Sunday Opinion: North Country editorial pages back same-sex marriage
Morning, everybody. A wide array of topics on editorial pages across the North Country this morning, but one interesting intersection is the passionate support by two key newspapers for same-sex marriage legislation.
The Plattsburgh Press-Republican is arguing that New York’s legislature should get behind the gay marriage bill, describing the measure now being considered in Albany as “a civil rights issue.”
It is time for New York state to approve same-sex marriage. We say that in full understanding of the fact that some people have firm moral objections to the idea.
That view is shared this weekend by the Adirondack Daily Enterprise — they call gay marriage “a question of liberty” and urge state Senator Betty Little to change her vote from a No to a Yes.
New York’s Senate should pass a bill, already approved by the Assembly and promoted by the governor, that would let same-sex couples get marriage licenses, something they can already do in five other states and the District of Columbia.
The Watertown Daily Times talks this week about the national debt, pointing out that Federal deficits are really worse than the $14.3 trillion number we usually hear about.
The White House and Congress are far from any agreement on raising the debt ceiling so that Washington could borrow more money to meet its current obligations.
But the debt is less than a fourth of the $61.6 trillion in financial promises by the government to debt holders, senior citizens, military personnel and government employees, according to a USA Today analysis.
Meanwhile, the Glens Falls Post Star is arguing that hundreds of thousands of military veterans deserve a better VA medical system.
Some veterans feel that they’re being victimized by cost-cutting measures, with some going so far as to assert that the VA would be happier if they’d died in battle so it wouldn’t have to award benefits. A recent federal court decision echoed those concerns.
Finally this morning, the Burlington Free Press highlights an issue that affects communities on both sides of Lake Champlain — the number of kids who go hungry in the summer, when they are away from school food programs.
The end of the school year leaves thousands of Vermont children vulnerable to a nutritional crisis that affects their health and leaves them at a disadvantage when classes resume in the fall.
That makes food security for families more than a social issue for individuals, but an issue that impacts the state’s education system and, ultimately, the economy.
There you go. A lot to chew on. Remember to read the actual editorials before you chime in — some thoughtful writing there this morning. And remember to keep it friendly.
Tags: glbt
wonderful to see the press-republican and daily enterprise standing up for what’s right! slowly but surely, it does get better.
With so many states, where Republicans recently took over, moving backwards in social areas like worker and women’s rights (instead of fulfilling their election promises of dealing with unemployment), it is nice to see some progress in NY (except for Betty Little).
Why does government have any hand in marriage? For contractual purposes. For recording a contract. To ensure people underage do not marry. The required blood test some states have or had was supposedly to to control disease. Government set a limit on polygamy-was it for social order or because most voters disagreed with the practice?
Regulations set a social order. In a property deed tenants by entirities (husband and wife) hold indivisible title to property so neither can sell an interest in that property without the consent of the other.
Obviously taxation is affected by marriage. Having children affects taxation too. Why? Political pressure.
The weight of political pressure is swaying the “gay” marriage issue. The frequent failure of normal marriages justifies for some that marriage is a useless institution. Oprah Winfrey hasn’t married as many entertainers have not and that has affected people who watch their lives. The prince and duchess lived together for awhile before marriage. And our Governor co-habits. So if marriage is a take it or leave it practice, people feel why bother. It is evidence of the decline of the social norm influenced by religion. It reflects further reliance on government rather than self for regulating society.
I don’t see homosexual marriage as constructive for what is destroys, the concept of the special relationship between man and woman. It may be a civil union but marriage it is not. It is not constructive to society as it cannot produce children. I have seen enough of homosexuality to see it often (not always) stems from molestation, abuse or experimentation. At the moment it is a popular fad on TV etc. Teenage homosexual experimentation is the new edge because co-ed dorms have lost their buzz.
I don’t care to have my marriage insulted by people who want to say it is equivalent to that of homosexuals. It comes back to this. I believe marriage is not a government construct. It has largely become that with all the “benefits” accrued to it. If “marriage” is joining of anything I would agree that polygamy should be back on the table. Essentially marriage becomes merely a legal benefits package and meaningless other than that. It is further reliance on government for the social order and that to me is they key liberal cause.
Just because things are possible, doesn’t mean they are good.
Jeff – as you point out – times change. It has been a generation or so where we have uncoupled sex, procreation, and marriage.
Gay couples can have sex and children now. They should be able to marry as well if they want to.
I take a both modern and old fashion approach to gays and lesbians getting married.
I don’t care one way or the other, as far as the legal contract issues are concerned as they relate t0 the two individuals.
As to the kids issue, if adoption is the route and all the requirements are met, I give the same okay to gays and lesbians as I would to a single person or a married man and woman who wants to adopt.
Where I draw the line, and this line I would draw for hetero sexual couples too, is getting a man or a woman to provide the seed or the egg for one of parties in the marriage (or not) to get pregnant or get someone pregnant. If you can’t do it the natural way, then adopt.
But Pete – that has nothing to do with marriage. You dont like artificial insemination, in-vitro fertilization, or surrogate parentage (or whatever its called). They are all presently legal. Are you suggesting making them illegal?
Peter H,
Short answer – No!
Only in favor a murder, rape, robbery and torture being illegal.
My basic feeling on the subject of procreation is that we don’t not have a shortage of people but there are children who would like to be adopted.
Too often, far too often, procreation is viewed as a right when it should be viewed as a responsibility.
“But I want one of my own!” Children are not possessions to prove anything. They do not belong to parents and they certainly do not belong to the state. They belong to themselves and should not be used to prove anything.
Jeff,
You raise the point about how marriage is about the establishment of a structure for child-rearing. How about married couples that choose not to have children? Should those types of marriages be banned as well?
There are men and women who are together, but not married. Some even raise kids together. Do you believe that these people are also destroying the institution of marriage?
As for your detailed psychoanalysis as to where homosexual tendencies come from, please elaborate. What kinds of data collection and analysis have you used to form these opinions? What is the precise percentage of homosexuals who are ‘made’ due to abuse? Or are you just expressing your gut feelings after seeing a few episodes of ellen degeneres’s talk show?
I can’t see the damage.
If we had this really socially modest society where divorce was rare and most children were raised by two married adults as the primary means of family life I would think this may be to big of a change.
But I those days are gone only a minority of children today will be raised by their two biological parents who are also married.
I can make a case against it not totally based on my faith. However my thinking has changed, I believe that the arguments about this topic are causing more harm to us than the weak arguments against gay marriage.
I do think once this happens marriage itself will change, the concept of a husband and a wife will not have meaning for example. But like I said given our state of affairs that seems kind of a small price.
Pete Hahn-
Uncoupling. Hmmm. To what purpose? Is having children medically necessary. Emotionally some may think so. People want what they can’t have. I know a woman who was bound in that frustration. Adoption wouldn’t do. I know a doctor (different person) who had herself inseminated artificially . Cute, smart kid. I wonder why not adoption?
Verplanck-
I believe marriage is for man and woman- exclusively. They may choose not to have children. And that living together outside of marriage is not constructive because it is a relationship based on maybe.
There are people together for life, unmarried. Of those some are protesting church or the “institution of marriage” or “don’t feel the need”. They are unpersuaded that a marriage ceremony or license is useful to them. Some states declare them legally bonded after 7 years.
Many homosexuals are desiring marriage (besides the relationship) for legal issues such as next-of-kin notification for a partner. That can be had by means other than declaring two people married as it is traditionally understood. The same can be said for insurance, property ownership etc. The next argument is that if it is all the same except it is heterosexual then call it marriage and be done with. Change the dictionary. I cannot adopt that idea.
If my comments were considered detailed analysis, we should all be scared.
I will oppose gay marriage as long as childless married couples are denied the right to own property, divorcees are put in stocks and publicly flogged, and adulterers are branded with a scarlet A on their foreheads.
It’s high time we got back to decent family values.
ahah, right today the scarlet A is reserved for abstinence not adultery! What is more embarrassing for a young man in today’s world?
But anyway yeah given the state of our society I don’t see how this is some horrible social evil. I am slightly socially conservative but think about all of the hard feelings that are generated on this issue between people, there is no need for it particularly when if there is some sort of damage to the institution of marriage it is very minor and much much less damaging than divorce, adultery and fornication.
The argument I have the biggest problem understanding is this notion that gay marriage would somehow insult my straight marriage.
I am unable to figure out how anyone else’s marriage has anything at all to do with the commitment I made to my wife.
Exactly right Dave, it’s all in their head. Small minds fabricate imaginary “problems” to fit their prejudiced beliefs. This anti-gay bigotry is the ultimate hypocrisy. Conservatives don’t want the government to monitor corporate boardrooms but it is perfectly fine for the government to monitor private bedrooms. Get over it. There are enough other real problems we should be addressing and stop wasting time on a non-issue like who can marry whom.
I would rather outlaw divorce for couples with school aged children and mandate marriage for any couple with school aged children than fight some battle against gay people who want the benefits of marriage. I mean if you want to get all hard core! These things are what really damages our families and particularly children.
Of course I am being fanciful. But we as Christians can best support marriage which we believe is from God, by having good happy marriages.
The main problem I see for gays and lesbians who do marry (presuming the law to allow it is passed) is that it will not suddenly solve all of their problems.
A big one could be when visiting family. Not every member of their families will accept the idea and will draw the line at not letting them sleep together at their house.
I think it will take many years before no one has a problem with two gays or lesbians, married or not married, sharing a bed in the house of family member.
Legal will not make it acceptable for everyone.
From what I observe of the current 20-35 age group, marriage does not seem to even register on their list of priorities. They are not interested (or feel the need) to marry their respective co-habitating partners whether there are children involved or not. I may have advice for my own children, but I don’t feel the need to impose upon others what I may or may not feel is proper.
Essentially, it’s become a free-for-all. So, have at it and provide equality for all.
It is not uncommon for couples today to live together, have children, and plan to get married someday.
The arguments against gay marriage are theoretical and relatively obscure. If you look at what they call intensity of preference you end up having to go with extending marriage. What I mean is that I am slightly against changing the definition of marriage which this does, but a gay person is passionately for that change as it directly impacts them. So my minor, theoretical obscure opposition to gay marriage does not stack up to the major impact that it would have on a two gay people who want to marry.
Even if I am kind of against gay marriage I have a hard time being passionately against it.
Pete Klein sed: “The main problem I see for gays and lesbians who do marry (presuming the law to allow it is passed) is that it will not suddenly solve all of their problems.”
Unlike heterosexual marriage, which is perfect and solves all problems.
myown-
Only if there are two people steadfastly opposing each other’s view on a subject can bigots exists. Both then are bigots. The reasoning I presented dispels the notion prejudice. I have not entered the topic without consideration, forethought or experience. However there is nothing wrong with bigotry when one is advocating a point of view. It is called standing by convictions. And in the same vein intolerance has its benefits. We would not have had the United States if the colonies had continued to tolerate the crown’s directives nor the secession of the South. So while people spit words like prejudice, bigotry and intolerance as invectives, nothing concrete is put on the table and saying “get over it” is about as useful as hand gestures. In other words one is at wits end.
There are real problems and that is another reason why it should be off the table.
Mervel-
A theory is a supposition, a speculation, conjecture or something plausible based on facts or hypothesis. You have not made a case that opposition to gay marriage is based on the criteria above, although you suppose your belief is theoretical. I do not support homosexual marriage primarily for reasons I stated earlier. Because someone vehemently supports an idea is no reason to agree that it should bethat way, if that is the case… agree with me!
I am not saying that marriage as we practice it is perfect. Too many examples to the contrary. We should strive for perfection though. For Christian men are to love their wives as Christ loved the Church, and gave himself up for it. That is humbling. Just because we fail is no reason to give up. It isn’t supposed to be a 50/50 deal it is an all in proposition.
Jeff,
Religious beliefs don’t count. There are secular arguments against gay marriage dealing with changing the definition of marriage and the societal implications of doing that.
I say that as a Christian but the fact is our Christian faith is not the faith of this country as much as we talk about it.
So I am having a very hard time getting excited about this issue. We allow divorce, we allow fornication we allow adultery, we allow two gay men or women to live together as a couple and to adopt children, it makes no logical sense to make a stand on his one issue.
I just won’t lose any sleep if I was going to bed in Ontario where gay marriage is allowed or going to bed in NYS where it is not, come on its not that big of a deal in the world we live in.
Jeff,
Definition of bigot: one who regards or treats the members of a group with hatred and intolerance.
Sorry but your attempt to rationalize your position against gays just doesn’t work. Your intolerance is denying tangible benefits to other people, including all the legal benefits of marriage. On the other hand, the marriage of two gay people has absolutely zero effect on your marriage or ability to marry. And to use religion as a basis to discriminate against people in a loving relationship is just hypocrisy.
Myown & Mervel
I re-read the definition of bigotry before my previous posts. I sense your presumption is that bigotry or intolerance are always wrong. I disagree. You are intolerant of my position.
I believe I differentiated marriage and civil union earlier. Whatever comes will affect my children and therefore it will affect my marriage. The fact that the topic has been in the news for the past half a dozen years or so has had an impact in the same way the prevalence of foul language shows up on the school bus and winds up in the house. Look at how common tattoos are today.
It would be hypocrisy, in the case of Christianity, to dishonor God by accepting a practice that is expressly contrary to the Biblical guidance given. It is happening in mainline Espiscopal, Presbyterian and Mennonite churches. They are out of order. The physical expression of homosexual behavior in the context of the Bible is a selfish act. I want what I want is the essence of the behavior. I am not talking about people’s feelings or inclinations. Its “what they do in the bedroom.” I am not going to that topic but the point is that to condone such a marriage as holy is to condone the whole 9 yards.
For a Christians their allegiance, if you will, is to God first. Country and others come later in the list. Part of that allegiance is treating others with the love of Christ. He told a woman “caught” in adultery when he had shamed her accusers, neither do I condemn you go and sin no more. He told another fellow the same thing and followed with: lest a worse thing comes to you. Christ wanted them to better their lives. He said if a person even speaks a malicious epithet towards another it is as bad as if he had killed them. That if one merely thinks of another in an inappropriate manner it is as bad as if the act was committed. Jimmy Carter honestly commented on this idea. So it is also for the hope of better things for homosexuals that I say the status quo is better.
I know the American Psychology association or whatever it is has said homosexuality is untreatable. Many don’t want to change. They don’t feel the need. They believe they are made that way and are just fine. Such is life. We’ve all probably heard of the man who came out after his wife of 50 some years passed away, or the man who woman who came out after their children became adults. The stories are endless. It doesn’t mean there is nothing better.
Ontario may have allowed homosexual marriage but Canada has abridged speech on this subject. Canadians are not free to speak their beliefs on the airwaves.
Thanks for the conversation. It has challenged me.
Gary,
I think you are confusing intolerance with opinion. I disagree with your beliefs on homosexuality but you are free to hold them and I will do nothing to prevent you from having them. On the other hand people who oppose gay marriage are interfering with the personal lives of others by preventing them from obtaining something they feel is important and meaningful.
There are plenty of religious people and scholars who disagree with what you think the Bible says about homosexuality.
If marriage is for a man and woman to procreate why don’t we require a vow that they will do so? Why do we allow marriages of men and woman who are beyond child bearing age. Why don’t we require divorces of childless couples? Why do we allow couples with children to divorce? Heck, we even now allow a woman to choose her own spouse – who would have thought that would happen? It is time to allow gays to marry.
Is it the sex between homosexuals that bothers you? What if two women promised never to have sex – they just want to live together as a married couple? Would you oppose that marriage?
I think a lot of the opposition to homosexuality is based not on hatred, but more like a phobia which is a “type of anxiety disorder, usually defined as a persistent fear of an object or situation in which the sufferer commits to great lengths in avoiding despite the fear, typically disproportional to the actual danger posed, often being recognized as irrational.”
And tattoos? Really? Where are you going with that one? I don’t care for tattoos either and my kids don’t have any. But I see it just as a fad that will fade out – not some ominous sign of the moral decay of civilization. I am more apt to see our constant involvement in wars, use of torture condoned by a President, ignoring Habeas corpus, and budget cuts that take money from teachers and health care and give it to the rich, as signs of moral decay.
The above should have been addressed to Jeff.
Hi Jeff,
As a Christian I differentiate between what my Church does and what the state does. My Church does not bless gay unions or ordain sexually active gays, this is based on the definition of marriage given by Christ Himself. You mentioned the continual debate over this issue over the past decade, that is my point. We are doing more damage to ourselves and to others by fighting over this issue than the minor social damage that redefining marriage might cause, might; I am not convinced that it will cause damage.