A bad day for gay rights.

[KevinDW78]

2,000 people protested outside the LDS (Mormon) church headquarters here in Salt Lake City last night. (The Mormon church funneled over $20 million into fighting for the passage of prop 8 in california). Just an FYI. The Mormon church does this every single time the issue of gay marriage comes up in any state. I wish they would just mind their own damn business.

[KendallJ]

2,000 people protested outside the LDS (Mormon) church headquarters here in Salt Lake City last night. (The Mormon church funneled over $20 million into fighting for the passage of prop 8 in california). Just an FYI. The Mormon church does this every single time the issue of gay marriage comes up in any state. I wish they would just mind their own damn business.

This is probably the thing that pushed this proposition over. Here we have an example of some real fascism, perpetrated not by Marxists, by the religious right.

This one steams me because the Mormon church has effectively taken over the Boy Scouts as well, and is using it as a tool of policy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OOwgVUmf7Jk

I am almost ashamed to state in public to say that I'm an Eagle Scout only because I look at what the institution has become. "Reverent" in the scout oath used to mean a tolerant respect for all beliefs systems and a those who had a seriousness about the importance of life. Today in 30% of Boy Scout troops it means one thing: Christianity.

Hitler Youth. Sophia, are you paying attention? Your youth service corps already exists. Ready to be primed with crappy ideas.

Edited November 8, 2008 by KendallJ

[~Sophia~]

Sophia, are you paying attention? Your youth service corps already exists. Ready to be primed with crappy ideas.

This is not a government funded organization. It is private and fully voluntary and they have a right to set the rules of membership as they want.

*** Mod's Note ***

I have moved the reply to this post, as well as a few follow-ups to the "Obama President" topic, since they were not about "gay rights". To jump to the point of merge in the other thread, click here (it is currently #151 in that other thread).

- sN

Edited November 9, 2008 by softwareNerd

[Grames]

... I'm suggesting that the mechanism which has turned this organization into an activist organization is one that should be taken seriously.

The mechanism at work is the realization that such issues are up for a majority vote. That should mobilize everyone, on all sides of the issue.

Sometimes the marketplace of ideas really is just about who has the most money to fund advertising and get-out-the-vote efforts. That principle will work just as well in favor of individual rights advocates when they get more money.

[KendallJ]

The mechanism at work is the realization that such issues are up for a majority vote.

Nope, that's the principle of adjudication. Equally troubling no doubt. But the reason this group has mobilized politically and what that portends for individual rights is what I'm discussing.

[RationalBiker]

Stop making stupid semantic arguments if you're not going to make any contribution to the discussion. We all here are intelligent enough to know what we are talking about.

The clarification of objectively proper terminology IS an important contribution to the discussion for the reason I pointed out and for the reasons Old Toad mentioned.

[KevinDW78]

I agree that precise language is important, my objection is that people coming to this thread and trying to aruge over using the phrase "gay rights" starts to creep into the territory of a straw man and deflecting the discussion from the actual topic of the OP.

I object to anyone somehow suggesting that prop 8 wasn't something worth fighting because it's supporters use the phrase "gay rights" to describe it's subject. Should people in colorado be considered "immoral" (yes Jake used the word "immoral" with regards to opposers of prop 8) because they fought against that silly prop there dealing with zygotes because their supporters are fighting for "abortion rights" instead of framing it as "individual rights"? Or should be simply always consider it moral to always fight for something that is an individual right, regardless of how supporters may frame it? I am not denying the cause would be better served framing everyting as "individual" rights, but saying it's not valid unless you do is absurd to me. The fact is that Prop 8 was a battle to eliminate individual rights that specifically target gay people. If someone tried to pass a law saying that homosexuals can be persecuted for commiting homosexual acts, yes that is a violation of individual rights, but it also is explicitly targeting homosexuals. I don't see the difference here.

Edited November 9, 2008 by KevinDW78

[Mammon]

That principle will work just as well in favor of individual rights advocates when they get more money.

You'd think that having more money would be automatic. However, there appears to be a large chasm between theory and practice in that realm.

[Mammon]

Despite if Kevin is using the words you feel him comfortable with him using or not, I have a lot of sympathy for him and the other gay citizens of this country. I've noticed that they can get trampled on routinely with not a lot of rage or uproar from the population.

If a state banned inter-racial marriage or inter-religion marriage then that state would probably see it's capitol city burnt to the ground.

Ban gay marriage? Sure! And anyone who says otherwise is a bleeding-heart-liberal out to destroy the very foundations of morality and our civilization.

It's amazing what people get away with.

[RationalBiker]

I object to anyone somehow suggesting that prop 8 wasn't something worth fighting because it's supporters use the phrase "gay rights" to describe it's subject.

For my part, I have not argued for anything other than fighting against the violation of individual rights. Prop 8 violates individual rights and as such should be opposed. I was capable of saying that without having to resort to the annoying phrasology that you object to and without having to create an unnecessary class of rights.

[Steve D'Ippolito]

Despite if Kevin is using the words you feel him comfortable with him using or not, I have a lot of sympathy for him and the other gay citizens of this country. I've noticed that they can get trampled on routinely with not a lot of rage or uproar from the population.

If a state banned inter-racial marriage or inter-religion marriage then that state would probably see it's capitol city burnt to the ground.

Ban gay marriage? Sure! And anyone who says otherwise is a bleeding-heart-liberal out to destroy the very foundations of morality and our civilization.

It's amazing what people get away with.

You forget that it is *already illegal* in 47 states. You make it sound like this is some precedent breaking thrashing; it's not. Most people are *used* to gay marriage being illegal and get upset at a change to the status quo--particularly one forced by the courts.

Mind you I don't disagree on the issue but your outrage over something not changing seems over the top.

[Old Toad]

I agree that precise language is important, my objection is that people coming to this thread and trying to aruge over using the phrase "gay rights" starts to creep into the territory of a straw man and deflecting the discussion from the actual topic of the OP.

I object to anyone somehow suggesting that prop 8 wasn't something worth fighting because it's supporters use the phrase "gay rights" to describe it's subject. Should people in colorado be considered "immoral" (yes Jake used the word "immoral" with regards to opposers of prop 8) because they fought against that silly prop there dealing with zygotes because their supporters are fighting for "abortion rights" instead of framing it as "individual rights"? Or should be simply always consider it moral to always fight for something that is an individual right, regardless of how supporters may frame it? I am not denying the cause would be better served framing everyting as "individual" rights, but saying it's not valid unless you do is absurd to me. The fact is that Prop 8 was a battle to eliminate individual rights that specifically target gay people. If someone tried to pass a law saying that homosexuals can be persecuted for commiting homosexual acts, yes that is a violation of individual rights, but it also is explicitly targeting homosexuals. I don't see the difference here.

I think that arguing for a right on the wrong principle – including by using a name that could be easily confused with some form of “collective rights” – can severely undermine the argument and the chances for success, and even risk the proper principle itself. Broader terms such as “individual rights,” “civil rights,” “political freedoms,” and “political rights” do not have this risk.

Would you please identify the specific individual right that is being eliminated?

Also, this argument would apply equally to polygamy. Does it violate a polygamist’s individual rights that polygamy is not included and sanctioned as “marriage” under the law? What about the myriad issues for polygamists regarding employment benefits for spouses, immigration, children, mortgages, taxes, inheritance, hospital visitation, etc.?

Regarding “marriage” in particular and government recognition of such a relationship, Ayn Rand wrote:

… the concept "marriage" denotes a certain moral-legal relationship between a man and a woman, which entails a certain pattern of behavior, based on a mutual agreement and sanctioned by law. The concept "marriage" cannot be formed or grasped merely by observing the behavior of a couple: it requires the integration of their actions with a number of concepts of consciousness, such as "contractual agreement," "morality" and "law."

—Ayn Rand,

Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, 4. Concepts of Consciousness, pp. 36-37.

As to marriage, children, etc., marriage is a contractual relationship and should be treated as such. The government may formalize the terms of what is to be regarded as a marriage contract, but it may not forbid people to live together on other terms, it may not compel people to marry or to stay single or to breed children or not to breed them, whatever the case may be.

—Ayn Rand, The Letters of Ayn Rand, The Later Years (1960-1981), p. 580 (original emphasis)

Edited November 9, 2008 by Old Toad

[KendallJ]

A good description of exaclty HOW the LDS fought Prop 8 in California. Remember, LDS membership is <2% of California's population.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_...he-lds-att.html

[KevinDW78]

I think that arguing for a right on the wrong principle – including by using a name that could be easily confused with some form of “collective rights” – can severely undermine the argument and the chances for success

Again, I don't disagree - and I explicitly stated that before. My objections were to Jake using the word "immoral" with regards to those who opposed prop 8 because they were framed as "gay rights" instead of "individual rights".

Would you please identify the specific individual right that is being eliminated?

This thread is full of them. Just go back and read it. Both I, MichaelH and DavidOdden listed a myriad of individual rights denied to gay couples.

Edited November 11, 2008 by KevinDW78

[Erik Christensen]

Ayn Rand must be rolling over in her grave right about now. I have yet to read anything she said about homosexuality that supported it. Certainly she defending mans right to pursue his own life, but here is the fact of how she regarded homosexuality. This is not something that Objectivists can nit-pick if one is to follow her philosophy. I happen to think she is correct. Here is what she said:

Ford Hall Forum at Northeastern University 1968 lecture, she said, "I do not approve of such practices or regard them as necessarily moral, but it is improper for the law to interfere with a relationship between consenting adults."[2] In 1971, Rand reiterated this position, then explained that homosexuality "involves psychological flaws, corruptions, errors, or unfortunate premises", concluding that homosexuality "is immoral, and more than that; if you want my really sincere opinion, it's disgusting."[3]

[Zip]

Ayn Rand must be rolling over in her grave right about now. I have yet to read anything she said about homosexuality that supported it. Certainly she defending mans right to pursue his own life, but here is the fact of how she regarded homosexuality. This is not something that Objectivists can nit-pick if one is to follow her philosophy. I happen to think she is correct. Here is what she said:

Ford Hall Forum at Northeastern University 1968 lecture, she said, "I do not approve of such practices or regard them as necessarily moral, but it is improper for the law to interfere with a relationship between consenting adults."[2] In 1971, Rand reiterated this position, then explained that homosexuality "involves psychological flaws, corruptions, errors, or unfortunate premises", concluding that homosexuality "is immoral, and more than that; if you want my really sincere opinion, it's disgusting."[3]

Her statement about homosexuality ("involves psychological flaws, corruptions, errors, or unfortunate premises") was no doubt grounded in the prevailing "knowledge" of it in her day. I can't help but think that if she had access to the knowledge of today that she may have thought differently, even though her conclusion may have been the same ("...if you want my really sincere opinion, it's disgusting.")

[KevinDW78]

lol Erik, this forum already has a 60-page thread on that topic. Don't hijack this thread. Thank you.

[Jake_Ellison]

Ayn Rand must be rolling over in her grave right about now. I have yet to read anything she said about homosexuality that supported it. Certainly she defending mans right to pursue his own life, but here is the fact of how she regarded homosexuality. This is not something that Objectivists can nit-pick if one is to follow her philosophy. I happen to think she is correct. Here is what she said:

Ford Hall Forum at Northeastern University 1968 lecture, she said, "I do not approve of such practices or regard them as necessarily moral, but it is improper for the law to interfere with a relationship between consenting adults."[2] In 1971, Rand reiterated this position, then explained that homosexuality "involves psychological flaws, corruptions, errors, or unfortunate premises", concluding that homosexuality "is immoral, and more than that; if you want my really sincere opinion, it's disgusting."[3]

Well she's dead, so she's not in her grave , but I agree with what you meant: She wouldn't want you following her words like a sheep. She would like you to make an objective decision, based on our knowledge of what gay people are, and motivate that decision with some science and practical knowledge (meet some gay people, I promise they won't bite), just as she did in the early 70's.

Back then it was widely held that being gay "involves psychological flaws", as opposed to genetic predisposition. Now we know that to be false. You are wrong on this count, so was Ayn. You however, should know better. Other examples where you should be better informed than she was are issues such as artificial intelligence, computer networks, genetics, the surface of Venus, the moons of Jupiter, Pluto not being a planet etc.)

Are you suggesting that if Ayn said Pluto is a planet(as she would have, if asked), that would have been part of her philosophy? How is that different from her opinion on this, issue, a psychological and biological one?

That whole thing is, however, is only relevant to how an objectivist should view and relate to gay people, it is not relevant to what rights they should have:

Wether homosexuality is moral or not, gay people should have the same exact rights everyone else has. Since that is what they are fighting for, they are right, and Ayn would without a doubt agree with that.

(She would definitely dissagree with their tactics, as do I)

If you don't agree with this specific statement, please provide arguments. The Ayn Rand quote won't do, since it is irrelevant to this discussion that "it is improper for the law to interfere with a relationship between consenting adults". As long as the law does intefere, by regarding marriage as a contract and enforcing it, gay couples should have the same rights straight couples do.

Edited November 11, 2008 by Jake_Ellison

[softwareNerd]

Erik, Please... let's keep this thread about whether homosexuals have the right to be married and similar legal issues, not about whether it is moral for them to do so.

[RationalBiker]

This is not something that Objectivists can nit-pick if one is to follow her philosophy.

Above all else, Ayn Rand encouraged men to use their own minds, not rotely obey hers. She states that as her opinion or an application of her philosophy, not as a principle of her philosophy. Also she said "not necessarily moral", which leaves room for "not necessarily immoral". As Kevin mentioned, apparently this is not a "done deal" amongst Objectivists as noted by the lengthy thread.

[KendallJ]

but it is improper for the law to interfere with a relationship between consenting adults."[2]

This the basis on which it's being discussed, and it's totally proper given her statement above. It's a political discussion, not a moral one. There are plenty of threads on that topic.

In addition the topic is currently disputed amongs objectivist intellectuals. Unless of course you're claiming Rand was infallible.

[agrippa1]

What if one of them is not a U.S. citizen, but wants to gain permanent residence? Under current laws, the spouse would not be recognized and could not emigrate to the U.S.

Also when one of them dies, their spouse does not automatically inherit their property. Gay couples would have to go through all sorts of legal hoops in order for a spouse to retain possession of his/her own house. As MichaelH noted - he had all sorts of legal issues just trying to get both their names legally on the mortgage.

For many gay couples, this is an ongoing battle their entire lives. Visitation in a hospital, next of kin, probate laws, etc etc etc. It's this kind of ignorance that perpetuates uninformed heterosexual people to simply shrug and say "so what? Why is it such a big deal?"

It has nothing to do with "ceremony" it has to do with current laws that prevent gay couples from living as a "couple" in the first place. There is more to being a "couple" then physical proximity.

Other points in addition to those mentioned by Kevin: substantial income tax consequences; certain kinds of trusts; priority in conservatorship law and "next of kin" matters; numerous (perhaps all) retirement and employment benefits from the government (e.g. spousal health benefits for state employees are limited to the person the employee is legally married to); being allowed to live in areas zoned "families only"; having standing in a spousal wrongful-death suit; legal access to the marital confidences and spousal testimonial privileges. These advantages pertain to the relationship between the individual and the state where the state grants certain reasonable privileges to spouses. We shouldn't have to pay taxes, period: but given that we do, the advantage of decreased tax liability given to a heterosexual couple should be extendable to a homosexual couple.

All very good points. One question, though: Must one have gay sex with a person in order to gain these rights? Oh, sorry if I offend anyone, but taking this discussion further into left field, so to speak, why should a person be required to declare their love/honor/respect/sexual-desire to another in order to gain the benefits listed above? Shouldn't an individual be allowed to choose whomever he wants to sponsor for citizenship, based on the value that person offers him, be it a life time of tender intimacy or $1000 in cold hard cash? Shouldn't an individual be allowed to leave his estate to his loving poodle Fluffy, and not have to subject said Fluffy to unfair and unequal tax levies? Shouldn't one be allowed to grant his favorite bartender next-of-kin decision making rights (after all, who knows him better)? I could go on, but you get my point. (and, btw, my answer to all but the immigrant question is: yes.)

The thin wedge you are driving here is to the obliteration of the concept of marriage. A concept that has (dare I say it?) biological implications and origins. There is a reason a majority of Americans backs benefits for marriage: they believe that a stable, nuclear family provides children with the best opportunity to develop into productive, moral adults. They don't back it 'cause they want to get their rocks off, or get a leg up on everyone else on April 15. Sorry, but the reasons given do not even touch upon the essential reason that marriage exists: to create and raise children. Perhaps the next step is a proposition to change the rules of biology so that gay couples gain biological equality?

Bruised feelings aside, the agenda here is clear: To change the definition of marriage from a socially sanctioned bastion of virtue and social stability, to a contract of convenience, and finally, to discard it as a de-legitimized tool of moral suppression. The tactic is to polarize a loud portion of society around the issue, rub raw the sores of discontent, and force a concession from the majority in the name of justice, fairness, and most importantly, peace. The purpose is to tear down a basic structure of individual rights - marriage, the voluntary social contract - so they can replace it with a more fair, more just, more equal, and more comprehensive social contract of their own devising.

(I apologize to anyone I offended here. My ire is at those whose motives are to destroy our culture in favor of a non-cultural utopia, not at those individuals who just want to be treated with respect. I believe your motives are just, but I strongly believe that your alignment with the radical anti-individual agenda does not take into account the larger context. BTW, as I understand it, current California law provides civil unions with all of the benefits normally ascribed to marriage, including visitation, insurance, next of kin, survivorship, etc. Prop 8 was simply a defense of the concept/term "marriage." That was a major consideration when I voted in favor of the prop.)

[TheEgoist]

You won't hear me say this often, but Keith Olbermann has made a good point that may have already been expressed here: why do people care SO much? There were millions spent on banning gay marriage, but why? Why is this the number one issue? It seems rather malicious. Instead of fighting for individual rights, the conservatives of California, sponsored by religious institutions and others, felt it necessary to pour truck loads of money into an issue that shouldn't concern them at all.

It's near psychotic and is damn well pathetic.

[TheEgoist]

Ayn Rand must be rolling over in her grave right about now. I have yet to read anything she said about homosexuality that supported it. Certainly she defending mans right to pursue his own life, but here is the fact of how she regarded homosexuality. This is not something that Objectivists can nit-pick if one is to follow her philosophy. I happen to think she is correct. Here is what she said:

Ford Hall Forum at Northeastern University 1968 lecture, she said, "I do not approve of such practices or regard them as necessarily moral, but it is improper for the law to interfere with a relationship between consenting adults."[2] In 1971, Rand reiterated this position, then explained that homosexuality "involves psychological flaws, corruptions, errors, or unfortunate premises", concluding that homosexuality "is immoral, and more than that; if you want my really sincere opinion, it's disgusting."[3]

Rand was speaking on bad scientific premises from the psychology community at the time. Perhaps she got this from Nathaniel Branden, who to this day is rather vicious to homosexuality.

In any event, individual rights are being violated here. A small percentage of California has influenced a majority of voters to block gays from having the same rights as anyone else. Whether you think the action is good or not, or the person is a virtuous individual or a perverted bastard, you've no moral grounds to deny them equal rights in the eyes of the law.

[Jake_Ellison]

You won't hear me say this often, but Keith Olbermann has made a good point that may have already been expressed here: why do people care SO much? There were millions spent on banning gay marriage, but why? Why is this the number one issue? It seems rather malicious. Instead of fighting for individual rights, the conservatives of California, sponsored by religious institutions and others, felt it necessary to pour truck loads of money into an issue that shouldn't concern them at all.

It's near psychotic and is damn well pathetic.

Sorry, this isn't relevant, but I just can't stop myself from saying "He's a douche!!!" every time I see that name. It's not even just his views, I actually hate seeing his face for some reason.