Friday’s same-sex marriage vote in New York makes one thing abundantly clear: an organized minority will trump a disorganized majority. The push for gay marriage was well planned and carefully executed, while the traditional-marriage folks were, for the most part, like a team of wild horses, pulling in every direction and getting nowhere, muddying the waters with irrelevant questions like the genetics of homosexuality or how many legal protections would be needed to make same-sex marriage safe. The lack of unity allowed lukewarm supporters of traditional marriage to be picked off one by one.
But in the end two groups let this bill happen: Catholics and Republicans.
Although the outcome was different, the debate on the floor of the Senate featured the same emotional speeches delivered by members of that body in 2009: “I was raised Catholic,” they invariably began, and just as invariably followed a tortuous path of anecdote, sentiment, and lawyerly language that led to a confident “And I support same-sex marriage.”
The specific arguments that rang hollowly on the Senate floor are less important than the sheer fact that they were made. Why did so many Catholics profess to feeling lost and uncertain about a question that the Church is actually quite clear on? The New York Times has an illuminating, if not flattering, answer to the question:
It was befuddling to gay-rights advocates: The Catholic Church, arguably the only institution with the authority and reach to derail same-sex marriage, seemed to shrink from the fight.
As the marriage bill hurtled toward a vote, the head of the church in New York, Archbishop Timothy M. Dolan, left town to lead a meeting of bishops in Seattle. He did not travel to Albany or deliver a major speech in the final days of the session. And when he did issue a strongly worded critique of the legislation — he called it “immoral” and an “ominous threat” — it was over the phone to an Albany-area radio show.
[...]
By the time a Catholic bishop from Brooklyn traveled to Albany last week to tell undecided senators that passing same-sex marriage “is not in keeping with the will of their people,” it was clear the church had been outmaneuvered by the highly organized same-sex marriage coalition, with its sprawling field team and, especially, its Wall Street donors.
“In many ways,” acknowledged Dennis Poust, of the New York State Catholic Conference, “we were outgunned. That is a lot to overcome.”
A great deal of courageous people exhausted themselves advocating against the bill, but in the end the Church’s opposition lacked unity and focus, allowing borderline votes to slip away unnoticed. And certainly Catholics weren’t the only Christians who voted for the bill – but, as the Times points out, people on all sides of the issue looked to Catholics to be a unified voice for Christianity. And that they were not.
Republicans, too, bear the responsibility. The Wall Street Journal reveals how internal Republican bickering about the state’s role in marriage law and what constitutes a civil right led major Wall Street financiers and Republican party figures to provide the key funds – and eventually the key votes – that pushed the bill into law.
But those GOP lawmakers [who voted for the bill] also received pledges of support from Wall Street, including from hedge fund manager Cliff Asness of AQR Capital Management. The political action committee of the Gill Action foundation, started by Tim Gill, promised aid.
A cadre of financial executives including Paul Singer, head of New York-based Elliott Associates, have been organizing efforts to support gay marriage for more than a year.
In September, Mr. Singer and Ken Mehlman, a partner and global head of public affairs at Kohlberg Kravis Roberts and a former chairman of the Republican National Committee, were among the organizers of a fund-raiser to help push gay marriage legislation. Daniel Loeb, head of New York hedge-fund firm Third Point LLC, joined forces with Mssrs. Singer and Mehlman, telling colleagues and others that he considers it a civil-rights issue, one person close to him said. Hedge-fund investors have been calling to thank Mr. Loeb for backing the measure, the person said.
Let this be a lesson for future states, beginning with Minnesota, who enter this battleground: organize. Find a spokesman, an organization like National Organization for Marriage or something local, and work with one message. Be clever as serpents and innocent as doves.
(Via: Thomas More Garrett)
June 27th, 2011 | 2:42 pm
Except that it looks like a disorganized *minority*:
http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dailypolitics/2011/06/poll-ny-same-sex-marriage-support-at-new-high
June 27th, 2011 | 3:45 pm
Hindsight is always 20-20 and when a team loses, every fumbled play will be looked at as the one that cost them the game. But winning teams fumble too and those fumbles count even if the victory celebration makes it seem like they didn’t happen.
OK, the Archbiship did his speech by phone rather than in person. But then Obama passed on endorsing the bill in his big speech in NY a few nights ago. Anti-SSM advocates made lackluster speeches, but so did pro-SSM advocates.
What I’m saying here is you watch a football game of A.v.B and A wins. You can sit there and say if only B hadn’t made various fumbles, errors, bad calls etc. they would have won. But if you’re going to pretend that B could play an absolutely perfect game, then you should pretend that A played a perfect game too….and A probably did not play a perfect game. So at the end of the day the game represents a fair look at who was the better team.
At the end SSM passed in NY because the people supported it and did not support the anti-SSM position. Note how Republicans were only going to let the bill be voted on if it had enough support to pass. That gives the game away, politicans are experts at following public support. They preferred not to go on record voting ‘no’ on SSM.
Maybe more passionate speeches by more bishops would have changed the outcome of this vote but that in itself wouldn’t alter the fact that in NY the anti-SSM has failed to carry popular support.
June 27th, 2011 | 3:57 pm
I have been warning people about Catholics and Republicans for years, and nobody would listen! :-P
June 27th, 2011 | 4:08 pm
It should come as no surprise that an organized machine is able to manipulate public opinion through a campaign of misinformation designed to achieve the desired result. The Times piece illustrates well how Cuomo and same-sex advocates built this victory through arrangements made with wealthy GOP donors outside of the view of the public eye. Part of this strategy entailed the outlay of millions of dollars deployed in order to obfuscate the issue in the mind of the public. Yet, in the end it was back room deal-making with wealthy Republicans and a late-night vote taken when many New Yorkers are going to bed that made this bill into law.
June 27th, 2011 | 4:27 pm
“Why did so many Catholics profess to feeling lost and uncertain about a question that the Church is actually quite clear on?”
Because so many Catholic politicians in NY and around the country choose to keep what they like about Catholicism (like the “Don’t worry, I’m a Catholic!” title to pander to Catholic voters), and choose to reject what they don’t like (like, well, much of the rest).
So many Catholics see their Catholicism as a sort of ethnic marker, like being born Jewish (which can be an ethnic identity and a religious commitment). So, you can be baptized a Catholic as an infant, and then do whatever you darn well please later on.
Governor Cuomo did this quite effectively during the debate, saying in interviews something to the effect that “Welllll, my church doesn’t agree with it,” perhaps implying that, as a good Catholic, it’s not his preference (thus pandering to Catholic voters), while lobbying hard for something he truly believed in (and no one doubts that he did that).
June 27th, 2011 | 5:26 pm
Well, it might help to realize that almost 36% of Americans live in jurisdictions that recognize same-sex marriage or civil unions, and that public support for the former is around the plurality point, and that, if combined with support for the latter, it’s now a commanding majority.
Politicians and courts follow changes of this magnitude. If anything, the fact that it has happened in the teeth of strong, organized opposition is more telling than the opposition, and that’s what the politicians are paying attention to. The more absolute, organized and determined the opposition, the more momentum-giving any victories over it are like to be.
June 27th, 2011 | 5:59 pm
It is unfair, IMO, to try to single out any one scapegoat for the 33 to 29 vote in New York. A difference of just 3 votes and the outcome would have been the opposite. At least for this year in that state.
The best statement above was, “a well organized minority can defeat a disorganized majority.”
SSM is plain wrong. It mocks the basic definition of marriage the world has accepted for thousands of years. Political decisions can order that we now accept 2+2=5, but such an order is still inherently wrong. SSM violates the moral restrictions set by God Himself.
SSM is yet another measure of just how Godless America and other Christian countries are becoming. The much larger question is: Why are our societies becoming Godless? Is it a failure to teach? Or a failure to learn?
Or has affulence caused too many to become selfish which is the opposite of LOVE – wanting the best for the loved one? The ultimate best being eternal salvation through Christ?
For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world and loose his soul?
June 27th, 2011 | 7:16 pm
a late-night vote taken when many New Yorkers are going to bed . . . .
William Garrett:
There are perhaps many criticisms that can be made of the way this was done, but implying it was done in the dark of night is preposterous. The news coverage of whether or not the Republicans would permit a vote was, in many ways, more significant than the vote itself. It was pretty much understood by anyone following the negotiations over religious exemptions, which went on for about a week, that if the Republicans allowed a vote, the bill would pass. It is not as if this was done quietly, and by a secret ballot. Was there political dealing? Of course. But the Republicans control the New York State Senate. They could have blocked a vote. By the time they decided to allow a vote, it was known there were enough Republican votes to pass the bill.
June 27th, 2011 | 7:29 pm
Nice piece except many of these people are not Catholics, despite what they may think. They can call themselves anything they want, but simply annointing yourself with a title does not make it real. There are days when I might like to think I am a professional ball player or a superhero, but that carries about as much weight as some NY pol describing himself as a Catholic.
June 27th, 2011 | 7:30 pm
Agree partially with the sentence – “a well organised minority can defeat a diorganised majority .” – unsure if The Son of God Himself had faced such , In Jerusalem !
Yet , with God , we need not be disorganised ..
This could have been and still could be a good practical lesson in putting spiritual warfare into practice , in an organised manner , both inside and outside The Church… to help those who are enslaved and confused .
The deep darkness of human hatred towards God and His ways and towards each other which is what sets off these perversions can be dealt with throuh The Light of The Holy Spirit being called forth perseveringly ..
Hearts dulled and darkened through media onslaught of scorn of the sacred and glee in evil would find it hard to do so , with trusting love , in the goodness of God – thus the need to turn off same , esp. any that gives even a hint of support for such selfhating, God hating programs .
Instead , using that time, to do something powerful in the way of dispelling evil – calling on The Name of the Lord …uniting such prayers , with the persons who need the same the most ..
in The Holy Spirit , having been given the power to be united , we can do so ..
We read how John The Baptist was filled with The Holy Spirit , in his 6th month at the visit of The Lord and His Mother !
We can intercde with her , for the many , seeing them as littlle 6 month olds, like The Baptist ..
in the womb, calling on The Name of The Lord ..to dispell all negative influences ..to be set straight in their identity and dignity ..
Long commute ? – not a minute to waste ..
Asking The Father , to pour in The Father love , so that persons do not run after mirages ..
and instead able to find love and peace , in the presence of holiness and heaven all around and within !
There is a hopeful pattern of seemingly more of the vacant and cheaper commercial spaces becoming churches /prayer spaces .
Such can offer even all day programs that include deep spiritual and even physical healings – there was a recent report on how a 600 calorie diet reversed diabetes .
May be we need to start with sending those who try to poison the public , with toxic sludge , in the name of false freedoms which in truth is the worst form of slavery !
We can just hope that this is not the start of something similar or worse , as what happened when the earthly authority of a king rebelled against The Church in the past, on a similar matter !
June 27th, 2011 | 8:12 pm
Nothing is more dangerous to marriage than the peonage of the poor and the obliteration of the middle class in the Ryan Budget, which the president of the United States Catholic College of Bishops, Archbishop Timothy Dolan, of New York infamy, supports to the point of publically praising Ryan and holding a Mass for him despite the proposal’s vast differences with Catholic Social teaching.
If a Prince of the Church can flout the Pope’s teaching on social justice, why should we be bound to its teachings on marriage?
(With apologies to the late Social Commentator and author, Sidney Jospeh Kennedy, who wrote the last line about Vietnam, Birth Control and Cardinal Spellman of NY)
June 27th, 2011 | 9:15 pm
[...] The Same-Sex Marriage Bill Catholics & Republicans Passed – Gabriel Torretta, First Things [...]
June 27th, 2011 | 9:56 pm
@MauraHennessey
So, a key part of Catholic social teaching is being wedded to a bureacratic program that spends more money than any other program in the federal budget and promises to cripple our economy if not fixed? No kidding! I had no idea.
Speaking as someone firmly planted in the middle class, I have to say that your statement is utterly, absolutely, indubitably ridiculous (need I add any more adverbs?). There is absolutely nothing contrary to Catholic social teaching in amending–even full out changing–a federal program like Medicare.
June 27th, 2011 | 10:49 pm
Asked: If a Prince of the Church can flout the Pope’s teaching on social justice, why should we be bound to its teachings on marriage?
Answer: The weakness of one never justifies the weakness of another.
If I believe the Church’s teaching is true – what Christ wants for us – then I cannot ignore that teaching just because I see others not living up to it. They will answer for themselves. I only need answer for me.
June 28th, 2011 | 3:46 am
Perhaps, the failure of the opponents of SSM has been the perception that such opposition is religiously-motivated.
In France, opposition rooted, not in Church dogma, but in the Civil Code, carried the day in the county’s two highest courts and similar arguments have led to the European Court of Human Rights, rejecting the demand for SSM.
France is a country that, in the first line of its constitution proclaims its attachment to the Rights of Man and goes on to define itself as a secular (laïque) Republic. However, no one, not even the most vocal supporters of SSM, have suggested that these decisions were religiously motivated or that opposition to SSM is grounded in an irrational hatred of homosexuals. They, themselves, see that such a charge against 154 of the country’s leading jurists and law professors would be ludicrous.
Unfortunately, American opponents of SSM often seem to have gone out of their way to invite precisely this charge. It is reported that the Archbishop of Paris covered his face and wept, when he heard how Christine Boutin had stood in front of the hemicycle of the Assembly and brandished a bible, during the debate on civil unions. Nothing could have been more counter-productive.
June 28th, 2011 | 7:57 am
The way this was signed into law could be used to challenge the whole process and declare those who tried to coerce and manipulate and those who gave into same all culpable on one manner or not !
As representatives of those who elected them , they represent a sacred trust .
Those who tried to undermine that trust this gulity of violating fudamental issues .
Marriage itself is considered incvalid, without proper consent .
In this case, seems there is plenty of evidence that the true and informed consent of the people and the representatives have been violated .
Challenging such means , to make them criminally illegal, dealing with those involved in such manner – hope our legal system would rise up to that !
Thus , their intent to undermine the sacred institution of marriage should become for them a lesson in what such relationships entail !
True , the term marriage is at times used , to describe the oneness of mind and heart in persons and organisations .
Thus , an Imam that can precah hatred of this country to his willing mosque members can be said to be ‘married ‘ to them and to his idealogy .
Yet , the country and legal sysstem does not have to give them affirmation and support !
We delare that ‘in God , we trust ‘ – it is time that we clarify that the God that we trust in , is a
God who is for freedom , in truth , to uphold the dignity of true human nature , free from coercion and deception of any sort , giving strenght to do away with the fallen trend of hatred of good that manifests in tendencies to coerce others into evil -and this forcing an unwilling public at large , to acccept the lie that has been signed into law is to be challenged !
June 28th, 2011 | 8:39 am
It seems fairly clear from the NYT article that that vote was legally purchased. Do you suggest that Archbishop Dolan should have engaged in a bidding war?
In context of the abuse allegations involving priests, monks, and nuns, the homosexualists were quite aggressive in labeling all the cases as pedophilia and vigorously stamping down any suggestion of same-sex attraction. Why does the Church not label those who oppose their teaching as what they are: heretics and probable apostates?
June 28th, 2011 | 8:44 am
Michael PS –
Of course, there are other differences. France, by your reports, has a robust ‘civil union’ option. That is not the case in the U.S., and indeed many opponents of SSM have gone out of their way to block any such option.
‘Defenders of traditional marriage’ might remember the maxim to leave your opponents a line of retreat, unless you want a fight to the death. Both sides can take ‘credit’ for turning this into an all-or-nothing battle.
June 28th, 2011 | 9:56 am
It seems fairly clear from the NYT article that that vote was legally purchased. Do you suggest that Archbishop Dolan should have engaged in a bidding war?
SteveP,
Who bought off the entire Republican Party? There may have been some deals made for a few decisive Republican votes, but it was always within the power of the Republican majority to keep the bill from coming to a vote at all.
Does anyone really think that there is any important vote in a legislature in which there is no pressure, no deal-making, no offers of support for those who side with you, no threats of retaliation for those who vote against you?
June 28th, 2011 | 10:33 am
This discussion among catholics is much more about Faith than politics. Catholics in the pews are challenging church teachings on abortion, homsexual acts, promiscuity, etc. At the same time, the irreverance in the churches makes it obvious that many Catholics have lost their belief in the Real Presence. This has resulted from an abismal, generational failure by bishops, priests and Catholic parents to catichize the children for the last 50 years. The many ‘Catholic’ politicians rationalizing their non-adherence to Catholic dogma is the proof of the pudding. The only hope in America of impeding the impending avalanche would be for the USCCB to act with courage and enforce canon 915. Make a statement with teeth in it so the Catholic families of America will be in ‘Catholic’ dinner-table conversation about these issues again. Rome also needs to vet potential bishops far better than it does. It’s not about politics; it’s about Faith.
June 28th, 2011 | 10:58 am
[...] From First Things: [...]
June 28th, 2011 | 11:00 am
Part of this strategy entailed the outlay of millions of dollars deployed in order to obfuscate the issue in the mind of the public.
And the anti-side didn’t obfuscate the issue?
Michael PS
Perhaps, the failure of the opponents of SSM has been the perception that such opposition is religiously-motivated.
In France, opposition rooted, not in Church dogma, but in the Civil Code…
Indeed judging from the comments you’ve made elsewhere, though, it would seem as if the French almost make their civil code a religion in itself….which is fine but not something I think you can ever float here in America.
Steve P
Why does the Church not label those who oppose their teaching as what they are: heretics and probable apostates?
Yea ok the reason anti-SSM advocates have lost the debate is because they weren’t self-righteous enough! Do go with that theory please..
June 28th, 2011 | 11:37 am
Bernard M Collins
The Catholic Bishops did fail in their role as guides to the true meaning of marriage, and they have failed in this respect for many years as they waffled in befuddled collusion over the ends of marriage. Their failure, ironically, now highlights the truth – Marriage is the rock on which the family is built and the source of our children and our future. If this battle is now lost, perhaps those same Bishops should create a new setting and articulation of Catholic Matrimony, especially considering that NY acknowledges a 60 % drop in marriages in Catholic Churches during the last 20 years or so. Catholic Matrimony for those who agree to: Permanence, Fidelity, Common Life, and Children with a generous and sincere mind to follow the Church’s teachings on marital ethics. A later appearance before a JP for legal purposes would be required.
Even if the rest of the Western World wants to commit suicide (acknowledging the peculiar situation of France), there is no reason for the Church to appear to continue to waffle.
June 28th, 2011 | 11:59 am
Liam- if you are so certain the people agree with you, why are you so afraid of a referendum? It is difficult to claim the mantle of public support while also opposing any referendum on the subject. If you really believed all of those polls, you would not be so afraid of a vote. If you’re going to say that public opinion should not impact ‘civil rights,’ then why do you cite public opinion at all?
The Republicans who voted for the bill were essentially bought. The Church made her position well known, but when you have politicians who do not mind changing their position without regard to the concerns of their constituents, there is little you can do. It would have been wiser for the GOP to not vote on it, but Skelos cannot be blamed for the dishonest moves a few of his members made.
As for the Catholic members, the Democrats are an old story- they worship at the altar of the Democratic party. Of the Republican votes for same-sex marriage, I believe two were Catholic. It is unfair to blame Catholics generally for their actions, even as all the other Catholic Republicans voted ‘no.’
June 28th, 2011 | 12:26 pm
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. That being said there is serious evil afoot in the Roman Catholic church today. We are reaping the Wuerlwind of homosexual and homosexual tolerant “presiders.” Gluttonous bishops whose God is their belly…
“It was a bit of a tempest in a teapot,” Dolan said. “We got lunch out of it.”
http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-03-09/local/28686413_1_archbishop-timothy-dolan-catholic-bishops-cuomo
Buffoons so tolerant of evil that they have their pictures on display in the state house shaking hands with the bloody governor-presiders over the murder of 400 babies a day, 150,000 a year, 6,000,000 (or more) since 1971 …
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/26/nyregion/the-road-to-gay-marriage-in-new-york.html?pagewanted=4&_r=2
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/sfaa/pdf/new_york.pdf
http://restore-dc-catholicism.blogspot.com/2011/01/cardinal-wuerl-and-mayor-gray.html
http://auferanobis.blogspot.com/2011/01/silence-of-donald-wuerl.html
http://www.cathstan.org/main.asp?SectionID=2&SubSectionID=2&ArticleID=4631
http://www.nbcchicago.com/entertainment/celebrity/124639084.html
Caiaphas & Herod could be no worse than these…
“Forty years long was I grieved with this generation, and said, It is a people that do [always] err in their heart, and they have not known my ways: Unto whom I sware in my wrath that they should not enter into my rest.” Psalm 95:10-11
[Lavábo inter innocéntes manus meas: et circúmdabo altáre tuum, Dómine. Ut áudiam vocem laudis: et enárrem univérsa mirabília tua. Dómine, diléxi decórem domus tuæ: et locum habitatiónis glóriæ tuæ. Ne perdas cum ímpiis, Deus: ánimam meam, et cum viris sánguinum vitam meam. In quorum mánibus iniquitátes sunt: déxtera eórum repléta est munéribus]
[I will wash my hands among the innocent, and I will encompass Thine Altar, O Lord. That I may hear the voice of praise, and tell of all Thy wondrous works. I have loved, O Lord, the beauty of Thy house, and the place where Thy glory dwelleth. Take not away my soul, O God, with the wicked, nor my life with men of blood. In whose hands are iniquities, their right hand is filled with gifts.]
[Ego autem in innocéntia mea ingréssus sum: rédime me, et miserére mei. Pes meus stetit in dirécto: in ecclésiis benedícam te, Dómine.]
[But as for me, I have walked in my innocence; redeem me, and have mercy on me. My foot hath stood in the right way; in the churches I will bless Thee, O Lord.] Psalm 26/Order of the Mass
http://www.fisheaters.com/TLMinstructions.html
June 28th, 2011 | 1:20 pm
Well, it might help to realize that almost 36% of Americans live in jurisdictions that recognize same-sex marriage or civil unions, and that public support for the former is around the plurality point, and that, if combined with support for the latter, it’s now a commanding majority.
No, because the gay lobby opted to skip democracy and find ways to force this onto people other than through the ordinary route (persuasion).
So that means that we won’t actually start talking about what gay marriage is, what it means, or how it will impact us/our families/our institutions until after it’s legal.
An illegitimate law can only be forced upon the unwilling at great and continuous cost/expenditure of energy. Sooner or later, gays will have to establish the legitimacy of what they want.
And it is not at all clear that they have truth on their side. It seems to me that if they had truth on their side, they wouldn’t have had to go around democracy, making arguments based entirely out of misrepresentations, attacks on all who disagree, appeals to pity, fallacies of composition, and false conflations.
June 28th, 2011 | 1:24 pm
David Nickol: the NYT article relays: “. . . behind the scenes, it was really about a Republican Party reckoning with a profoundly changing power dynamic, where Wall Street donors and gay-rights advocates demonstrated more might and muscle than a Roman Catholic hierarchy and an ineffective opposition.”
Where do you read “. . . it was always within the power of the Republican majority to keep the bill from coming to a vote . . .”?
Boonton: it is interesting that you seem to agree that the gay community has a strict standard as to what behavior can be called gay and what behavior cannot be called gay. Do you agree that one who self-identifies a gay can be shunned by the gay community for breaking the perceived standard? Do you disagree that a Catholic should use the same method – shunning?
June 28th, 2011 | 1:49 pm
SteveP,
This Times article says
It was clearly within the power of the majority party in the New York State Senate, the Republicans, to decline to allow a vote on same-sex marriage. I take it you are not from New York. The local news coverage for more than a week beforehand was focused on whether or not the Republicans would permit a vote. Was there political pressure? Sure, but no one put a gun to their heads. The whole point of Gabriel Torretta’s piece, which we are all commenting on, was that the Republicans let same-sex marriage pass in New York.
The headline on the National Organization for Marriage blog for June 24: Republicans Cave, Pass Gay Marriage in NY.
Exactly why did they do it? Exactly what was discussed in their 9-hour meeting? I don’t know. But in general, I think it is safe to say that they thought it politically safer for the Republican Party in New York to permit same-sex marriage to pass than to block it one more time. It was a political decision. Nobody forced them. The Catholic Church and other religious groups applied political pressure, just as pro-gay-marriage groups applied political pressure. Neither side was wrong to do so. That’s how democracy works.
June 28th, 2011 | 2:33 pm
Mike P. –
Why can’t it be two independent lines of argument? Something like, “First, same-sex marriage should be allowed on general principles, because it’s the right thing to do. And if you disagree on the grounds of ‘majority rules’, it’s not a majority anymore either.”
Neither line addresses those who have specific principles against same-sex marriage. On the other hand, it’s incumbent on them to actually articulate those principles and convince others to accept them…
June 28th, 2011 | 3:09 pm
Perhaps, the failure of the opponents of SSM has been the perception that such opposition is religiously-motivated.
There is much to be said for this, but the perception has been fostered in large part by the proponents of SSM. There have been many non-religious arguments made in opposition to SSM but they go largely ignored/unreported by a pro-ssm media.
Neither line addresses those who have specific principles against same-sex marriage. On the other hand, it’s incumbent on them to actually articulate those principles and convince others to accept them…
Why? Why isn’t it incumbent on those who have specific principles i favor of same sex marriage actually articulate those principles and convince others to accept them?
June 28th, 2011 | 3:33 pm
Neither line addresses those who have specific principles against same-sex marriage.
It’s normally the one who wants to change the world who is responsible for doing the impact assessment and any cost-benefit analyses that need to be done.
It is a strange argument that says that you have the right to change the world, and it’s on the rest of us to prove either that you don’t really need to, aren’t really entitled to, or that what you want is going to cause harm.
Yet that is how the liberals have been shifting the burden of proof for decades – always it’s a “crisis”, and someone isn’t getting something they’re just self-evidently “entitled” to, and that gives them the right to shift the burden of proof.
Of course, no matter how much proof someone comes up with, there’s always some way to weasel out of acknowledging it. For instance, you can’t just say there’s reason to believe X policy is going to cause harm. You have to cite actual harm done. Then, you have to prove that this harm is actually harmful. Then you have to prove why this harm is actually relevant, given as how the entire argument from the outset hinged on the recognition that some people are self-evidently entitled to Y, while those who are going to be losing rights (because any transfer of rights to one group always comes at the expense of other groups) are not entitled to Z.
It’s all a great big circle. There’s no arguing in good faith. Not surprising to find that underneath it all is a claim that isn’t really very sustainable, if it were addressed with logic instead of manipulations.
June 28th, 2011 | 3:44 pm
“Of course, there are other differences. France, by your reports, has a robust ‘civil union’ option. That is not the case in the U.S., and indeed many opponents of SSM have gone out of their way to block any such option.”
Nonsense. California had a civil union option that gave all of the same rights as marriage, but the California Supreme Court said it was not good enough and imposed gay marriage (which led to Proposition 8). New York had a domestic partnership law, but that wasn’t good enough because it wasn’t marriage. New Jersey has a domestic partnership law, but there are constant calls for a gay marriage law. This is all about being able to say a gay couple is married, not about tangible rights.
June 28th, 2011 | 4:35 pm
No, because the gay lobby opted to skip democracy and find ways to force this onto people other than through the ordinary route (persuasion).
Last time I checked the way democracy worked was the elected representatives propose a law, vote on it, and it becomes law if it passes and the governor signs it. If you have evidence that process was not followed here you should report it.
Boonton: it is interesting that you seem to agree that the gay community has a strict standard as to what behavior can be called gay and what behavior cannot be called gay. Do you agree that one who self-identifies a gay can be shunned by the gay community for breaking the perceived standard? Do you disagree that a Catholic should use the same method – shunning?
Not sure what you mean by ‘gay behavior’. Yea having sex with someone of the same sex is clearly ‘gay behavior’….are you talking about anything other than that?
AS for communities….well communities are autonomous. I don’t think there’s ‘a’ gay community but there are gay communities as well as gay people who are members of various non-gay communities. To what degree a community should shun members that diverge from its positions and values is really a decision the community itself has to make.
c matt
Why? Why isn’t it incumbent on those who have specific principles i favor of same sex marriage actually articulate those principles and convince others to accept them?
It would appear like that happened in NY.
Brian
Nonsense. California had a civil union option that gave all of the same rights as marriage, but the California Supreme Court said it was not good enough and imposed gay marriage (which led to Proposition 8). New York had a domestic partnership law,….
In terms of potential damage, I suspect this ‘zoo’ of alternative marriages (civil union, domestic partners, etc.) is more harmful to marriage in the long run than SSM. It’s a lot more conservative and safer IMO to just do SSM rather than destroy marriage in a deranged search for endless flavors of non-marriage marriage forms spun out for no other purpose than to give gays marriage while not giving them marriage.
June 28th, 2011 | 5:33 pm
Thank you, David Nickol, for expanding your thought. I found “There may have been some deals made for a few decisive Republican votes, but it was always within the power of the Republican majority to keep the bill from coming to a vote at all.” to be contradictory in that if the deals were decisive then the majority was pro-SSM and the 9 hour debate was to let the minority have their say.
As you can surmise, I disagree with your interpretation as well as Gabriel Torretta’s assessment and stand by the observation that the vote was purchased legally. As you have pointed out there is nothing wrong with that action and would surmise that you object to the phrasing.
June 28th, 2011 | 6:41 pm
SteveP,
I am not sure if I follow you. The 9-hour debate was among the Republicans only. There are 32 Republicans, 26 Democrats, and 4 Independents in the New York State Senate. As the majority party, the Republicans control the Senate. It was solely up to the Republican leadership whether to vote on same-sex marriage. If all the Republicans voted (in the final vote) in such a way that their vote reflected either their support or opposition to same-sex marriage, then 28 Republicans opposed it and 4 supported it. And yet the collective decision of those 32 Republicans at the end of a 9-hour meeting was to allow a vote. Consequently, a majority of Republicans had to be in favor of allowing the vote to take place. It had been known for some time that there were 2 Republican votes in favor. As the vote approached, the media reported that one of the undecided Republicans had switched sides, and passage was virtually assured. So when the Republicans decided to allow the vote, they permitted what they knew to be a vote that would pass same-sex marriage. They could have declined to hold the vote, even though they knew that the 4 Republican votes, combined with Independent and Democratic votes, would cause the bill to pass.
To put it another way, the bill did not come to a vote because a majority of the state senators supported it. It came to a vote because the Republicans decided to let it come to a vote. The fact that four Republicans were wooed to support same-sex marriage wasn’t enough to assure passage of the bill. The Republicans had to be convinced to allow the vote because they are the majority party and they control the agenda.
June 28th, 2011 | 8:49 pm
It’s a lot more conservative and safer IMO to just do SSM rather than destroy marriage in a deranged search for endless flavors of non-marriage marriage forms spun out for no other purpose than to give gays marriage while not giving them marriage.
It will damage the institution of marriage to define it as being unrelated to procreation.
It will harm its ability to serve the procreative functions that are an integral part of the institution.
Your argument is tantamount to saying giving blind people state IDs will do more to harm the institution of the driver’s license than just letting blind people have the license. It ignores the fact that licenses grant benefits, and there are problems with granting benefits to groups or classes of people who are not eligible for and should not be getting them.
Except, of course, the institution of marriage relies on social norms and mores far more than driver’s license rituals do.
Let me ask this: if the goal is just equality for gays, do you think it is reasonable to expect gays to accept the same rules and expectations heteros are expected to abide by?
For instance, if the goal is only to participate in – and not distort, misrepresent, or change – the institution, why is it not fair to expect that gays accept the hetero norm of distinguishing between one’s own child vs. a child that is not biologically related, but is the son or daughter of your spouse? Such relationships are called “step” – as in “stepfather” and “stepdaughter”, and stepparents are supposed to understand and recognize that their relationship is not the same in kind, and does not carry the same rights. But instead, what we see is that gays argue that by virtue of being married, they ought to rightfully be considered co-parents to any “children of the union” – that is not how the rules work for heteros, so why should gays get to make up their own special rules?
June 29th, 2011 | 11:41 am
Blake –
That’s why I, y’know, referenced ‘principles’ and such. There are in fact positive cases to be made for SSM, and it’s not like they haven’t been promulgated.
There is a separate case against the idea that “‘majority rules’ means SSM should not be legally permitted”. (Actually, two separate cases – (1) if SSM should be regarded as a civil right, then ‘majority rules’ is irrelevant, and (2) it ain’t so clear the majority is against SSM anymore.)
June 29th, 2011 | 11:57 am
Steve P
Thank you, David Nickol, for expanding your thought. I found “There may have been some deals made for a few decisive Republican votes, but it was always within the power of the Republican majority to keep the bill from coming to a vote at all.” to be contradictory in that if the deals were decisive then the majority was pro-SSM and the 9 hour debate was to let the minority have their say.
The majority was pro-SSM from the beginning. If the majority of the Senate was anti-SSM, there would have been no issue of bringing the bill to a vote. It could have come up as a vote and then lost. The reason Republicans were hemming and hawing about bringing up the bill for a vote was because a majority were pro-SSM and the question was whether the super-majority in favor of SSM was large enough to overcome the minority filibuster.
June 29th, 2011 | 12:52 pm
These remarks by Michele Somerville in the Huffington Post June 29th seem apt:
“People like Dolan and DiMarzio underestimate the power of the examples set by Catholics like Governor Cuomo who show the world what putting Catholic primacy of conscience over blind obedience looks like. The Roman Catholic hierarchy is on the wrong side of this social justice issue, but in New York State on Friday night, morality prevailed. The secular government demonstrated the virtue today’s Roman Catholic leadership lacks.
“As a practicing Catholic, I take pride in this moral outcome as well as in all the Catholic political leaders who made equal rights marriage possible in my state. Legalization of same-sex marriage in New York is quantum leap which promises to catalyze radical change in attitudes. I’m glad the good guys won on Friday night — I’m glad the ‘gays-are-worthy-of-death’ team of lost ground.”
Though I am no longer a practicing Catholic, I applaud Ms. Somerville.
Same Sex Marriage can only strengthen the moral fabric of society. It does no demonstrable harm to anyone.
June 29th, 2011 | 1:20 pm
Blake
It will harm its ability to serve the procreative functions that are an integral part of the institution.
Your argument is tantamount to saying giving blind people state IDs will do more to harm the institution of the driver’s license than just letting blind people have the license. It ignores the fact that licenses grant benefits, and there are problems with granting benefits to groups or classes of people who are not eligible for and should not be getting them.
over on the other thread I’m trying to collect objective measures of harm that anti-SSM advocates are willing to put themselves on record in order to be judged in the future whether or not they truely pan out. I’m wondering how this would translate into something that could be measured?
For example, if you gave blind people driving licenses I’d predict you’d see an increase in auto accidents caused by blind drivers.
Except, of course, the institution of marriage relies on social norms and mores far more than driver’s license rituals do.
We don’t have driver’s licenses for ritual purposes, we have them as a way to control the roads by not letting people who don’t know or can’t drive on the roads. Are you saying that if 2-4% of marriages are SSM then different sex marriages will suddenly see an increase in infertility?
Such relationships are called “step” – as in “stepfather” and “stepdaughter”, and stepparents are supposed to understand and recognize that their relationship is not the same in kind, and does not carry the same rights. But instead, what we see is that gays argue that by virtue of being married, they ought to rightfully be considered co-parents to any “children of the union” – that is not how the rules work for heteros, so why should gays get to make up their own special rules?
What’s the ‘special rules’? In general children have biological parents and guardians, with the two roles usually but not always being played by the same person. A ‘stepparent’ may or may not have the same rights and role as a biological parent depending on the circumstances. (For example, if you marry a woman whose widowed with a child and adopt her son, you are the full legal parent of that child just as much as she is….although technically you’d still be called a ‘stepfather’….on the other hand if you marry a divorced woman with a son whose father shares custody and takes an active role in his life, the father would remain the legal father of the child and you could not adopt him away). Since cloning does not exist, no SSM can create a child without a different sex union and no different sex union can have its child taken away from it simply by a same sex union existing.
June 29th, 2011 | 1:26 pm
And perhaps most importantly about giving blind people drivers licenses. If they did start giving blind people driver’s licenses and there was no increase in accidents due to blind drivers (don’t ask me how), then I would say I was wrong and the blind should get driver’s licenses no different than anyone else.
Will any possible future state of New York state ever lead people like Blake to say “gee, my predictions didn’t turn out as I thought they would, I guess SSM did not cause harm.” ?
June 29th, 2011 | 2:15 pm
That’s why I, y’know, referenced ‘principles’ and such. There are in fact positive cases to be made for SSM, and it’s not like they haven’t been promulgated.
There’s also a case to be made against SSM, but the proponents of SSM are doing their best to deal with that case in ways that are inappropriately manipulative.
Instead of acknowledging and addressing the concerns, they are using tactics that are outright dishonest to keep people from hearing them accurately.
Because, of course, the case for SSM does not stand up to real scrutiny; even if SSM does pass, restrictions will be put on it eventually – the same restrictions that would have to be put on SSM now if your side relied on persuasion, instead of bully tactics, to make your case.
Ultimately if the traditionalists are right, and there is such a thing as marriage, and it is “real” (some of us would say sacred), then it won’t be long at all until those who do value the traditional customs are finding “legal” ways to distinguish between real (sacred) marriage as opposed to those things we are required by law to pretend are marriage.
(Which might actually be the best thing in the long run, as it suggests a way of fighting not only direct attacks on the integrity of the institution, but also the entire culture that gives us no-fault divorce and drive-through wedding chapels.)
June 29th, 2011 | 2:17 pm
[...] I would be on that bandwagon if it were not for the recent sad, sad events out of New York, and the legalization of same-sex marriage. As such, I have been thrown into skeptical mode since our own Catholics helped to usher in same-sex marriage right under Archbishop Dolan’s watch (read here). [...]
June 29th, 2011 | 2:52 pm
There’s also a case to be made against SSM, but the proponents of SSM are doing their best to deal with that case in ways that are inappropriately manipulative.
I think I’ve been on at least 5 SSM threads on this blog that have run over 100+ comments. You can disagree with SSM proponents as much as you want but I don’t think you can honestly claim that anti-SSM arguments were not addressed by them here. If you do then support your charge.
June 29th, 2011 | 3:03 pm
“As a practicing Catholic, I take pride in this moral outcome as well as in all the Catholic political leaders who made equal rights marriage possible in my state.”
If the rights connected with marriage are of such great importance that it is a moral outrage if those rights are not extended to same-sex couples, why do you think it is that heterosexual couples like Cuomo and his girlfriend, and Bloomberg and his girlfriend, have knowingly and intentionally deprived themselves of those rights?
“I’m glad the good guys won on Friday night — I’m glad the ‘gays-are-worthy-of-death’ team of lost ground.”
So if you do not support SSM you are on the “gays-are-worthy-of-death” team? Do you think that is a fair characterization?
“Same Sex Marriage can only strengthen the moral fabric of society. It does no demonstrable harm to anyone.”
What about Catholic Charities in Boston being forced out of handling adoptions? What about the Christian photographer in New Mexico who was fined over $6,000 for refusing to photograph a lesbian commitment ceremony? How about the Methodist Church in Ocean Grove, New Jersey being forced to stop allowing the use of its pavillion for wedding ceremonies?
June 29th, 2011 | 4:51 pm
The only thing the three cases Brian cited have in common is that they all happened in non-SSM jurisdictions and have nothing to do with SSM.
June 30th, 2011 | 7:09 am
“The only thing the three cases Brian cited have in common is that they all happened in non-SSM jurisdictions and have nothing to do with SSM.”
It was always my understanding that Boston is located in Massachusetts, which has been a SSM jurisdiction since 2003.
And what point do you think you are making? Do you really think gay bigots are going to be less confrontational once SSM gets instituted in NJ and NM?
June 30th, 2011 | 11:04 am
How about the Methodist Church in Ocean Grove, New Jersey being forced to stop allowing the use of its pavillion for wedding ceremonies?
How about all those municipal swimming pools some decades ago in the South that were forced to close rather than let black people swim in them?
June 30th, 2011 | 1:16 pm
It was always my understanding that Boston is located in Massachusetts, which has been a SSM jurisdiction since 2003.
Try 2007. But the point remains. Unless Massachusetts had a law on the books asserting that only married persons can adopt a child or it had no discrimination laws on the book, then an adoption agency could still have some trouble over opting to discriminate *even if* you didn’t have SSM on the books.
And what point do you think you are making? Do you really think gay bigots are going to be less confrontational once SSM gets instituted in NJ and NM
You make my point better than I ever could. In the above statement your beef or harm is not about same sex marriage but about ‘gay bigots’. Do you really think that ‘gay bigots’ would not be ‘confrontational’ if a state or country bans SSM? Simply rejecting SSM doesn’t magically make ‘confrontational gay bigots’ or ‘excessive anti-discrimination’ laws disappear. If these things are problems then they are literally a different issue from SSM and should be addressed as such.
Or to put it more directly, pull out Massachusetts’s actual laws on adoption agencies and suggest changes. Pull out NJ’s laws on pulblic accomodations in catering halls. Pull out NM’s actual laws on professional photographers. In all cases propose whatever changes, exemptions etc. you feel are justified. If those laws are problems accepting or rejecting SSM doesn’t solve them.
Only you can break your addiction to red herring. All I can do is stage an intervention here!
June 30th, 2011 | 1:37 pm
Returning to an old point:
It seems fairly clear from the NYT article that that vote was legally purchased.
There are few things as sad and pathetic as right wingers who, when things don’t go their way, turn to class warfare and pseudo-socialism. Was Steve P bemoaning the vote in CA on an anti-SSM amendment being ‘legally purchased’ when huge amounts of dollars flowed into that state from the outside? What does it mean to assert that this vote was ‘purchased’? That New Yorkers with money supported SSM? But politicians aren’t elected with money, they are elected with votes. And yes while money helps you secure votes, it won’t win over many voters who lack funds to donate but are otherwise disgusted with you (which is why the history books will never contain chapters on ‘President Perot’ or ‘President Trump’)
If this assertion means anything, it means the vote on SSM was ‘purchased’ in the sense that the politicians who supported did so because they wanted to continue winning elections. But then that is how the system was set up to begin with.
June 30th, 2011 | 1:38 pm
So if a case like that can be brought in New Mexico, what does that tell you will happen in SSM jurisdictions?
Absolutely nothing!
And are you claiming SSM had nothing to do with Catholic Charities of Boston being forced out of adoptions, or have you finally given up on that?
Absolutely nothing to do with being ‘forced out’….in fact it’s been demonstrated by not they haven’t even been forced out!
You have only a few strategies to refute what has been demonstrated, they may not be very viable strategies but you have to play the cards reality has delt to you, you can’t just pretend you have a full house when you gots nothing. You can….
1. Prove that Worcester is not in Masschusettes.
2. Prove that the Vatican has granted some type of exemption from its doctrines to Worecester that it hasn’t granted to Boston.
3. Prove that Worcester, for inexplicable reasons, has choosen to openly defy the Vatican yet this has not made no impression on the media nor the Vatican nor local orthodox Catholics who vigerously oppose both gay adoption and SSM.
4. Prove that Boston Catholic Charities, for some reason, is unable to handle private adoptions despite the fact that about 2/3 of all adoptions in Mass. appear to be private.
5. Prove that the legislature really rejected a request for an exemption for Boston, despite the odd fact that at the time a majority were willing to vote against SSM and the sitting gov. was willing to sign such a law.
By the way, yesterday afternoon, a group of gay couples brought suit in New Jersey demanding the judicial implementation of SSM.
Yes and your point?
I’d be wiling to admit mistakes in fact I have made but I’ve presented the research here and it refutes the ‘facts’ you’ve been trumpetiting. At a certain point going around in circles misses the real problem here….dishonesty on the part of anti-SSM partisans. (Not all, of course, but among more than enough and its looking like you’re part of that group).
June 30th, 2011 | 2:35 pm
“How about all those municipal swimming pools some decades ago in the South that were forced to close rather than let black people swim in them?”
Yes, you and Boonton are the heirs of the Freedom Riders. It would be laughable if it wasn’t so offensive.
June 30th, 2011 | 2:57 pm
“Try 2007. But the point remains.”
The Goodridge case was decided in November 2003, and the first marriage licenses were issued in May 2004. I would be able to take your arguments more seriously if you were able to get even basic facts right.
June 30th, 2011 | 6:06 pm
And perhaps most importantly about giving blind people drivers licenses. If they did start giving blind people driver’s licenses and there was no increase in accidents due to blind drivers (don’t ask me how), then I would say I was wrong and the blind should get driver’s licenses no different than anyone else.
Will any possible future state of New York state ever lead people like Blake to say “gee, my predictions didn’t turn out as I thought they would, I guess SSM did not cause harm.” ?
Just like you are ready to admit that Murphy Brown was wrong about how women choosing single parenthood as “just another valid lifestyle choice” is wrong?
You’re taking rights away from your own children. Harm is already being done. Look at every kid who is forced to make public testimony about how he or she “is happy” to have “two daddies”. What are you going to do when some of these kids come out and admit that they do in fact feel anger and resentment because their parents were so selfish?
Of course every kid wants to have both a mom and a dad. Just because lesbians fantasize about women dancing with women at weddings doesn’t mean their daughter will want to dance with a mother, whether she wears a tux or a dress. Who are you to take that away from them, to force them to act like having seventeen moms, three cocker spaniels and a parakeet could be as good as walking down the aisle with one’s own real proud and loving dad?
July 1st, 2011 | 12:39 am
“So if you do not support SSM you are on the “gays-are-worthy-of-death” team? Do you think that is a fair characterization?”
No, I don’t. I think even within the anti-gay-marriage movement is becoming slightly more tolerant each year. Let’s not forget that 40 years ago homosexuality was classified as a disease by the secular public.
July 1st, 2011 | 5:52 am
Let’s not forget that 40 years ago homosexuality was classified as a disease by the secular public.
===========
But the real push for normalizing homosexuality comes from the same crowd that has since the 60s largely normalized pornography, prostitution, abortion, divorce, hookups, and just about everything else that degrades human sexuality and relationships.
Let’s not forget alcohol and drugs as well.
July 1st, 2011 | 7:15 am
“Let’s not forget that 40 years ago homosexuality was classified as a disease by the secular public.”
Google “Robert Spitzer” and “APA” to see what led to the APA changing its classification of homosexuality as a mental disorder. A hint — it wasn’t a new ressearch breakthrough.
July 1st, 2011 | 10:16 am
The Goodridge case was decided in November 2003, and the first marriage licenses were issued in May 2004. I would be able to take your arguments more seriously if you were able to get even basic facts right.
Fair is fair, I was looking at the referendum and then attempts to amend the Mass Constitution which ran from 2006-7.
But then that becomes a problem for your argument that Catholic Charities had no hope of securing an exemption from Mass’s legislator and Governor. The legislator was initially willing to pass anti-SSM amendments. No doubt if you put the anti-SSM together with the fact that at least a few pro-SSM legislators are willing to support exemptions (see NY state) plus a supportive governor all basically asking for an exemption law to sign there’s no reason for Boston Catholic Charities to have suddenly yanked adoptions only a week after raising the issue themselves (note that SSM advocates didn’t confront Catholic Charities, they took it upon themselves to make a case about it). It smells very much like a publicity stunt.
Blake
Just like you are ready to admit that Murphy Brown was wrong about how women choosing single parenthood as “just another valid lifestyle choice” is wrong?
Actually Murphy Brown didn’t ‘choose’ single parenthood. The father of her child wanted nothing to do with it. She never sought to bar him in any way from the child.
But you’re dodging the question. If you predict ‘harm will come’ and harm doesn’t come then that should cause your prediction to change. If it doesn’t then that’s an issue for your integrity. How do you respond? You start asking me about Murphey Brown, a TV sitcom from the 1980s! Even if I had written extensively about Murphey Brown, it doesn’t make your character flaws any less.
You’re taking rights away from your own children. Harm is already being done. Look at every kid who is forced to make public testimony about how he or she “is happy” to have “two daddies”.
If you know of an unhappy kid being forced to shill in public then you should be bringing your evidence to child welfare services in whatever state you live in. Failure of you to have done so indicates neglect on your part. If your in certain professions like a teacher, doctor, coach, etc. then neglecting to report suspected child abuse exposes you to criminal liability. This is your warning.
Just because lesbians fantasize about women dancing with women at weddings doesn’t mean their daughter will want to dance with a mother, whether she wears a tux or a dress. Who are you to take that away from them,
Being that cloning doesn’t exist, no daughter of a lesbian lacks a male father, period. If her father is not available to dance at her wedding, the fault lies with him. You’ve been told this several times now and have yet to refute it with anything coherent.
Brian
Google “Robert Spitzer” and “APA” to see what led to the APA…
Indeed, psychology as a science was really great in the pre-1980ish era…esp. in the 50′s and 60′s. In reality it was roughly equal to the status of physics, maybe two hundred years before Newton.
July 1st, 2011 | 1:17 pm
“Indeed, psychology as a science was really great in the pre-1980ish era…esp. in the 50′s and 60′s. In reality it was roughly equal to the status of physics, maybe two hundred years before Newton.”
Spitzer was a Professor of Psychiatry at Columbia, not Psychology.
Your description of the primitive nature of psychiatry (I assume that is what you meant) prior to the 1980s is interesting, since Spitzer argued in 1973 that homosexuality was not a clinical disorder, which was instrumental in getting the APA to remove homosexuality from its list of disorders.
However, in 2003, Spitzer reversed his position and asserted that homosexuality was a disorder, and that some individuals could alter their sexual orientation. I assume you would agree his 2003 position was more scientifically sound than his 1973 position?
Second,
July 1st, 2011 | 2:17 pm
I’m not really aware of Spitzer or his reasoning. I was talking about psychology as a science in general and I didn’t mean to peg the 1980′s as some great moment in psychology….only that if nothing else psychology has at least begun to become aware of the shakiness of their theories and their potential for abuse….unlike previous eras where psychologists often inflicted massive harm on patients (institutionalizing, shock therapy, lobotomies, etc.). That by itself might be ok if it was done with a clear understanding that many of the theories were highly speculative ‘shots in the dark’. Instead huge amounts of harm and experimentation were done in the context that they ‘knew’ what they were doing….
Anyway, asking whether the APA should have reversed its classification of homosexuality as a disorder assumes the APA was right about disorders to begin with.
July 1st, 2011 | 2:44 pm
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_spit.htm has a brief review of some criticism of Spitzer’s study.
It seems at best it might indicate that *some* homosexuals can change their orientation…at best. First his sample was self selected from ex-gay ministries and activists as opposed to taking a random sample of gays and seeing if they could be ‘changed’. Second his metric of success was whether the participants themselves reported having a ‘satisfying’ heterosexual relationship ‘within the past year’. That by itself ought to give one pause. If nothing else it practically begs for a follow up study to see if the ‘successful ex-gays’ were able to maintain their ‘change’ beyond a year. Finally it assumes bisexuality cannot exist as an orientation. This is a pretty serious assumption because I believe Joe cited stats a while ago indicating that bisexuals are almost on a par with gays in terms of population. If you start by assuming the universe can only contain gays or straights then indeed a man who has had sex with other men who suddenly has a relationship with a woman may appear to have ‘changed’. But if bisexuals exist then you may have simply found a case of a bisexual who has choosen a person to ‘settle down with’ after having relationships with members of the same sex before.
That all being true, I admit it is very hard to observe a concept like ‘sexual orientation’. It’s very easy to simply resort to observing behavior but this is deceptive.
BTW, what evidence do you have that Spitzer changed his position on homosexuality being a disorder in 2003? Here’s his study published in Oct 2003 (http://www.springerlink.com/content/rk67865783602411/fulltext.pdf). He seems to make very modest claims that his research only shows that maybe some people might be able to change their motivation and more study is needed. That’s hardly a sweeping claim that all or even most gays can change nor a claim that the APA should revert to its original position on homosexuality.
July 1st, 2011 | 3:22 pm
There is a 2005 interview with Spitzer in Christianity Today, where he explains why doing further research in this area would basically be impossible.
July 1st, 2011 | 3:29 pm
“no reason for Boston Catholic Charities to have suddenly yanked adoptions only a week after raising the issue themselves (note that SSM advocates didn’t confront Catholic Charities, they took it upon themselves to make a case about it). It smells very much like a publicity stunt.”
Any theory on why CCB would engage in such a publicity stunt?
Do you think CCB’s 103 years of handling adoptions was just part of some master plan to pull off that publicity stunt?
Any theory on what they wanted publicity for?
Do you have any proof to support your implication that CCB did not actually care about the children they could no longer offer for adoption?
July 1st, 2011 | 3:41 pm
Perhaps you mean this 2005 interview:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2005/april/20.94.html?start=2
He says nothing about having homosexuality classified as a disorder. In fact, look at this final comment:
So he’s not even willing to say ‘gays are broken’….which if he had decided that the APA was wrong to delist homosexuality as a disorder you’d think he would indicate that…..
So again is there any evidence to support your assertion that spitzer changed his position and favors the APA listing homosexuality as a disorder either in 2003 or 2005 or anytime?
July 1st, 2011 | 5:01 pm
“So he’s not even willing to say ‘gays are broken’….which if he had decided that the APA was wrong to delist homosexuality as a disorder you’d think he would indicate that…..”
He says gays are infuriated by the term reparative therapy. Where do you see him say he wouldn’t use the term? He says the politically correct term is reorientation therapy.
July 1st, 2011 | 6:54 pm
Brian,
Several therapists have also researched the various factors that contribute to the development of a homosexual psychology in people. Although far from complete, there is plenty of knowledge available. Just as a tiny excerpt, which by far doesn’t even begin to delve into the subject:
Nicolosi, who has had more than 1000 therapy clients with homosexuality issues, discusses several personal history profiles that are found in men exhibiting same-sex attraction.
One such profile is that of homosexual men “who have great difficulty recalling childhood father-son activities that were fun, exciting and enjoyable, and included success for the son.
They rarely have positive memories of their father’s teaching, coaching or encouraging them to gain a new accomplishment that involves bodily activity or strength. Indeed, many clients specifically lament this deprivation.” And “so much of what lies behind adult same-sex attraction is a deep, lingering, unsatisfied desire for physical closeness with a male. When there has been a healthy, childhood internalization of the father’s masculinity, there will be no need to sexualize another man.”
“One 19 year-old man succinctly explained his ‘ultimate fantasy’: ‘I want to sit in the lap of a big man, and never wake up.”
Interesting, isn’t it?
Furthermore, given certain behavior problems exhibited by homosexuals, we observe a considerable number of cases with substance abuse and sexual promiscuity. “Substance abuse and sexual promiscuity offer temporary relief from emotional emptiness, personal inadequacy and chronic depression. All these serve to distract the person from his fundamental inability to establish authentic emotional attachments.”
“Sexual promiscuity, specially with anonymous partners, also satisfy the drive for grandiosity and omnipotence. ”
SSM zealots are incapable of addressing any of these and other issues, because the latter have nothing to do with genes, but with society, family, and psychology. The more ignorant one is about the latter, the more fanatical one will be to explain complex psycho-social phenomena through simplistic sound-bytes (“anyone who feels something was BORN to feel that way” or “anyone who feels something was PREDETERMINED to feel that way–because of their genes”).
===========
I really recommend Nicolosi’s book.
Reparative psychotherapy is based on a developmental view that the homosexual condition is the result of incomplete gender-identity development arising when there is conflict and subsequent distancing from the father. . . . Many homosexuals are attracted to other men and their maleness because they are striving to complete their own gender-identification. This view helps to better understand the nature of the homosexual man’s struggle and offers help to the non-gay homosexual, that is, one who is unhappy with his sexual orientation. The model described here, however, fits many, perhaps the majority, of male homosexuals who come for treatment, and it may be the most common homosexual developmental pattern. Reparative therapy is not a cure in the sense of erasing all homosexual feelings. It is however, a successful treatment strengthening masculine identification. For non-gay homosexuals who want to change, reparative psychotherapy can help them explore the source of their problem, develop nonerotic same-sex relationships that diminish the sexual attraction they feel toward men, become more secure in their gender-identity, and enjoy heterosexual relationships. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)
Reparative therapy of male homosexuality: A new clinical approach.
Nicolosi, Joseph
=========
There is also this study:
Presents the results of a survey of 882 dissatisfied homosexual people who were queried about their beliefs regarding conversion therapy and the possibility of change in sexual orientation. There were 70 closed-ended questions on the survey and 5 open-ended ones. Of the 882 Ss, 726 of them reported that they had received conversion therapy from a professional therapist or a pastoral counselor. Of the participants 779 or 89.7% viewed themselves as “more homosexual than heterosexual,” “almost exclusively homosexual,” or “exclusively homosexual” in their orientation before receiving conversion therapy or making self-help efforts to change. After receiving therapy or engaging in self-help, 305 Ss (35.1%) continued to view their orientation in this manner. As a group, the Ss reported large and statistically significant reductions in the frequency of their homosexual thoughts and fantasies that they attributed to conversion therapy or self-help. They also reported large improvements in their psychological, interpersonal, and spiritual well-being. These responses cannot, for several reasons, be generalized beyond the present sample, but the attitudes and ideas are useful in developing testable hypotheses for further research. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)
Retrospective self-reports of changes in homosexual orientation: A consumer survey of conversion therapy clients.
Nicolosi, Joseph; Byrd, A. Dean; Potts, Richard W.
Psychological Reports, Vol 86(3,Pt2), Jun 2000, 1071-1088. doi: 10.2466/PR0.86.3.1071-1088
July 1st, 2011 | 7:45 pm
He says gays are infuriated by the term reparative therapy. Where do you see him say he wouldn’t use the term? He says the politically correct term is reorientation therapy.
I take it then that this is your support for your assertion that he asserted the APA should classify homosexuality as a disorder?
Nicolosi, who has had more than 1000 therapy clients with homosexuality issues, discusses several personal history profiles that are found in men exhibiting same-sex attraction.
So the data consists of ancedotes. Where did these 1000 clients come from? Did he randomly select 1000 gay men and write up case profiles of each one? Or, more likely, is he talking about 1000 case files he’s assembled during his years. But why and how did he get those 1000 cases?
1000 people raised Catholic who say Hitchens’ God is Not Great is a great book does not establish that his book has a special appeal to Catholics. For all we know 99,000 Catholics hate the book….would 99,000 gays with no serious issues have sought out Nicolosi and spent hours with him in treatment?
July 1st, 2011 | 8:24 pm
He says nothing about having homosexuality classified as a disorder. In fact, look at this final comment:
You’ve said very clearly that no one should be coerced into reparative therapy.
Mental illnesses should be fixed when one of two situations occurs:
1) the person in question wants help, and initiates the therapy
2) there is some demonstrable reason why the person in question should have it forced upon him by the state or by a guardian, whether he wants it or not.
This isn’t just homosexuality, but all mental disorders – or perhaps deviations would be a more accurate way to phrase it (since whether or not homosexuality is or is not a mental disorder is not something science is capable of determining – science can determine whether something is atypical, but the subjective judgment of whether that atypical deviation is good or bad is outside of what science is qualified to evaluate. Science can only talk about ‘does’ or ‘does not’, while the question of whether homosexuality should be classed a problem or simply a personality trait is not a “does” but a “should” question, and thus not a scientific question at all…..)
July 2nd, 2011 | 6:55 am
Hooray!
A wonderful victory for common sense
A wonderful victory for human rights
A wonderful victory for decency
A wonderful victory for freedom of choice
A wonderful victory for equity and equality
A wonderful victory for justice
A wonderful victory for fairness
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact