The point of this blog is to give voice to a minority point of view in the LGBT community – that same-sex marriage is wrong, or at least should be de-emphasized by the gay leadership. I don’t think any reasonable person who comes to GaysDebateMarriage.com would think that we believe the gay and lesbian people we quote expressing doubts or concerns about gay marriage are speaking on behalf of the entire LGBT community.

LOL…and this makes her an authority and the spokesperson? Well, then let’s give her an award.

Sorta like when one black person speaks — they are speaking for us all!

Way funny!

I don’t “need” to do anything in a free society. If I want to vote, blog, speak out, and lobby for the definition of marriage I believe in on the basis of my horoscope, or what Rush Limbaugh said this morning or the fact that I oppose anything Rosie O’Donnell supports, I have the 100% right to do that. Do you really disagree?

You write, “In California, they have all been decisively rebutted and legitimately rejected. None of these may hold sway in a secular legal system where the state’s power over individuals is strictly limited.”

Well, no. Your statement is true with a law. But with a constitutional amendment, even the stupidest and most bigoted and most hateful argument can be used to pass a constitutional amendment of any kind. There is no STATE (as opposed to federal) reason the California Constitution can’t be amended to say that women get two votes and blacks get three, but Jews can’t vote.

The California Supreme Court hit the nail on the head when they pointed out the tradition may not be the only reason to maintain a status quo.

In the past 4 decades, our legal, social and intellectual systems have realized that sexual orientation, per se, is not a valid basis to discriminate. There is no legitimate reason to use orientation by itself as a reason to treats Gay men different from striaght men (and vice versa), not Lesbians different from straight women. The development is what gives you the freedom to post this blog, instead of hiding in the dark, or being forcibly hospitalized, raped because you just need to know “normal sex”, etc.

Get over it. Denial of marriage equality has been defended only on the arguments of “I don’t like queers”, “my god doesn’t like them either” or “It’s because we always done it that way.” In California, they have all been decisively rebutted and legitimately rejected. None of these may hold sway in a secular legal system where the state’s power over individuals is strictly limited.

The reason I entertain Dr. Essig’s remarks on my site is because I think there are lots of good gay reasons to oppose the gay leadership’s marriage obsession, and they don’t all agree with my philosophy 100%. I think they deserve to represented on the site, though, and I may critique some of them from time to time.

I’m happy to have intelligent readers like you, Dan, and Mark blog on the site with their reasons for disagreeing with me. And not just so I can make you guys look bad. I think you guys get your licks in on me about as often as I do on you. But I think on contentious issues we’re likely to get closer to the truth when smart people debate vigorously but respectfully. It makes my arguments sharper. I’m sure it makes yours sharper, too. It seems to me that the process is good for everyone.

Firstly.
I would dig a bit deeper into this ‘supporter’; from what I hear from her excerpts, it appears she’s not as much against same-sex marriage, as she is against the institute of marriage as a whole. Let’s check.

Oh, -wow!- And here in her own words, from the article you linked to…
“In fact, I’m against same-sex marriage for the same reasons I’m against all marriage.”

Now, surely this doesn’t mean that in order to halt same-sex marriage, you’d be prepared to dismantle the entire institution of marriage?
No? Of course it doesn’t mean that.

So: that said, I’m genuinely curious as to why you’d entertain her remarks on this site, where your primary goal is the -preservation- of marriage. This woman clearly wants nothing to do with marriage of any kind, and indeed says of marriage, “If you’re insane enough to waste money on tacky clothes and bad cake, I’m not going to underwrite your actions with a toaster oven.”
That’s about what marriage means to her.

Now. All of -that- said, this is -one- lesbian; and she’s already made clear that she wants no part of drafting or organizing any part of a same-sex marriage amendment. So if your aim in this article was to say ‘this is how homosexuals view the institution of marriage’, that didn’t work, either.

In any case, be careful who you count among your allies. The opponent of your opponent is not always going to support you. This one certainly isn’t.

Very candidly,

Andrea