Comments on: US08: California’s gay marriage call could be explosive

By: amy corderoy

amy corderoy — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

It is not clear when Rundle says “For no matter how much left-liberals argue that same-s-x marriage has no inherent effect on marriage as an institution, it undoubtably does, and people feel it” (and goes on to explain why) if he is expressing his own views or those of the gay marriage opponents.

If they are his own views then I am suprised he has given such a one-sided definition of the meaning of marriage. On this definition same sex couples who adopt children would also “change the social meaning of marriage”.

If they are not his views it would have been good to see a slightly more nuanced discussion of the arguments.

By: Row

Row — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

@KevinS, @Malcolm S

You’re just illustrating the point Guy made in his article. McCain doesn’t have to worry about this issue. He can come out strongly against same-sex marriage (without marginalising his base) because the conservatives are by and large opposed to same-sex marriage (it’s the rule, not the exception).

The Democrats on the other hand are made up of people who are strongly for and people who are strongly against same-sex marriage. They don’t have a coherent front on this issue. So basically, if this becomes a big issue, Obama is damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t.

Hopefully the Democrats can focus on the war, not the battle.

By: kate

kate — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Hear hear Guy. For too long the sacred connection between marriage and childbearing has been disregarded. Marriage must be restricted to couples who are both willing and able to procreate (with each other). Mind you, what with both fertility tests and statements of intention being so unreliable, it is probably best to prohibit couples from marrying until they can provide proof that they have actually produced such offspring. Sworn evidence will of course also be required to show that the couple has no intention of abusing the privilege of marriage by engaging in s*x for other than procreation, or loving and supporting each other or doing “couple” stuff unrelated to childrearing, or bringing up children to whom only one or neither of them is biologically connected (no adopted or stepchildren, thanks). Age, income, intelligence and parenting skills tests will also be required. No infertile or post-menopausal individuals need apply, and obviously no p**fters.

By: David Sanderson

David Sanderson — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

While I strongly support gay marriage rights I would hate to see it become a central, and highly divisive, part of the Presidential campaign. McCain can campaign against gay marriage without harming his voter base at all but Obama can’t campaign for it without fracturing the Democratic ‘rainbow coalition’.

By: KevinS

KevinS — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

One of the most annoying things about Crikey is its inability to act like a journalist and check its sources.

This is what Murdoch said about the price of gas:- “Politicians in the United States and Britain have strenuously denied the significance of oil, but Murdoch wasn’t so reticent. He believes that deposing the Iraqi leader would lead to cheaper oil. “The greatest thing to come out of this for the world economy…would be $20 a barrel for oil. That’s bigger than any tax cut in any country.”

Quote from the Guardian 17 Feb 2003.

Since I’ve seen this quote so many times, I’ve no doubt that I could many other links;I’m sure that none of these would ever have Murdoch saying that it would be great if US petrol were $12 per gallon.

By: Sponge Boy

Sponge Boy — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

What this will do is a 3-step process: (1) In multiple states, the religious right will frame referenda questions to be decided on national polling day in November to overcome this ruling. (2) Religious voters will roll up to support the referenda. (3) As they’re already at the polling booth, religious voters will then vote Republican (even though McCain does not court them, and they otherwise would have stayed away). Result: a higher voting turn-out, to the benefit of the Republicans. Worked for Karl Rove in 2000 and 2004….

By: David M

David M — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

What is Guy thinking?…..I got brass knuckles hanging from my neck on my chain?

By: Malcolm S

Malcolm S — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

“Put simply, the social meaning of marriage has always been fertility and lineality — the interlacing of society between different family groups by ensuring that they will have shared objects of devotion, i.e. kids they know they’re related to. — but fertility was at its root, joining culture to nature — .”

When two women we know married for a second time, both were past-menopause and hence child-rearing impossible, but I don’t recall the ceremonies being called something else nor anyone there thinking they’d seen anything other than a marriage.

Marriage is at its most basic a legal state setting out property rights. It is also a public declaration that a relationship exists, and of (hopefully) the couple’s love and attachment for each other. It is out of this that the suitability for child-rearing comes, but in not all hetrosexual marriages are children possible.

So what is different with gay couples? And what about lesbian couples who can have children via doner sperm?

By: Banjo

Banjo — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

you’ve lost me here, sorry guy.

marriage = children!

sigh.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Nothing in our history has prepared us for this. What will a massive ‘gay’ culture look like? We just don’t know.” Is he talking about San Francisco?