Stop the Wedding! Why Gay Marriage Isn't Radical Enough

The Village Voice ^ | July 23, 2003 | Judith Levine

[Snuffington]

You laugh, you'll cry, you'll barf. Come one and all to see the slippery slope gay marriage is sending us down.

Incidentally, this is from a true lefty source, not a right wing parody. Kind of hard to tell in places.

[Snuffington]

Ping your way. Is one of your ping lists suitable for culture war stuff?

[ICX]

Loved that 'matching genitals' comment.

Note to self: Avoid gay rights articles immediately after lunch.

[eccentric]

and why not polygamy? group marriage? marriage to animals and plants? My houseplant needs medical coverage....

[Snuffington]

and why not polygamy? group marriage?

Actually the author of this article is all for it. From the article:

"Group marriage could comprise any combination of genders. Guarantees of women's and children's rights and economic well-being would be more productive than outlawing multiple marriage.

[Map Kernow]

It's possible there's more than one loony "Judith Levine" floating around, demanding formal recognition of all kinds of "rights" to sexual perversions, but the author of this article seems to be the same as the author of the infamous book published last year by U. Minn. Press: "Harmful to Minors: The Perils of Protecting Minors from Sex," featured on programs like O'Reilly's, which basically made the case for NAMBLA.

[Republicus2001]

I expect the Onion to have an article declaring that California will be the first state in the nation to ban marriage as a sexist institution

[babyface00]

This article needs a barf alert.

They do make a good point, talking about unbundling health insurance from marriage. I'd take it a step further. Lets get government completely out of the business of health insurance, and other benefits. Let private organizations/individuals/churches discriminate or not as they wish. Its all about choices, isn't it?

[Snuffington]

the author of this article seems to be the same as the author of the infamous book published last year by U. Minn. Press: "Harmful to Minors: The Perils of Protecting Minors from Sex,"

Good catch! Very likely the same person. And apparently taken very seriously in leftist circles.

[Zavien Doombringer]

As disgusting as this is, In a logical/psycological view;

doesn't one partner actually think/act and try to emulate the opposite sex? Or try to be "feminine"?

So therefore, in a sence, it is a type of "heterosexual" relationship. Now if the two partners acted like men, straight men, and were attracted in to each other in this manner...isn't this a bit different?

sort of like Vegetarians needing soy products to look and taste like a meat product to eat it.

Anyone follow?

[lilylangtree]

Can imagine telling the gays where to put their champagne flutes if they haven't already.

[Snuffington]

I'm not sure I follow.

But Andrew Sullivan makes a sort of similar argument that marriage is an inherently conservative and civilizing institution, so we should encourage it for gays.

I think his argument was pretty solidly blown out of the water by Stanley Kurtz, saying something similar to yourself. Gay relationships are not exactly like heterosexual relationships, and there's no evidence "marriage" would change that.

[Zavien Doombringer]

I guess, what I am trying to get across is this. I have seen only one gay couple in my life and they lived together down the street, once the kids got older, we moved.

What I experienced is that one in this couple actually takes a roll as "female", he dressed in unisex style clothing, but slightly bent to "girly". He did have his haircut that would have been considered "femme". I never talked to these guys...but something piqued my couriosity. If homosexuals are looking for men, why are they looking for "womanly" like men? Wouldn't they just want men to be manly?

[ProudChristian]

“A strong argument being made on behalf of the Massachusetts plaintiffs is that the current law violates the state constitution's declaration that "all people are born free and equal."

The same arguments used in this case can be made for legalizing drug abuse and prostitution. I sincerely hope that if this case actually goes somewhere that someone will use the same arguments to sue for legalized child pornography, crack use, prostitution, etc.

Hopefully, we as a society will wake up and see the utter absurdity rather than interpreting “born free and equal” to mean “I get to do what ever I want” and progress the societal change for what is considered “NORMAL” .. and bring with it an acceptance of other forms of devious behavior.

[epluribus_2]

It's not hard to understand why America's Michaels (and Michaelas) want the right to marry. With the nuptials comes a truckload of rights of marriage, including the secure habitation of your joint home, custody of your kids, tax-free inheritance of your partner's property, and citizenship in her country. And that's not to mention the nongovernmental goodies, from health insurance to joint gym memberships to Le Creuset casseroles showered on the wedded pair along with the rice. For all that, marriage is a bargain. In New York City, licenses go for $30. what is absurd about all of this is those benefits are there for only one reason - the expectation that one of the spouses is going to be out of action during pregnancies and raising young children, so they can't be expected to keep up the finances and get healthcare, and needs the house to be around to raise this kids in. We do not need marriage benefits for HETERO couples unless they have or are planning to have children. And queers will never need these bennies.

[mitchbert]

What astounds me most about this article is that the author seems to be completely oblivious of the fact that by making this case they make it far less likley that gay marriage, that is two people of the same sex only, will be accepted. They are effectively making the very case that their opponents are; namely the slippery slope argument.

While polls suggest, and I believe them, that the majority of Americans are not in favor of gay marriage, there's probably less opposition to it in larger urban centers with large entrenched gay communities than in other areas. There are probably a significant number of people in these (larger) areas who while not thrilled about the idea of gay marriage would relunctantly accept it with a sort of "Oh, if it really means that much to you just go ahead and then shut up about it, okay?". That feeling, however, would go right out the window the minute all the other "variations" get thrown into the mix. If there was ever a greater example of cultural overreach I haven't seen it.

FWIW, in Canada the "marriage is any arrangement with as many people as we say it is" bit has been nowhere on the radar. The court decision directed the Feds to change the definition from "one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others" to "Two people" thus effectively nipping the slippery slope argument in the bud. I suspect that's why we haven't had more objection to the legal change, and I haven't heard anyone in the gay community or gay writers in the mainstream press bring it up. Had the govenment not been quick off the mark to clarify the redefinition my guess is there would have been a lot more resistance to the change, even here in the socialist republic of Toronto; perhaps Canuck gay leaders have figured this out. The Feds also are taking the approach of running the bill past the Supreme Court to see if the definition will hold up against challenge (so Eddie and his 3 boyfriends can't claim "descrimination"). I still don't like the courts making law one bit, but that's the reality up here with this incompetant and do-nothing-except-screw-everything-up government we have.

If articles like this keep appearing the fears of the solidly anti-gay marriage folks will be justified, in my opinion, even if the actual hue and cry for anything goes types of marriages in gay circles is much less than the extremes make it seem. A classic case of confirming your opponents worse fears and shooting yourself in the foot at the same time. Amazing.

[Houmatt]

It's possible there's more than one loony "Judith Levine" floating around, demanding formal recognition of all kinds of "rights" to sexual perversions, but the author of this article seems to be the same as the author of the infamous book published last year by U. Minn. Press: "Harmful to Minors: The Perils of Protecting Minors from Sex," featured on programs like O'Reilly's, which basically made the case for NAMBLA.

No "seems" about it. Look at this part of an earlier piece from the same author, which can be found in toto here.

Recently, the publication of my book Harmful to Minors: The Perils of Protecting Children From Sex lit a conflagration among conservatives, who called for its suppression—and called me an apologist for, even an advocate of, pedophilia.

This woman is SICK.

[Uncle Miltie]

"As long as marriage exists, the status must be open to all adults straight, G, L, B, T, Q, or not sexually connected at all."

So I can "Marry" my Grandmother, brother, daughter, neighbor and priest simultaneously?

[Dimensio]

Group marriage would require a whole new civil structure. Plant/animal marriage would require a fundamental altering of the nature of marriage as well. Same-sex marriage would only require removing the restriction that the participants be of opposite genders. There wouldn't be any need to alter anything within the structure of the marriage, all of the rules that apply to opposite-sex marriage would easily translate to same-sex marriage.

It's not quite the logical leap that many people suggest.

[prophetic]

again the poster forgot to put the mandatory "BARF ALERT" notice.