Proposition 8
November 25, 2008
Gay marriage? Let’s stop and think about this
By John Fay
Photo by Matthew Jackson.
Gay marriage? Let’s stop and think about this
Few issues of cultural importance in America long escape the gaze of a Simpsons’ episode.
In the episode titled “There’s Something About Marrying,” the city of Springfield legalizes gay marriage, prompting Homer Simpson to become an Episcopal priest in order to reap lucrative benefits for conducting such unions.
Homer very quickly realizes that he could make even more money in nuptials if he is less discriminating, and by the end of the episode he’s proceeding to marry the Sea Captain to the mermaid-shaped masthead of his ship.
We laugh about scenes like this and say they could never happen; of course, that’s what our grandparents were saying about gay marriage a generation ago.
Now, I realize the gay marriage issue surrounding the California voters’ decision on Proposition 8 is extremely emotional for a lot of people, and I respect their difference of opinion, but let us try and consider the vote from a rational basis.
The decision of California’s Supreme Court in May to legalize gay marriage, which Prop. 8 overturned, was extremely rash. There is nothing constitutional about gay marriage on a state or federal level. For gay marriage to even fit within the court’s jurisdiction, it must have some basis in constitutionality.
Yet the court argued that forbidding marriage rights to gays is discrimination, “like a person’s race or gender.” Race is a biological state; homosexuality is more of an emotional condition, and we should not, for that reason alone, start passing laws condoning it.
Being homosexual, like other emotional tendencies, doesn’t make someone a bad person, but it’s a problem that needs to be dealt with, not denied.
Now, there are several major problems with legalizing gay marriage. Once you’ve legalized gay marriage, why not polygamy, incest, bestiality or any other form of union? If the only criteria is that people love each other, then who says it’s wrong for a 70-year-old man to marry 10 underage girls?
Also, the Christian concept of marriage predates any state-sanctioned licensing program, which means marriage is an inherently religious concept in America. Any state interpretation of marriage that violates traditional church views may well be a violation of the First Amendment.
There’s also a social consideration. The potential of open homosexuality for creating social dysfunction has been made manifest in the protests against Prop 8 since Nov. 4.
Organizations such as the Mormon Church have been intimidated; people who financially supported Prop. 8 have had their names posted on antigayblacklist.com — some have been harassed or even threatened with losing their jobs.
This sad reaction illustrates the danger of gay marriage. Now, this is not to suggest that all or even most supporters of gay marriage have acted inappropriately.
Once people become accustomed to violating certain social norms, they tend to feel less constrained about breaking others.
It’s hard to tell someone they should respect basic social rules — such as not harassing people for honest disagreement — when they already reject other customs, such as traditional marriage.
So, let’s think long and hard about this before overturning a tradition that has been in place for 2,000 years.
If traditional marriage is overturned, it won’t be the last tradition to be abolished by our government, and some of those will be ones none of us want to lose.
Reach columnist John Fay at opinion@dailyuw.com.
Proposition 8 disappointing
By Sarah Gaither
Photo by Matthew Jackson.
Proposition 8 disappointing
It is difficult for me to express how profound a disappointment the passage of Proposition 8 is.
Approved on Nov. 4, Prop. 8 stripped homosexual California couples of their right to marry, defining marriage as a union between a man and woman. As a contrast to the unprecedented election of a black man to the U.S. presidency, the proposition’s passage is a reminder of how much progress in civil rights there is left to be made.
While it is sad to learn that 52 percent of Californians view homosexual love as inherently inferior to heterosexual love, it is outraging and continually baffling that the proposition’s backers see enshrining this prejudice in law as just.
The arguments used to defend the proposition are feeble at best. The argument that marriages are intended for the production of children belies the reality that many heterosexual couples are childless. Are they to be denied the right of marriage too?
The reasoning that heterosexual marriages are the fundamental unit of society and thus deserving of “protection” from untraditional forms of family, is unfounded. Not only does it rely on normative gender assumptions, but it assumes that it is the government’s role to both determine what forms of love and family are acceptable and to enforce them.
A recent parody of this logic has been used in an anti-Prop. 8 ad, which calls to protect traditional marriage by outlawing divorce. With divorce having garnered no such ire from the traditional marriage establishment, the hypocrisy is plain.
Other arguments that claim gay marriage is outside the historical norms of society make the mistake of assuming that the longevity of norms indicates their legitimacy. As Keith Olbermann remarked in his moving commentary on gay marriage, in 16 states interracial marriage remained illegal up until 1967. Only until the United States “redefined” marriage did it become legal for people of different races to wed.
Then, as now, discrimination against individuals stepping outside the norms of society supports the unjust withholding of rights granted to other citizens. In this light, snide comments made by Prop. 8 supporters that “everyone has the equal right to marry a member of the opposite sex” are especially off base. I can imagine someone 50 years ago arguing that “everyone has the equal right to marry members of their own race.”
Perhaps most significantly, the exclusion of homosexuals from the right of marriage wholly breaches the division between church and state by allowing religious beliefs to determine state policy, however unconstitutional they may be.
And those who argue that Prop. 8 is justified because it passed with a democratic majority should Google “tyranny of the majority” and consider that a majority of Americans once opposed the abolition of slavery, women’s suffrage and the desegregation of schools.
It’s apparent, given the logical irrationality of the common arguments made against gay marriage, that the support of Prop. 8 is driven not by reason, but by emotion. The sooner that anti-Prop. 8 organizers realize this, the sooner they will rally voters to their cause.
In the anti-Prop. 8 ads aired prior to Election Day, there was a remarkable absence of gay couples. By not emphasizing the common commitment, humanness and love of homosexual couples, organizers missed a key opportunity.
It is easy to forget in a relatively open-minded city like Seattle that the vast majority of people have little to no contact with same sex partners.
Thus, their conception of gay relationships are composed almost entirely of conjecture.
For this reason, it’s key that pro-same-sex-marriage efforts, in tandem with battling this discrimination in the courts, encourage understanding. They must emphasize an emotionally-based understanding of these couples’ experiences.
That is what this is about — the universal human quest for love unbounded by gender and unhindered by law.
Reach columnist Sarah Gaither at opinion@dailyuw.com.
654 Comments
OOF I wish I could draft something coherent, but more than that I just want to express my rage at you: seriously fuck you for putting people down publicly, for having no idea what you're talking about. WHy don't people with fucking sense have your confidence to write what they think ? How are there so many idiots like you who feel entitled to publish hurtful TRASH. fuck you
This is the worst article that I have ever read, what a moron!
This is an extremely poorly written article that seems to be based more on sheer animus towards gay people and their rights as human beings (or even their recognition AS HUMAN BEINGS) than any kind of coherent logic.
The gay agenda is pretty comical. When opposition to their immorality arises- the venom of their intolerance pours out. They claim diversity until they get real diversity. Just reading through the comments reveals their intolerant and heretical attitudes. Whenever discussions like this come up the first thing that needs to be laid out on the table is- "what are the basis for your morals?" Until then people will be talking past each other or ranting like a junior high kid who just learned the "f" word. Merry Christmas!
The arguments in this column were many of the same arguments used to uphold laws against "race mixing." The difference between marrying animals, 10 year-olds, and 3 people is that it is not a bond between two consenting adults. An animal is not a citizen under the constitution. A child does not have the legal capacity to make most decisions. And polygamy inolves a union of more than two people. Why does gay marriage bother you so much? Why does everything you write seem to be plagiarized from the National Review's Corner?
Additionally, where do your source your legal conclusions? ("Also, the Christian concept of marriage predates any state-sanctioned licensing program, which means marriage is an inherently religious concept in America. Any state interpretation of marriage that violates traditional church views may well be a violation of the First Amendment." What are traditional church views? Do you mean those that were used to put witches on trial or demonize minorities?) Are they your own or some right wing blowhard's? They are by no means scholarly or accurate.
I do like the ending though. If we recognize Hank and Frank's lifelong relationship with legal rights, we will surely lose the Bill of Rights. You can't be serious.
I am embarrassed for your paper, and for the University of Washington.
Pathetic.
Ref. to Dale #512
Dale you seem to have some problems communicating in real time. I am finding your thought process a little too fundamental and you don't make a great deal of sense. Are you okay????
haha, I'm glad you have recieved such a warm response to your reasoning. I bet you thought you were going to really convince people this time, didn't you?
marriage is not just a christian concept. Being gay is not a problem that must be dealt with.
the problem with this kind of christian retoric is that most congregations consist of small minded fools led by one slightly more intelligent fool who has figured out how to fleece the flock, if you will. Why do the goddamned christians care so much about this part of leviticus? Do you care this much about defrauding thy neighbor? what species of animal to sacrifice? How many people in your church have committed adultery? All equal crimes in leviticus. No, you have some fat asshole leaning on the podium lecturing you on the merits of giving to the church and keeping you encited about gays and lesbians getting married. Sorry, the bible is not the end all reference, and the homosexuals out there will not be turned into pillars of salt, idiot.
People should see how many homosexuals actually are for gay marraige. I have several openly gay relatives who are laughing at this idea. What is the use? To encourage the building of the tax base? To build strong families? Has anyone ever read the article by the head of the Harvard Business school on how much $ would be lost in tax revenue if we were to create a special class of people eligible for marraige? How many people would abuse this special class and again lower tax revenue? Think People do not emotionally react.
WOW.. That's all I can say.. you're an idiot if you think that gay marriage is anything like beastiality or polygomy. Did you know that statistically homosexual relationships last longer then heterosexual ones? These days people enter into marriage thinking well if it doesn't work then I'll just end it and try it again. If people really cared about marriage as much as they say they wouldn't take it so lightly. Who are we to say who can and can't get married? Why don't you focus your attention on things that really matter.. Try taking a stand on global warming or hunger try child abuse or rape. GET OVER GAY MARRIAGE! ASSHOLE!
The real goal of the counterfeit marriage movement is gaining government-backed endorsement and moral approval. This article gave the best explanation I have come across on the issue so far:
http://townhall.com/columnists/FrankT...
Even if the issue were about rights, it fails there as well. As to rights, chapter 7 of "For a New Liberty" (http://mises.org/rothbard/newlibertyw...) has a paragraph that gives one of the best definitions of rights I have seen:
A "right," philosophically, must be something embedded in the nature of man and reality, something that can be preserved and maintained at any time and in any age. The "right" of self-ownership, of defending one's life and property, is clearly that sort of right: it can apply to Neanderthal cavemen, in modern Calcutta, or in the contemporary United States. Such a right is independent of time or place. But a "right to a job" or to "three meals a day" or to "twelve years of schooling" cannot be so guaranteed. Suppose that such things cannot exist, as was true in Neanderthal days or in modern Calcutta? To speak of a "right" as something which can only be fulfilled in modern industrial conditions is not to speak of a human, natural right at all. Furthermore, the libertarian "right" of self-ownership does not require the coercion of one set of people to provide such a "right" for another set. Every man can enjoy the right of self-ownership, without special coercion upon anyone. But in the case of a "right" to schooling, this can only be provided if other people are coerced into fulfilling it. The "right" to schooling, to a job, three meals, etc., is then not embedded in the nature of man, but requires for its fulfillment the existence of a group of exploited people who are coerced into providing such a "right."
I think most homophobic guys probably have issues over their own fantasies. I think Fay probably dreams about taking up the ass.
That said, I think anybody who thinks the daily should not have run the article is wrong. no censorship. If anything, this article by Fay brings to light that there are still narrow minded douche bags out there, they are not all gone.
I could care less about tolerance, free speech, free press, whatever. God forbid I should ever get power, as I would just incarcerate the fuck out of all of you. I could care less about gay marriage. I'm not gay. If you have a good argument against gay marriage, then that's great. This guy doesn't. Most of those commenting are just so goddamn stupid--it doesn't matter that they're bigots. Form a consistent, logical argument, and I'll be tolerant of your opinion. If you're a jackass who can't write worth shit, then goddamn do I hate you. Stupidity should be eliminated, whether you're gay or straight. And by eliminated I really mean *eliminated*.
Since John Fay has provoked controversy with his supposed journalistic opinion on gay marriage, and since he got the green light from editor Sarah Jeglum to do so they both owe the community the right to hear from a racist (KKK would be great), an anti-feminist, and someone who represents anti-Semitism. That is only fair. Wouldn't that be freedom of speech to have an open forum? Or is there a double standard in operation here? I really believe that Univ. of WA President, Mark A. Emmert and the Board of Regents need to get involved and publicly offer the gay community an apology for stupid journalism, and relieve The Daily of Sarah Jeglum and John Fay of their involvement with the school newspaper.
Double standard much? It's his opinion.
I think the bigger question here is "what are the basis for YOUR morals?" Here in civilazation, we are well aware that is actually you good ole boys in Idaho, who are well known for sodomizing sheep. Merry Christmas!
Strikes me funny that's IT"S straight people who keep "bringing up" and "Talking about" Beastiality...I NEVER hear LGBT people speak of these things....so WHY are the str8's obsessed with this animal/human sex dynamic? Fantasies???
I hope your future kids end up being gay, you insensitive, ignorant prick. Thank you for your morning serving of hate.
We see a lot of arguments regarding whether this should have been published. In an ideal situation these point counterpoint pieces should be stepping stones for a rational and reasoned discussion. Only if we are willing to consider the other person's point of view objectively will we have any chance of actually changing someone's mind. So, with that in mind, let's actually look at this slippery slope argument and see what it's merits are.
The "slippery slope" argument, while usually considered a poor argumentative form, can make good points. The idea is that if we argue to erase a line for one concession, anything else held behind the line can be possible as well; and to a certain extent this is true.
The anti-gay marriage argument is that when we ask "Why do we need the man-woman specification to marriage?" then it is simultaneously making the argument to allow bestiality, incest, polygamy, and child marriage.
The weakness here is that "traditionally" there are two requirements for marriage. It is a contract between a consenting man and woman. Now gay marriage activists say that it violates human equality to hold to the 'man and woman' part of that, however, the consenting contract part is the truly vital line, as marriage, in a secular sense, is a contract.
Children, animals, objects, what-have-you, are not equipped to consent to such a contract, and therein lies the fault with the slippery slope argument. However, you may have noticed that this leaves two segments of the slippery slope argument unaccounted for. Polygamy and incest, both of which may involve consenting adults, and, at least from a secular standpoint, have no reason legitimate reason to forbid them without violating human rights. (Short of having to deal with complexity of rewriting marriage benefits to deal adequately with multiple parties)
I'd like to hear people's opinions on this.
-Adam
Go John Fey!
It is SO refreshing to hear someone say what needs to be said. Everyone, watch the fascist strategy of the radical and emotional gay activists and learn. Ask yourself whay do they demand you tolerate and approve of their views while they refuse to so the same for the other 93 percent of the world.
Learn from their hate and rants.
I will be reading the UW newspaper much more in the future!!
Interesting how someone who calls himself "Common Sense" has no common sense whatsoever...
You and your archaic thinking are an embarrassment to our school and more importantly yourself. The main goals of the University of Washington are to have its students leave as more intelligent, compassionate, and open minded individuals. It sadly appears that you have not achieved any of those goals. I truly hope that in your time left at UW you find a way to rid yourself of the hatred and fear that you have inside of you. Only then will you be truly deserving and ready to 'graduate' into the real world.
Speaking as someone who campaigned to defeat our state anti-gay marriage amendment here in Kansas (and we came close to doing just that in this small midwestern town of 44,000), just let me say that John Fay's editorial has convinced me that Kansas does not have a monopoly on outdated ideas...
A sad commentary indeed, goes to show that yes, we have a long way to go to educate our youth. As far as the editorial board at the UW newspaper, yes, we have free speach rights in this country, however with rights come responsibilities to monitor what gets printed and what gets cut. It is not sensorship, its responsible journalism.
My heart is absolutely rocked by the degree to which this opinion of gay marriage is contrived.
Homosexuality does indeed have an emotional tendency in affected individuals, in my opinion. I think our hearts tend to be a little bigger than some others' are. Maybe this is untrue, but for what this opinion has shown, I'm convinced.
Dear #620 Common Sense,
you are an oxymoron.
Editor & Staff:
Do to opposition in opinion its hard to write and article in today's times without offending some one. University of Washington has always been an outstanding liberal academic institution with high moral standards. It resides in the heart and central of the states gay community (hello). Regardless of what people think or say, I feel you all do a fine job :) We are all racists, bigots or judgmental one time or another, therefore, we can't be all things to all people. Right? Have a good day, and good luck in future reporting.
This is a very hilarious joke. Where did you guys find such a comedian to be on your editorial board?
First of all, emotions are hardly voluntary.
Secondly, tell me how sexual arousal isn't biological.
Thirdly, why shouldn't we pass laws concerning emotional states, whether or not sexuality is counted among them? If sexuality is an emotional state, well then so are a host of psychological conditions that do have laws concerning them.
Fourthly, what are emotions if not biological? Every aspect of a human (And every other organism!) is governed by biology.
Lastly, Fuck you.
I fear for the gays to but u cant stop people that are in love thats not right just becaue they fall inlove with a same sex i support gay marriages 100% i hope people will beable to approve the right and people except them for who they are and not for who they are in love with
Whenever I hear someone say they graduated from UW . . . I'm going to laaaaaagh!
Is this an example of your higher learning. Ha ha ha . . . ha ha . . . ha ha haaaaa! . . . ha ha!
Wow! I wonder if he received a scholarship? Ha ha ha . . .
Emotional State?!.. I think you got the wrong definition of 'gay.'
I have worked in mainstream Publishing for 28 years, and have upheld consistently our citizens' right to "free speech" as expressed in the U.S. Constitution.
I believe Mr. Fay might have expressed his position on gay marriage with more intelligence, tact and sensitivity than he does here.
Mr. Fay evidently misunderstands both the intent of the First Amendment and the fact that "pure" Democracy has never existed in world history, let alone U.S. history.
Democracy and free speech require circumspection and responsibility; and I believe that the analogies Fay voices with respect to gay people and bestial or aberrant people is mean-spirited and bespeaks the same hateful attitudes that have made our world a dangerous and adversarial place.
As for Fay's misguided notion that America is a Christian nation or that so-called "Christian" principles should provide the foundation of our government, I reject such pablum out-of-hand. There are millions of individuals of all faiths -- and Secular Humanists who give much to this world, sere their fellow man and uphold common decency.
There is a place for all hard-working, commmited and responsible people in our country regardless of their race, religion, place of origin, gender or affectional preference. Any contrary belief represents hate speech in its most crystalline form.
Last, Mr. Fay is oblivious to the fact that many tens of thousands of human beings who have played pivotal roles in government, science, medical research, the arts and so much more, pursued a "gay lifestyle." Without those people, our country and our world would be so much poorer in every way.
As for the Editor-in-Chief of this campus daily, I expect more responsibility from someone charged with good-faith discourse than the disparaging rhetoric I read in Mr. Fay's article.
Mr Fay has lowered public perception of your University. He is not in the street, but the sewer. On behalf of my gay friends, I take issue with your rhetoric and your evident disrespect for those whose lives and beliefs differ from your own.
Wow! Is John Fay, (the person who wrote this article for the Daily) a student of the U.W? I thought the U.W. had high admission standards. I guess I was wrong. This was not an educated opinion, but the opinion of an ignorant bigot! He refers to being gay as an "emotional tendency" and a "problem". He's the problem folks!
I don't agree with much, if anything, this article says, but I think it's great the debate it stirred up. With the exception of the name-callers and just plain unhappy people (Steve), I really do enjoy reading what people have to say and have learned a little bit myself.
Also... did anyone else notice that longside this article was one FOR gay marriage? I think the fact that this was presented as a debate showing both sides of the topic was grossly overlooked by all this unnecessary anger.
Stop to think about this... maybe the anti-gay marriage article is so ridiculous because there is NO argument against gay marriage that is not ridiculous?
And Steve... what's with all the "comparing a black man to a monkey" stuff? It complete voids the one or two valid words you have written and makes you sound 100% idiotic instead of just 97%. Okay... I know I said I don't like name-calling, but come on... I think Steve deserves it! And... are you black? Because if you ARE NOT then the fact that this comparison so easily comes to mind is pretty disturbing, and if you ARE then it sounds like you are trying to make this about your issues and not the actual article.
All those who think Steve needs to shut up.... say "Hell yeah!"
lawrence v. texas (2003). funny how you quoted scalia's dissenting opinion: "Once you’ve legalized gay marriage, why not polygamy, incest, bestiality or any other form of union?"
.... read the case again and perhaps this time, try not to let religion overshadow your tunnel-visioned life.
If you approve of same-sex marriage, do you approve of an adult, consensual sexual relationship between a brother and sister if it's guaranteed they won't have children? If not, why?
The point of bringing up incest or bestiality in relation to homosexuality is not to argue that one follows from the other, but to point out that morality cannot be reduced to arguments about avoiding harm. Our emotional moral responses to these ideas are part of what makes us human. They are valuable. Insisting that we ignore these emotional reactions and submit to the cold logic of harm is narrow-minded and dehumanizing.
As someone else has said, simplistic reasoning in the moral realm "Hardens Hearts and Enslaves Minds." If you don't get that reference, ask Chris Gregoire.
Obviously the light of reason can inform our moral judgments. This is the case with racism, where our visceral distrust of "the other" can be overcome with better understanding.
Approving same sex marriage requires us to make a giant leap from societal tolerance of homosexuality to societal endorsement. Some people are in happy, committed same-sex relationships. That does not imply that gender is irrelevant to sexuality, which is what the institution of same-sex marriage would imply. Second graders in Massachusetts read a fairy tale called King & King. Opposing this can get you arrested.
I don't think its right to erase the distinctions between the sexes by judicial fiat. That's why I oppose same-sex marriage.
Matt #637 - What do same sex marriage and incest have to do with one another? Your logic is flawed. Same sex marriage is about love. An adult, consensual sexual relationship between a brother and sister as you put it, is about sex. People, who have a low opinion of gay people - have a hard time taking the word sex out of homosexual.
Matt, I guess you are not married, because you don't seem to understand marriage.
"Some people are in happy, committed same-sex relationships. That does not imply that gender is irrelevant to sexuality, which is what the institution of same-sex marriage would imply."
Perhaps it would be more understandable if, for starters, we call it same-gender marriage or same-gender relationships. We need to get our minds out of the gutter, (sex), so we are better able to see the reality of the situation.
Marraige is not about sex. Marraige is about love. How many straight people got married so they would have a steady sex partner? How many straight people got married just so they could have a house full of children? I hope none, because what is a house full of children, or a steady sex partner without love?
Marriage is about two people who love each other so much, they want to tell the world that they are totally devoted to one another in sickness, health . . . until death.
I have been with my partner for 18 years. I love him more than anyone or anything in the world. The love I feel is not something I feel in my pants. It's not something I think in my head. It is something I feel that comes from my heart and soul. It has nothing to do with the act of sex. That is not to say we don't use sex as a way to express our love.
Anyone who has truly been in love SHOULD understand that.
I used to be against gay people adopting the use of the word marriage. I thought we should let the straight world take full responsibility for the pathetic state in which they single handedly have put, what they like to call, "the sanctity of marriage."
I thought if we adopted the word, within six weeks they would be holding gay people responsible for all the problems with marriage. Which they will, when it (only a matter of time) IS legal.
However, I now realize I was wrong. Knowing how I feel about my partner. I understand the meaning of the word marriage. There is no other word in the english language that even comes close to expressing the sintement that is put forth with that one little word.
If I wanted to marry my partner, I do not want to get down on one knee and say. . . would you be my domestic partner? . . . or, would you like to enter into a civil union with me? . . . Sorry, that does not say, I love you and I am totally devoted to you and I want to spend the rest of my life with you. Only the word marriage can give that understanding to the depth of LOVE one has for another.
Therefore, gay marriage is the only way to go. Because it is ALL about love, and on its face, has nothing to do with sex.
Lots of anger and hatred in many of these comments... freedom of speech! Double standards abound--you go John--say what you will cuz others are waitin' for the chance to shove their opinions down your throat! Race and Sexual Orientation are not related--ask the brothers on the street--the ones who voted Obama in and same sex marriage out! Go John Go!
Regarding the UN Declaration of Human Rights:
In fact, Matt, Eleanor Roosevelt, who was a confirmed closeted lesbian, was a key author of the UN Declaration of Human Rights and it was based on all of the authors' input that this Bill specifically includes rights of homosexuals to marry.
Please sir, check for facts before commenting.
Also, I live in a family with two gay parents who have been happily married for over 25 years. My sister (who is 27) and I agree that our family is infinitely more stable and loving than the families of our friends with heterosexual parents.
If you are not writing a religious article, please try to base your opinion on some actual experience, rather than bigoted assumptions.
This piece of work, while not my opinion, is an opinion. not fact. so leave the guy alone.
John Fay of the University of Washington’s The Daily newspaper wrote, “Once you’ve legalized gay marriage, why not polygamy, incest, bestiality or any other form of union? If the only criteria is that people love each other, then who says it’s wrong for a 70-year-old man to marry 10 underage girls?” Nothing could ever make me feel more secure in the fact that my inalienable right as a citizen in this country to marry is being decided by people as delusional as Mr. Fay. The mere fact that my 4 year monogamous relationship with my partner could ever be compared to the act of a man having sex with a dog sickens me beyond no belief. I believe in the right to free speech, but the right of free speech does not give anyone the right to cut down and belittle an entire society because their lifestyle doesn’t run down the same path.
Not so long ago in our countries past, miscegenation laws prevented interracial, international marriages under the pretense of protecting the sanctity of marriage. Our country was founded upon the ideal that every man, woman and child is created equal. It seems throughout the countries history though, that you are only created equal if that person consents to the “normality” defined by those that wish to see the world in one particular frame of mind.
The gay, lesbian, and transgender community has gotten the short end of the stick time and time again. The realization that so many Americans believe that it is a moral cause to promote the suffrage of such a large group of people, leaves me bewildered and saddened to be the blunt of the rise of hatred and fear plaguing our society.
The age of intolerance needs to end. It is up to us as fellow humans to stop the hatred, to stop the age old battle against anything that is different. Homosexuality is not a sickness that you cut it out of my body or out of my brain. I am a person. I am a human, and I love another man. Until people can deal with the fact that it is possible for a man to love another man, or a woman to love another woman, nothing will ever change.
John Fay, you are a fucking moron. Marriage is not explicitly mentioned in our constitution, but equality and basic civil rights are. The US Supreme Court case has addressed the issue of discrimination in the marriage context by rendering anti-miscegenation laws unconstitutional.
Secondly, to simply dismiss a homosexual's right to protection in this country because this is an "emotional" condition is fucking ridiculous. If this "emotional" condition affects one's day to day existence, denying rights afforded other citizens, exposing oneself to bigoted and disgusting attacks on their life choices, then this "emotional condition" ceases to be emotional.
Let me reiterate, you are a fucking moron. To pretend to be "rational" while arguing that those who support gay marriage are "emotional" is a pathetic ad hominem attack on those you disagree with. Thus, you claim to be rational when in fact your arguments are based on faulty reasoning. You have no sense of history and base your comments purely on conjecture of the "evils to come" as opposed to providing a well-reasoned or a historically backed analysis of actual consequences to the pending legislation and court decisions. In fact, me taking the time to respond to your ridiculous article is a waste of time. I can't believe UW allows such small minded people to publish such comments. Have our standards dropped this low?
If anything, you've got people talking, which is always a good thing. Serious missteps like this need to happen in order to open peoples' eyes to truth and rational understanding. While unfortunate that Mr. Fay's reputation will suffer as a result, this article will likely convince a lot more people to support gay marriage than did before.
There's a problem with your logic. The criteria is that two people love each other, not a person and a cow, or a person and an inanimate object. Additionally, incest is illegal no matter what, as is marrying someone underage without the consent of their parent or guardian. Gay marriage becoming legal wouldn't change that.
I am so sick and tired of straight people, such as Mr. John Fay who, with no experienced knowledge, go on explaining what homosexuality is.
It's an emotional state. What does that even mean? This excuse to write off homosexuals as being non-persons is one of the most baffling I've come across to date.
And yes, I do so love gay marriage being listed right up there with polygamy and pedophilia and bestiality. Really, I can see the similarities that justify those comparisons... oh... um, oops, sorry I don't.
Do you even realize what someone like you would have sounded only a few decades ago? Here's a helpful preview: "Well, if you're going to let white folks marry d'em niggers, why not let two men get together?" And I'm sure that, sadly, there are people who would still say that today.
Get a clue. Try doing some actual research. Open your eyes and stop the vicious cycle of the close-minded white idiots. It's an emotional stated, after-all.
A lot of you really don't know what the hell you're talking about, and the fact that many of you are supposed to be enlightened college students makes it worse.
This issue actually has little to do with homosexuality, and is more about the allocation of legal benefits to same-sex couples. Because "only unions between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California" says nothing about homosexuality, gay people, queers, whatever.
Instead of trying to use the gay marriage issue as a way to socially engineer tolerance, and consequently getting all pissy when someone like John Fay or others don't buy into the idea that the way marriage has always been (between men and women) is inherently bigoted, you need to educate yourselves on WHY married couples receive these benefits, and if marriage is the only way to receive them.
The comparisons to the civil rights movement are offensive and wholly inaccurate. The key difference is blacks had laws that expressly subjugated them in every way possible, and I'm talking about actual Constitutional precepts like the right to property and the right to vote. Considering marriage is nowhere in the Constitution (and neither is sexual orientation, for that matter), there is no parallel.
Jim Crow, Black Codes, Anti-miscegenation laws, segregation policies -- they all existed specifically to perpetuate the vestiges of slavery and keep blacks as being second-class citizens.
Gays trying to draw a similar parallel, and thus evoke a similar pathos, is just wrong. When people say marriage has always been one thing, they're not appealing to tradition so much as they are showing incredulous that the man/woman stipulation on marriage is discrimination. We KNOW anti-miscegenation laws were an innovation of the 17th century and were an offshoot of slavery. Can you pinpoint the exact time when marriage was created and can prove conclusively that it was created solely to slight gay and lesbians? No. You can't. Even if you claim they are by default based on cultural changes, there is NO mandate for everyone to see it that way.
And all of you who get so offended when people mention polygamy and incest need to get over yourselves. You KNOW what people are talking about when they say that. They're not making value judgments; they're pointing out that marriage has ALWAYS had regulation BEYOND THE SEX OF THE PARTICIPANTS. You can't act like marriage policy is ONLY discriminatory towards homosexuality, because that's not true. Polygamists and incestuous couples exist, too, and they might want marital benefits, too. But they can't receive them in most places based on regulation.
The fact that the only way gay marriage is instituted is by judicial review should let you know there's nothing directly constitutional about this issue. Not at the state level or the federal level. That's why gay activists have to rely on activist judges to re-interpret the law on their behalf, and give classification status to a group that has never had it.
MARITAL BENEFITS ARE NOT BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS. They never have been. Nobody is stopping gays from "marrying" or living as a married couple. They're not being threatened with fine, imprisonment, or being kicked out of their state (as was the case with Loving v. Virginia) for doing so. Because the government subsidizes married couples doesn't mean, by default, gay couples are entitled to them as well. Those subsidies were NEVER MEANT to be door prizes.
>>hat medical doctor warrants that the behavior of homosexuals is "a problem that needs to be dealt with"
Who gives a sh*t what Doctors think. For the most part they are overpayed secular humnaists and athiests. Furthermore, doctor activism removed Gayness as a mental disease from teh DSM in the 70's. What's so great about doctors?
I applaud this article. Good job.
You absolutely disgust me. You would have done well in the 50's behind a hose wearing a white gown and hood.
I would have to agree that John did not do anywhere near what is required of respected journalists in today's media. However I do want to ask a few questions in the interest of logical, even-tempered debate and conversation. What is the basis of the law and where does its jurisdiction stop? What makes something right and gives it validity? And finally, more to the point, what truly is homosexuality?
The law, while not only setting a standard which we must live, protects us from the dangers of wrong actions. If you make a choice, there will be consequences to it. That said, what are the consequences of legalizing gay marriage? But even before we tackle that one, we need to decide, does our government and law have the authority to define marriage?
If a law, or any statement or standard, is to endure for long it must be backed up by something. Most of our laws in the Unites States obviously have the threat of force behind them which compels you to obey, but does that make it right? On a very basic level, if a student cheats on a test and gets a way with it did that make his action justifiable? IF there are no visible consequences to a choice, and it doesn't hurt anyone else, does that make it ok? Clearly I think we would all agree that just because that student successfully cheated without being caught, that does not make cheating the right thing to do. Furthermore, continuing the example, if everyone in the world agreed that cheating was allowable would that make it right? I don't believe so. Applying that to the issue at hand......and I do not say this out of hate, out of anger, out of any malice on my part.... If two adults agree on something does that make it right? justifiable? Validated? If two adults agreed to kill each other, for whatever reason, does the single fact that they agreed on it and it didn't hurt anyone else except for them make it right? Now that may seem like a horrible example, and I do not intend any offense to the reader, but if two people want to do that to themselves is there any reason why we should stop them? If two people want to agree that there is no gravity, is there any reason they're wrong? If two people want to do anything at all, as long as they're in agreement, is there any justifiable logic that stands in their way? Yes there is. Not only for their protection, but because truth, absolutes, and laws exist above the mere agreement of society. There is a higher law, a natural law, a moral law, that stands above our own. What gives our laws in this country thier wieght is not only the threat of force behind them, but the fact that they align with nature's law........ with God's law. If natural law and moral law do not exist, then what gives anyone the right to stop anyone else from doing anything they want? How should we order ourselves? What basis do we have for any law at all?
Just some questions to think about....
well i am not sure if anyone had brought this up, but I wanted to give my two cents. According to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states this # Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
# (2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
Human rights are inalienable, which for some of you John Fay types, this means that you get them regardless of your race, religion, nationality, and/or sexual orientation. Read legally this means that men and women have the right to marry whom they wish, it does not state that a man must marry a woman. And come on with the polygamy, incest, and bestiality stuff, this is exactly what the right wing is fighting for constantly. John, you don't have an original though coming out in the piece and it is a shame that you get to write for The Daily. When Women's suffrage was being fought for women were seen as less than men, and that this was a divide that must not be broken. We were seen as weak, feeble-minded, and held to every emotional whim. When women were first given the right to vote, it was thought by the public, which was considered just men, that women would open up a flood gate that could ruin us. I am sorry you feel that marriage is the last tradition in our country, I am sorry to see you lose other things like the fine tradition of segregation, and sexism, I wish we would have never gotten rid of such great historical traditions.
Post a comment
You must login with your dailyuw.com account or connect with Facebook to post a comment.
If you have any questions about this policy, send us an email. We'd love to hear your thoughts.
96 Comments
Post a comment
You must login with your dailyuw.com account or connect with Facebook to post a comment.
If you have any questions about this policy, send us an email. We'd love to hear your thoughts.
#601 against john fay
(Walla Walla, WA | Unverified Name)
on December 8, 2008 at 9:39 a.m.