Confirmation bias sure, but I was very glad to hear such an astute commentator and proponent of rights say exactly what I have been saying for year in regards to marriage. That is: Civil society should provide only civil unions that are equal and fair to all couples who wish to join in such a social agreement. Marriage the “sacrament”, that confers no legal rights, can be left, like baptism, to the holier than thou.

DJ & Thomas, though I have not been around much recently, I still listen to every episode (except the first 2 minutes). :p And I appreciate your continued efforts and excellence.

As of 10/11 this still doesn’t appear to be posted to iTunes.  They have usually been posted promptly.

Yes, I also thought it was a good episode. Personally, the civil union/marriage thing is six-of-one, half-a-dozen-of-the-other for me, so long as the rights of gays and straights are legally indistinguishable, which was Dershowitz’s point. That is, legally, everyone would have a civil union. Marriages would be strictly religious rituals, without any additional legal rights or benefits, like baptism.

And FWIW I did get mine through iTunes ... not sure what’s up. (I subscribe to the podcast though, so it comes automatically). Perhaps you should go to the homepage, HERE. You can download it there.

Yep same here, Jackson, it appears maybe a setting/connection problem on your end. NY and HK both have the podcast on time and on iTunes.

I’ve also argued for a long time that marriage was inherently a problem because it violated the church and state separation requirement.  My solution was, as yours and Derschowitz’s were, to make marriage merely a religious ceremony, and civil unions the state authorization of two or more people joining.

Glad to see you back, cgallaga.  We’ve missed you.

Occam

I agree with the ultimate point that marriage ought to be abolished as a legal institution, in favor of a secular “civil union” structure.  Individuals of various faiths could still preserve whatever customs or traditions they wanted if such a model were adopted.  I think that is evidence enough that this issue really isn’t just about a Christian majority not wanting homosexuals to marry.  It is about a Christian majority not wanting homosexuals to have any sort of homosexual relationship, or to be homosexual at all.

The legal structure of marriage in America is designed to incentivize a traditional Christian lifestyle.  Restrictions are not only placed on which gender ones’ romantic/life partner is supposed to be, but also on the structure of the heterosexual household.  The tax system, for example, distinguishes a head of each household and often taxes married couples who don’t fit the traditional bread winner/home maker model more for being married than each individual would be taxed if single.  Inheritance laws and benefit receipt are also deeply structured around this traditional Christian family ideal.

These sorts of things are so deeply ingrained into American legal structure that I am convinced that the only way to genuinely create any sort of equity would be to stop having any sort of legal marriage altogether.  To be realistic though, I don’t see this happening any time soon considering the present state of society.  In the mean time, allowing for gay marriage would at least give homosexuals some of the fundamental civil rights that they are currently being denied.  It would be a moderate yet significant improvement to legalize gay marriage and thus a positive direction direction for humanists to pursue.

I just read this last nite.

They Who Marry Do Ill by Voltairine de Cleyre

What shall we understand as marriage?

Some fifteen or eighteen years ago, when I had not been out of the convent long enough to forget its teachings, nor lived and experienced enough to work out my own definitions, I considered that marriage was “a sacrament of the Church” or it was “civil ceremony performed by the State,” by which a man and a woman were united for life, or until the divorce court separated them. With all the energy of a neophyte freethinker, I attacked religious marriage as an unwarranted interference on the part of the priest with the affairs of individuals, condemned the “until death do us part” promise as one of the immoralities which made a person a slave through all his future to his present feelings, and urged the miserable vulgarity of both the religious and civil ceremony, by which the intimate personal relations of two individuals are made topic of comment and jest by the public.

dougsmith - 11 October 2007 07:35 AM

Yes, I also thought it was a good episode. Personally, the civil union/marriage thing is six-of-one, half-a-dozen-of-the-other for me, so long as the rights of gays and straights are legally indistinguishable, which was Dershowitz’s point. That is, legally, everyone would have a civil union. Marriages would be strictly religious rituals, without any additional legal rights or benefits, like baptism.

The thing which I got out of the Dershowitz interview was the overall emphasis on the need for separation of church and state—a topic much more general than gay marriage. However, I thought Dershowitz’ point of separating civil ceremonies (govt) from religious ceremonies (religions) was outstanding, and his point that the govt doesn’t do baptisms etc. seemed insightful.

The title of the podcast was Blasphemy, apparently a new book by Dershowitz, but it wasn’t clear that the discussio related to the book.  I’m interested in learning more about the book.

I found the Dershowitz comments on separation of church and state to be extremely timely. I noted that we had a NY Times Op-Ed on the same topic (and McCain’s “Christian Nation” foot-in-the-mouth) last Sunday [ LINK TO THREAD]

Similarly Episode 43 of [ Dogma-Free-America (Oct 4 2007) ] notes the same faux pas, as well as calling attention to the pesky problem of God in the pledge of allegiance.

Dershowitz is well-respected, and I would like to see him make his comments where they would be more widely viewed. This Canadian School imbroglio which started the podcast is a great example of the widening circle of complications which arise without the separation.

Occam - 11 October 2007 12:58 PM

I
Glad to see you back, cgallaga.  We’ve missed you.

Occam

Have you considered buying a scope?

D.J. said “As a gay man, I’ll surely wrile up some of my gay activist friends...”
Have I somehow taken this quote out of context?  As Colbert might say “I don’t see sexual preference”
If it is true, I am only mildly surprized. I don’t really care.  He is a smart man and great interviewer.
He just does not fit the stereotype, thats all

cgallaga - 12 October 2007 08:05 AM

Occam - 11 October 2007 12:58 PM

I
Glad to see you back, cgallaga.  We’ve missed you.

Occam

Have you considered buying a scope?

See.  I was getting tired of being the only wise ass here. 

Occam

Aushawster - 12 October 2007 02:51 PM

D.J. said “As a gay man, I’ll surely wrile up some of my gay activist friends...”
Have I somehow taken this quote out of context?  As Colbert might say “I don’t see sexual preference”
If it is true, I am only mildly surprized. I don’t really care.  He is a smart man and great interviewer.
He just does not fit the stereotype, thats all

Yes DJ has professed his sexuality on many occasions. Apparently as of this interview he continued to identify as a Gay Man. Me, I am more happy, and sometimes just satisfied, but usually not quite Gay.