Herman Cain and the Defense of Marriage
by Mike Kimel
Herman Cain and the Defense of Marriage
This isn’t my usual beat, but I was fascinated to read this statement by Herman Cain’s attorney:
Rather, this appears to be an accusation of private, alleged consensual conduct between adults – a subject matter which is not a proper subject of inquiry by the media or the public. No individual, whether a private citizen, a candidate for public office or a public official, should be questioned about his or her private sexual life. The public’s right to know and the media’s right to report has boundaries and most certainly those boundaries end outside of one’s bedroom door.
This is an odd position given that Cain supports a ban on gay marriage. After all, supporters of gay marriage have long argued that what two consenting adults do in their bedroom should be nobody else’s business. I wonder if Cain or his supporters will change their position on gay marriage.
“After all, supporters of gay marriage have long argued that what two consenting adults do in their bedroom should be nobody else’s business.”
I’ve never understood this argument which indicates that someone doesn’t care what happens in a bedroom as long as its occupancy doesn’t exceed two. Why do the advocates cling to the Catholic idea of marriage and why are they so threatened by polygamy? Does it take away from a monogamous marriage if Hugh Hefner decided to marry a few of his girlfriends?
I wonder if liberals will realize their illogical position on marriage and endorse polygamy or even multi-lateral marriage. Or would that platform result in the loss of too many votes?
Votes in your district and public political positions are very logical…it does become inconvenient at times for politicos of any stripe.
I don’t know who you’re talking about. I personally think if a bunch of consenting adults want to do something behind closed doors that doesn’t affect other people, it isn’t my business. (FYI, it isn’t because I want to participate in that behavior myself- one spouse is enough of a headache for me, thank you very much. Its the same attitude I have toward most drugs – I would legalize them, though I myself have zero interest in trying them.)
The reason I mentioned two as opposed to 17 or 126 is simple – Cain has recently made statements about gay marriage, which as I understood it means two people. To my knowledge Cain has not publicly discussed alternatives to marriage that involve more than two people. Additionally, Cain’s lawyer also mentioned Cain describing this with his wife, which seems to imply, again, two people as opposed some greater number.
Make that “…Cain discussing this with…”
just to be difficult, objecting to gay MARRIAGE is objecting to a public event / situation. As far as I can tell Cain doesn’t care what they do behind closed doors, he just doesn’t want to issue them a certificate.
and since i know you all care what i think: it seems to me the state may have an interest in “regulating” marriage as a “domestic contract.” and “the church” may have an interest in deciding what it will or will not sanction.
but the government has no business in the religious sanctioning of anything.
it can regulate domestic contracts… oh is this a slippery slope… without regard to the gender of the parties… without ever using the word “marriage.”
i have a feeling that the gays would not be satisfied with that.
To each his own, but an advocate for one position is not obliged to fight for the inclusion of any other position regardless of the similarity of each position’s basis. Put another way, there is just so much head banging that one can stand.
In our society marriage is legally defined with no reference to religious belief or affiliation. The word marriage has no religious context other than religious people are participants in marriage contracts. Marriage includes secular unions as well s religious vows. That a church has the right to sanction the behavior of its adherents does not define marriage as a religious activity.
All of Cain’s personal behavior entered the public domain when he decided to publicize himself as a Presidential candidate. The fact that the entire episode of his candidacy is a joke and an insult to the entire process only exposes Cain all the more so to public scrutiny. Whether that is fair is not relevant. He chose the spotlight.
Marriage is a business contract first of all. To get the blessings in city hall is as good as in some Las Vegas back room or a church. The contract regulates the ownership of all assets, including the parental rights.
Cain did not expect to go as far as he did, most likely he only wanted to sell his book and needed publicity and maybe get a job at Fox like Huckabee. Too bad the other candidates were all on his level in one way or other, including Gingrich.
exactly, I think. No reason why the legal definition of “marriage” should exclude gays, or Mormons. Or Hippies.
But better not to use the word “marriage” since that does come with a lot of religious freight for many people.. and they vote.
Then the religious people can go back to arguing about whether or not Christ hated gays (no evidence) or Paul advocated persecution (quite the opposite, but there is no evidence that religious people can read their own Bible). Meanwhile gays and the government can get on with regulating their business affairs and property and visitation rights. Just need another word for it.
And Cain’s personal behavior does not interest me. But if he’s running by appealing to the religious vote, it’s reasonable that he should be outed.
All I was saying is that as a matter of “strictly speaking” calling for “no gay marriage” is calling for a limit on public behavior, not on private behavior.
I think it’s funny as hell I can’t even make that simple “logical” point.
[tongue-in-cheek]In America, what does who you’re married to have to do with what happens in your bedroom?[/tongue-in-cheek]
“The reason I mentioned two as opposed to 17 or 126 is simple – Cain has recently made statements about gay marriage, which as I understood it means two people. To my knowledge Cain has not publicly discussed alternatives to marriage that involve more than two people. Additionally, Cain’s lawyer also mentioned Cain describing this with his wife, which seems to imply, again, two people as opposed some greater number.”
You admit that Cain wants to maintain the status quo when it comes to the state’s recognition of marriage, so you should assume that he wants to keep it between only two people. However, your statement placed an arbitrary maximum on the number of people who can be in a marriage, which is why I mentioned it.
“Its the same attitude I have toward most drugs – I would legalize them, though I myself have zero interest in trying them.”
Then why do we need the government to recognize a contract that is personal in nature? Why do we need the state to ‘allow’ certain relationships or personal contracts automatically? I can understand wanting to grant someone ‘spousal priviledge’ when it comes to legal matters (not having to testify against your partner), but that should only come up when needed. I agree with your comment’s sentiment, but the need to legalize an individual’s actions doesn’t sit well with many of us.
Someone who wants to alter laws and principles that govern their community needs to show congruence with their argument and their proposed law. Otherwise they create laws for specific interests and groups with less influence will be underserved or discriminated against by their governments’ rules. Illogical arguments are exposed when their principles cannot be applied equally to similar situations/individuals.
just because you bring it up, i would extend the “can’t be forced to testify…” to anyone who claims that testifying would go against his conscience. i suppose i am thinking of the honest german who doesn’t want to be forced to testify against his neighbor accused of hiding jews in his attic.
the background on the fifth amendment would allow such an interpretation, but of course it would make “law enforcement” more difficult. and we know nothing is more important than law enforcement.