New Haven Independent

Posted by: Bob | November 17, 2008 8:36 AM

Gay marriage and polygamist marriage both should be illegal.

Posted by: cedarhillresident | November 17, 2008 9:54 AM

Bob grow up!

I was their it was great thing! Why should I have the right to marry the person I love, and these people not??? It is out right prejudice!

Posted by: Fedupwithliberals | November 17, 2008 10:59 AM

What about the rights of the majority that voted these proposals down? At what point can we claim that we are disenfranchised when our voices are repeatedly ignored and overturned?

Posted by: William Kurtz | November 17, 2008 11:21 AM

If all people of faith--if all people, period--had the wisdom, grace, and judgment that Ms. Gorham of Newhallville is displaying, we would be a lot better off all around. Who are any of us indeed to pass judgment on what love means to any two adults.

Posted by: joe smoe | November 17, 2008 11:25 AM

Geez, Does Cedarhillresident have a job? Do you have an opinion on everything? Get a life and get off the computer

Posted by: william Kurtz | November 17, 2008 12:41 PM

What's wrong with having an opinion on everything? It shows you're engaged and informed.

Fedup, this is one of those rare instances of political debate when it just doesn't matter what you think. Your petty personal objections are of no concern when it comes to two consenting adults choosing to spend their lives together. I've asked before for someone to explain to me exactly how same-sex marriage weakens, defames, erodes, or otherwise harms any other marriage. Still waiting, and I won't be accepting 'tradition' or 'the Bible' as proof.

Posted by: cedarhillresident | November 17, 2008 12:56 PM

joe smoe yes I do have a job. And was at the protest. And others storys I comment I most likely am working with something having to do with them. Unlike you who who has no involvement except to put a rude comment that has nothing to do with the story.

Posted by: Fedupwithliberals | November 17, 2008 2:50 PM

WILLIAM KURTZ

Petty personal objections? Are you serious? This is a matter of law. I've gone down this path before with another brilliant liberal. When it comes to two consenting adults, does it mean that you are okay with prostitution? Why stop with two consenting adults? Why not 3 or more? Are you okay with polygamy? How about drugs? If I want to buy heroin from another adult willing to sell it to me, does that mean it should be okay?

Look at the greater picture. If majority opinions mean nothing, then apathy and anarchy are soon to follow. Is this the world you feel comfortable with?

Posted by: Frank | November 17, 2008 3:00 PM

OK, I'll bite. William Kurtz, why do you say two adults? Why can't three or four marry?

Posted by: Josh Smith | November 17, 2008 5:00 PM

The majority of people in this state think gay marriage should be legal, and they think polygamy, prostitution, and illegal drugs should still be illegal. That's the fatal flaw in that argument. Most people obviously aren't in favor of all those other things. Will people be okay with polygamy and prostitution in the future? I don't know; I'm not a psychic. I can only say that I'm not for them. However, gays have been around just as long if not longer than those things, and just now people are starting to question what's so wrong with gay marriage? Nothing is wrong with it, and it's not hurting you or your marriage, so leave them alone -- that's my reasoning. If you think allowing gay marriage will lead to legalized prostitution or polygamy in Connecticut, think again. I don't see those things moving out of Nevada and Utah any time soon.

And I'm not trying to be spiteful either... I'm just trying to show everyone the other side of the coin, that's all. By the way, Bill Kurtz asked for a specific reason why gay marriage hurts our straight marriages, not a "slippery slope" argument or a personal attack. I don't think that was fair of you guys to insinuate that he might be okay with illegal things that have nothing at all to do with gay marriage.

Posted by: Two Good Hands | November 17, 2008 5:24 PM

If the State of Virginia had a binding state-wide referendum in 1967, and the majority of those voting had voted in favor of the proposition that a valid and legally binding marriage requires that both parties to the marriage be of the same race, would the will of the majority be the law?

Or was Virginia bound by the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court (Loving v. Virginia) that such a restriction violates the constitutional rights of individuals of different racial backgrounds who wish to marry?

Limits on the fundamental rights of a minority group cannot be entirely left in the hands of a voting majority or a legislature. The reason is not hard to see or understand. The majority will often attempt to limit the rights of an unpopular minority group. Reviews by courts of last resort, whether it's the U.S. Supreme Court or the state supreme courts, of the constitutionality of restrictions on minorities imposed by the majority are an important safety-valve built into our constitution.

Sadly, being human institutions, these supreme courts are often limited by human prejudices too. But at least the long-standing rules and traditions that govern judicial decision-making in these cases gives minority groups some opportunity to plead their case that they are suffering the tyranny of the majority.

Posted by: Yaakov Stern | November 17, 2008 5:47 PM

The rationale behind the illegality of prostitution and certain drugs, as well as polygamy, is that it is detrimental to society as a whole, not just the people involved (this is at least the way I see it). For example, someone addicted to heroin is unlikely to be able to keep a job and will need welfare, will probably have serious medical complications, costing hospitals, and may end up committing violent crimes to compensate for their unemployment. To put it simply, there is no empirical evidence indicating that legalizing gay marriage would affect anyone not participating in one, or society as a whole, in any detrimental way. One could argue, in fact, that legalizing gay marriage would stabilize society.

Fedupwithliberals, your logic is uncomfortably authoritarian. Your argument about a "slippery slope" could theoretically extend in both directions. If you're willing to say that two consenting adults cannot marry each other based on their sex, why could that not extend to interracial marriage? Or marriage between two people of different financial status? If you have more germane points, please let us all know. I doubt that anyone here disputes the idea that a majority should rule in a democracy, and I would agree that attempts to paint Proposition 8 as unconstitutional rest on somewhat shaky ground; the idea that gay marriage is anything like prostitution or illegal drug use, however, is absurd.

Posted by: ezcuinkle | November 17, 2008 5:52 PM

Viva el AMOR Supporting this rigth to be equal. any person has the rigth to marriage any partner if is a Woman with a Womans or Man with a Man. Thats the beuty of Life. I Love my Lesbians and Gay's Friends. I LOVE THEM.. AND I WILL SUPPORT THEM FOR EVER.

Posted by: BEN | November 17, 2008 6:15 PM

HTTP://WWW.MARRIAGEISSOGAY.COM

Posted by: cedarhillresident | November 17, 2008 8:18 PM

The homophobia is showing people. Now we are talking the apocalypse. Stop throughing all the freaken propaganda, and get over it. Religious fear tactics are desperate moves and guess what old ones! Now Prostitutes and polygamy and next marrying farm animals, please are you all serious!! Come on! Looks like inter racial marriage could become a thing of the past if these people had their way! I have known people in lesbian commitments that have lasted far longer than most straight marriages. I have seen gay couples take in children your pure self righteous asses would never take in... who are you people to judge? I have heard storys that would make even you cry (if it happened to a straight couple) and you say they do not deserve the same right as you because it will create disorder OMG.. It is options like this that make want to stand with the people that are fighting for this. SHAME ON ALL OF YOU!!!!

Posted by: William Kurtz | November 17, 2008 9:49 PM

Aw, shucks, Fedup. Modesty demands that I say, "Me? A brilliant liberal?" But I'm pleased that you recognize a cogent argument. To answer your question, yes, I'm completely serious. Law is not the same thing as justice, so the mere fact that something is against 'the law' doesn't make it right. That's not to recklessly disregard the rule of law and take us down the slippery slope to--what was it? anarchy and apathy?--but we do have an obligation to recognize when law is being applied unjustly and work to change it, as well an obligation not to employ our power under the law in such a cruel fashion as the people who placed Prop 8 on the ballot in California did.

Frank, I generally reject the argument that same-sex marriage leads inevitably to polygamy; like other slippery-slope claims, it's logically suspect. But since you asked, here's the difference: no one, to the best of my knowledge at least, is making a serious effort to claim a right to polygamous marriage. I don't count the fundamentalist breakaway Mormom sects, marrying child brides and collecting welfare from state governments while boldly asserting their independence from secular law.

That's the difference. And here's the similarity: if the day comes in the future when a sizable portion of the population seeks the right to enter into legal marriages between three people, or four people, (and not when they're coerced or conditioned into doing so, as so many of the FLDS brides seem to have been) and a sizable portion of the population agrees that they should have that right, and many businesses, churches, and other public institutions recognize their right to do so, then it will be time to revisit that question. I think we can safely leave that problem to future generations to decide. That's how history works; five or six generations ago, it would have been illegal for Barack Obama's or Halle Berry's parents to marry and he is the president-elect and she's won an Oscar.

Here, Keith Olbermann said it better than I can:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnHyy8gkNEE&eurl

Okay, I answered your question. I'm still waiting for an answer to mine, which by the way, I'm asking in complete sincerity and in the spirit of honest, engaged dialog with my fellow citizens: how is same-sex marriage weakening, eroding, detracting from, or otherwise harming solid heterosexual ones? Again, I don't accept 'tradition' or 'the Bible' as suitable reasons. And just to clarify; they're perfectly good reasons for any clergyman or religious adherent to reject same-sex marriages, but no reason at all for the secular government to do so.

I eagerly await the reasons. Who knows? Maybe I'll change my mind.

Posted by: fedupwithliberals | November 17, 2008 10:02 PM

YAAKOV STERN

If you do not think that same sex marriages are not detrimental to society, then there is nothing more that can be said to bring you to your senses.

Posted by: MORRIS COVE MF | November 18, 2008 8:32 AM

We're looking for equal rights, not special rights! All adults should be treated equally, not as 3/5 people, or people scared to talk about who they are. This is just the next link in a long chain of fights. Slavery, women's rights, religious separation, desgregation, they're all the same...You don't choose who you are, and you shouldn't be punished for it. I applaud those who protested, and support all efforts to keep gay marriages legal in CT.

Posted by: Ned | November 18, 2008 8:53 AM

After putting in a few hours of public service - trying to improve East Rock Park, I went downtown to degrade traditional bride purchase wife beating marriage; afterwards, we celebrated at a traditional Cow / Bull marriage - lots of curd chewing!

Gary Holder-Winfield might want to investigate the racist history of the Mormon church, as well as the anti-semitic history of the Catholic church (the two majority White organizations pushing the fascist religious agenda, in the U.S.A.).

I too was struck by the overwhelmingly whiteness of the pro-love crowd. Where are the Gay preachers, politicians, musicians or other people, who are calling for the murder of Black people, or damning them to eternal punishment, cutting them off from community and family? - Idaho? - cue crickets chirping...
In addition, while Mr. Holder-Winfield, was free to attend the rally, and even walk in seemingly mild opposition to it. My partner and I could not walk in front of a Baptist church, on a Sunday, or a Mosque on any day, without an armed escort. Do you think that might be part of the problem?

Posted by: James | November 18, 2008 9:04 AM

Um, FEDUP, why can't you just answer the question? How is homosexual marriage detrimental to society? So far the most cogent argument you've offered is along the lines of, "If you don't already know, I'm not going to tell you." Try using some persuasive argument. Here, I'll start you off. But you'll have to finish them because I'm not a bigot and clearly don't have the sense to know what's good for me:

1). Homosexual marriage promotes homosexuality as a social norm. This is detrimental to society because...

2). A same-sex couple cannot reproduce without medical intervention. This is detrimental to society because...

3). Homosexual marriage weakens the institution of marriage because...

See, these are ar-gu-ments. Simply saying that it should be illegal because you don't like it is not a stance that is likely to bring others over to your way of thinking. If you're that concerned about the detriments of gay marriage your goal should be to convince others of the validity of viewpoint. You can't do that unless you yourself know why you object.

Posted by: William Kurtz | November 18, 2008 11:36 AM

Fedup, your response to Mr. Stern is a classic example of question-begging. Can you please explain how it's detrimental to society?

Posted by: cedarhillresident | November 18, 2008 12:50 PM

Fedup despite the fact that I do not agree with you on this matter. It is important to understand everyone's views. So thank you for being brave and share your opinion. But as stated above can you explain your thought process? Are you stating that if we let this happen then in time we are going to have to let other groups be part of the same decision ex: polygamists. I am not so sure that this would be the case.

Posted by: fedupwithliberals | November 18, 2008 7:10 PM

JAMES, WILLIAM KURTZ AND CEDARHILLRESIDENT

I know it might sound quaint, but this country is primarily Judeo-Christian, not secular. Having said that, the following arguments can be considered regarding same sex marriage:

Most religions consider homosexuality a sin. Virtually every religion in the world, including the major ones in this country, consider homosexuality unacceptable. It is offensive and a swipe to the religious freedom of the majority to have to recognize a relationship they consider sinful. The legal system in the United States evolved out of the laws contained in the Bible. We shouldn't go even farther to tear down those laws.

It would weaken the definition and respect for the institution of marriage. The 50 percent divorce rate has already weakened the definition of marriage. We shouldn't be taking further steps to define what marriage is. A law allowing gay marriage would increase the number of joke or non-serious marriages, such as a couple of friends who want to save on taxes. Marriage is the most sacred institution in this country, and every society considers it the joining of a man and a woman. It makes biological sense since only a man and woman can pro-create.

It would further weaken the traditional family values essential to our society. The building blocks of our society and the thing that makes it strong is the traditional family of man, woman, and children. It is what has sustained us through two world wars, a great depression, and numerous other challenges over the centuries. While friends & lovers come and go, your family is always there. The main reason our culture and values have started to crumble is the weakening of families. Introducing another form of "family" would only make the situation worse.

It could provide a slippery slope in the legality of marriage (e.g. having multiple wives or marrying an object could be next). Gay rights activists claim that these marriages should be allowed because it doesn't hurt anyone, but it could start a chain reaction that destroys the whole idea of marriage. If someone wants to marry his dog, why shouldn't he be able to? What if someone wants to marry their brother or parent? What if someone wants to marry their blow-up doll or have 10 wives? Unless we develop some firm definition of what a marriage is, the options are endless. If these options sound absurd, remember that all it takes is a few activist judges to use the statute to open the door. It doesn't matter if 95 percent of the population disagrees with the policy, one judge can interpret the case the way he or she wants and use the doctrine of stare decisis to impose a law on everyone. Do you remember how two judges in California recently declared the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional? If the decision hadn't been overturned, it would have prevented millions of children from being able to say the pledge every morning, despite the fact that 95+ percent of Americans disagreed with the decision.

The gay lifestyle is not something to be encouraged, as a lot of research shows it leads to a much lower life expectancy, psychological disorders, and other problems. Studies show that homosexuals, for a variety of reasons, have life expectancies of approximately 20 years less than the general population. Just like a lifestyle of smoking, drinking, etc., unhealthy lifestyles should be discouraged.

Did this answer your question?

Posted by: William Kurtz | November 18, 2008 9:04 PM

It answers the question of why you think it's detrimental, but still, there's little to no concrete reasons to be seen here.

First, although Judaism and Christianity might be the religions with the most adherents in this country, the United States of America is explicitly a secular nation--that's not a liberal agenda, or some kind of godless left-wing plot, it's the intention of the framers of the Constitution of the United States, among them Thomas Jefferson who explicitly rejected the idea of religion interfering in the business of running the country. You can find a quick gathering of his remarks on the subject here:

http://www.nobeliefs.com/jefferson.htm

Yes, I know that website is called 'nobeliefs' but it was the first thing that popped up and I'm in a hurry. You can easily consult the original sources to verify; most of Jefferson's major works are available online.

Like Jefferson said, the Constitution meant to include within the "mantle of its protection . . . the Infidel of every denomination."

Jefferson's words should cast a new light on the Pledge of Allegiance debate, too; did you know that the phrase "under God" is not 'ceremonial deism' and void of significance as some would argue? It was inserted into the Pledge of Allegiance (itself adapted to the U.S. from a broader statement) during the Red Scare specifically to differentiate the U.S. States from those godless commies. They were wrong then, and they're wrong now. The rest of the ceremonial references to God were added well after the ratification of the Constitution; 'In God We Trust' for example doesn't appear on money until 1864.

I don't discount the good work that religious figures and institutions have done throughout human history, and I appreciate the comfort and peace that faith has given to generations, but I'm also not blind to the intolerance, bigotry, violence and other crimes that can be laid squarely at their feet. It's simply a point of fact that in this country, we don't base our laws on religious texts. I'm pretty sure most of them condemn usury, too; should we start passing laws against banks offering car loans? Jesus has a lot more to say about the money-changers than he does homosexuality; surely that's a greater cause for concern?

Posted by: Josh Smith | November 18, 2008 9:26 PM

Okay, I'm not gonna pull any punches here, because I'm sick of the religious right telling these people how to live their lives. I'll probably catch hell for this, but that's all right with me. First off, don't try to shove your religion in peoples' faces. Separation of church and state was put in place for a reason. Just so we're on the same page here, I'm a straight Christian, and I support gay marriage. Whether or not Jesus would support it, I don't know, but I seem to remember that He was in support of the marginalized -- those people who were always held down by the majority. And what if someone isn't of the Judeo-Christian tradition? What if you don't believe in any religion? At that point, the whole religious argument falls to pieces right off the bat, as that person doesn't believe what you believe. You could say that the majority is Judeo-Christian, but as long as there are two people who are atheists, they shouldn't be held back from marrying by any argument from anyone else's religion. So that argument's gone.

You say that societies worldwide see marriage as between a man and a woman. Well, apparently, society in Connecticut (with a population of over three million) and society in Massachusetts doesn't recognize marriage as just between a man and a woman, so that argument is gone. And how would allowing gay marriage increase the number of non-serious marriages? These people have been waiting YEARS for the right to marry, which is longer than some straight marriages last from beginning to end. If anything, the "joke" marriages you speak of would increase only PROPORTIONALLY. You have no evidence that the increase would be anything more than at the same ratio to that of straight marriages. Next...

Here's a "firm definition" for ya... Marriage is between one person and one other person who is not of the same family. Done deal. That wouldn't open to door to any of the weird stuff, like marrying a chair or a dog or whatever. That takes care of that argument. Stop being paranoid about what COULD happen and look at what IS happening -- people who love each other are being told they can't marry, just because they're of the same gender, and I think that's hateful and wrong.

As for society being forced to recognize a marriage, all marriages (gay or straight) should be civil unions on the legal/governmental side, and the decision of "marriages" should be up to the religious congregations. That way, more compassionate, caring churches could marry gays, and your stuffy, "traditional" churches could have the option to continue to be bigoted and not marry them. Then you'll have the right to not recognize anything you don't want to. And I'll have the right to not go to services, or otherwise support, churches that refuse to recognize gay marriages. It doesn't affect me personally, but I refuse to support a church that says two people with a strong bond should not marry each other.

And I can't believe you'd equate being gay, a lifestyle choice, with smoking or excessive drinking, two activities that have been proven to physically harm the human body. You should look into the validity of whatever sources you pulled those studies from, as the sources may lean a little to the right. I'm sure data can be construed so that homosexuals live just as long as heterosexuals. I did a Google search and came up with arguments on both sides of the fence. One of the articles that suggested that gays don't have a shorter or longer life expectancy than straight people was from the International Journal of Epidemiology.

I'm sure I opened up a new can of worms on the Independent again -- so what else is new? Keep an open mind, everyone. To close your mind is to shut out the world and exclude others from living a good, honest life. And that's all these people want to do. Thank God that some judges in CT saw the light here and let them do just that.

Posted by: Alan Felder | November 18, 2008 11:59 PM

Truth forever on the scaffold.

Posted by: Bob | November 19, 2008 8:50 AM

William Kurtz
That was a nice dance around the issue of polygamy but you didn't answer the question. Who gets to decide what is a sizable number? This is a democracy, the sizable number is called a majority. Liberals only support democracy when they get the outcome they want.

Posted by: kris | November 19, 2008 12:51 PM

Where can I get one of those t-shirts?

Posted by: Chris Gray | November 20, 2008 3:18 AM

Bob, you may not have noticed that, though while some votes in our governmental decision processes are left to simple majorities, there are a vast number of checks and balances built in to that system; the 2/3rds votes in the Senate, the 5/4 votes in the Supreme Court and the overwhelming mandate of a really successful Presidential campaign when we are all really pleased, as a few examples; to prevent the tyranny of the majority and assure what is known as a pluralistic democracy, where the right and, dare I say, the responsibility to dissent from the majority is meant to be preserved.

William Kurtz, you write very well and I appreciate the words many others of those of you who have written here.

Posted by: William Kurtz | November 23, 2008 10:44 AM

Bob,

Regarding polygamy, I think mature, consenting adults should be able to enter into any personal relationships they choose to, so long as it's without coercion. But polygamy truly does fundamentally change the legal nature of marriage, which is the only part of marriage in which the state has an interest.

One of the things a legal marriage does for a couple is provide (mostly) clear legal rights and responsibilities for the parties. Expand 'marriage' to more than two people, and now you need entirely new procedures for dealing with questions of inheritance, property-division in the event of divorce, medical decision-making and power of attorney.

Applying the same rules to any 'couple' provides true equality.

Thank you, Chris Gray.