I found couple of very thoughtful posts on the gay marriage issue which I think are well worth reading. I say “thoughtful,” because both are sincere, and not hemmed in by ideological considerations. Sean Kinsell criticizes the implicit (maybe explicit)…

It’s not that the concept is brilliant or original (although: kudos to you for recognizing it when so many don’t — or won’t), but that your formulation of it takes me (at least) in a new and pleasantly surprising direction.

M

You might be right that it’s nuts not to go in prepared for a setback. No. Strike that. You ARE right. Of course. It should go without saying.

But people will — and to the extent they’re affirmed in the behavior, will do so increasingly — use your disapproval or denial of their desires as some kind of blackmailable offense. And so much of modern society seems to be structured to support this as acceptable behavior.

Hellofa way to raise children, but some people seem to think it’s OK.

Which is one reason why I constantly shake my head at the Bizarro World that so many of our compatriots seem to live in. One of myriad…

M

I think you’re right about people who go into activism full-time. Also about people who think the anonymity of the Internet is a wonderful opportunity to unleash the id. I still find it hard to get used to, and you’re right–it’s sad.

Mark:

Thank you–compliments from you always make me blush. Don’t take it as a rebuff if I say that we’ve reached a pretty sorry pass if the point I was making can be considered brilliant. The idea of taking a gamble without considering the possibility that you might lose strikes me as nuts.

Zak:

I think you’re offering a false dilemma. I support civil unions or other ways to bundle entitlement transfers to make them easier to do. There really are civil rights issues involved. But I don’t think I’ve ever once–and I’ve been following this argument for almost a decade–seen a pro-SSM argument that didn’t eventually degenerate into feel-good stuff about how nothing but marriage, called “marriage,” is good enough because it signals that straight and gay relationships are different and thereby renders us “second-class citizens” and takes away our dignity. To me, that’s a huge logical leap from the premise that stable gay partners need to have the means to provide for each other without interference.

Normal Desmond:

Good to see you. It will not come as a surprise that I haven’t done a 180 in the last few months and started disagreeing with you on that score. No matter what people think the situation should be, in the world we inhabit, there are things couples can do right now to ensure as much as possible that their relationships are honored. Too many don’t, and then want to complain when the worst happens and they’re shut out.

All whining about feelings aside, it strikes me there are a lot of concrete reasons, many of them boiling down to $$, that being able to marry your boyfriend would be beneficial. Wouldn’t you want to take advantage of these if you could?

(Take a concrete example here in Japan: if Atsushi and you spend the rest of your lives together, and you get to the point where only one of you needs to work, the fact that you can’t marry means you’ll end up paying many millions of yen more over the course of your life for your own insurance simply because you can’t be included on his. That alone would piss me off greatly.)

You may not realize it, but this:

…but if you decide to do so without preparing mentally to deal with the worst-case scenario, you’re asking for trouble.

is a brilliant formulation. I’ve always thought, “If you can’t take ‘No (!)’ for an answer, don’t ask the question.” But yours drills down to the heart of the matter.

Well done!

M

I know, it’s sad.