Support for gay marriage among millennials 70%

10 posts

Millennials react to same-sex marriage cases

USA Today

Cody Permenter

March 27, 2013

Supreme Court arguments began Tuesday for two cases that could decide the fate of same-sex couples wishing for legally recognized marriages.

The debate over same-sex marriage has been a heated one, with one side arguing the constitutionality of denying equal rights to gay and lesbian couples, and the other side arguing for a traditional view on marriage, which they say protects the sanctity of the institution.

Yesterday's arguments focused on California's Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage four years ago. Arguments today challenged the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which denies certain benefits to legally married same-sex couples.

Despite mixed public opinion on this issue, the Millennial generation, which ranges from 18 to 32 years old, is overwhelmingly in support of same-sex marriage rights.

Support for same-sex marriage rose 19%, according to the Pew Research Center, from 51% in 2003 to 70% in 2013 — the largest increase for any generation.

Views are even changing among some college Republican groups.

The College Republicans at the University of Pennsylvania recently announced its support for same-sex marriage.

RELATED: College Republicans echo findings of GOP 'autopsy'

Anthony Liveris, vice president of the group, said that the organization attempted to create a cross-Ivy League support statement with other chapters about the issue, but received pushback from some of the other schools. So far, he says, U Penn and Columbia University are the only chapters that have publically expressed support for marriage equality.

"A true conservative should endorse empowering Americans to marry whom they love, not limit them," said Liveris in a statement.

Despite signs that young Republicans are coming around to the idea of supporting same-sex marriage, some college students are firm in their convictions that marriage should be between a man and a woman.

James McGlone is the vice president for Harvard University's Anscombe Society, a group that promotes "premarital abstinence," "sexual integrity" and "upholding the institution of marriage and the family." He cautions the Supreme Court about making a sweeping decision on same-sex marriage because, in his view, the issue has not had enough time to go through the democratic process.

"It is important that the court should not shut down the debate — we are still at the beginning," McGlone said.

For McGlone, the rationale behind supporting a traditional view of marriage is simple: "A mom can't be a dad and a dad can't be a mom."

McGlone said that his main concern with allowing same-sex couples the right to marry would be possible negative effects on children. He said that the right for a child to have a mother and father should be the largest point of consideration in the debate.

He said that social science has not had enough time to study the effects of same-sex parenting on children.

Earlier this month, Republican Sen. Rob Portman announced his support of same-sex marriage rights, citing having a gay son as a reason for the policy change. This makes him the only current Republican senator who publically supports the issue.

"I think (Portman's views) signify the strength to break away from traditions that no longer reflect the dynamics of this country in favor of progress and truly representing the American people," said Ash Hall, director of Texas StandOut, a queer activist group at the University of Texas at Austin.

Hall is hopeful that with more politicians showing support for marriage equality — and a younger generation that is, for the most part, more open about traditionally taboo topics — it is simply a matter of time before marriage equality is a reality.

"We have a lot of work to do," said Hall. "Marriage equality is just the beginning."
Sam Spade

I never really understood the vehemence on this issue by either side, since 'Nero' marriages struck me as more of an effect of societal decay, not an actual cause of any future declines. This is evidenced by the repeatedly weak arguments that have been used by the opponents of these 'Nero' marriages over the past 10 years, as the issue has moved to the forefront of legitimate discussion. In fact, excellent reasons against those types of unions do exist, but they require us to re-evaluate the direction with which heterosexual marriage and heterosexual relationships have developed over the past 50-100 years, as well as our tolerance of homosexuality.

Without spending too many words explaining myself, I think it is fairly clear that the various 'freedoms' permitted by the culture, state and religion in the area of sex have made heterosexual relationships mostly indistinguishable from homosexual relationships. This inevitably leads to tolerance of homosexual acts, and then to tolerance of homosexual marriage, because we, as heterosexuals, fail to see any practical difference in our life from that of the deviant. I have personally had to rethink many of my viewpoints towards divorce, promiscuity, contraception and women's rights (just to mention four of the larger issues) in order to develop a logical rationale against the 'Nero' marriage other than 'it's against the Bible' or something similar.

At this point, the only legitimate concern of those who oppose 'Nero' marriages, but are unwilling to undo these developments, is that they will lose their freedom to speak and live their life according to their beliefs on this issue. One might argue that, because of the pernicious influence of the media, this freedom is already gone, but I generally sympathize with this concern, given the attitude of the elites in this country, as well as the belligerent behavior of homosexual activists. Unfortunately, I have little positive to say on this issue, and my suspicion is that it will only get worse. After all, I partially left the music world because of the increasing intolerance I could sense from those around me on many issues (I am very much a Cassandra on these things), such that it made it impossible to legitimately focus on the actual art (what little is actually left).

Niccolo and Donkey
Sam Spade

Sam, I've long now said that the primacy of individual rights leads to such situations as we're seeing today. Rabid individualism is simply incompatible with any sense of nation or community, even though it paradoxically has led to the rise of identity politics. This 'gay marriage' is inevitable in such societies as the momentum is behind it in any liberal society. These events must play themselves out so that we can eventually reach a point where the system's internal contradictions take it all down. As many of us have stated, this situation will arise when a battle of competing 'rights' ensues.

The theme here is the inversion of traditional morality by way of legislation and judicial fiat. Soon enough we will see how the new conservatives (today's liberals) deal with dissent as they fortify their rule. You've already hinted about this in your post re: dealings in the music industry.
Sam Spade

No disagreements, but let me add a couple of things. First, I have always believed that 'individual rights' exist in a number of different dimensions, and that the growth of certain 'individual rights' in a society extinguishes other 'individual rights' that are in conflict with them. I would also say that rabid individualism naturally leads to simplistic identity politics in our age as the other former integrating forces of our society (religion, art, civic pride, etc.) no longer sway them, and indeed are the enemy of individual rights as promoted today.

Insofar as internal contradictions are too great for a society to address them, history is quite clear that a tyrannical body or individual will be chosen by one of the sides to do so. Hence my pessimism.

Niccolo and Donkey
This is a Spenglerian forum for pessimists.

President Camacho Bronze Age Pervert Roland
Bob Dylan Roof

Sam made some important points. Gay marriage appears reasonable (even natural) to people primarily because the institution of normal marriage is in such a dysfunctional state. It's difficult to justify the modern state institution of marriage as something unique and distinct from a temporary contract between individuals because marriage no longer has any moral or sacred significance. Marriage is simply a transient contract that confers special privileges on couples.

With that being said, a powerful utilitarian argument could be made for prohibiting same-sex marriage. If any of these states had the resolve to do so, they could overcome the unpredictable Equal Protection Clause jurisprudence of the Extreme Court by setting out a very detailed utilitarian basis for prohibiting same-sex marriage and even sodomy.

The justification would look something like this. There is no clear evidence that homosexuality is innate in the sense that homosexuals are born with an exclusive sexual orientation; and there is a great deal of evidence that homosexual behavior can be caused by environmental factors, including sexual conditioning at a young age, which was observed by Aristotle 2,000 years ago, or possibly by Greg Cochran's pathogen. There also exists a superabundance of evidence that homosexuality is strongly correlated with inefficient behavior: the bane of modern policy makers trying to cloak their moral crusades in the "value-neutral" language of economics. Homosexuals have the highest incidences of drug and alcohol abuse and mental illness, and are disease vectors capable of producing worldwide epidemics (the AIDS epidemic in the U.S. was traced to a patient zero flight attendant from San Francisco; and their latest gift to humanity is super gonorrhea ). Such inefficient behavior drives up the costs of reproduction and healthcare. All of this clearly establishes a rational justification for unequal protection of heterosexuals through a law that discourages homosexual behavior.

The vehemence arises from the fact that the govt. has asserted that it can merely issue declarations on Natural Law that are purportedly binding on everybody within its jurisdiction - this should alarm people for a number of reasons.

Ultimately, Natural Law is all weak persons (and all people are weak before the government, in relative terms) have to appeal to when they're saddled with authority that is acting against their interests.

Of course, you aren't required to believe in Natural Law, or God, or any particular theology, but that begs the question as to why an atheist would tolerate a government issuing declarations on concepts (like marriage) that have no context or meaning outside of Natural Law theories.

If govt. can simply declare what morals are, no man has any recourse against government. ''You weren't tortured - the Rabbinic Court declared that enhanced interrogation isn't torture, and the Court is the final authority.'' ''You have no parental 'rights' over your own offspring - parental rights are a discredited concept, Ms. Ginsburg explained all this''.

The big issue here of course is why ''gays'' and liberals and other atheists are demanding that ''marriage'' be redefined by government - they categorically reject religion and Natural Law; if they were intellectually honest, they wouldn't care about marriage. They're not honest - they're ideologues following a Jewish revolutionary imperative.

Its worth noting that Dante considered the sins of usury and sodomy to be basically synonymous - they're highly correlated in terms of how peoples' ethical horizons are structured. They're both unique among sins as well because they're both directly adversarial to nature.

The government obsessively and incessantly promoting usury and sodomy should be something people recognize as a development that portends the return of slavery - you don't need to be a Catholic or even particularly religious to recognize this.

Millenial idiots apparently find the world to be confusing and complicated and scary to the point that they want slavery to come back - which is a point that Moslems make a lot: Americans want to be enslaved by Jews and governments but are terrified and hateful towards theology.

People sometimes do get the government they deserve - Americans deserve to be slaves.

Bob Dylan Roof
This is one of the reasons that I am hostile to the traditional of Anglo-American constitutionalism and find the insights of Weber and Schmitt to hew closer to reality. Ultimately, I believe that written constitutionalism contains within it a tendency toward nihilism and legal positivism.

A written constitution has more legitimacy than an unwritten constitution in the Anglo-American tradition, and what is consistent with that written constitution has, by extension, legitimacy. Therefore, logical consistency with a set of words is esteemed legitimate, hence good, in the eyes of Americans steeped in the civic religion of written constitutionalism. Stated differently, whatever is posited consistently with the Constitution is good. If you take this moral tradition of equating legality with legitimacy and wed it to a legal document that admits of countless plausible and consistent interpretations, you have a mechanism for the continuous imposition of legal revolutions. Just as a people guided by the hermeneutics of a religious text will be convinced to accept the will of God as good, regardless of any evil visited upon them, so a people guided by the hermeneutics of a civil religious text will be convinced to accept the will of the earthly God established by that text, regardless of any evil visited upon them.

I think the anti-Federalists were keenly aware of this problem, for while the rights in the Bill of Rights had a long history in the Anglo-American tradition, the anti-Federalists were sufficiently worried about the power of the new Constitution that they demanded a re-declaration of those rights that they already possessed under the Crown.

I suspect that if we stopped indoctrinating our children into the civic religion of written constitutionalism and instead taught them the real origin of their rights -- the same origin of the English Barons' rights in the Magna Carta -- that is, in the forceful assertion of those rights against others, that they would stop accepting proclamations about rights that are transparently unreasonable and unnatural.

This is a misunderstanding of the issue. The essence of legal positivism (which is nihilism) is the collapse of morality into statute, or to put it in different words, the identification of morality with human law. It is the causality that counts: the natural law appeals to moral imperatives derived from the structure of human existence, a ground and basis that a fortiori must exceed any political authority held by a man; legal positivism points to the fact of empirical social authority as sufficient and exclusive to give law moral force. (This is of course a form of tacit pantheism...)

In that disagreement the key factor is the kind of appeal being made by the authors of the written constitution, not the mere fact that they have put words to paper. The document is simply a representation; it is the theory of morality represented that matters.

Yes, but ambiguity is not necessary to the essence of a written document; indeed, the whole point of the document is to provide evidence for what has happened in the past, in order to remove ambiguity. Without a reference point, anyone can claim that anything is legitimate and continuous with the Founding.

This is not to the point: even if a constitution in question is evil (and I grant that as a possibility, and if you mean "evil in part" then it is perhaps even a probability) the sort of unaccountable tyranny you are describing is impossible because the formlessness of arbitrary power makes legitimization by a scripture impossible. Any constitutional arrangement will have some formula for justifying the power of whomever rules, and that formula must be met by even the most dissolute despot if he wants to remain in power, otherwise he will undermine himself and expose his reign to charges of heresy and self-deposition. This is the essence of the old Chinese concept of dynastic changes being caused by the passing of the "Mandate of Heaven."

Because it is impossible for forceful assertion to be made in favor of those false rights? Forceful assertion is the very nature of both the current faggotry crisis and the legal positivism you want to guard against.

Also, how is the unwritten constitution working out for the Emirate of Britain?