Gallup yesterday released the findings of its latest survey on marriage equality. The good news is that a majority of Americans (53 percent) support marriage equality. But more interesting (at least to me!) than the overall oppose or support percentages were the survey’s findings regarding why people oppose or support marriage equality:
In other words: most people who oppose marriage equality do so for religious reasons, while people who support marriage equality do so based on secular reasons, such as equality and fairness. Perhaps this doesn’t come as a surprise, but simply a confirmation of what we all assumed was the case. Yet I would argue that it is important to know exactly why people oppose and support certain policies, because such knowledge allows those involved in the fight to hone their arguments and make them more likely to be accepted by others.
Hat tip to the Friendly Atheist.
I imagine most of us don’t really need convincing regarding the title of this post, but Jill Filipovic makes a compelling case for the affirmative position in The Guardian:
From a more practical standpoint, not everyone is going to get married, or even legally can get married. The instruction to wait forever to experience a fundamental human pleasure is pointless and cruel. And while the old adage tells women that men won’t buy the cow if they can get the milk for free, if I’m buying a cow, you can bet I’m going to make sure the milk is to my liking. But our cultural view of premarital sex as morally tainted makes it harder for couples to engage in real talks about their sexual needs and desires before marrying, the same way they would talk about their religious values, how many kids they want or whether the wedding cake will be chocolate or vanilla.
Sexually frustrated marriages are both miserable and common – the inboxes of advice columnists from Dan Savage to Dear Prudie are filled with letters from couples with mismatched sex drives and bad sex lives. We’d be a lot better-off if we recognized that sex is incredibly important to a lot of people, and, for most couples, sexual compatibility is necessary for a great marriage. You really can’t tell if you’re sexually compatible unless you have sex. The insistence that premarital sex is dirty or perverse makes it a whole lot harder to have necessary conversations. And a worldview that positions sex as shameful and bad also isn’t going to evaporate on your wedding night.
Keep reading here.
Take a look at this interesting letter to the editor, written by Dan Denney and published in the Watertown Daily Times :
All the pubic discourse on same-sex marriage of late is getting on my nerves. It seems so clear-cut to me that this is a social issue and not a political one. The government has no place here except to guarantee the rights of its citizens regardless of sexual orientation. Let the churches sort out the sinners and exact spiritual sanctions. Just because the government says health care insurance has to cover abortion does not mean those who disagree have to use those benefits. Churches should not expect the government to help them enforce their moral views on their congregants or others. And why do some people want to control everyone else? In a nation of 300 million and a planet of 7 billion, I’d say that borders on the delusional.
Baseball and steroids, Terry Schiavo, abortion, same-sex marriage, and when a fetus becomes human are all personal choices to be made by individuals in counsel with their God, their church or their doctor and their own morality. Congressional hearings on these things are as egregious a waste as taxpayer-funded junkets for lawmakers and immoral wars in the name of democracy.
You can keep reading here.
Anyone who pays attention to politics has heard conservatives and religious believers argue that marriage is — and always has been — a relationship between one man and one woman, and thus, that same-sex marriage should be illegal.
Here’s the problem: marriage has not always been a relationship between one man and one woman.
Time to break out your Bible … Abraham had two wives, Sarah and her handmaiden Hagar. King Solomon had 700 wives, plus 300 concubines and slaves. Jacob, the patriarch who gives Israel its name, had two wives and two concubines. In a humanist vein, Exodus 21:10 warns that when men take additional wives, they must still provide for their previous one. (Exodus 21:16 adds that if a man seduces a virgin and has sex with her, he has to marry her, too.)
But that’s not all. In biblical society, when you conquered another city, tribe, or nation, the victorious men would “win” their defeated foes’ wives as part of the spoils. It also commanded levirate marriage, the system wherein, if a man died, his younger brother would have to marry his widow and produce heirs with her who would be considered the older brother’s descendants. Now that’s traditional marriage!
And that’s just the Bible. Click here to keep reading the long, sordid history of “traditional marriage.”
For the third year in a row, polling shows that a narrow majority of Americans consider gay and lesbian relations morally acceptable. The data comes from Gallup, which calls the result the “new normal” in public opinion on the issue.
As you can see on the following two charts, American attitudes on the morality of gay and lesbian relationships have essentially flipped between 2001 and 2012, and track well with American approval of same-sex marriage.
A couple days ago I posted that the National Organization for Marriage (NOM), which advocates for restricting the legal definition of marriage to one man and one woman, had announced an international protest of Starbucks over the company’s support of marriage equality.
How is that protest going? Not so good, according to ThinkProgress:
The National Organization for Marriage’s decision to boycott Starbucks for the company’s support of the freedom to marry has turned out to be a dismal failure. In the five days since NOM launched its “Dump Starbucks” petition, it has only gotten 19,000 signatures, compared to the nearly 250,000 individuals who have signed SumOfUs’s retaliatory “Thank You, Starbucks” card. In fact, SumOfUs has gotten over 8,000 new signers since 8:30 this morning.
Not only is NOM’s petition failing when it comes to numbers, it’s also failing when it comes to authenticity. As Jeremy Hooper has tracked, Dump Starbucks counts any information that is submitted, but that hasn’t stopped NOM from boasting about its campaign repeatedly all weekend. Worse yet, it seems that the site can’t even provide an accurate count of who is signing — either that or the organization is intentionally manipulating the numbers to make the petition look more successful that it is, which of course it isn’t anyway.
The National Organization for Marriage (NOM), which advocates for restricting the legal definition of marriage to one man and one woman, has announced an international protest of Starbucks over the company’s support of marriage equality.
NOM’s campaign is a response to Starbucks’s announcement in January that it would join a growing list of corporations to endorse marriage equality in Washington. The state House and Senate are expected to approve, and Gov. Chris Gregoire is expected to sign, legislation that legalizes same-sex sometime this year.
Said NOM President Brian Brown about the protest:
"Unlike our opponents, we do not target whole companies for the actions of an individual business executive in that company. … But Starbucks has taken a corporate position in support of redefining marriage for all of society. We will not tolerate an international company attempting to force its misguided values on citizens. The majority of Americans and virtually every consumer in some countries in which Starbucks operates believe that marriage is between one man and one woman. They will not be pleased to learn that their money is being used to advance gay marriage in society."
Yet while Brown is correct that some countries almost fully oppose even basic rights for gay persons, let alone marriage rights, he is either ignorant of or purposely misleading the public on polling data in the U.S. The latest surveys show that a slight majority of Americans believe same-sex marriage ought to be legal.
That said, polling data is irrelevant to discussions on rights. Every single straight American could believe gay persons should be deprived of certain rights, and they would still be wrong. Rights aren’t popularity contests. In the eyes of the government, rights should be provided to everyone, regardless of their sex, race, color, religion, national origin, and sexual orientation.
You’ve probably heard conservative and religious leaders — including most of the Republican president candidates — lament the recent “moral decline” of the United States.
Yet is America truly in moral decline, or is the country just shifting away from traditional, religious morality? That’s the question taken up in a new article in the Economist, which finds little evidence to support the former position.
[The aforementioned issues lead] to a debate over what “moral” really means. If “immoral” means “causing avoidable harm to other people” then gay marriage, pornography, sex, reality TV, soft-drug use and euthanasia are hardly immoral, even if distasteful to some.
But as we grind through the Republican primary process, it seems like the debate over morality in America has less to do with moral outcomes and more to do with a vision of how society should look based on idealistic remembrances of how things were. So people like Mr Munro and the Republican candidates believe America is in a moral slump. The odd thing is, people on the left might actually agree, though for very different reasons. They are upset by the perceived greed of the 1%, and the broad acceptance of torture and war as foreign-policy tools. In the end, the debate over morality more closely resembles two distinct monologues.