The enemy at the Gates

[Jerry O'Neil]

It has been stated to me that homosexuals, on the average, have more 
partners and shorter relationships than their straight counterpart. We 
know that sex between two men tends to spread aids and hepatitis. Do you 
suppose that more social conservatives might accept gay marriage if our 
courts were permitted to consider "marital misconduct" or "fault" when 
granting divorces? If marriage is just a contract of convenience, why 
would we expect it to make same sex marriages more stable then it makes 
heterosexual marriages? If marriage actually meant something and was 
likely to keep gays out of multiple relationships then it might prevent 
the transmission of aids and hepatitis. Wouldn't that be a good thing?

Jerry O'Neil
Montana State Senate

Earl Maltz wrote:

> Initially, I would note that my post in response to Frank Cross was 
> not designed to address the merits of  providing for same sex 
> marriage, but simply to note that Rick Duncan's reference was not an 
> attack on individuals who held particular, but rather an expression of 
> his views on a widely-debated issue, and as such well within the 
> bounds of acceptable discourse.
>
> As to the merits, I will leave it to those who are self-identified 
> social conservatives to defend their position (my own views on the 
> subject are too complex to be described in this forum.  I would 
> observe, however, that (doctrinal issues aside), the analogy to 
> miscegenation laws is misplaced.  Unlike miscegenation laws, which 
> reflect distaste for a particular group of people based upon a trait 
> with which they have been born, opposition to same sex marriage from 
> is based upon opposition to a certain type of conduct--that is, sex 
> between two people of the same gender.  (As to the claim that distaste 
> for that conduct is the same as distaste for people of a particular 
> sexual orientation, I would observe that the celibate homosexual or 
> homosexual who chooses to have a relationship with a person of the 
> opposite sex is actually kind of a heroic figure in social 
> conservative thought).   Moreover, opposition to same sex marriage 
> does not imply intolerance to same sex relationships, but simply 
> suggests that we are not indifferent to such relationships.  That is, 
> one might take the view that, while we should not punish those who 
> choose to engage in same sex relationships, we should nonetheless not 
> encourage such relationships, and that allowing two people of the same 
> gender to marry would signal that society is in fact indifferent 
> between homosexual and heterosexual relationships.
>
> At 03:57 PM 10/29/2005 -0500, Paul Finkelman wrote:
>
>> Earl:
>>
>> Is there much of a distinction between having the right to marry as 
>> being the "enemy" and the gates and being the person who wants that 
>> right to marry?   Recall the last great fight over the right to 
>> marry, involving interracial marriage.  The arguments were often the 
>> same -- such relationships violate the law of god (recall the Bob 
>> Jones case); such relationship will destroy society; such 
>> relationships harm children; they are a bad moral influence on the 
>> commnity; if those couples move into our neighborhood, housing prices 
>> will go down, etc. The poeple who made such arguments against the 
>> right to marry (the "enemy at the gate" in this context would have 
>> been interracial marriage) also opposed the civil rights of one half 
>> of the group that might be involved in an interracial marriage 
>> (blacks) and considered the other half to be disreputable, often 
>> calling them godless, communists (or godless communists), and perverted.
>>
>> It seems to me that to argue that the *right* to marry is the "enemy 
>> at the gate" is essentially to argue that those who want that right 
>> are the enemy.  Those who oppose same sex unions should not hide 
>> behind some constitutional technicality about who the enemy is. Those 
>> who oppose same sex unions are in favor of denying fundamental rights 
>> to a class of people based entirely on their gender. They do this out 
>> of fear, paranoia, homophobia, or the belief that they are entitled 
>> to force all Americans to accept their religious views.  Same sex 
>> marriage does not harm them, they are not forced to participate in 
>> it.  Their churchs would not be forced to sanctify such marriages.  
>> The marraiges in could not personally affect them in any way.  They 
>> are not even forced to be close to such marraiges, in the way that an 
>> integrated restaurant forced racists to sit next to blacks while they 
>> ate. Nor, can this be the equivalent of  the issue in Roe, where 
>> someone might argue that a fetus is a person (which many disagree 
>> with) and therefore might argue that choice harms a person.  Gay 
>> marriage involves only consenting adults and harms no one else. Thus, 
>> the issus is about fundamental rights for all people.
>>
>> Since same sex unions cannot possibly harm those who oppose them, we 
>> must assume that they oppose them becuase the marriages offend their 
>> sensibilities.  It srikes me as a sophistry at best to say that the 
>> "right" to marry is the "enemey at the gates" but that the people who 
>> want that right are not "the enemy."  It would be the equivalent of 
>> saying that the right to integrate was the"enemy" at the gates for 
>> Strom Thurmond or Lester Maddox, but that Martin Luther King, Jr. or 
>> Rosa Parks were OK folks.  But we know better.  Civil Rights 
>> advocates were the enemy at the gates, such as gay people and their 
>> straight allies and friends are the enemies of those who oppose civil 
>> rights for all Americans.   Let's at least be honest about who the 
>> enemy is!  If you oppose giving people equal rights -- especially in 
>> a democracy -- it can only be because you think they are NOT "created 
>> equal" and NOT "endowed" with the "unalienable rights" of "Life, 
>> Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."
>>
>> Those of us who believe in equality -- whether gay or straight -- are 
>> surely are the "enemy at the gates"  to those who oppose equality.
>>
>> Paul Finkelman
>>
>> Earl Maltz wrote:
>>
>>> With due respect, I believe that the "enemy at the gates" to which 
>>> Rick Duncan is referring is not gay people generally, but rather a 
>>> constitutional right to same sex marriage.
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Paul Finkelman
>> Chapman Distinguished Professor of Law
>> University of Tulsa College of Law
>> 3120 East 4th Place
>> Tulsa, OK   74104-3189
>>
>> 918-631-3706 (office)
>> 918-631-2194 (fax)
>>
>> paul-finkelman at utulsa.edu
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
> http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof
>
> Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as 
> private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are 
> posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can 
> (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
>
>
>