn't come up with a good reason to ban incest, other than the icky feeling, but I just did.

Except that there are certain rights and legal matters which are conveyed by marriage, or at least that was my understanding.

Sobbastchianno · Post by **Sobbastchianno** » 2003-07-02 12:40am

The only law and right conveyed by marriage that wouldn't apply in a sibling relationship is the right to survivors benefits from Social Security, those are only conveyed to spouses. I am going to attach in my next post, I letter I e-mailed to Mr. Goldberg about this column. Would love to know what you all think.

Sobbastchianno · Post by **Sobbastchianno** » 2003-07-02 12:42am

-----Original Message-----
From: Andrews, Drew
Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2003 11:41 PM
To: 'jonahnro@aol.com'
Subject: Springfield vs. Shelbyville

Dear Mr. Goldberg:

My name is Sobbastchianno “Drew” Andrews and I read your article on Springfield vs. Shelbyville. I am a homosexual male, not terribly liberal, but not terribly conservative either.

The HRCF may not have been able to present a coherent logical argument for prohibiting incest while allowing same-sex marriage, but I believe I can.

Homosexuals want the right to marry because marriage creates a legal family where none existed before. Marriage, even in its present definition, is more than just a union between a woman and a man; it is the formation of a family unit, even if the couple decides not to procreate. Since no heterosexual couple legally obliged to procreate, and the ability/desire to procreate is not required to marry, the whole reproduction argument (which you didn’t even bring up), goes out the window.

Siblings already have a legal family relationship and are considered next of kin, hence marriage is not necessary to form a family relationship. I personally think incest is also icky, and quite honestly can’t for the life of me understand how one would be sexually attracted to a sibling, but I am sure that there are many who can’t understand my being sexually attracted to males as opposed to females.

As for you presumption that homosexual men are more promiscuous than “even heterosexual men,” I am going to have to differ. Now, I am not saying that homosexual men are saints, or that there aren’t some promiscuous homosexual men, because there are. However, I think there are proportionately just as many promiscuous heterosexual men. I think, in both camps, that those who are promiscuous are very promiscuous, but I also know a great many more gay men who are not promiscuous. Honestly, there is really no way to tell, since we are not monitoring the bedroom activity of people, and that is as it should be. Promiscuous men, at least promiscuous gay men, are not the ones who are apt to marry anyway, and if they choose not to do so, were it to be come legal, that would be their choice, but at least they would have the choice to make. From my observations in the past 23 years of being out of the closet, I have seen more heterosexual men cheat on their wives that I have seen homosexual men cheat on their partners. I happen to agree with the assertion that we are being told that we are trying to destroy the family by trying to participate in the very same institutions that make a family. It is a circular argument that conservatives have been using on us for years. Homosexuality destroys the family, but when we try to form family, we are not allowed to do so. Conservatives are trying to have their cake and eat it too.

I believe that Domestic Partnerships are a special right, and I don’t like the concept of special rights. I have had liberals say that at least it is a step toward marriage. Engagement is a step toward marriage, Domestic Partnership ordinances are nothing more than an appeasement to the gay communities (we are more than one), as well as a weapon for the so-called Religious Right to use when they make the argument that we want special rights.

I am interested in your thoughts.

Sincerely,

Sobbastchianno “Drew” Andrews