A rapid and welcome shift in perceptions

RapidShiftArticleMy latest op-ed, title above, appeared in The Virginian-Pilot Thursday. The cartoon that accompanied the column couldn’t have been more perfect: marriage equality is coming, whether the Supremes like it or not. Maureen Dowd’s column, printed in today’s paper in the same middle space of the page, calls out the court for its reluctance to render an opinion on this tsunami of public opinion.

As is often the case, I received several emails from those who are opposed to marriage equality, as well as from those who support it. (Negative emails always outweigh positive ones. It seems it is the nature of people, regardless of the circumstances, to complain but rarely commend. No wonder manufacturers ignore comments. But that’s fodder for another day.)

On to the emails! (And no, I did not correct them for errors.)

Government ought not encourage sterile life styles that interrupt the healthy cycle of society. Gays, and all adults deliberately remaining sterile, are damaging the health of the nation. They will be receiving and consuming the labor of others without producing a fair share of workers indispensable to our economy. As a result,
the government feels obliged to import aliens to replace the missing babies, babies missing as a result of abortion, homosexuality, and excessive birth control.

I’m guessing this is the old “gays can’t procreate” argument, but at least he had the sense to include those childless straight couples. Guess they shouldn’t be able to get married, either.

The DOD budget as well as costs by each state funding will have to be expanded by hundred of millions (maybe billions) of dollars to support new dependents of citizens of active duty and possibly retired military couples as well as immigrants who seek and find US citizens to marry people of the same sex so they can become legals overnight.

Therefore, in my view, the impact of a favorable decision for gay marriage by the Supreme Court would be catastrophic to our nation.

Will there be financial repercussions if marriage is allowed? Absolutely. No longer will the government reap the benefit of not having to pay spousal Social Security benefits, for example, and they will just get to keep the money. No longer will the government get to collect estate taxes from same-sex spouses, which is the heart of the DOMA case before the court. In other words, gays have been contributing more than a fair share to the finances of the government, with the benefits going elsewhere.

This reminds me of the question that I raised when interviewing Ken Cuccinelli about the eminent domain constitutional amendment, which, for the first time, would include future profits are a part of the compensation to land owners. The question was about how much more we Virginians would have to pay as the result of this inclusion. His response was that somebody is already paying that, namely the land owners. Virginians overwhelmingly approved the amendment. The money for that will come from all of us.

The gays are an abomination to this country.they do not have the right to marry woman to woman to woman nor man to man. In my Military time we did not accept their life style and we got rid of them when caught doing something they were not supposed to do. I will not go into that. They certainly do not rate the same as a married couple meaning man and woman. To begin with they cannot conceive. Elton John just had a child by getting a woman to conceive for him. Now I say there will be another child being raised to His life style. Recently a Senator who was against same sex marriage found out His son was gay and He has feelings for His son, and now it’s okay for same sex marriage; to where gays are to be able to marry male another, male, and women to be able to marry another woman. A Navy Captain was coming from D.C. to sign a paper stating that this couple were married but He found out the navy will not go along with it. He must be a little on the Gay side or BiSexual. I could never go along with a child of mine being gay. I would love my child but the life style would have to go. In other words find another place to live or change your life style.

So many misconceptions here. But let me address one thing: there are reasons why suicide among gay teens is so high – and this attitude is one of them.

So a majority of Americans favor gay marriage? Where did you get this false information. The highest poll numbers I have seen are 49% and this poll wa heavily to left wing balance. If your assertion is true then why have 39 states VOTED OVERWHELMINGLY to PROHIBIT this? Just because you whacko libs want it to be so does
not make it that way! May God forgive you and the others for your sins against nature! I only hope that we do not go the way of the Roman Empire after it followed the same path of falling morality we are rushing headlong toward! In closing, I implore you to stop your spin and LIES!

Lies? How about the Washington Post/ABC poll, which has support at 58%, or the CNN/ORC poll, which has support at 53%, or the CBS News poll, which also has it at 53%? Heck, even the Fox News poll, which shows 49% in favor, also shows 53% believe gays have a constitutional right to marriage!

Finally, there was this one from this morning:

I think your column in Va. Pilot above is great! Appropriate for the times and carefully thought out.

Thank you!

My column appears in The Virginian-Pilot on Thursdays. You can see the columns as they are published here, or navigate to them from the PilotOnline.com homepage by clicking on Opinion and then choosing my name at the bottom of the dropdown list. You can also see the columns by liking my Facebook page. Although my column appears weekly, I am not and have never been an employee of The Virginian-Pilot.


12 thoughts on “A rapid and welcome shift in perceptions

  1. If two unmarried heterosexuals of the same sex (or even of opposite sex — siblings perhaps) have been living together for a long time to save money, will they be allowed to get similar government goodies?

    Why should they be discriminated against because they are NOT gay?

    If one is bisexuals, should he be allowed to have a spouse of each sex? If he can love two people of opposite sex, why cannot one love two people of the same sex? Will they be discriminated against?

    1. To your first point, heterosexual pairs in that same situation have that option today, and nothing bars them. So, sure. And who cares if they do? Is this an epidemic among heterosexual pairs that needs remedy?

      To your second point, the argument is not to permit bigamy.

      1. Heterosexual pairs of the same sex do not have that option, nor do siblings of opposite sex.

        Does it really matter if there is an “epidemic” that “needs remedy”? There is no “epidemic” of people who have to pay taxes on their gay partner’s estates, but that is the case before the Court now. If a thing is unjust in many cases it is also unjust in a single case.

        Why should bigamy NOT be permitted? The argument is that one should be allowed to marry the person one loves. Why should the government stop that marriage just because one is already married?

        1. By heterosexual pairs, I meant a man and a woman. If pecuniary interest is the sole concern, a man and woman can get married today for that reason alone even if they don’t love each other or intend to have kids. So, if these imaginary same-sex, heterosexual people want to get married just for economic gain, they would be allowed. I’m not aware of a test currently administered by the state to make sure you are in love or that you intend to have kids before you get the license. And again, who cares? Is it is state interest to verify the reason you are marrying or ensure that you are copulating?

          Bigamy is a separate issue. This slippery slope argument falls flat because the only people discussing permitting bigamy are the opponents of same-sex marriage. But if you’re reasoning is that marriage for love has opened that door, well you are going to have to fight against a hundred and fifty or so years of history at this point.

          You have just offered that this could somehow create an atmosphere of permissiveness that opens the door to all these other things, which is questionable on its own without anything but your conjecture. But what is your affirmative reason for denying same-sex couples marriage?

          1. Cohabiting siblings do not have the right to marry in that situation. Why not?

            Why is bigamy a separate issue? You are fighting against all of human history in this same-sex-marriage nonsense, what’s a hundred and fifty against that? And polygamy is at least not a sin, according to the Bible, and is even required in the event that one’s brother leaves a childless widow.

            My affirmative reason is that they will use the power of the government to coerce people into monetarily supporting a marriage to which they are religiously opposed. Will you grant business-owners the right to deny same-sex spouses benefits? No. Will you permit adoption agencies to not place children with same-sex couples? No.

            And what’s the point? Prop 8 is being challenged on equal-protection grounds. So, what protection of the laws, exactly, does marriage provide in California that civil unions do not?

        2. Warren, stop being obtuse. The current debate is limited entirely to the principle that two consenting adults who want to enter into a legally recognized marriage should have the right to do so regardless of gender. The equal protection argument is that homosexual adults who mutually wish to enter into such a union are discriminated against by the stipulation that only opposite-gendered couples can marry.

          Under no circumstances does this argument suggest that two adults who [i]don’t[/i] mutually consent to marriage should nevertheless be recognized as married by virtue of mere cohabitation. Every couple will still need a marriage license. Likewise, it’s woefully facile to suggest that there exists a slippery slope between kind and quantity. The argument is limited to a legally-recognized monogamous union and whether or not the government should have any say in the kind of people who may mutually agree to enter into such a union. Nimrods like Rick Santorum are stupid enough to believe that the U.S. Supreme Court doesn’t have the sense to limit the scope of any affirmative decision in support of gay marriage to monogamous-only unions — even though it’s as simple as a sentence that reads something to the effect of “any two consenting adults may enter into a legally recognized marriage.”

          Alternatively, they’re not that stupid, they just think you’re that stupid.

          1. So why should three not have the same rights?

            If the government cannot deny a marriage license to homosexuals, why should it be able to deny a license to siblings?

            “any two consenting adults may enter into a legally recognized marriage”

            What if one is already married? What if ALL parties consent? On what grounds could the Court make such a law? Does the Constitution say anything about marriage at all? No. It does not prohibit polygamy, so the Court would have no basis to make such a pronouncement.

    2. What is the purpose of all these examples and rhetorical questions? Society has standards and they are sometimes codified in the law. So, you can’t marry your pet goat, even if you love it dearly. That’s not going to change with same-sex marriage.

      So, your sole concern boils down to not wanting to force Chic-Fil-A to provide same-sex spousal benefits. Businesses are commerce. So, yes, the state can require them to follow rules the state sets for commerce. But I think you must have larger objection to employment law than just this.

      Perhaps you didn’t read Vivian’s article, but I’m not fighting against history (well, not now anyway).

      1. The point is, that California and most other States, and the U.S. government, DID codify those standards in law. That is being challenged in court. The same arguments used in that challenge can be used in the examples and rhetorical questions I posed.

        If it is a matter of unconstitutional discrimination, it does not matter if many people face that discrimination, or just one.

  2. Vivian in regards to your oped. I am always amazed how you so eloquently are able to articulate a position and always back it up with logic and facts. I do enjoy reading your opinions.

    I was not aware of the Millennial group. I think things are changing in that directions mainly for financial and educational reasons . It use to be that people grew up , stayed in the same communities and did the same jobs as their parents. There environment never changed. However, now days more people are exposed to different sets of society. Many have to move from their hometowns to find jobs. A lot more go to college either the normal route, taking one class at a time or their job helps them get an education. This exposes them to other people and they become friends and begin to see the world outside their little contained view.

    We had a discussion a few years ago along this same line where we discussed race and my concern that things would never change because some teenagers I knew were holding on to the beliefs of their parents on the issue. To my relief these kids are now part of the Millennial group. I think this occurred because they had to move out of their little small environment they were use to. With this economy people of all ages are finding themselves in new environments even it they don’t move they have people moving in their area.

    My hope is that someday it will turn from the it does not effect me so I don’t care group. To where the majority of people can relate to an issue because of someone they know. Then they are able to look at an argument by not only its effects to them but to others as well.

  3. I have to say that the speed of change is making my head spin. I was expecting jeremiads issuing forth from Lynchburg and Virginia Beach, marches on Washington, and the like. I don’t know who I am if the positions are flipped.

Comments are closed.