There are several good points here, but they are unfortunately drowned out in reckless hyperbole and melodrama.

If you want to simply address the vast, vast minority of the population which doesn’t in some way find at least one of your references either offensive or ridiculously over-the-top, then good column.

Quality writing, but completely devoid of any sense for the mechanics of the real world.

-klemz

PS - it wasn’t a landslide by any standard.

I agree totally, that the anti-gay forces of evangelical Christianity won the day in Ohio.

However, I also take issue with calling it a landslide. 136,000 vote gap in Ohio is not a landslide, and will be even closer after the provisionals are counted.

The nice issue is that in 2008 these prohibitions won’t be on the ballot and the vast right-wing nutjob contingent will do the sensible thing and stay home in their trailer watching 7th Heaven.

The right wing nut job living in a trailer? I think you forget who votes Liberal and who the “get out the vote” was trying to get out…think, please. And no, it most certainly wasn’t a landslide, but it was definitely a solid victory for Bush, better than could have been expected a week ago. It could be interesting to see Hillary in 2008, maybe against Condoleezza Rice…that’d be an interesting scenario. In any matter, we now have four years to get some real work done, and hopefully do some positive things.

I hate to break it to all of you left wing haters and intolerants, but being against gay marriage isn’t being bigoted. You all seem to think that you are entitled to decide what is and isn’t tolerant in our society. People like myself have every right to view gay marriage as being sick, wrong, and perverted. If all of you want to take your first steps towards tolerance toward right wingers and get over this loss, you can do it by respecting the anti-gay views of right wingers. I think another good remedy for all of you be to get out of Madison, WI for awhile. I think that you would all learn that your views are the minority, not the majority. Madison is a bubble surrounded by reality and as all of you say on Tuesday, the vast majority of the country wants nothing to do with gay marriage. So get your heads out of the sand and enter reality.

Thanks everyone for your comments. First of all, I did not put the landslide victory in my piece. It was an unfortunate and unecessary addition put in by my editor; I agree that the election was in no way a landslide and I have no idea why he put it in there. Second, to the anonymous poster above: you are correct, you do have a right to be anti-gay and anti-gay marriage (which are one in the same) but you have NO right to infringe such “beliefs” on others, which is exactly what the eleven states who amended their constitutions did. That was the point I was trying to make. Also, as far as facing “reality”, I grew up in a small, neoconservative farming town so I know what the extreme other side is like; I lived in it for eighteen years (and I still go back occasionally). I have many hometown friends who feel as you do, think as you do, and I highly respect their conservative views; even though they differ from mine. I will not, however, respect views of blantant homophobia, just as much as I will not respect views of racism. And if you want to truly talk about getting out of Madison to witness the “real world”, perhaps you should journey outside of the country or even, say, talk to someone who has been or lived outside the U.S.; then you might realize how crazy it is that we are so isolated from the rest of the world and so intolerant of other cultures.

Adam Lichtenheld

But isn’t gay marriage just as much forcing your beliefs on others as vice-versa…That’s why it is a majority rule…the majority decides what happens.

The United States of America was not founded on a “democratic and autonomous” philosophy. America was founded as a Republic, first of all. Second of all, I don’t even know what an autonomous philosophy is. Maybe it is a philosophy that operates without other philosophies telling it what to do.

The philosophy upon which the United States was constructed is the philosophy of Natural Law, gleaned from philosophers such as John Locke, Cardinal Bellarmine, Thomas Aquinas, and Aristotle. Autonomy of the individual in the Natural Law philosophy is not a justification for that which opposes right reason. The idea of “natural rights” (what Jefferson called “unalienable”) is an extension of the Natural Law. For someone to claim that they are autonomous and thus not subject to law is something that contradicts the idea of natural rights. Otherwise, no one could be guaranteed the right to life, liberty, and property; especially if these rights are subject to the autonomy of others.

There is a rational argument against homosexual activity, and it rests upon the nature of human sexuality, its purpose and personal/social aspects.

Human sexuality is primarily directed toward procreation, though there is obviously pleasure involved though only incidentally. This is analogous to eating, which is primarily directed toward nourishment but which also involves pleasure. But to eat just to achieve pleasure is, according to a rational understand of the primary end of eating, disordered and will cause sickness. Analogously, when someone seeks to alienate the procreative aspect of the sexual act from the act in search of pleasure alone, it is an intrinsically disordered act, hedonistic because it seeks as its goal the pleasure which is actually incidental to the rational purpose of the act itself.

Religion merely confirms this. If you are to be at least consistent, we should get rid of laws prohibiting murder and theft because the Ten Commandments say “Thou shalt not kill” and “Though shalt not steal.” Religion confirms the moral order that is immediately apprehendible to human intelligence and right reason. Anything that contradicts right reason contradicts the moral and philosophical foundation of the United States.

Now, if you want to assert a better philosophy than the one upon which the founding documents of the United States rest, then go right ahead. But do not dress up these new currents in political/philosophical thought as the basis upon which our country was founded.

Now, I bear no ill will toward homosexuals. But I do disagree that their relationships should be elevated to the level of heterosexual marriage because heterosexual marriage by its nature is capable of fecundity, renewing society by bringing forth families. Homosexual activity can never do this as a matter of nature. Thus, homosexual relationships, from a societal point of view, are of their essence inferior to heterosexual marriages because the social value of heterosexual marriage is more permanent and much more necessary to the continuance of a society and culture.

Bigotry dressed up prettily is still bigotry. Homosexuality is genetically predetermined the same way skin color and hair color are, to deny someone rights based on this is wrong and immoral.

Allowing gay marriages or civil unions with the same rights is not forcing your beliefs on someone else unless you give them no choice but to go the ceremony. Where as not allowing it is.

Personally I think we should replace all mentions of marriage in all government documents with civil union. That way the chruches can have their marriages and everyone else can have the right to do what they want without have other peoples beliefs imposed on them.

There has been no genetic link found to sexual preference in humans…

You make a good point about autonomy, anonymous; I meant it in the context of self-dependence and governance, where our country enjoys the freedom to enact laws not based on specific religious principles but on the collective morality of all citizens, regardless of faith. I did not mean it in regard to individuals' abilities to disregard law. You entire philosophical argument is based on condemning homosexuality, not gay marriage. To disregard homosexual activity as immoral does not validate the argument banning gay marriage; it only denounces the gay lifestyle.

I find it funny that you argue homosexual marriage should not "be elevated to the level of heterosexual marriage…" What level is that? Once of constant adultery (once again, religious principle being violated), quick, meaningless hitches in sleazy Las Vegas, and a 50% divorce rate? Heterosexuals have brought marriage to a very low standard all by themselves; I would doubt the homosexual community could do any worse.

"because heterosexual marriage by its nature is capable of fecundity, renewing society by bringing forth families." So our lives are measured by whether we have children? My uncle is a bestselling children's author and popular artist, but he has no children. Does that mean that a deadbeat, unemployed alcoholic who has five kids but beats the shit out of them all is "contributing" more to society than my uncle? Does that mean that my uncle is inferior or undeserving? Man, it is quite a violation of natural rights if we only grant full liberty to those who "produce" something for society. And homosexuals, through adoption (due to all the unfit and un wanting parents out there) have full capabilities to raise quality families of their own, even if they cannot do so through standard "procreation". I didn't know that I had to pass a "contribution" test to be granted full liberty; I guess I figured my natural rights were mine regardless of whether I marry and have twenty kids or don't marry at all. Better start proposing.

You make a generalization when talking about “religion” because many religions do not affirm this belief of confirming the “natural order” of deeming homosexual behavior as immoral. Though our philosophical political foundation was built on Natural Law, you cannot argue that our Constitution, the most sacred document of our governance was created to ensure, as Jefferson said, “the wall of separation between church and state”. Therefore, to condemn homosexuality in U.S. law, whether based on or reinforced by religion (and we’re pretty much talking about Christianity here, which is only one set of beliefs) is to tear that wall down. In addition, how, and I should’ve reiterated this in the article, do you use religion to support U.S. policymaking when the adoption of a "pre-emptive strike" foreign policy completely violates the Christian just war theory? The Iraq occupation was immediately condemned by the Pope himself. You completely contradict yourself when playing the religion card to ban gay marriage and ignoring that very same card when justifying unjustifiable wars. If we do abide by the Ten Commandments (thou shalt not kill) as part of U.S. law, then how do we validate the death penalty? Once again, the contradiction. If you are going to combine church and state you cannot strategically choose when to do so. Either we are a country partially governed by Christian doctrine or we are mutually excluded from it (which was intended to be the case). We cannot be both.

Regardless, we are locked in a struggle with the religious right over societal-influenced human tendency to be judgmental and intolerant. It is my belief that in fifty years, with the gay community finally being granted their full rights, we will look back on this time and, as we do now with the Jim Crow laws, realize what an idiotic society we were. Just as we rid slavery and fought racism, we will end gay marriage bans and fight homophobia.

Adam Lichtenheld

Are you really a freshman, I’d put you at 28 based on that pic…

“I hate to break it to all of you left wing haters and intolerants, but being against gay marriage isn’t being bigoted. You all seem to think that you are entitled to decide what is and isn’t tolerant in our society. People like myself have every right to view gay marriage as being sick, wrong, and perverted.”

Interesting perspective. “I’m not a bigot just because you say so, so stop hating me for my views. I’m perfectly entitled to hate people who aren’t like me.”

News flash, Einstein: you’re entitled to hold whatever views you want, but opposing gay marriage because you think it’s disgusting is discrimination by definition. As such, you are a bigot.

How can you allow gay MARRIAGE when it only infringes upon a religions most sacred action…a union, fine, but marriage is stepping over the boundary.

“The Iraq occupation was immediately condemned by the Pope himself. You completely contradict yourself when playing the religion card to ban gay marriage and ignoring that very same card when justifying unjustifiable wars. If we do abide by the Ten Commandments (thou shalt not kill) as part of U.S. law, then how do we validate the death penalty?”

Your reasoning here is based on many faulty assumptions.

In Catholicism, even our Holy Father is not in a position to speak definitively on that which is a matter of prudence. Such decisions are left to those who have the care of the community in mind. The decision to go to war is always a decision made in accordance with prudence, though it should conform to historical reasons, to defend the community. The pope is not the leader of the United States and thus not in a position to adopt a definitive statement with regard to war. That is what Catholicism teaches. To be a Catholic in favor of the war is not to contradict the pope.

Also, “Thou shalt not kill” was never intended to mean anything about the death penalty. From a biblical perspective, it is better rendered as “Thou shalt not murder.” If God, when HE gave the commandment, wanted to do away with capital punishment, then HE would have not made the death penalty a mandatory result of certain crimes against the same law. For the same reason a state can wage war when the situation demands, it has the right to execute criminals, the defense of society. Now, we can argue on a prudential level all day as to whether the death penalty constitutes a defense of society. I myself am really not in favor of the death penalty, though the presence of the death penalty in the United States is not a de facto proof that the government is violating the Commandment not to kill.

Finally, just war doctrine does not begin with a presumption against violence because such thinking “inverts the structure of moral analysis in ways that inevitably lead to dubious moral judgments and distorted perceptions of political reality.” The classic tradition instead begins with the assumption “that rightly constituted public authority is under a strict moral obligation to defend the security of those for whom it has assumed responsibility, even if this puts the magistrate's own life in jeopardy.” In fact, the greatest advancers of the just war doctrine conclude that waging a just war is a result of charity and love to reconstitute a just peace.

The presumption against violence, for instance, led to an improper analysis with regard to the cold war and nuclear arms reduction. Many theororists contended that the nuclear situation was the primary threat to peace. But nuclear weapons were not the primary threat to peace. Soviet communism was. There is a great body of thought on the just war tradition. And on element that may justify a war is to right a grave wrong. Would the Union army be justified in freeing slaves in the South even if the South posed no real threat to the security of the North? Yes, because of the grave wrong be perpetrated against men and women and children who were slaves. Because war is a matter of prudence, there is legitimate diversity of thought on the issue; pacifism, however, is not a legitimate position because pacifism ignores the government’s obligation to protect its citizens.

Guess who’s back, back again. George W. Bush. Tell a friend. Guess who’s back, guess who’s back, guess who’s back, guess back, back, back…

Eminem is an idiot, but he makes a little more sense than this guy.

QUOTE: Human sexuality is primarily directed toward procreation, though there is obviously pleasure involved though only incidentally. This is analogous to eating, which is primarily directed toward nourishment but which also involves pleasure. But to eat just to achieve pleasure is, according to a rational understand of the primary end of eating, disordered and will cause sickness. Analogously, when someone seeks to alienate the procreative aspect of the sexual act from the act in search of pleasure alone, it is an intrinsically disordered act, hedonistic because it seeks as its goal the pleasure which is actually incidental to the rational purpose of the act itself.

Religion merely confirms this.

No, it doesn’t. Marriage was not a sacrament until the 12th century, and it was made one not to ensure procreation, or to protect us from the scary homosexuals, it was to protect the Catholic Church from inheritance claims from all the children priests were having with women. Marriage is not some static, always-sacred union. It has changed drastically over the years, and this is one of the changes. (Also, in re to your ‘marriage= reproduction’ canard, this would mean that an infrertile person could never marry, or that people who had already had children would have to never have sex again or separate. Yeah, your position is wholly indefensible.) You are stating your own value judgments - subjective judgments - as if they were universal absolutes. We all have to wear clothing in the frozen tundra of Wisconsin, but if we choose to wear cotton instead of burlap sacks, it doesn’t mean that we are greedy, vain people. It means we have free will.

There is absolutely no stance against gay marraige that is not based on some religious foundation or personal reaction. Obviously, it’s not reasonable to inhibit others’ behavior because it makes you feel oogy; and given the fundamental separation of church and state, the first is not a valid argument. While it may make you feel better to say you don’t hate anyone, until you can find a rationale against gay marriage that is not based on either religious or personal beliefs, you have no valid argument.

Rebekah Dassion

Rebekah- you’re wrong about that. Holy Matrimony has been a sacrament since the time of Christ. In fact the definition of a sacrament is, “an outward sign of an inward grace instituted by Christ to give grace”. All sacraments in the Catholic Church, therefore, were instituted by Christ.

Furthermore, Sacred Scripture (Eph 5:31-32) specifically discusses Holy Matrimony as a sacrament and its purpose- for a man and a woman to become one flesh and to grow together toward Christ.

As Catholics, Holy Matrimony is an institution given to us by Christ, not a man-made creation.