Last updated on 2013.03.17
Last week President Obama declared his affirmation of same-sex marriage. Former Obama campaigner and prominent South Dakota Democrat Steve Hildebrand said that declaration marked "a great day for America":
It's something that's been in his heart a long time. What he did today was show bold leadership that will be popular with some and very unpopular with others [Steve Hildebrand, quoted in staff/wire, "Democrats Praise Obama on Gay Marriage," that Sioux Falls paper, 2012.05.10].
I guess that makes this a bad week for the Matt Varilek campaign:
Democratic congressional candidate Matt Varilek said Tuesday that he does not support gay marriage, a position that puts him at odds with his competitor in the race, Jeff Barth.
It also puts him at odds with President Obama, who revealed last week that he now supports allowing same-sex couples to marry.
"I don't agree with the president's new position," Varilek said, adding that he doesn't support efforts to redefine "traditional marriage."
Barth, meanwhile, said that although gay marriage is not his main focus, he would vote to support it if it came up in Congress [Jonathan Ellis, "Democratic Candidates Split on Gay Marriage," that Sioux Falls paper, 2012.05.16].
Rats. I already have both of my Democratic House candidates failing to distinguish themselves from Rep. Kristi Noem on the Keystone XL pipeline. Now I have Varilek tacking the wrong way on marriage and equality. And I have Barth hitting the right notes on marriage equality and perhaps larger issues.
Varilek isn't way out in right field. He just seems hung up on the word marriage:
I support civil unions because I think any American, no matter what their orientation deserves the same legal protection when it comes to taxes and healthcare, or are visiting a sick partner in the hospital," Varilek said. "But, when it comes to the term marriage itself, I think we should leave that to individual states and individual churches to decide for themselves [Matt Varilek, quoted in Peggy Moyer, "Gay Marriage Divides U.S. House Candidates," KELOLand.com, 2012.05.16].
Nonetheless, Varilek is taking a weaker position than Barth. Anna at Dakota Women duly upbraids Varilek for his obsolete view:
More and more people (including Varilek's opponent in the primary) have begun to see the cruelty of denying the rights and benefits of marriage to same-sex couples. Why on earth should we as feminists support this person? Honest question. I don't get it. And while I'm at it, any feminist should recoil at a candidate who uses a phrase like "traditional marriage" to describe a model and an understanding of marriage and sexuality that is actually pretty modern.
The longer I remain an active observer of politics, the more tired I get of being told that I need to vote for the candidate who has a chance of winning, or the candidate who is the lesser of two evils, or the candidate who is a Democrat, or the candidate who is a better fundraiser, or whatever. This is about an issue of basic civil rights, and Matt Varilek is unapologetically on the wrong side of it. And we shouldn't stand for that [Anna, "Matt Varilek and Marriage Equality," Dakota Women, 2012.05.16].
I know that feeling, Anna. I can guarantee that I will not vote for Kristi Noem, and I will not sit by and deny her Democratic challenger my vote. Varilek has a huge edge in organization and fundraising. But his rejection of the President's properly evolved position on marriage equality motivates me all the more to take a hard look at his positions and his opponent's (assuming Barth ever updates that website to post an Issues page!) before I decide which man I want fighting Noem's self-serving right-wingery.
Update 07:35 MDT: Pope Benedict XVI said earlier this year that gay marriage helps "undermine the family, threaten human dignity and the future of humanity itself." Yo, Pope, take it from someone who is actually doing the marriage thing: gay marriage doesn't threaten my family, our dignity, or our future one bit.
Matt had my support until he came out with this inane stance on marriage equality. And to be honest, I hadn't given Jeff a fair shake. That has now changed... I've just contributed to his campaign. (Although, I do wish his website was spellchecked/grammar checked. It could be have been designed a little better --- the red is just. too. much.)
I've been waiting for something of substance to help me decide who to vote for. This helps. Just like 80% of the American public my views have evolved on this issue. How can a 'Democrat' support any type of rights restrictions and still be called a democrat? Oh yea, a Jim Crow democrat. We pay lip service to equal rights on the surface but find ways to keep 'those people' down.
.
Prejudice is easy, tolerance is hard. Someone eats something funny, wears something 'wrong', loves the 'wrong' way, believes the 'wrong' bible / book / scroll / dogma or is part of the wrong political movement they should be held down. Restrict them from being a full member of society because it would require the majority to acknowledge a shared human right.
.
Varilek just let me know his underlying belief system at work. Instead of working to change the system to include more people, he is willing to follow the dogma of restrictions for votes (or does he really believe?). Marriage through history has been a legal contract where the man owns the woman, a contact blessed by a deity in the name of a mystical power. It still is a legal contract.
.
I wish Mr Barth was a more dynamic speaker so he could get his message out and had a more vocal cheering squad. He has 'cred' and thus makes him dangerous to the Daschle / Johnson / DINOs of the SD political scene. In my years in SD, I have supported my share of underdogs and now I have found my latest to support. Even if I do not always agree on many subjects, honesty and clarity of thought will always rule the day with me. Thanks for being honest Jeff.
In Jeff's defense, I think he's been having a really hard time finding help and money since Matt became the 'assumed' candidate. I'm sure he'd welcome any assistance, on the website or otherwise.
Open question to everyone. Do you think a candidate for any office, from any party, can win a general election in South Dakota if they publicly support gay marriage?
Leaving the right and wrong out of it, I just don't know if it's possible in this state.
Varilek's position on gay marriage is simply wrong. It denies a large segment of our society equality before the law. I find it disheartening in that it undercuts President Obama's recent support of gay marriage and the strong feelings of affirmation felt by many people in the gay community as a result. Some have suggested Varilek's position is only a political stance and that he will change his mind at the appropriate time. I find this more troubling still. I want someone who listens but also leads us, not someone who says what he thinks voters want to hear and makes getting a job more important than an honest public discussion.
It is all about equal rights for everyone.
Democratic candidates are between a rock and a hard place on this issue. I strongly suspect that a majority of SD voters do not support gay marriage. There is a price to pay if a candidate gets too far out in front of public opinion.
On this issue, at this point in time, playing to the liberal base in SD may (or may not) have a benefit in the primary, but is likely to cost a Democratic nominee votes in the general election.
It looks to me like each candidate is simply choosing his battles. Varilek wants to fight with Noem about Keystone. Barth doesn't. Barth is willing to stand on principle with gay marriage. Varilek doesn't want to make that the salient issue of the October campaign. Like President Obama I think Varilek has left himself room to Darwinize over time, but he's not ready risk falling on a sword before public opinion comes around a bit more. Leadership? - no. Pragmatism? - yes.
Every candidate who wants to win makes political calculations on how best to accomplish the task. The fact that President Obama sees it in his best interests to highlight gay marriage doesn't mean that Democrats in red states are going to do the same. But 20 years from now or maybe sooner gay marriage will be accepted nationwide and we will all wonder what the big fuss was about.
Democrats just need to stop talking about "Gay marriage" and instead talk about "civil unions". Leave the marriage rites to churches and other organizations. This issue is only a problem if Democratic candidates fail to get the terminology correct. Even Obama blew it on the VIEW show.
I see the subtle point Matt makes here, but it may be too fine a line to walk for fortune cookie political rhetoric.
I have been more swayed recently to beleive that marriage ought not to be an issue the state is involved in. Marriage, like baptism, confirmation, and last rights, is a religious institution. Certainly the state has put a stamp of approval on this particular institution, but maybe it ought not. The idea of a state "civil union" makes more sense because independent of the religious tie, the state would not be allowed to discriminate. It is the onus of the religious implication that allows the discrimination on applied religious doctrine. Certainly churches can still, as private institutions, decide who to extend their "blessing" upon, but the state should not.
It really is a linguistic point - as long as it is called "marriage" there will be religious baggage that accompanies these unions, and based on that, will be a constant foothold for discrimination.
The thing I truly find undermining marriages in the US is divorce: that is by definition destructive. I find it ironic that many of those who rail the loudest about defending marriage are divorced. I also see the Pope's own Catholic church more tolerant of divorce. I guess as long as man-woman couples are divorcing, that is OK?
Douglas, I had a friend who put me on the path to understanding this issue when I made the same point. He wants to be equal. If our system requires a 'marriage' license to be accepted than the separate drinking fountain called 'civil union' just won't do.
.
We in the USA have made a marriage license a full fledged legal thing to be accepted everywhere. A civil union contract is not the same thing or will it ever be. Until we accept the British system of everyone has a civil ceremony (union) performed first by a legal magistrate then to the church ceremony if you wish it to be blessed by your religion, we will have this discussion.
.
Marriage is a holdover of a contract system from ancient times to blend and continue power and wealth bloodlines. It was not a 'love blessed by God' thing until the 1800's and romance novels. Think Romeo and Juliette in their battle of the families.
.
In our USA system, we have allowed the priest or minister to become a notary public to perform the civil service in conjunction with the religious ceremony. In our American way of thinking and popular culture, marriage gives all civil rights. American civil unions are just a contract with few rights and almost no privileges.
BTW, I trust no one on Keystone. This is the hard one for me to believe the rhetoric because it will only be a few jobs right now and maybe many later when the spill clean ups begin. South Dakota has already given away the taxes for the privilege of having the state ruined by shoddy Chinese metal running through the state pumping earth destroying Canadian oil under high pressure headed to China.
Varilek must believe he can win or he wouldn't have taken this position.
Matt-
Probably not today but in 20 years I think the situation will have completely reversed itself. I don't know anyone our age who blindly hates the gays. I view this type of thinking as simply a more politically correct way of hating on the gays. 20 years and the haters will be the minority.
How can we be sure this isn't just about getting elected and that he won't later evolve? That's precisely what the president did. Hildebrand knows how to get him elected. This "evolve" strategy worked once, maybe Hildebrand is trying it again. Probably not, but I did wonder.
"We?" Like you have any input into what we do, Hickey: get a grip, hypocritheocrite.
Hater
Tip of the glacier, Hickey: Boehner is Noem's organ-grinder.
Good question Steve Hickey. How can we be sure that Rep. Noem's stances on farm subsidies and ethanol subsidies and disaster subsidies aren't just about getting elected and that she won't later evolve? Is she really all about OUR porkbarrel spending or is it just all an act?
Steve O'Brien and Testor 15 have a very good grasp of this discrimination and what ought to be done to end it.
In MN an anti-LBTG marriage amendment is on the ballot for this fall. LBTG rainbow flags are sprouting up like spring flowers on houses up and down the streets here in the metro. They are flying on way too many homes to be only LBGT folks doing it, unless that population makes up about 30% of the total population.
It is a wonderful and beautiful thing to see. I think it is similar to a white person walking into a lunch counter with a black person in the pre-1964 South. Takes courage, and a large dose of love of the other, coupled with an unwillingness to accept discrimination against one's sisters and brothers.
The vote to write a same-sex marriage ban into the South Dakota constitution in 2006 was 52% to 48%. That's not a very big majority... and it's a majority we could easily flip, if it hasn't already, with some bold statesmanship.
Hickey, are you thinking of evolving any time soon, brother? ;-)
I cut my pony tail off 6-7 years ago and took my earring out. Probably not evolution enough for you Bill but yes I'm a work in progress.
The SD Democratic establishment gave us no candidate for the US Senate in 2010. The SD Democratic establishment gave us two “Historic Republican†candidates as the Party’s gubernatorial ticket in 2010, and now the SD Democratic establishment is giving us a homophobic candidate for Congress, who is vague on issues, and runs a campaign with an air of entitlement as evident by Varilek’s constant reference to the fact that he has the endorsements of Daschle, Johnson, and McGovern.
They say history repeats itself, hopefully so. In 2008, Daschle’s endorsement of Obama in the SD Democratic presidential primary was to no avail, Hillary won. Johnson’s hip attachment to the Heidepriem campaign in 2010 offered no greater success than a less funded and organized Billion gubernatorial candidacy received just four years before. McGovern changed his endorsement from Clinton to Obama in 2008, and hopefully he will change his endorsement from Varilek to Barth like so many Democrats in South Dakota are starting to do.
Varilek is running a 70s/80s era candidacy, which will not work anymore. His cautious candidacy is doomed from the beginning. He cannot win on candidness nor compete with Noem’s “Rock Star†image. Barth’s unconventional candidacy, straight forward on the issues, is the only chance Democrats have in defeating Noem in 2012.
The Tea Party and the 99% Movement are political cousins who have more in common than they want to admit. The Koch brothers put aside for a moment, both movements are about average Americans who know the system no longer represents them nor protects them. The candidate who will resinate with a majority of South Dakotans in 2012 is the candidate who is honest and straight forward, not a candidate who offers a “Canned†or “Stock†candidacy from the yesterdays.
Whoa! Flag on "homophobic"! Winston, I know you're flacking for the Barth campaign, but you can boost Barth on this issue without going to false extremes. I don't hear homophobia from a guy who says folks of all sexual orientations deserve equal protection under civil unions. I do hear a problem with tying a religious definition to government action, and Varilek needs to get over that hump and come to the President's enlightened position.
[Plus, "Winston" declines repeated requests to verify his/her identity, ignoring my four e-mails to that effect. "Delete"!]
Winston, 'resinate'. Interesting typo. I'm guessing Bob Newland is the candidate who best knows how to resinate, but he's not been on the ballot lately.
Pastor Steve, glad to hear it. Would you consider honoring a same sex marriage? How about performing one? Do you suppose being gay is a function of biology, much as being left handed is? (I'm left handed and straight.) Or do you feel gays have some choice in the matter?
I would pose these same questions to Mr. Varilek. His position here surprises me a little, but I do understand it, and know a lot of folks who are coming to grips with the SSM issue.
PS. I'm in Puerto Vallarta MX right now, where there is a large gay community, has been for decades. It's an interesting cultural experience.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_Mexico
"Great, now this election year can be all about gay marriage, a human-rights issue we could have solved years ago. Concerned about sexual morals? Then get to work bringing pedophile priests, domestic abusers and human traffickers to justice.
Meanwhile, this nation's policy discourse should be about liberating us from the corrupt corporate-congressional revolving door and realistically addressing what's headed our way from tar-sands filth, BP dispersants, Monsanto poisons, melting ice caps, Fukushima, and our own nuclear mess. Wake up, people! Someone else's marriage can't kill you, but the rest of this stuff could."
Sasha Pyle
Santa Fe
http://www.santafenewmexican.com/Opinion/Letters-to-the-editor-Do-fees-determine-response-time-
I have to side with Winston. Matt may not be a homophobe, but a position that leaves civil rights to the discretion of the states is homophobic.
Let's take the ideology out of the discussion and the judging of other's for a moment.
Let's just say one's experience, understanding and knowledge form's one to believe:
1) Women and men have certain emotional and psychological traits and gifts which are statistically shown to be distinct.
2) Successful rearing of children is statistically improved if a child is exposed in family life to both these traits and gifts.
3) It is wholly appropriate for society via the social contract (government) to encourage circumstances and an environment which statistics prove to result in the most emotionally balanced future adults.
4) Statistics demonstrate that divorce has an adverse effect on children.
5) Statistics demonstrate that gay couples have a statistically significant lower average duration and more likely to end in divorce than heterosexual couples.
Thus, they deem laws which encourage families with both a man and woman to be in the public interest.
Does this make the person inherently homophobic as Kelsey and Winston assert? Or does it it mean this person values the good of children over the economic and emotional interests of adults?
I think conservatives and liberal too often focus and discuss this matter in light of their view on homosexuality with too little discussion on the societal effect on children.
From a public policy standpoint, the pre-eminent interest of the state regarding marriage is not about division of economic interests, anything sexual, satisfying the emotional needs of the couple to have their choice of partner endorsed by society, or accommodate their love for each other.
But, encouraging the statistically proven most effective environment for raising the society's progeny via certain advantages and protections is in the public's interest.
P.S. I think there is an excessive characterization of matters being rights when they are privileges. For instance, while one has a right to form a household with anybody they choose, they do not have a right to societal sanctioned marriage (hetero or homo) nor adopt persons under the care of the state. These are privileges states are free to grant as deemed by the citizenry in the public interest.
Considering I would completely disagree that several of your stats are even close to factual, Troy, I'm not sure I can answer your question.
So, Minnesota changes its constitution to uphold only civil unions as valid and refuses to recognize marriages from other states: work for you, Troy?
That's not a bad idea, Larry. South Dakota marriages have a statistically significant lower average duration and are more likely to end in divorce than those in many other states. Why should Minnesota recognize such a union? Won't someone think of the children?!
Troy, sorry, but no sale. We're talking about a ban on one's individual liberty. Your argument extended lets States refuse marriage rights to any group who statistically underperform in child rearing relative to an average. Suppose people with Irish or Italian genetic backgrounds had higher divorce rates than English or Mexican people. Should the State be allowed to prohibit them from marrying? Of course not.
Right on, Bill! Troy's argument leads us to much greater government intrusion on marriage. Poverty has a huge impact on kids; we thus must deny marriage licenses to anyone making less than the poverty line for a family of four. The state demands we demonstrate financial responsibility to drive a car; the state thus has an interest in requiring folks to demonstrate financial responsibility before getting married and raising children. And if folks insist on engaging in procreative behavior outside of state-approved marriage, well, then for the good of the children, we're going to have to start in with forced sterilizations again, right?
Marriage licenses should become only civil union licenses with no connection to churches. Churches can issue something with "marriage" in it, but not a marriage license.
The the gays can fight for their rights in the church of their choice and find no reason to consider a "civil union license" as being discriminatory. At times I think they all prefer to fight instead of get past this nonsense.
Troy, statistics are fun and staying with your thought here:
1. Statistically, states with legalized same sex marriages have lower divorce rates.
2. Statistically, Red states have higher divorce rates than blue states.
3. Statistically, Whites and African Americans have far worse divorce rates than Asian and Hispanics.
4. Statistically, Conservative Evangelicals, Baptists, Mainline Protestants and Mormons have far higher divorce rates than Muslims and Atheists.
While statistics are fun, I'm sticking with Bill's assessment that this is about a person's liberty.
Huh. My parents divorced when I was like 8, my sister was 6. We're both quite functional, successful college students with no more emotional problems than anyone else.
Statistics, Troy, are a tricky thing. People don't normally take into account the different details of something. Let's use that old "You're more likely to be killed by a bee than a shark" statistic. The problem is that you're around bees all the time. You're only around sharks when you're in the ocean. Obviously a statistical bias.
The same is true with those divorce statistics. Divorce doesn't necessarily traumatize children. It's when their parents act like children themselves and screech at each other every time they're within 20 feet that children are traumatized. Are gay parents more likely to fight?
Further, could the fact that gay marriage is still barely accepted anywhere in the US, compared to "traditional" marriage, be having a negative impact on the success of gay marriage? I would say yes.
Besides, if we're just thinking of the success of the children, then should white males not be the only children allowed? They are, statistically, shown to be more successful. Should we ban all parents with congenital diseases from having children?
Back in the days of yore, Troy, when survival was still something people needed to worry about, banning gay marriage made sense, because people needed to have lots of children just to stop the human race from dying out, or from society actually falling apart because of lack of children. But this isn't the middle ages. Many straight couples are choosing not to have children. Many straight couples are divorcing. Maybe straight couples fight. Why should we restrict gay people from going through the trials and tribulations of marriage if they want to?
Or maybe we should restrict marriage to only healthy, white couples who can prove they'll be happy and argument free, forever?
Jana's point is mine.
Statistics are hard to discern where interpretations can diverge. But I am asking a rhetorical questio.
One honestly discerns same sex marriage is statistically adverse to the interests of children and thus opposes it. Is this person homophobic?
BTW. In a prior thread Bill and Cory cited stats that said a gay household is more likely to have physical and emotional abuse than a hetero household to justify a position on domestic abuse.
Which is it? You libs confuse me. Or do you like to only use stats that feed a result? Sounds like the sam thing u criticize.
Troy, the point is that the stats don't make any diff when it comes to limiting one's liberty, nor does the majority opinion. (p.s. you're only rhetorically confused. You know and agree with my and Jana's position. You've just not thought it through in this context. That's okay. Take your time, brother. It will come to you.;-)
Bill makes the main point: Troy's stats don't justify limiting liberty of one group. I'd take it further: Troy's rationale leads to denying "marriage" to other groups who don't live up to some ideal standard of conduct or social outcomes.
With reference to the specific claims to which Troy refers:
—perhaps these links from Bill? One conservative site claims higher rates of domestic violence; the other gay-friendly site claims rates similar to hetero couples, then notes unique DV problems arising from institutional discrimination. Either way, the stats made a simpler and less destructive argument than Troy's stats do here. The argument was whether homosexuals deserve protection under domestic abuse laws. Bill showed stats that domestic abuse exists in homosexual couples. His stats and the subsequent analysis were responding to Troy's claims that abuse within married hetero couples deserves unique protection. "X exists and it's bad; therefore, society should protect its citizens from X and punish those who perpetrate X" is significantly different from and less when generalized than "Some people do Y better than others; therefore, we should ban those underperformers from doing Y."
Pretty good, Cory, but let me clarify by being blunt. Both of Troy's arguments have been about denying people in a non-traditional relationship equal protection under the law.
In the first instance, he was trying to minimize the amount of violence in SSM in order to exclude LGBTs from protection against domestic abuse. The stats I cited were not dispositive, because the point isn't about statistics, it's about protecting people in an intimate relationship from harming one another. Even if Troy had been right about there being less violence in a gay relationship, that still wouldn't mean those people don't deserve equal protection from harm.
Same with his statistical argument about the familial quality of a SSM. It's simply irrelevant. It would be ridiculous to argue that we should ban certain people from getting marriage simply because statistics tell us that familial bonds among 'those kinds of people' might not always work out.
So what?
Finally, let's deal with Troy's question about homophobia, and phobias in general. Phobias are irrational fears. I'll argue that we're seeing a lot of irrational fear here about gay marriage. That doesn't necessarily mean those making the argument are necessarily homophobic, as in being afraid gays as individuals, just as married people.
Or, more bluntly, it's like saying, 'I don't mind queers being queers, I just don't think they should get married to each other.'
So, okay, maybe that's not homophobia.
But then again, maybe it is.
P.S. Please don't take this as an attack on Troy. It's emphatically not. 40 years ago I would have made exactly the same arguments Troy and Matt are making now.
After all this time, and reading countless arguments for and against gay marriage both here and elsewhere on the internet (and hearing them in real life), it's very obvious to me that people against gay marriage are against it for either religious reasons or a personal dislike/discomfort with gays, whether they realize it or not.
For both sides, arguments and statistics tend to be pulled from the behind because, as any amount of thought can tell you, the statistics don't matter. The pro-gay marriage people want to allow it because there's no reason people shouldn't be treated unequally. The anti-gay marriage people are against it either because God says it's bad or because gay people make them uncomfortable (and we should therefore ban things that make us awkward, I guess. Mostly it comes down to authoritarianism). Stats don't matter. Logic doesn't matter. Arguments don't matter.
Either you think everyone should be equal, or you don't. It's actually very simple.
Carter's right, it really comes down to the ICK factor. We must continue to grow up and mature as a society. The controversy over marriage equality has less to do with equal rights than with the psychology of disgust. A large group of Americans are such prudes, they cannot think of what is Constitutional and just. They can only think in terms of what someone told them, a mystical being might have said 2000 years ago if the discussion ever came up, as a justification to harm someone else.
.
Americans by and large don't understand the Constitution and Bill of
Rights. They will fight to the end to keep you from having what should be legally yours if it is ICKY.
Speaking of Keystone...and I certainly hope the analysis from this recent study comes up in Brookings on Wednesday and Sioux Falls on Friday.
Here's a new report from the Natural Resources Defense Council on how Keystone XL will affect gas prices in the Midwest.
Here's the lede:
WASHINGTON -- The Natural Resources Defense Council on Tuesday released a report dispelling the myth that the proposed Keystone XL tar sands pipeline would lower gas prices. Rather, the opposite is true, findings show.
You can read it all here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/22/report-keystone-xl-gas-prices_n_1536227.html
The full report can be found in the link in the first paragraph.
Matt and Jeff...give it a read and make it part of your respective campaigns.
[quote]For both sides, arguments and statistics tend to be pulled from the behind [/quote]
Carter, nothing annoys me more than false equivalences in defense of the right wing. The Dobson's of the world just make up their own "social science" and "founding fathers" ever more desperately as the evolution of the law and new science piles up higher and higher in favor of dignity and equality.
Guess what, the culture war is almost over, and the arc of history is bending towards more equality. I think real conservatives should continue to get behind it too.
Yo, Author, take it from Benedict, who's actually doing the pope thing and therefore speaks with a lot more wisdom and authority than you're giving him credit for: same-sex marriage will more than likely do exactly what he's said it will. Marriage isn't a right but a vocation to which not everybody is called. (Being celibate, Benedict XVI is one of many individuals who unflinchingly recognize that.)
And I say all this as one of those individuals, and as a same-sex attracted person.
"undermine the family, threaten human dignity and the future of humanity itself"
—my family is not undermined.
—my dignity is not threatened.
—how do two guys or two gals promising to love each other until death do them part and sharing insurance benefits threaten the future of humanity more than war, climate change, resource depletion, financial collapse, antibiotic-resistant plague, nuclear terrorism, tsunamis, poverty, racism, or asteroids?
> Marriage isn't a right but a vocation to which not everybody is called.
Okay, Cody, but who gave you the right to decide who is called and who isn't?
This argument was used to keep women from owning property and non-whites enslaved. As progress has been made, the argument is now used to keep women out of the pulpit and LGBT folk from their basic human rights. The arc of history bending toward equality happens because of what the Founding Fathers called "natural law" calling us to keep pushing for our inalienable rights.