November 18, 2004

THE TRANSGRESSIVE VS TRADITION:

Fewer gay couples seek marriage licenses (Scott S. Greenberger, November 18, 2004, Boston Globe)

The number of gay and lesbian couples applying for marriage licenses has slowed to a trickle since a rush to the altar in the days after same-sex marriage became legal in Massachusetts on May 17, according to state records and a Globe survey of large cities and towns.

In the first week after the Supreme Judicial Court decision took effect on May 17, 2,500 gay and lesbian couples applied for licenses; 1,700 have done so in the six months since then, according to unofficial tallies by the Globe and state officials.

In all, the state's Registry of Vital Records has received an estimated 4,266 marriage licenses for gay and lesbian couples, a spokeswoman said yesterday.

The City of Boston has experienced a significant slowdown. In the week after May 17, Boston reported 146 same-sex couples seeking marriage licenses, but in the six months since, 345 gay and lesbian couples have applied, an average of 14 a week, according to the Globe's survey.

The story is similar in Cambridge, which opened City Hall doors after midnight May 17 to accept license applicants. During that first week, 310 same-sex couples applied for licenses in Cambridge, the most in the state. But in the months since, only 267 same-sex couples have applied, an average of about 11 a week.

"Now it's just a steady part of our marriage-intentions process," said Margaret Drury, Cambridge city clerk.

The trend has been the same in less popular destinations for gay and lesbian couples seeking licenses.

"It has dropped off considerably since May," said City Clerk Richard Johnson of Lowell, which has had 27 applications from same-sex couples but almost none since the spring. "The majority of those were the first week or two. Now it's slowed to a trickle."


It was never about their gaining access to an institution but about their destroying it for the rest of us.

Posted by Orrin Judd at November 18, 2004 8:16 AM
Comments

Some of it also has to do with the tredy nature of being first on the "next big thing". Now that it's no big deal to get a gay marriage license in Massachusetts, there's no reason for them to get a gay marriage license -- in Massachusetts. Were some other state, like New York, Oregon or Connecticut, to somehow legalize the law, you'd see the same initial rush to the alter you saw in Boston or San Francisco during Mayor Newsome's "I am the law" moment last year. But once the video cameras were gone from the courthouse steps, many of those would suddenly lose their passion for matrimony.

Posted by: John at November 18, 2004 10:57 AM

Homosexual activists are seeking the right to same-sex marriage just to legitimize their behavior and prevent you from telling your children it is wrong.

Posted by: Vince at November 18, 2004 12:40 PM

It never has been explained how fewer than 3% of the population could have any impact on the institution, never mind destroying it.

Posted by: Jeff Guinn at November 18, 2004 2:07 PM

Jeff-

Use your imagination. It's 10% of the population when representation is discussed but only 3% when discussing marriage. Convenient. I'll bet you that little boys and little girls benefit more by having a mom and a dad. You disagree and are willing to run the experiment. That's fine with me although I belive it's less than prudent to assume such a basic insitution of civilization should be so blithely devalued. Just my opinion.

Posted by: Tom C., Stamford,Ct. at November 18, 2004 2:43 PM

Look what they did to the YMCA

Posted by: oj at November 18, 2004 3:42 PM

Tom C.

You are dealing with Jeff on automatic pilot here. It has been explained many times here and elsewhere, but he doesn't like the argument. For some reason he would rather deny it was made than rebut it.

Posted by: Peter B at November 18, 2004 4:05 PM

Peter:

Actually, it hasn't I have heard all too often that it will happen, but not how.

It isn't as if they are going to deplete the world's supply of marriage.

Tom:
That 10% number is nonsense, and 3% may even be too high. I don't disagree that children are better off with married male/female parents who unfailingly treat each other with respect and affection.

But it may be that gay parents may beat no parents at all, which may be the only game in town for some adopted children.

That isn't the issue, though. Whether gays are allowed to marry won't change whether they have children.

I don't think I have seen a subject yet surrounded by more heat and less light.

Posted by: Jeff Guinn at November 18, 2004 8:01 PM

Jeff-

I didn't invent those numbers but they have been used for the purposes mentioned. "Be fruitful and multiply" is a quaint sentiment although many in the west would be wise to reconsider the implications. Homosexuals tend not to. Equating same sex couplings with the responsibility of raising children with traditional families is a stretch. I bet it is harmful for the kids and tradition supports my view. Childhood innocence should be protected.Nothing supports your view other than wishing it to be so.

Posted by: Tom C., Stamford, Ct. at November 18, 2004 9:43 PM

How is "childhood innocence" going to be damaged by allowing gays to marry ?
Saying that a thing is so, or will be so, doesn't make it so.

By the time kids are old enough to realize what gay marriage is about, innocence has long since fled.
Further, how is it better to have children learn about the mechanics of gay sex, (and they will), without being able to think of it in terms of a committed relationship ?


Part of marriage used to be about the responsibility of raising children, but marriage and raising children have long since been severed. Since hetero-marriage isn't about raising children anymore, how can gay marriage be held to a higher standard ?
Denying gays marriage won't make heteros any more responsible in their choices about marriage, divorce, or having children.

So, sorry to tell you, Tom C., the experiment that you're worried about was started long ago, and is still running.

For those of you who are married, how have the 4,000+ gay and lesbian Massachusetts marriages degraded your relationship with your own spouse ?
How has your marriage been changed one whit ?

I can guess.

Posted by: Michael Herdegen at November 18, 2004 10:11 PM

How is "childhood innocence" going to be damaged by allowing gays to marry ?
Saying that a thing is so, or will be so, doesn't make it so.

By the time kids are old enough to realize what gay marriage is about, innocence has long since fled.
Further, how is it better to have children learn about the mechanics of gay sex, (and they will), without being able to think of it in terms of a committed relationship ?


Part of marriage used to be about the responsibility of raising children, but marriage and raising children have long since been severed. Since hetero-marriage isn't about raising children anymore, how can gay marriage be held to a higher standard ?
Denying gays marriage won't make heteros any more responsible in their choices about marriage, divorce, or having children.

So, sorry to tell you, Tom C., the experiment that you're worried about was started long ago, and is still running.

For those of you who are married, how have the 4,000+ gay and lesbian Massachusetts marriages degraded your relationship with your own spouse ?
How has your marriage been changed one whit ?

I can guess.

Posted by: Michael Herdegen at November 18, 2004 10:12 PM

Michael:

We have to explain what's going on to our kids, for one thing.

Posted by: oj at November 18, 2004 10:38 PM

Michael:

Who said heterosexual marriage isn't about raising children anymore?

Posted by: Vince at November 19, 2004 3:01 AM

oj:

Which doesn't have to include detailed descriptions of the mechanics. Young kids don't understand hetero-marriage either - Plenty of adults don't seem to get it.

Vince:

No-fault divorce. State monitered child support payments. Daycare. Child Protective Services, in all of their incarnations. Effective birth control. Abortion.

Over half of all American children live in single parent families for at least part of their childhood.

Posted by: Michael Herdegen at November 19, 2004 3:53 AM

Tom:

"Equating same sex couplings with the responsibility of raising children with traditional families is a stretch. I bet it is harmful for the kids and tradition supports my view."

I must have been unclear. I didn't equate one with the other because they are not the same. Same sex couples have children regardless of marriage whether you or I like it or not.

Gay marriage and a gays having children are totally separate issues.

And while I have a very clear preference, as I stated above, for children growing up in convetional two-parent homes where husband and wife continually treat each other respectfully and affectionately, that isn't exactly the rule.

And, for some "problem" kids (defined as adoptively unattractive) gay parents might be the only ones the could ever know. Would you prefer these children have no parents instead?

Any way, my question still stands. How will gays marrying damage, let alone destroy, heterosexual marriage? Is there a limited supply of marriage, that gays will deplete?

Posted by: Jeff Guinn at November 19, 2004 7:06 AM

Jeff:

The same way you think treating Creationism as science would damage science. That which is not should not be treated as is, lest is cease to be.

Posted by: oj at November 19, 2004 8:21 AM

Michael:

But they ask why people who engage in evil are treated like mom and dad.

Posted by: oj at November 19, 2004 8:38 AM

oj:

When you serve 'em up big 'n' fat like that, it's no fun hittin' 'em out of the park.

You know the answer to that hypothetical better than I do.

Posted by: Michael Herdegen at November 19, 2004 9:34 AM

Michael:

No, why should systematized evil receive the imprimatur of the State?

Posted by: oj at November 19, 2004 9:55 AM

It's all relative,oj. Guys obsessed with buggery have their thing and heterosexual parents have their own. Who's to judge? History? Custom? Tradition? The public health authorities?

Posted by: Tom C, Stamford,Ct. at November 19, 2004 11:34 AM

OJ:

Teaching Creationism in Science class would no more damage science than teaching Art in science class.

I must say though, your last sentence is a very clever turn of phrase.

Tom:
Still waiting for an answer as to how that accursed 2-3% of the population could ruin marriage for the rest of us.

Posted by: Jeff Guinn at November 19, 2004 12:45 PM

So you'd agree Creationism and Art are Science?

Posted by: oj at November 19, 2004 1:05 PM

Jeff- You're very imaginative. The arbitrary and wholesale rejection of the tried and true institutions on which civilization is built has a bad track record. Gramsci, for one, understood precisely why and how it should be done. His goal was the destruction of individual freedom with responsibility. The Jacobins of France wished to create a world built on their designs by rejecting the naturally evolved institutions which supported the culture. The facile reasoning regarding the unimpoertance of marriage as an institution is the same. I don't need to prove anythging. Those who wish to saddle the culture with the acceptance of an arguably dis-ordered behavior as somehow normal and without consequence need to prove THEIR point. History, tradition and culture is not on your side.

Posted by: Tom C., Stamford, Ct. at November 19, 2004 1:43 PM

OJ:

Perhaps pointlessly depriving a group of people equal standing before the law through the imprimature of the state is systematized evil.

It has been known to happen.

Tom:

Perhaps you are so unused to me agreeing with you that it is difficult to take on board when I am.

You are absolutely correct--heterosexual parents, very preferably married, are by far the best arrangement for children.

However, to solve that problem means emplacing laws prohibiting same sex couples of whatever status from having children through whatever means. Period.

Unfortunately, preventing them marrying doesn't begin to address that issue.

Posted by: Jeff Guinn at November 19, 2004 2:40 PM

Jeff:

There's a point, but they aren't deprived at any rate. They have the same legal rights as everyone else.

Posted by: oj at November 19, 2004 4:55 PM

oj:

Society should not support systematic evil.

Fortunately, gay marriage isn't evil.


Tom C.:

Rather, American culture has already sold your position down the river. See my reply to Vince, above.
Gays will eventually be allowed to marry, because heteros have already debased the meaning of marriage.

Anti-gay marriage activists are like those Japanese soldiers hiding on remote islands in the 60s, refusing to believe that Japan had been beaten. They had honor, but they were also delusional.

Posted by: Michael Herdegen at November 19, 2004 9:35 PM

Of course it is, as is homosexuality.

Posted by: oj at November 19, 2004 9:47 PM

Michael-

Weak comparison. I have a suspicion that homosexuality is an abstract concept that fits in quite well with your relatavistic views regarding cultural issues. I am 50 years old and the vast majority of my aquaitances who were so inclined are dead as a direct result of the convergance between the free sex 60's and 70"s and the gay liberation movement. I believe that it is a disordered tendency toward obsessive and fertishistic sexuality that serves little purpose other than sexual gratification.

As far as your Japanese holdouts on Pacific islands are concerned, a more apt comparison might be E. Burkes warnings regarding French "intellectuals" atte4mpts to reorder civilization along other abstractions armed with nothing but "reason". A disaster repeated throughout the 20th cenury after the groundwork was laid by 19th century progressives.

It amazes me that libertarian types are oblivious
to the historical consequences of rejecting or redfining that which nature and common sense (conscience) holds to be self-evident.

Posted by: Tom C., Stamford, Ct. at November 20, 2004 10:13 AM

If it's self-evident, then why can't anyone who opposes gay marriage name a concrete harm that will be done to American society as a result of allowing it ?

I asked you earlier in this thread to explain exactly how childhood innocence will be more harmed by gay marriage than by the simple existence of non-married gay couples.

That's a good place to start.

Posted by: Michael Herdegen at November 20, 2004 12:23 PM

Your questions have been responded to. You just don't like the answers. Active homosexuality is a disorder and anal sex is a health hazard. The lifestyle is a poor example for children. Show me how I am mistaken.

Posted by: Tom C., Stamford, Ct. at November 20, 2004 12:34 PM

You aren't mistaken, but the choice isn't gays or no gays, it's gay marriage or not.

So far, all you can come up with is that you're not a fan of gays. Fine. It doesn't mean that gays being married will cause any more harm than you believe is already occuring. Additionally, the "health hazard" argument is actually an argument for lesbian marriage, since they have the safest sex of all.

So far, you've made assertations about gay marriage, and backed 'em up with facts about gay sex.
Non sequiturs.

Further, the fact that gay sex is less healthy than heterosex is meaningless. Americans harm themselves in dozens of ways every day, all completely legally, without a second thought.
Unless you're also going to ban cigarettes, alcohol, sugar, and sports cars, then that argument is completely hollow.

Posted by: Michael Herdegen at November 20, 2004 5:32 PM

Michael-

Again, address the issiues, Lifestyle, health, example for children. I have more gay friends and aquaintances than you can imagine.

Posted by: Tom C., Stamford, Ct. at November 20, 2004 5:46 PM

Michael:

Cigarettes should be banned too. Car driving is regulated. We treat alcoholics. We don't just allow folks to harm themselves.

Posted by: oj at November 20, 2004 5:57 PM

Michael:

Giving state sanction to evil will inevitably confuse children about good and evil.

Posted by: oj at November 20, 2004 6:01 PM
« CUT 'EM LOOSE ALREADY: | Main | WHY NOT MAKE IT UNANIMOUS?: »