Gay Marriage

Watch this. Keep in mind that this is an American politician—a Republican mayor of San Diego. And not only does he come out in support of gay marriage (that’s only civilized, I figure), but never in his speech is there any religious reference. Amazing.
YouTube Preview Image

About Taner Edis

Professor of physics at Truman State University

  • C. Conrad

    Wow. I am very impressed. Seeing such conviction in a person gives me hope that we can all work together toward a better place for us all to live.

  • Andre

    well the journey of a thousand miles begins with the first step… maybe this is the first step of the religious right embracing secular values. In Europe and South America there’s a large number of religious left people – although fortunately they tend to be quite liberal in their outlook and don’t ram religion down your throat

  • John W. Loftus

    Notice that part of his reasoning had to do with some staff members and his daughter being gay and the fact that he could not look them in the face and deny them what he experiences.

    There is power in knowing someone who believes differently. Real power! The gays initiated a campaign where they called on people to come of the closet. Dawkins has done the same. It’s time for non-believers to come out of the closet. We are their neighbors, their friends, and their loved ones. We can make a difference if we simply tell people. 1/4th of us may be non-believers!

    Recently I heard of a Campus Crusade minister in Michigan who told his wife he no longer believed and was fearful of the repercussions. She told him she no longer believed too!

  • Bruce

    This reminds me of “The Simpons” episode with John Waters as a gay man and Homer goes crazy when he finds out Waters is gay. It’s only when Waters ends up saving Homer’s life that Homer changes his mind toward Waters. And then Waters draws the obvious conclusion: “Well, Homer, I won your respect, and all I had to do was save your life. Now, if every gay man could just do the same, you’d be set.”

    I applaud the guy for finally seeing the light, but why is it that it always takes some personal heartbreaking story to get these people to be more open-minded? Are these people incapable of empathy? Sure, they are perfectly happy discriminating against anyone or anything they feel like until it finally affects them personally. I think this guy needs to make amends for the errors of his past not just by changing his mind about gay marriage but also actively trying to change the minds of others in his party. It’s not enough to be reactive because his own daughter is involved. He must now be proactive to make up for his past “sins”. Otherwise, he’s still just your average cynical politician who is only in it for himself. This time it just happens that his own self interests benefit gay people as well. But if he didn’t have a gay daughter, would he ever have changed his mind?

    So while I applaud his change of heart, I’m not going to sing his praises until I see something more from him.

  • GOP Mammal

    There are a few republicans out there who support gay marriage, I am one of them, of course I am also an atheist.

  • Malcolm Kirkpatrick

    Legislation or court rulings which expand the definition of “marriage” to include homosexual partners will, absent countervailing legislation, expand the number of recipients of State-mandated income transfers implicit in “marriage”. Materialistic considerations suggest that this might be unwise.

    Marriage is an evolved custom. The widespread occurrance of this custom indicates that it serves (or served, at one time) an important social function.

    Cost-benefit considerations may justify customary marriage. The same cost-benefit considerations do not apply to people who are very unlikely to have children and far more at risk of an expensive medical condition.

  • Jim Lippard

    Cost-benefit considerations could be used to determine whether marriage benefits are given to any or none, but should not be used to justify providing it on a discriminatory basis in violation of the 14th Amendment.

    The presumption that same-sex marriages wouldn’t involve children is erroneous and irrelevant. If marriage should be reserved for those marriages that produce children, then it should be revoked for straight couples that don’t have children (a category I’m part of) and granted to gay couples that have children.

    Of relevance:

  • Malcolm Kirkpatrick

    (Jim Lippard) “Cost-benefit considerations could be used to determine whether marriage benefits are given to any or none, but should not be used to justify providing it on a discriminatory basis in violation of the 14th Amendment.”

    Dunno what Mr. Lippard means by “should”.
    “Discriminate” means “detect differences. Age of consent laws discriminate on the basis of age. Compulsory attendance laws discriminate on the basis of age. Hospitals discriminate on the basis of health status (oe healthy people could demand free accommodation in hospital beds). In some cases, discrimination is required, in some, allowed, in some, prohibited. No law bars individuals from discriminating in their choice of sexual partners (or friends) on the basis of race, sex, and sexual orientation or any other silly criteria. If you choose to date only homosexual Asian males, that’s your business. Those of us who take freedom of association seriously extend the principle to commercial organizations. If a restaurant owner chooses to employ only gay vegetarian left-handed Chinese Methodists in his establishment, and to serve only straight black Jewish female gymnasts, that is, quite literally, his business.

    Whether the issue, that some heterosexual copules do not have children and some homosexual couples do, matters, will depend on the frequency of children in each category. Laws don’t have to be perfect, just “good enough for government work”.

  • Jim Lippard

    Malcolm: I understand and agree with your point about the meaning of the word “discriminate.” I qualified the term in my comment with reference to violations of the 14th Amendment.

    Read the Supreme Court decision in Loving v. Virginia. The arguments there against bans on miscegenation apply equally well to bans on same-sex marriage. The Supreme Court hasn’t yet made that inference, but I believe it is likely to do so in the future.

    Your discussion also seems to presume the nonexistence of Title III of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

    You seem to be taking a line with respect to gay marriage similar to Barry Goldwater’s stance on the 1964 Civil Rights Act. I suspect that you’ll be similarly disappointed.

  • Malcolm Kirkpatrick

    The analogy to Goldwater is exact. I expect to be disappointed. Milton Friedman observed that free societies are rare and transient. Creeping socialists are selling the US down the river.

    One fundamental dimension along which humans (and societies, as aggregates of humans) may be measured is the rate at which they discount time. Another is the extent of the “self” (as in “self-interest”). With which other humans do we bind our “self-interest”? In place of Rawls’ “veil of ignorance”, I substitute “long run self-interest” (defined as the interest of my extended “self” generations hence). That “self” I see as interested in a society which assigns to your local violence dealership (the State) as small a role as possible and which rejects politicians who succumb to the the temptation to use the power of the State to buy favors for politically active groups.

    Most of what people claim to want from gay marriage is available already. Adult couples can adopt each other, giving each other “next of kin” status. They can assign to each other medical and financial power of attorney. The “right to call yourselves married”? We have free speech in this country; you can call yourself a flock of sparrows if you like.

    Currently, non-married couples do not have tax-free inheritance. I support the repeal of inheritance taxes and estate taxes. Non-married couples do not have access to employer-funded medical care which includes spouses. Since I do not support State-mandated employer-funded medical care in general, I do not support its expansion to include a new category of recipients.

  • Lew

    This comment has been removed by the author.

  • Lew

    The absence of religious reference is as refreshing as it is amazing. Polemical apologetic is necessary and beneficial, but constructive humanist discussions should also be conducted independent of religious influence. Non-religious thought needs to nurture its own identity, and not constantly contrast itself with religious views.

    On the legal issue, I heard an interview on NPR suggesting that laws (e.g. inheritance) be framed around the concept of civil unions. Prerogatives and penalties related to “marriage” would be relegated to religious institutions for enforcement.

  • rick

    notice he is following HIS heart which God says is wicked (the human is a sinner)notice this man has decided what HE FEELS is best.For those of us who trust in Jesus we let what he says rule over what we think.Wrong choice here.homosexual no less of a creation of God than me, just wrong behavior according to the one who created them ,GOD

  • Pingback: cat 4 brother()

  • Pingback: blue ofica()