All that may well be true - but please keep in mind that there are those of us out there who want Boy Scouts and talk radio and Rotary clubs and strong churchs and gay marriage...and the fact that something I believe is both just and wise policy may benefit folks I disagree with, doesn't impact that it's still just and wise policy...

Perfectly true. Civil rights is a good example of it.

Just to clarify a point that people are often a bit vague on, when you say "gay marriage," are you referring to those things which would be provided by "civil unions?" Or to the actual word and concept of marriage, which would imply both government recognition of the validity of the union, and, presumably, recognition by churches of the sacrament?

Oh, and, if the latter, how much coercion do you endorse, to "bring around" those who resist?

I see civil unions as better than the current state of affairs - but they are, to use the best analogy available, a form of "separate but equal". Either they're entirely equal, in which case we're arguing about semantics, or else there's something that sets them apart, in which case we're talking about "separate but equal." If someone agrees to civil unions but not marriage, then the question is, which rights is it OK to deny this group of folks?

The fact is, there are rights, privileges and responsibilities that come with marriage that many couples I know are denied, by the state, and insofar as that's the case, I'm against it. To my mind, the neatest solution is allowing gay marriage; if that's impossible politically, then the next best thing is civil union - it may not give them fully equal treament in the eyes of the law, but if you can visit your spouse in the hospital, share medical and pension and social security benefits, be protected in divorce, etc., etc. - then that's the biggest thing.

I don't think anybody's arguing that we must force churches to recognize anyone's marriage - at least, nobody I'd join cause with. Hell, churches can discriminate in a host of ways, and I believe that's fine. The Catholic church does not, will not, and sacramentally, cannot allow women to be ordained - and it ought not be forced to do so. How a church defines its sacraments is up to the church, who will stand in judgement for their decisions before man and God - and I don't have any problem with that.

Now, what about around the edges? What about churches as employers, what can be required of them? Hell if I know - there will always be messy edges, and I guess we work that out over time.

By the way, I think Vermont is following the wisest course, achieving this through the legislature, not the courts - I want to win the debate with a majority of the public, not with two or three members of the judiciary. And I believe that, in time, it will happen. The country has a strong strain of openness to folks who are different and want to live differently, which is one of our strengths, and seeing the great progress that's been made in the past 20 or 30 years, I have very high hopes.

John, my argument is pretty much coincidental to Ethan's. When I say gay marriage, I mean gay civil unions, because in my semantics, marriage is holy matrimony as defined by the church. And the state stops at the church door for me. There are hundreds of thousands of legitimate, successful, fruitful hetero marriages that are purely civil unions. I'm perfectly happy extending those rights and privileges to the gay community. I can't see any harm done to my traditional marriage and family by that extension.

But, like I always say, I'm willing to listen to arguments as to WHY gay civil unions would be damaging.

Now, holy matrimony is something between each individual and God, no? I don't think we need the functional equivalent of full immersion vs. sprinkling taking up valuable Congressional time.

No one is stopping gay couples anywhere, even in states that have anti-sodomy laws still on the books, from living together and going to lawyers and writing up papers giving each other durable power of attorney and rights of survivorship and putting each other on the deeds of their homes and in their wills and so on. The "gay marriage" movement isn't about making it easier for gay people to live together and get the supposed benefits of marriage (that not all states even grant to straight married couples) so much as it is a ploy to get society to accept a change the traditional view of what constitutes a "marriage." They are trying not only to change one of our oldest traditions by legislative fiat, but to outlaw the ability of people to hold by the older definition or even think of it. They claim their cause to be as justified as that of the blacks during the Civil Rights movement days, but that won't wash -- gays have to obey the same laws as everyone else; in the days of segregation black people had to obey extra laws designed for them alone.

I suppose I should add: I do think the "save marriage" amendment or whatever it was was a waste of time. Once you have to start passing amendments to "save" traditional institutions they are pretty much gone. All that is left is the feeble thread of traditional religious marriage, and that has been driven almost entirely into the cave of "privacy" where more and more people are hiding almost their entire lives. Once you could tell from the way a person talked, walked, and dressed where he came from, what church he went to, and what he believed. Now most people are "individuals" -- cells of neutral dress and indistiguishable expression in the blob of undifferentiated humanity. The more we lose our traditional "fences" that were supposedly so awful and mean and restricting in favor of "individual creativity" people have become less, not more, distinct from each other as everyone slavishly imitates everyone else to show how much of an "individual" they are. What the anti-traditionalists didn't take into account was the fact that few people have the talent for true individuality, and most people are as "creative" as cows. So now everyone is free to follow their deepest desire to chew their cuds in the field. Gays used to be some of our most interesting and colorful real individuals, but now they want to join the herd for that sweet, sweet grass. Boring.

Your paragraph breaks seem to be turned off. Or did I forget to press "enter" twice.

"What the anti-traditionalists didn't take into account was the fact that few people have the talent for true individuality, and most people are as "creative" as cows. So now everyone is free to follow their deepest desire to chew their cuds in the field.

That is so right, and we see it all the time. Maybe 1% of people can handle complete freedom and create really new things that are better, and more interesting, than the existing things that people have come to value over time. The other 99% can't. But most of them CAN create things of value (in almost any field you can think of) IF they work within a worthy discipline that closely constrains them.

And you are right about "saving" marriage. But the de-constructionists have a lot more in mind than just destroying marriage. This issue is a wedge, one of many, being driven into the mass of all that prevents us from becoming one big happy hive.

And it is also a wedge in the other direction, an issue that can arouse sluggish minds to the dangers they face. So I think the battle is worth fighting. And if the action is mostly symbolic, and intended to "arouse" the base, what's wrong with that? The "base" of regular Americans certainly needs arousing, and symbolic actions often have greater effect than "practical ones."

Maybe 1% of people can handle complete freedom and create really new things that are better, and more interesting, than the existing things that people have come to value over time. The other 99% can't.

That's pretty damn harsh, John. You've just consigned 297,000,000 people to a life utterly lacking of competition. I'm no one-percenter, but I think I can do something valuable outside of the confines of selling routers, or coding web pages, or whatever the heck it is I did yesterday. And I'm willing to do whatever it takes to make that non-selling/non-coding dream happen. You talk about the value of small business, yet where do you think they come from? The one-percenters? Please. If we relied on the one-percenters, I can't imagine where we'd be as a nation.

I put it to you that the 297MM drones in the happy hive is what you should be arguing against, not for.

Scott, I think you miss my points...

I wrote: But most of them CAN create things of value (in almost any field you can think of) IF they work within a worthy discipline that closely constrains them...

Well, that's you. I consider it very likely that you are going to create interesting new things. But you will do it within some form that limits you. For instance, starting a business is an art form, a very disciplined one. There are a thousand-and-one constraints on ones actions, and that stimulates creativity. As we see all around us.

On the other hand, the "art" in modern art museums is completely undisciplined. (I saw an artwork recently that consisted of a pile of sticks on the museum floor!) The result is pretty much...nothing. Even Michelangelo would probably fizzle as a modern artist.

Writing a weblog is a disciplined form (assuming you want to have readers) and the result is creative flourishing. Imitating James Joyce has, as far as I know, resulted in nothing exciting.

Most of us are creative now and then, but the effort is painful, and we stop as soon as we are successfull. The trick is to stay dissatisfied. If you feel like a failure that's a good sign for the future. Also if you are trying to run a creative organization, the trick is to declare the successes "obsolete," to force people into the pain of inventing something new. Or else they stop once they have made the first hit. (Lesson from Peter Drucker.)

Now, holy matrimony is something between each individual and God, no? I don't think we need the functional equivalent of full immersion vs. sprinkling taking up valuable Congressional time.

Depends on whom you ask...if you ask the Catholic church, the sacrament of matrimony is confected by the two participants, and the deacon, priest or bishop who celebrates the ceremony is simply a witness for the church. Which is why they can consider marriages that occured in other churches, or even civil marriages, to be valid sacraments. But your point is well taken.

*******************

Andrea - I would highly recommend any gay couple in it for the long haul to do exactly what you recommend - durable power of attorney, up-to-date wills, etc. That's, unfortunately, the only way they can begin to approximate what marriage could give them. Of course, they still can't get spousal health coverage, survivorship benefits, and oh, make sure you carry your legal documents anywhere you go where there may be a car accident, or you might not get into the ICU. And if you don't have a will, like so many folks, don't expect any help from a probate court. And if, god forbid, the relationship should end in divorce, don't expect any of the protections afforded by the law to married couples.

I understand that you don't believe a gay relationship is in any way "equal" to a straight one, but please understand that there are many of us who do believe just that, and honestly see this as an issue of equal justice under law. I'm not expecting to convince you here - my only point in commenting has been to try to impress on folks that not everyone in favor of gay marriage is seeking to destroy western civilization. In fact, many of us believe it's...well, I won't say essential, but I will say it's the logical next step in America's bright future.

"I understand that you don't believe a gay relationship is in any way "equal" to a straight one"

I never said that. What I said is they aren't the same as a straight marriage. They are different. And there are ways around the supposed obstacles to being admitted to ICUs and as well, many companies (like Disney, I believe) do give benefits to "domestic partnership" couples (ie, gay couples), which is one reason they have drawn the ire of so many anti-homosexual groups. And this "equal justice under the law" nonsense is just that. Married couples have different benefits from state to state: I don't see people agitating to make laws uniform across the board for them. And I know that not everyone in favor of gay marriage is trying to destroy Western Civilization. Neither were the people in favor of relaxing divorce laws, or Roe vs. Wade, or ceasing to condemn the idea of out-of-wedlock pregnancy because it was so "hurtful" to women who found themselves in trouble "through no fault of their own," or any of the other little loosenings of "restricting" and "unfair" customs and laws that have sent society on its long slide downward.

I never said that. What I said is they aren't the same as a straight marriage. They are different.

Yeah, that's a meaningful distinction. Shot me down there!

So you'll grant that you don't know that I'm looking to destroy western civilization - of course, in my foolishness, that's what I'm accomplishing...first, thanks for being patronizing - that's certain to change my mind! And second, can you, or can anyone, spell out exactly how it is that the folks two doors down having state-recognized legal protections for their long-term relationship does anything to destoy traditional marriage? Assertion is not argument, and all I've ever seen on this is assertion. How about a mechanism?

John, I see what you're saying now.

Ethan, you see the "mechanism" every day, you just don't notice it, because it is a negative rather than a positive. Marriage has always been in crisis, always been falling apart, simply because it's not natural for people to stick with anything, especially anything difficult, for a lifetime. We are weak flawed creatures. We need a lot of pressure to keep us on the straight and narrow.

Marriage is like a barrel with many many hoops holding the staves together.

And the hoops are all sorts of pressures imposed by law, family, neighbors, religion, custom and sheer economic need. And the modern world keeps removing hoops, and every time it does the barrel leaks more. One of the (remaining, maybe?) hoops is the tradition that marriage is a special and solemn and awesome thing. Anything that detracts from that weakens the institution. Gay marriage has that effect (but so does inventing ones own cutsy wedding ceremony, or using outré costumes or odd locations.)

Gay marriage tends to weaken other hoops, such as the idea that marriage is something that joins many generations, carrying the names and memory of your grandparents and ancestors down to your children and grandchildren... That's a pressure, or should be. (Similarly weakening is the tacky practice of giving your children "fad" names, instead of the names of grandparents and ancestors.)

I think gays ought to invent their own marriage-like institution, and work to make it valid and accepted. And also they should wish to strengthen traditional marriage, just as should anyone who cares about the future of our world. But then, I'm a futurist, and definitely not one who thinks the future will somehow take care of itself. Rather I think it's an acid bath that will dissolve anything that isn't very strong indeed. And that every scrap of traditional wisdom and character we can preserve might be the saving margin.

John, thanks for the thoughtful response. I think what this brings to the fore again is one of the fundamental differences we have about the firmament of this nation - you see faith as the bedrock, and social norms as the framework. I see personal liberty as the bedrock, and a framework basically reinvented to meet each era's needs.

I'm sure that's probably inexact, and I apologize if it's a complete distortion, but that's my impression of our positions. And given that, I think both of our conclusions are logical - and probably pretty intractible.

Again, my main point in all of this was to point out that it is possible to love this nation and think gay marriage is a good thing - I'd guess the majority of folks on my side of the debate are patriots of good will, not America-hating leftist one-worlders; just as the majority of folks on your side of the debate are not blue-haired homophobic bigots.

"So you'll grant that you don't know that I'm looking to destroy western civilization - of course, in my foolishness, that's what I'm accomplishing...first, thanks for being patronizing - that's certain to change my mind!"

Well, I didn't think I was speaking specifically of you here, but then I keep forgetting that everyone doesn't know that every issue in the world isn't about them.

Anyway, while we're at it -- yes, I do think that loosening or discarding ancient traditions simply because they are restricting to "personal liberty" isn't always a good idea, and is in fact almost always foolish. If you think that means I am calling you a fool, that's your problem. I don't care if you change your mind or not; that is something outside my control. I don't tell people what I think in order to "change their minds," I tell them what I think in order to tell them what I think.

Well, I didn't think I was speaking specifically of you here, but then I keep forgetting that everyone doesn't know that every issue in the world isn't about them.

Since you were disagreeing with me, you'll excuse me for assuming it had something to do with my opinion. But I guess it's always easier to argue against folks who aren't actually there to argue back.

I do think that loosening or discarding ancient traditions simply because they are restricting to "personal liberty" isn't always a good idea, and is in fact almost always foolish.

I didn't say anything about discarding ancient traditions - I don't have any interest in destroying marriage. And my reason isn't because it restricts personal liberty. I said the reason for supporting gay marriage is because it's a question of justice. But again, it's easier to parody my position, argue against something different, then claim I'm self-centered when I deign to defend myself. Good thing you aren't interested in changing minds...