Gay Marriage Debate: Roach Responds
Friday, February 25, 2011
Voting on marriage
John Bartlett wrote:
[…]If we vote on marriage for same sex couples, let’s vote on everyone’s marriage. Should opposite sex couples be allowed to marry? Should people of different religions be allowed to marry? Should people unable to produce children be allowed to marry? Let the people have their say over ALL marriages not just one kind.
This is a straw man argument. Here’s the current definition of marriage – a man and a woman joining together to create a family. This has been accepted, from both a legal and moral standpoint, with various states having marriage laws explicitly stating what it is on their books. In other words, marriage between a man and a woman has been voted upon. In fact, there needs to be a vote to change the definition of marriage because…you guessed it, states have by and large already established what marriage is. So saying that we need to rewind the clock and vote on heterosexual marriages is grasping at straws.
Civil rights
David Grossman makes some interesting points:
First of all, the Supreme Court has already indicated (17 times) that marriage is a civil right of every American.
Did the Supreme Court, in any of those decisions define what marriage is? If marriage is the union between a man and a woman, then heck yeah, every single person has the right to marry.
[…]When has the majority EVER supported civil rights for the minority?
I think I cited one example here in Rhode Island in 2006. This is an anecdotal assumption not backed by fact. EVER is too strong because history shows us this can and has happened. Regarding your comments on “sexual orientation” we won’t agree on those points and it’s a pretty wide gulf. If you believe something is innate that I believe is a choice, your logical leap to “it’s a civil right” is illogical to me and vice versa. Unfortunately, I do not believe there is a way to bridge this chasm.
[…]Straight people will STILL marry straight people if gay couples can marry. Or am I missing something? The ONLY change is that gay people will be able to marry gay people.
I really think you’re missing my point regarding redefining marriage and its implications. Just by your quote above you’re essentially saying marriage is any two people who want to enter a union. I simply don’t believe that to be the case. And if it was this simple, why are so many opposed to it? I’d really love to see if you’re able to answer that question.
Ken Fish’s comment is only worth this note…rather than “truth twister,” keeping with the theme MINDTwister would have been more apropos I think. Don Roach, GoLocal MindTwister™.
The 3/5ths argument
From Matther White:
Very strange that he would say that minority rights CAN be addressed by the majority, and then IMMEDIATELY bring up the 3/5ths clause. Um, the 3/5ths clause do NOT support your argument.
My point was the rights of the minority (black folks in this case) were decided by the majority (whites) during the writing of the Constitution. I don’t agree with the majority decision, but my point, my major point, is that in our society the majority has conferred and constricted rights upon minorities since the beginning. It’s how our system works save for a few Supreme Court cases that have turned laws on their heads. I’m not sure how this doesn’t support the argument I was making.
The real question is, referendum or legislation? The voting rights for the historically disenfranchised groups you mentioned were all secured through legislation at the federal level.
Indeed, and I believe we still have Civil Rights Act legislation every so often in order to maintain the protections voted in the 60s. Again, I prefer referendum so that legislative mood swings don’t mean we can easily go back on fundamental changes. I have no problem with the Rhode Island legislature voting on this issue as they do hundreds of others, I just believe a referendum will be more permanent.
‘Buried bias’
From Pro Democracy:
[…]Clearly Mr. Roach is opposed to marriage equality and he should do the intellectually honest thing and say it rather than burying his bias in this pseudo historical nonsense. What a joke!
I am opposed to gay marriage. I support democracy. And that support says if the mass of people want to redefine marriage, then so be it. I’ll continue to work to persuade and be a voice for those of us who are very happy with the present definition of marriage. I think that would be the most honest thing I can do.
‘Black bigots’
From Norman Dostal:
Black bigots-they still blow me away!
When I first read this I was drinking a cup of tea. Two seconds later I was wearing my tea. You can’t throw out a comment like “black bigot” as your opening line! Build up to that. Seriously, when that’s your opening line, this is your final salvo:
[…]So sad-as their Lord said, ‘Forgive them-they know not what they do”
This was ironic given your opening statement. I am not a bigot, I do not support gay marriage. If you are saying that I am a bigot because I do not support gay marriage then you are essentially saying more than half the country are gay bigots. I actually posed this question on RI Future some time back and the answer given by poster “Queer Action RI” was that someone who did not support gay marriage was not necessarily a bigot. Heck, I don’t believe someone who doesn’t support interracial marriage is a racist!
What is sad is that you link the two without having any knowledge of my personal history or interpersonal relationships with gay people. To put it to you a different way, I have a friend who is a perennial “player.” I don’t support his lifestyle but I love him as a friend. Am I a bigot against “players”?
Compared to Pontius Pilate
Michael Gardiner brings up an interesting, if inaccurate point:
The mindsetter argues for the “Pontious Pilate” school of leadership. As if to say, “Let the crowd decide.”
Pontius Pilate wanted nothing to do with deciding the fate of Jesus. I certainly want something to do with deciding the fate of marriage. I have “skin in the game” and an opinion on the matter, but I believe in our democracy such that I would like the answer to be definitive. And the most definitive instrument we have at our disposal is a constitutional amendment voted upon by the citizens of this state. I don’t plan to wash my hands of the decision process as we move along this journey….at all. And I consider it offensive to equate being enslaved with redefining the term marriage.
General Assembly has ‘weaseled’ on the issue
And finally Joe Bernstein writes:
The General Assembly has to take a vote on this issue-they’ve weaseled for years now.[…] A referendum is more appropriate for such issues as the state name change or transportation bonds,etc.
While I agree the GA has “weaseled” on this issue for years, I find that our state’s legislature loves to leave for tomorrow what it can avoid today in almost every circumstance. Again, I don’t have a huge problem with the legislature voting on this issue, I do have a problem with random judges making the decision. Yet, I still think a referendum is the way to go.
Again, thank you all for commenting. This is going to be a major issue over the next few months here in Rhode Island. I really am asking you on the pro gay marriage side to refrain from hurling insults at folks like me. I’ve got thick skin so it doesn’t bother me, but there are others in the state who won’t take too kindly to being called a bigot because they believe marriage is between a man and a woman. And those folks will call their legislator (as they should) and consider you folks to be people who are arrogant and ignorant of what marriage is about.
Rather than seeking to persuade people like me through vitriol, try to convince me your perspective is correct through rational debate. I’ve never been one to think I have it all figured out and we’re all on this bus ride together. Just because we don’t always agree doesn’t mean we can’t learn from each other. And just because we don’t agree doesn’t mean we can’t respect each other’s opinions.
Related Articles
- Gay Marriage: What’s Wrong with a Referendum?
- Is ‘Conservative’ a Bad Word?
- Time for Compromise on Immigration
- Gist’s Days Seem Numbered
Comments:
Pro Democracy
1:24pm on Friday, February 25, 2011
Thank you for your candor regarding you personal bias in this area. I must say however, that your very defensive individual responses to your critics have left me, and I'm sure other, completely confused and in some instances stunned. While I am staunch believer in democracy, I do believe in the concept of Tyranny of the Masses which would most certainly result from the type of democracy that you seem to be an advocate for. Luckily we live in a representative democracy. I can see how you would take offense at being called a bigot but that is the risk that one takes in the arena of public debate. The irony of course being that if you were to put that question to a vote amongst your critics there is little doubt what the consensus would be. Not necessarily a true or just characterization of you as a man but simple the result of pure math. Finally, you have submitted the following: “Just because we don’t always agree doesn’t mean we can’t learn from each other” which begs the question: What sir, have you learned?
Donn Roach
4:27pm on Friday, February 25, 2011
Pro democracy,
I believe I have learned that proponents of gay marriage often resort to labels versus addressing the issue. I've certainly been called worse than bigot and wasn't particularly offended by that comment, instead I was disappointed.
I feel gay marriage proponent's are being intellectually lazy when they label someone who disagrees with them. They are millions of Americans like myself who value the current definition of marriage. Just calling us bigots and homophobic is sophomoric in my opinion. I can certainly understand why some people feel that gay marriage is the right thing and I don't think they're trying to subvert society, are asinine, or the kind. I don't put a label on them.
No, I just disagree with them on this issue.
I'd like to see the same level of civility returned in kind. Question for you: is that too much to ask?
Pro Democracy
5:53pm on Friday, February 25, 2011
It appears from the tone of your response that you are more than just a little “disappointed” that some members of our society may find that your opposition to marriage equality is rooted in bigotry and/or homophobia. While that may not the case with you, it is absurd to think that it is not the case for more that a few opponents of marriage equality. What I find disappointing, is that your only take away from the comments to your previous post is that people who disagree with you are intellectually dishonest, incapable of civil discourse and sophomoric. As for civil discourse, I can only speak for myself in stating that I do not engage in name calling or labeling. I was, however, challenging your view of democracy and your misinterpretation of history. If you find this type of challenge or the tone of my post uncivil, I suppose you and I have reached a proverbial impasse. I would however, suggest that you avoid delving into these types of topics if you can’t handle opposing views. Enjoy your tea.
Donn Roach
7:13pm on Friday, February 25, 2011
Really?
What I labeled uncivil was being called a black bigot and that's easily inferred from my comments. Look, if you'd like to go round and round this rhetorical merry-go-round that's fine. Let's admit that there are many homophobic people out there who would take every and all opportunity to discriminate against gay people. I'm not one of those people.
I don't think I'm misinterpreting history either (the majority has and will continue to vote on the rights of the minority in this country.) and overall all I thought your comments were fine, we just don't agree on the issue. My wife and I had a similar conversation that began thus, "if you do not believe being gay is a choice" then those two sides will always be at an impasse. I'm not saying who's right or wrong in this instance, just that it's difficult to engage if there isn't agreement on this point.
But my general experience with proponents of gay marriage is as I said and if you read others' comments it's pretty much clear how I was judged vs addressing my actual comments. The main thing I feel you and others ignore is the RightToVote campaign in 2006 I make mention of and the lack of outrage over the tyrannical masses voting to confer an even more basic 'right' than 'marriage'.
What was ok about that vote and not ok about voting on marriage? Especially, if you believe polling figures, most Rhode Islanders support gay marriage?
Pro Democracy
11:10pm on Friday, February 25, 2011
Eureka! With the help of your wife, we have finally uncovered the root of your opposition to marriage equality. This has nothing to do with democracy, referendums, or historical precedent. For you, this is a nature/nurture argument. In fact, had you predicated your original post on the premise that homosexuality is a choice thereby making those who choose to practice it not entitled to equal protection under the law, we could have engaged in a more productive debate. Many of us have read and re-read both your original post and the post-post and came to the conclusion that you have been arguing against yourself which by the way, you have. I understand and respect that for many this is a question of religious dogma or faith and in those instances, there is virtually no way to bridge that gulf. But when you frame it as a matter of choice, there is in fact room for enlightenment. Moving forward, I hope you would at least agree that the question of whether sexuality is a choice is a matter better left to science than popular vote. In the context of this discussion, my question for you is whether your position would change if there was general consensus that homosexuality isn’t a choice?
Donn Roach
1:17am on Saturday, February 26, 2011
I'm not convinced science will prove it is not a choice. So I am unable to answer your hypothetical question. It's like asking you, whether your position would change if there was general consensus that homosexuality is a choice?
I'm not sure if I detailed my opposition to gay marriage fully, and yes this has EVERYTHING to do with democracy, referendums, and historical precedent. Again, I am disappointed you're seeking some 'Eureka!' moment latent in my words rather than the words themselves. I will say this again, I do not support gay marriage I do support the democratic process to answer the question. First choice, referendum. Wayyyy second choice, general assembly vote.
No more, no less.
Freedom Fries
8:09am on Saturday, February 26, 2011
Donn -- What makes you so sure that homosexuality is a choice? Assuming you're straight, could you choose to be attracted to a man? What is so sacred about the idea of marriage (from a societal context, outside of religion) between a man and a woman that it should justify the government's discrimination against a similar loving relationship between two people of the same gender? Are you opposed solely to the idea of homosexual relationships being given "marriage" status, or are you also opposed to the idea of civil unions, which would allow homosexual couples to receive the same privileges under the law that married couples currently enjoy?
Pro Democracy
11:20am on Saturday, February 26, 2011
“I’m not convinced science will prove it is not a choice.” What? I think what you meant to say is that you HOPE science will prove that homosexuality is a choice. Again, let’s be honest. Thankfully there is a lot of research and literature in this area and I for one will rely on that rather than the “Donn Roach hunch”. You did ask “whether [my] position would change if there was general consensus that homosexuality is a choice?” I am more than happy to answer this hypothetical question and my response is absolutely not-my position would not change. As I’ve stated, this is a question that is better left to science than the whim of the masses. I do agree that you haven’t detailed your opposition fully and perhaps you should have put more thought into your position before exposing it to the bright light of scrutiny. Before weighing in on the marriage question, you need to do some soul searching and reconcile your feelings regarding your gay and lesbian family members, neighbors and I’m sure you would say friends.
Great questions Freedom Fries- Good luck getting a straight answer.
Donn Roach
4:57pm on Saturday, February 26, 2011
Pro Democracy,
I think you mean good luck getting the answer you want to hear from. I am curious why you would pose your scientific question at all if the answer wasn't one you hypothesized. Why ask me the question at all? What's the point. As for science answering the question, I am sure I may be in the minority, but science isn't my crutch and I don't believe it can or must answer every philosophical question we humans face. We might disagree, but if so we've come to yet another impasse.
Also, I put this thought - put this issue to a referendum - out there because I believe it was a position that needed more discussion. Too many gay marriage proponents spend more time attacking marriage supporters than addressing the actual issue. From calling someone a bigot to boiling the situation to a semantic argument, the actual position I raised was, allow the people to decide. That was and is my point. If you think it's more or less than that, you'd be incorrect.
Freedom Fries,
In truth, I have not researched enough to form an opinion on civil unions. I've focused on marriage, and don't feel 'marriage' is a paper term as some might believe. Again, I'll flip the script and ask what is not sacred about marriage, a concept within this country for several centuries? Why must it need changing now, why hasn't it changed before? I ask this that you focus less on what you think my views are and more answering the question.
Jared Vough
3:19am on Wednesday, May 04, 2011
Not married couples living together are becoming more common, as same sex couples are not allowed to legally and a growing number of heterosexual partners are deciding to not bother with getting married. Though there are plenty of efforts to legislate morality and so forth, there are financial risks which married couples do not have to structurally deal with. There are also some benefits to it also. Here is the proof: Unmarried couples face different standards in finance