Number 18

[ajaxfetish]

Christmas has come early for Utah's gay couples.

ABC News Article
Washington Post Article
Text of the Relevant Decision
Wikipedia

I expected the state where I grew up to be among the very last to accept gay marriage. Apparently, opinion polls have shown it to have the lowest support for gay marriage in the nation. The majority of the population belong to a church that vigorously opposes the recognition of gay marriages. The state was a pioneer in passing legislation not to recognize gay marriages performed in other states, and in adding constitutional amendments defining marriage as a hetero-sexual affair. I would have preferred the change to come through the legislature, on the model of Vermont, New York, Illinois, etc., both because it would be less open to future reversion, and because it would paint a more encouraging picture of the state's people. On the other hand, even as a case of judicial activism, it's still very good news for those Utah gay couples who have finally been able to achieve the legal rights and recognition of marriage, or have them recognized by the state. This may be turned over on appeal, but it sounds like those marriages that are taking place will likely continue to be recognized regardless, which means the state will have to sort out tax law and so forth for gay families, so those issues will already have been dealt with when the issue comes back around. Reversion would also create a particularly awkward double-standard of "sure, that gay couple got married in Utah, but you can't." One way or another, it looks like Pandora's box is open for this state.

So now the question, which state will manage to hold out the longest, and finally take home that coveted most-homophobic-state trophy to display in their capital building? Will the supreme court step in and force multiple states to share the honor, like with inter-racial marriage? Which southern state will be the first to break? Or, will they all hold out until they're dragged into the present by the rest of the country? How soon will gay marriage be something everyone takes for granted, looking back on us and wondering how this could ever be an issue?

[HoreTore]

Aren't you a scary Mormon, ajaxfetish? According to my handy stereotype chart, you're supposed to be crying in disbelief, not pushing progressive ideas like this!

Anyway, I figure that things will end up like interracial marriage, with the last bunch of hold-out states being forced by the federal government. That's actually a positive thing for those who oppose gay marriage, since in that case they can simply cry about "State's rights!!!!" instead of having to say "I hate them queero's!".

[ajaxfetish]

Aren't you a scary Mormon, ajaxfetish? According to my handy stereotype chart, you're supposed to be crying in disbelief, not pushing progressive ideas like this!

Scary Mormon, yes, but not particularly orthodox on this topic. It might make a difference that I have gay family.

[PanzerJaeger]

I too would have liked to have seen this come out of the legislature, but I am glad that people are able to marry regardless of how it happened. Amid the current culture war and its latest battle (the Duck Dynasty insanity), it is sometimes difficult to see just how far the nation has come on this issue. The repressive Christian stranglehold on our culture is loosening slowly but surely, and one day soon homosexuals will no longer have to fear the bible thumpers, who will themselves get to experience social marginalization.

In related news, Alan Turing received a royal pardon today for being castrated due to his homosexuality.

[Fragony]

Congrats Utah, fastforward to a more tolerant society in a very unlikely place.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I don't buy the comparison with racism or the idea that acceptance of homosexual marriage is an inevitability.

Racism (I mean serious, institutionalised racism) is something that is unique to particular places and particular times, often disappearing and reappearing throughout history in different forms. On the other hand, the idea of homosexual marriage has been almost universally rejected by almost all societies across almost all times.

Indeed, it is still, at the global level, pretty much universally rejected - the more liberal schools of Western thought are the only exception. The Far East rejects it, the Muslim world rejects it, India rejects it, Africa rejects it, Eastern Europe rejects it, Latin America largely rejects it. Even in the only place where it is accepted, it has a lot of opposition from Christians, conservatives, and (of particular relevance in Eastern Europe/Russia) the nationalist Right. From what has been said, it seems that this latest bit of 'progress' in Utah has happened against the wishes of the people thanks to judicial activism (something both sides here of course use).

The idea of gay marriage being a global inevitability seems to me to come from the same school of thought as Fukuyama and the 'end of history' idea - as though gay rights will somehow ride on the coattails of liberal democracy. Suffice it to say the last decade has stomped all over that notion, which shows the same sort of hubris, narrow-mindedness and ignorance of the variety between different societies that pervades all the other "export to the whole world" ideologies eg Islamism or Communism.

I also find it incredible that despite the fact that the gay marriage campaign is part of what is by far the most rapid and transformative social revolution in history (sexual revolution, collapse of the traditional family etc - the cost of which is as usual felt by those at the bottom), advocates of it seem to simultaneously campaign with a fantastical and righteous zeal on the one hand, and on the other take upon all the confidence and surety of the establishment. "Who will be the last bunch of rednecks to embrace our enlightened ways?", etc...

[Fragony]

To be honest, I have a problem with it as well. That doesn't stop me from fully supporting it though, I can't make any argument that makes any sense. That I don't really aprove it is my problem, not theirs. Live and let live.

[HoreTore]

I don't buy the comparison with racism or the idea that acceptance of homosexual marriage is an inevitability.

Racism (I mean serious, institutionalised racism) is something that is unique to particular places and particular times, often disappearing and reappearing throughout history in different forms. On the other hand, the idea of homosexual marriage has been almost universally rejected by almost all societies across almost all times.

If you really want to play that game:

The idea of monogamy is a very limited idea. The concept of the nuclear family as the basis for society(or even its very existence) is extremely rare in the grand scheme of things.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

If you really want to play that game:

The idea of monogamy is a very limited idea. The concept of the nuclear family as the basis for society(or even its very existence) is extremely rare in the grand scheme of things.

Sure - lets Tango.

Last time we did this I asked for an example of sanctioned homosexual or polyamous marriage.

Nobody had one - historical (and current) instances of polygamy involve one man making multiple marriages - not a single marriage involving more than two people.

So - while Rhy may be coming at the issue from a very Protestant context he's essentially correct about homosexual unions being endorsed - it's about as inevitable as democracy - and we know that barely functions outside Europe and the anglo-sphere. Certainly - the majority of the world's population lives under something other than a democratic government.

Onto the specific case - the situation in the US is an example of constitutional and judicial abuse. US law does not specify that marriage is between a man and a woman because the framers of those laws considered it to be self-evident. This has been exploited as a loophole by the Courts and Liberal-minded activists. It is not a loophole and a proper and impartial Judicial review by the Supreme Court WILL inevitably strike down all these decisions.

What is needed is actual change in the Law explicitly including homosexuals within the institution of marriage.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I don't buy the comparison with racism or the idea that acceptance of homosexual marriage is an inevitability.

Racism (I mean serious, institutionalised racism) is something that is unique to particular places and particular times, often disappearing and reappearing throughout history in different forms. On the other hand, the idea of homosexual marriage has been almost universally rejected by almost all societies across almost all times.

Indeed, it is still, at the global level, pretty much universally rejected - the more liberal schools of Western thought are the only exception. The Far East rejects it, the Muslim world rejects it, India rejects it, Africa rejects it, Eastern Europe rejects it, Latin America largely rejects it. Even in the only place where it is accepted, it has a lot of opposition from Christians, conservatives, and (of particular relevance in Eastern Europe/Russia) the nationalist Right. From what has been said, it seems that this latest bit of 'progress' in Utah has happened against the wishes of the people thanks to judicial activism (something both sides here of course use).

The idea of gay marriage being a global inevitability seems to me to come from the same school of thought as Fukuyama and the 'end of history' idea - as though gay rights will somehow ride on the coattails of liberal democracy. Suffice it to say the last decade has stomped all over that notion, which shows the same sort of hubris, narrow-mindedness and ignorance of the variety between different societies that pervades all the other "export to the whole world" ideologies eg Islamism or Communism.

I also find it incredible that despite the fact that the gay marriage campaign is part of what is by far the most rapid and transformative social revolution in history (sexual revolution, collapse of the traditional family etc - the cost of which is as usual felt by those at the bottom), advocates of it seem to simultaneously campaign with a fantastical and righteous zeal on the one hand, and on the other take upon all the confidence and surety of the establishment. "Who will be the last bunch of rednecks to embrace our enlightened ways?", etc...

It's what happens when ideology takes precedence over humanity. When you are sure someone is wrong, self determination is labeled tyrannical. I can not complain because I do not feel that gay marriage is a challenge to the fundamental principle of marriage, but I recognize the time will come when the left will argue that fundamental principles which have served humanity so well should be dismantled just because they are old structures.

I've said it before on here, this current generation of "new Atheists" are twenty years away from being the "new Christians", we can only hope that the damage in the meantime won't be too bad.

[The Lurker Below]

I don't suppose we'll ever separate the bedroom from politics.