Earlier today, the California Supreme Court ruled 6-1 upholding the constitutionality of Prop 8. This is a tremendous victory for marriage, or as Maggie put it, "This victory for Prop 8 is a victory for children, for civil rights, and for the common good."
And it's gratifying for NOM as well -- thanks to your support, we were able to dedicate much of 2008 to the Prop 8 effort, establishing a ballot committee through NOM-California, and ultimately emerging as the single largest donor to the Prop 8 campaign.
Thank you. The full statement we released to the press a few minutes ago is here.
181 Comments
"Marriage is worth protecting because it is the way we teach the next generation: children need mothers and fathers," said Maggie Gallagher, president of NOM. "This victory for Prop 8 is a victory for children, for civil rights, and for the common good."
Ms. Gallagher clearly is misinformed: Proposition 8 does nothing to stop same-sex couples from having children. In fact, it weakens the family structure for the children of same-sex couples by preventing their parents from marrying. It's a shame Ms. Gallagher's homophobia has to hurt innocent children the way it does.
Same-sex couples weaken the family structure by discriminating against the very gender which helped them achieve a child in the first place. Traditional marriage provides for equality in the marital relationship, in which both genders are equally represented, and provides for responsible procreation, ensuring a child both their father and mother.
This ruling does not really rule on the legality of same-sex marriages themselves. If it did it would have stripped away the 18,000 or so marriages that are still considered legal today.
This ruling simply states that the proper procedure with which the California constitution can be amended was followed. While I dislike Prop 8 and it's institutionalization of discrimination I can't fault the court for upholding it.
It only goes to show that Thomas Jefferson was correct when he said that Democracy is nothing more than Mob rule, where 51% of the people can take away the rights of the other 49%.
@C & A, do you know any same-sex couples? I know many that have children and they are just as strong as your traditional marriages.
Civil marriage is not about procreation. It's about the legal recognition of the civil contract forming a family unit.
I am tired of homosexuals attacking the majority of Americans and wasting millions of dollars. We need to push back harder than ever
Fact: Since California Family Code 297.5 already gave homosexuals same rights as married people, but without the word marriage, why did everyone have to spend millions of dollars on this? What a waste of money. There was no need.
Fact: Arnold Schwarzenneger and Obama don't seem to care about families. Why was it when the homosexuals were attacking everything, these spineless government people did nothing to stop it? We need real leaders in government.
Question: How much money has Arnold adn Obama spent promoting homosexuality? We want a report. Arnold pays for homosexual parades, homosexual schooling, etc... Obama pushes homosexuality in many ways and has his group sign papers they will not say anything against homosexuality, like WHO says homosexuals are 45 times more likely to get AIDS. These are spineless, government waste people against families. ARnold and Obama need to resign for no-confidence.
Americans do not support homosexuality. Our founding fathers would also not support homosexuality, which is sin like adultery, lying, etc are sin.
To the 98-99% straight people, we all need to pray for homosexuality to be reoved and never allow these wastes again.
C & A, then you should be working to make it illegal to form a same-sex couple. Being against same-sex marriage, while not being against same-sex couples, puts an enormous burden on the children of same-sex couples. Should same-sex couples be prohibited from bearing and/or raising children? If not, why shouldn't those children be permitted the security of having married parents? Why do you hate children??? What did they do to YOU?
pfft... well, all I have to say is... the Bible said this would happen, and I know that God is in charge and knows what is happening next.... or I'd seriously go in panic mode otherwise.
I pray for this country even more now.
Great news-The traditional family of dad/mom and kids is the back bone of society and should be encouraged and promoted too. { Whats really needed now is a offical pronouncement from governments for a annual Traditional Family Day !!.} Yes!-marriage is a heterosexual concept backed by Spirituality, good morals also naturalism and reality plus always was and is intended for exclusively women and males union.
If the core meaning of marriage is redefined (between a man and a woman), then we must redefine what a man and a woman is then, because the definition of either would no longer support the traditional marriage definition. If then, the definition of man and woman is changed to suit our whim, why are we man and woman at all? Why are there two distinguishable genders recognizable at birth that continues to be throughout the lifespan of said gender be it male or female?
Jeffrey said: "Being against same-sex marriage, while not being against same-sex couples, puts an enormous burden on the children of same-sex couples."
LOL! Wait a minute. Same-sex couple's don;t have children by accident, and same-sex marriage is illegal. So WHO was it that put the burden on these children? Oh that's right -- it was the same-sex couple who decided to have children anyway, knowing full well that they would be disadvantaged.
It's a choice I abhor, and personally find cruel and unusual, but these are adults and I assume they knew what they were getting themselves into. If their children are "burdened", they have only themselves to blame.
California people rose against identity theft.
This has nothing to do with equal rights, it's about identity.
I do not want to share the same umbrella with gay people because I'm different from them & because that's my right.
Gay people, please make your own umbrella. You are totally entitled to/capable to. Your equal rights lie with there.
Reasons for disagreeing to homosexuality / same sex-sex. {It's because of heterosexuality the human race has become not homosexuality. / Their is a reason as to why their are two human genders and not only one because males and females are naturally intended for each other. / All kids deserve both a mom and a dad whenever possible not two or three moms. / Spirituality and good values also backs up and is for heterosexuality.} -Of course people should not hate nor beat homosexual people instead just disagree to the same sex-sex act / homosexuality, for their are many nice homosexuals as people. Unfortunately the western world is getting too much into homomania. People need to defend heterosexuality also now due to the fact their are lot's of powerful pro homosexual activist-organizations.
Marty, you can't be serious! Are you actually saying that certain humans shouldn't be permitted to have children??? I assume homosexuals can long for children as much as heterosexuals. I can't imagine implying that they shouldn't have children if they can't get married. Should homosexuals also be prohibited from having sex? Falling in love?
It just gets weirder and weirder the arguments coming from the homophobes.
This whole sick life style needs to go away for good, and voted down, why should I a retired person have to pay out of my tax money for their sick vile life style, these are mean hateful ant-religious bigots that just want to keep jamming their perverted agenda down all our throats. They are digusting people, who want to force our schools and churches to accept their life style as love,and beautiful, which not the case, it is total and sick incest and vile behavior. If this vile evil bill is passed acrossed the whole united states, what stops a brother from marrying his sister, or a mother from marrying a son, or a classmate in school from marrying her girlfriend. No enough is enough, this has nothing to do with civil rights, or homophobie. Its JUST WRONG TO MARRY ANOTHER MAN TO ANOTHER MAN, OR ANOTHER WOMAN TO ANOTHER WOMAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Automatically, the term "homophobe" is thrown out when someone disagrees with a homosexual on SSM and affiliated matters. How about the tables be turned and label homosexuals as "heterophobes" since the vehement denial of their heterosexuality is part and parcel of the ongoing argument.
Changing marriage means changing family. Of course children desire a mother and father. Two men can't provide motherhood, and two women can't provide fatherhood.
So-called rights of same-sex couples clash with the true rights of children to have a mother and a father.
We now live in a society where on one hand people decry fatherlessness because of the real harm that has done to children, and on the other hand people are pressing to set up domestic situations in which children are deliberately denied a mother and father. That's what I call weirder and weirder.
Jeffrey asked: "Marty, you can’t be serious! Are you actually saying that certain humans shouldn’t be permitted to have children??? "
Whatever gave you that idea friend? All I said was that the same-sex couples you referred to had their children anyway, knowing full well that their children would be "burdened" because same-sex couples cannot be married. Yet they went ahead and did it anyway.
It wasn't ME who "burdened" those children. It was their "parents", who chose NOT to give their kids a real mother and father. This was THEIR choice, and a burden they accepted.
I think that is a cruel and unusual choice, yes. But they are certainly permitted to make it.
Vast said:
@C & A, do you know any same-sex couples? I know many that have children and they are just as strong as your traditional marriages.
But in saying so Vast was simply moving on to better hunting grounds for himself, not society. C&A's point was not about strength. It was about equality and the strength of the institution:
Civil marriage is not about procreation. It’s about the legal recognition of the civil contract forming a family unit.
What is really interesting here is the invalidation of a very humanitarian cause that C&A mentioned.
Vast's relationship is not about procreation, and he wants people to call it a marriage. Well, if that is all well and good, why does he have to insist that marriage no longer recognize its role in providing for equality in the human mating (meaning procreation) practice?
Why does Vast have to tell everyone else what their marriage is about, or in the very least demean what others marriage means to the government?
Seems pretty offensive if you ask me.
Marty, it is society that is preventing same-sex couples with children from marrying, arbitrarily. To suggest that a couple who aren't permitted to marry should not bear children is unreasonable beyond belief. To deny children the best opportunity for security, by giving them married parents, demonstrates the level of hatred homophobes have: they are willing to hurt children to show their disdain for homosexuals. Very, very sad.
Nicholas says:
"Automatically, the term “homophobe” is thrown out when someone disagrees with a homosexual on SSM and affiliated matters. How about the tables be turned and label homosexuals as “heterophobes” since the vehement denial of their heterosexuality is part and parcel of the ongoing argument."
Where on earth did you come up with this one?! Denying their heterosexuality? Are you denying your homosexuality? You don't like gays, can't stand to think that they could be permitted to enjoy the benefits of marriage, nor the protection of marriage for their kids. That's homophobia.
Apparently, my statement struck a chord. Good. To insist, though, I am denying anything is preposterous. I, as a heterosexual male, am only embracing God's plan in creation when He created male and female. No getting around the fact that there are two genders and each one has a unique role in creation that can not be substituted or counterfeited.
Nicolas is right -- Jeffrey accuses me of being a homophobe because I recognize the importance of having both a mother and a father. What on earth does that have to do with homophobia?
I might as well accuse Jeffrey of being a sexist bigot, for suggesting that a family with no mother is perfectly okay.
Utterly ridiculous. Your own mother and father must be ashamed at how you honor them so!
Marty - Please read up on studies about the wellbeing of families where the parents are homosexual couples, as compared to traditional families where there is both a mother and a father. It is not "sexist bigotry" that says a family with same-sex parents is okay, it's science.
Nicholas - Jeffrey's whole point was that you ARENT denying your homosexuality. Instead, you are attacking the homosexuality of others. Many people on these forums (and I'm not saying you in particular) attack homosexual behavior on religious grounds and say "it is just wrong". This is homophobia. In contrast, homosexuals are not saying that heterosexuality is wrong, or that traditional marriage is wrong. They are just trying to achieve equal status. They are not "heterophobes" as you would like to call them.
Marty - It is not that you are "recognizing the importance of having both a mother and a father" that makes you homophobic. It is that you are devaluing homosexual couples as parents. You are claiming that two mothers or two fathers cannot be good parents, which goes against scientific studies, and goes against all of the existing families with same-sex parents living in the United States today.
Forty years ago, could I have claimed just to have been recognizing the importance of keeping the intelligent people (a.k.a. white people) in power? No - this would be racist, because I would be devaluing the intelligence of non-white people, which has been scientifically shown not be different than the intelligence of white people. Also, forty years ago, I would not have been born, so i couldn't have made any claims.
I didn't write this comment, but I wish I did, as it accurately describes my feelings about NOM and other such hate groups. It was on a Sacramento newspaper blog:
Why is the Prop 8 backlash so intense? Here's one: Gays are third most likely to be victims of hate crimes (after Blacks and Jews), and Gays are MOST likely to be murdered in a hate crime. (see FBI: http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2007/incidents.htm). Gay kids are 3 times more likely than straight kids to be abused, kicked out of their homes, and become child street prostitutes to survive. Hate crimes and abuse thrive in an environment of bigotry and marginalization and Prop 8 shows that active, aggressive, invasive intolerance is OK; hate against this minority is OK. This is the legacy of those who support(ed) Prop 8. This is your Christian love.
If you are a California voter, you can sign a petition to get marriage equality on the ballot in 2010:
http://www.rightsagainin2010.com
One piece of GREAT news today, and that is the my marriage is still valid in California (sorry to be selfish, but we did enjoy some champagne today)! The homophobes lost BIG on that one.... But, I will continue this fight for equality for my gay brothers and sisters, and the young people so that they will have the same freedom to marry in the future. It's about "freedom," remember that word?
Jon-Again, no need to deny anything as I said in my post, I am a heterosexual male. To imply other is simply manipulating the written word to satisfy yourself. The question still begs to be answered-why are we male and female? Happenstance? Evolution? Intelligent Design? Creation? Answering that fundamental presupposition will also answer any question as to why we are male and female, man and woman and whether homosexuality is normative.
If my posts come across as attacking, I do not mean for them too. I am only trying to gain perspective as to why homosexuals feel the way they do while at the same time espouse my personal beliefs/convictions. Also, to say that people are homophobes because they base their belief on religious/moral grounds, is simply unfounded. Would I also be a alcophobe because I base my not drinking on religious/moral grounds? How about a larcophobe for not stealing for the very same religious/moral ground? The list could go on ad nauseum, ad infinitum, but alas, I will leave my point at that.
What some celebrites said about today's ruling (for what it matters)
— "Those full of hate and fear will surely be disappointed that 18,000 same sex couples will be living in wedded bliss, kissing their spouses goodnight, checking off those little 'married' boxes on all those forms we fill out nowadays. That's really going to drive them crazy," Melissa Etheridge, who exchanged vows with her longtime partner in a 2003 ceremony, said in a statement. "I am hopeful as I see more and more states turn to the inevitable future of equality, California will get there. Change takes time."
— "I blame miss california," Margaret Cho wrote on Twitter.
— "I'm sure you heard the prop 8 news," DeGeneres wrote on Twitter. "One day when everyone is treated with full equality, we'll look back and realize how wrong this was."
— "That's just awful," Elton John said in an interview on AccessHollywood.com. "When you see places like Iowa saying yes, there's now five states in America (where same-sex marriage is legal). California is supposed to be a progressive state. It defies logic to me. I'm very disappointed."
What is problematic with this discussion is that all too often, people of faith are vilified, while homosexuals are venerated. The repost of the blog from the Sacramento paper all too well underscores this line of thinking. I will say this time and again: because I disagree with your lifestyle/behavior doesn't mean I hate you personally, just what you do. Am I supposed to condone lying, stealing, cheating, any more than homosexuality because I disagree with those behaviors as well?
Nope, never said a gay couple cannot be good parents -- I know that they can.
What i SAID was that it was cruel and unusual to deprive a kid of a mother or father because of your own gender bias.
Marty
How do you reconcile those two comments? How can a gay couple be good parents if you consider depriving a child of a mother and father as cruel and unusual punishment? By it's nature a same sex couple is missing one of those two elements, but then so is a single parent family, or a family where the child is raised by grand parents.
If you look at the civil laws of the states you will find that civil marriage is nothing more than a civil contract that does not have a connection to procreation.
Marriage by its very nature creates a foundation for responsible procreation. The couple does not have to conceive children but the marriage structure provides the best foundation for the raising of children should they conceive.
Marty, you make a good point about some people deliberately withholding a child from being raised by both a mother and a father.
Vast, you said it yourself: "By it’s nature a same sex couple is missing one of those two elements, but then so is a single parent family, or a family where the child is raised by grand parents."
Buy its nature a same-sex family is a broken home. So is a single-parent or grandparent headed family.
This is not to say that single-parents of grandparents cannot be "good parents" -- of course they can. But a broken home is a broken home, and less than ideal in every case.
Only same-sex couples go out of their way to intentionally create broken homes for their children. Everyone else does it as the result of a tragedy or loss.
And WHY do they do this? Gender bias. As if that were a good excuse.
There are really very few ways that a child can wind up in a home without a mother or a father, and all of them are tragic. Including -- perhaps especially -- this one, because it is done on purpose.
Cruel. Unusual.
FACT: 57% of Americans against same-sex pseudo-marriage.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/118378/Majority-Americans-Continue-Oppose-Gay-Marriage.aspx
Marty: There are really very few ways that a child can wind up in a home without a mother or a father, and all of them are tragic
So you feel that single women (and men) shouldn't be allowed to adopt? That intentionally giving a homeless child at least a mother OR father (and a home) is "cruel?"
That's a strange way of putting words in my mouth Marie. Obviously any child up for adoption is already from a broken home -- so just about anything is an improvement. Even a gay couple.
You do what you can to help fix a broken home. But you don't go out of your way to create them on purpose.
That’s a strange way of putting words in my mouth Marie.
My apologies Marty. I don't mean to. It just hits a sore spot with me, as I'd really love to adopt a child someday, but I fear it won't be as a couple... and yes, I feel kinda guilty about that
New poll shows again that the people of California want to protect marriage:
http://llnw.static.cbslocal.com/station/kpix/court-ruling-poll.pdf
I agree that the terms "bigot" and "homophobe" (among others) are slapped around quite readily by the gay community as pejorative terms against those who they want to silence. I can't wait until the rainbow cops come to arrest me because I happen to believe that society needs to protect the roles of mothers and fathers.
Accepted Marie, thank you. I hear where you're coming from. None of my business of course, but i'd advise anyone in your situation to work on the "couple" part, before embarking on the path to parenthood. But Godspeed either way.
Gerry, I wouldn't trust any polls when it comes to issues like gay marriage. One poll in New Hampshire says that the people overwhelmingly support gay marriage, and another, sponsored by the anit-marriage folks, says the opposite. Also, EVERY poll taken before Prop 8 showed that it would lose. Some polls said it was a large margin, too. This was one of the mistakes of the No on 8 campaign. They assumed we'd win, when in fact we were behind.
One trend seems evident in all polls. People under 35 generally support marriage equality. So, once the old folks die out, we will have no obstacle any more. And, if you haven't noticed, religious groups are leaking members. There was a mass exodus from the Mormon church after Prop 8... 600 Mormons demonstrated against Prop 8 in Utah the night of the election in Nov...
"People under 35 generally support marriage equality. So, once the old folks die out, we will have no obstacle any more."
Big problem with that logic -- old folks die out, but are replaced by people who get old. I'd say that "generally" people who don't have kids support ssm. But once they form families of their own they naturally become more conservative. I personally don't think "age" is the critical factor.
YMMV
Dear Jeffrey, you are the one that is misinformed. Same sex couples of children teach that a mother or father is irrelevent but in fact that are very relavent. Without a female and male there would be no children. That child is a part of each person, both male and female, to disregard either one is teaching children that people don't matter if it does not fit their agenda.
Sorry, Marty, but you are wrong. Have you ever heard the phrase, "knowledge is power"? When people learn about things, they no longer fear them. Why do you think the folks at NOM are deathly afraid of gay marriage being taught in schools? They know that if kids learn about gay people they won't fear it anymore. We you and I were growing up (I have no idea of your age) we heard nothing positive whatsoever about gay people. In fact, gay people were very nearly invisible. Do you know what I learned about gay people in school where I grew up (rural Ohio)? I learned that gays were perverts who had no relationships outside of sex in public bus terminals. Now, contrast that with today's world where gay people are getting married, and you see that young people have an entirely different viewpoint. They know gay movie stars, gay pop musicians, gay sports figures, etc... They probably know someone personally who is gay. Do you think that striaght kids hate Ellen Degeneres because she is an out lesbian? Of course not. It's no big deal to them, and they accept her. So, this is the reason that young people are not as bigoted as their parents. I teach at a university, and the students I know (a private Catholic school, too) think gay marriage is no big deal. They have no clue why people are fighting against it. In fact, you only have to look at the demographics of the vote on Prop 8 in CA to realize the ban on gay marriage will have a short history... People over 60 are terrified that the world is falling down. People under 35 are like "whatever, let them marry, who cares?" The problem is that the older generation has had no exposure to gay people. In the 1950s gays were invisible. This is no longer the case by a long shot... Now, it's not to say that the majority of Americans still oppose gay marriage. I acknowledge this, and it's largely due to the strong control that religion has on our society. But, with each succeeding generation there will be change, and we see it already. Who would have thought that five states would legalize gay marriage, when it was only a California issue just a few months ago?
Nah, i think you're wrong. Just my opinion, but back when I was a wild college student in the 80's I would have supported SSM had it been on the table. I certainly had nothing to fear from gay people, being surrounded by them daily as a theatre major (such fabulously awesome parties!).
Even after I married, I was a very liberal young man. But having kids changed everything.
What you describe are two sets of people: one who has genuine concern for the generations to follow (they've seen enough in their lifetimes to be afraid for them), and those who say "whatever, who cares?"
When you actually have a stake in the matter, you generally start to care.
"What is problematic with this discussion is that all too often, people of faith are vilified, while homosexuals are venerated. The repost of the blog from the Sacramento paper all too well underscores this line of thinking. I will say this time and again: because I disagree with your lifestyle/behavior doesn’t mean I hate you personally, just what you do. Am I supposed to condone lying, stealing, cheating, any more than homosexuality because I disagree with those behaviors as well?"
Get real. You're forcing your religious beliefs on others. That's wrong. You don't have to condone anything, just behave as you believe your religion requires. You don't condone divorce, do you? Yet are you trying to make it illegal? Damn religious hypocrites.
To no one in particular, and Jeffrey specifically:
Politics is the art of the possible -- outlawing divorce is simply not possible in this day and age, but I'm for it, when and if it becomes so. "Til Death Do Us Part" is a blood oath made before God and Mankind, and should be treated as such by those who make it and those to whom it is made.
Will YOU declare your support for that, Jeffrey?
So Marty, are you saying that since the situation is less than idea we should outlaw it?
No, it shouldn't be outlawed IMO. But it's certainly not something we should encourage by putting a government "seal of approval" on.
From where I sit, legal recognition of SSM will mean that more children, not less, will be deliberately deprived of a mother or a father, merely to satisfy the particular gender bias of their same-sex "parents".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNiqfRyoAyA
I must have hit a nerve with my previous post about condoning behaviour. I am glad I did as that was my intent. However, me stating my beliefs/convictions is forcing my religion upon you, couldn't be any further from what I was saying. If this is a public forum, then I, like everyone else, am simply espousing my beliefs/convictions. No where is that forcing anything onto anyone especially since this forum is completely volunteer.
Nicholas-- I agree that you, by posting your beliefs/convictions on this public forum, are not, in any way, forcing your beliefs onto others. However, NOM (and this is a NOM blog) is working towards a goal that forces the organization's religious beliefs on others by outlawing same-sex marriage.
Marty-- If you think that gay parents can be good parents, and I mean equally good parents as a heterosexual couple, then how can a household with same sex parents be "broken"? Studies show that it is more important to have two loving parents than to have two heterosexual parents, so how is it "cruel and unusual" for a loving gay couple to either adopt children or have children through other means?
I don't see how you can say both that gay parents can be good parents (and here, when I say good, I mean just as good as heterosexual parents at raising children, preparing children for the world, protecting them, etc.) and still use the "cruel and unusual" language. Condoning same-sex marriage is condoning the creation of loving family units, not broken households.
Marty-- Also, I feel that "gender bias" is very misleading language. This makes it seem like sexual orientation is not something determined by the biological make-up of a person, but is instead some sort of prejudice against the opposite gender. This, clearly, is not true.
Moreover, same sex parents, especially by adopting, are not "intentionally depriving children of a mother and a father"--this language I find extremely offensive. They are intentionally providing children with two loving parents and a loving household to grow up in. Do you know any families where the parents are gay? You are degrading and devaluing them with your language.
Also, to those NOM supporters who point out that the human race requires men and women to come together to continue existing (yes, babies need to be made), and that therefore we shouldn't allow SSM, you are completely missing the point. Gay marriage isn't about taking away traditional marriage, it is just about granting homosexuals equal rights. Same sex marriage doesn't mean that more people will be gay, or that there will be fewer children, or that men and women won't be procreating anymore.
Finally, on the issue of divorce, does it not seem that sometimes divorce is the best option, for both the parents and the children involved? If two parents fall out of love, or begin to really dislike one another, is it healthier for them to stay married or to move on? Isn't it possible that people make mistakes in who they decide to marry, and should be allowed to change their mind? I understand being against divorce from a religious perspective, but there needs to be more than just a religious view of marriage as an oath before God to make divorce problematic from a legal standpoint. This purely religious view should not affect the legality of anything in the United States.
Jon: "Marty– If you think that gay parents can be good parents, and I mean equally good parents as a heterosexual couple, then how can a household with same sex parents be “broken”? "
Nice try stretching my language. Shall I clarify for you?
Equally good parents as a heterosexual couple? I presume you mean "equally good as a mother and father"? Well no, of course not. Because men and women, mothers and fathers, simply are not equal. They are different, unique, and each provides unique perspectives into the relationship. This should be perfectly obvious to everyone here right? Diversity is important, am I right? Boys and girls need both mothers AND fathers as first-hand role models.
And by definition, a family without both a natural mother and father is considered "broken". This is not to say that whatever parent remains is not a good parent, only that the natural ideal has been shattered.
"Studies show that it is more important to have two loving parents than to have two heterosexual parents"
What kind of tripe is this, where you compare "two loving parents" against "two heterosexual parents" as if they cannot also be loving? There are no such "studies" in existence. You'll have to do better than that.
Jon: "I feel that “gender bias” is very misleading language. This makes it seem like sexual orientation is not something determined by the biological make-up of a person, but is instead some sort of prejudice against the opposite gender. This, clearly, is not true."
2 quick comments before bed:
First, if you are claiming that "sexual orientation" is "determined by the biological make-up of a person" then I'll kindly ask you to provide the proof. In fact, there is none, only a great deal of speculation that it may exist. We're all still waiting on the test.
I've certainly known enough gay and lesbians who have successfully married and created families with members of the opposite sex, so please don't try to suggest that doing so is impossible or too burdensome for you or anyone else. That merely reveals what I said earlier about gender bias.
It's not that you can't love someone of the opposite sex, it's just that you won't. It's just too "icky" for you or something.
Which is fine I suppose, and I can certainly let you live in peace with your sexist bigotry. But please don't try to inflict it upon a child, or rant and rave that when it comes to mothers and fathers "separate is actually equal" after all.
It really boils down to this:
Either men and women are so alike that there is no inherent difference between men and women, mothers and fathers -- in which case YOU should have no trouble at all loving either member of the sexes,
Or, that men and women are so very different that what is important to YOU about that difference should also be of equal importance to everyone else -- especially and including children. After all, it's not an accident that every single one of us is the result of the union of exactly one man and one woman. "Orientation" is as irrelevant as skin color, in that regard.
Any other explanation is just an excuse for your sexist bias.
Jon-Although this is NOM's blog, it is still completely volunteer, as I mentioned in an earlier post. The free exchange of ideas is permissible and encouraged even though moderated by NOM. No harm in that. The problem arises when competing voices demand the same attention. NOM, therefore, is an organization that stands up for what has already been well established-that of traditional marriage. Moreover, NOM, as a non-profit organization, doesn't necessarily mean they are religiously affilitated. Individual members and supporters may be, but as a whole, I don't see them promoting themselves as "faith based" along the lines of other marriage and family organizations. In fact, no where is there a mission statement indicating that they are a Christian organization. If anything, their mission is as the website tagline reads-"Protecting Marriage and the Faith Communities that Sustain It."
Marty, I think you've misunderstood the outcome of outlawing same-sex marriage, or are purposely misportraying the arguments. So far as children are involved, same-sex couples are free to have children. Any person in this country can conceive a child if s/he's fertile, with or without the benefit of marriage. To argue that being against same-sex marriage is of some benefit to children is false: like I said, same-sex couples currently have children without the benefit of marriage, which simply ends up being a burden on their children. A needless burden, I would argue. Unless the next phase for organizations like NOM is to get child-bearing and -rearing outlawed for same-sex couples........is it?
I must say the logic used to "defend against" same-sex marriage is approaching the bizarre. Now that homophobes are using children as a foil in their argument, don't they realize that same-sex couples often have children? Don't these kids deserve the same kind of security that the kids of married heterosexual parents get? How on earth is it possible to argument that marriage is important to children, yet reject the needs of the children of same-sex couples? Only in homophobic bizarro land LOL.
Marty: LOL!!!!!!!
You are using "special rules" here!!
You yell "you people always call homophobe!" and then you call "sexist!!".
The irony here.. The irony makes my head explode...
"It’s not that you can’t love someone of the opposite sex, it’s just that you won’t. It’s just too “icky” for you or something. "
What about you? Do you feel a natural urge to seek out women and start a family? To couple up? Or is it that you chose to? How many men did you sleep with? How many did you fall in love and have sex with? The proof is there, God put it there, you choose to ignore it. That's your own fault.
Your best argument for same sex marriage is this one:
"What you describe are two sets of people: one who has genuine concern for the generations to follow (they’ve seen enough in their lifetimes to be afraid for them), and those who say “whatever, who cares?”
When you actually have a stake in the matter, you generally start to care."
Yes, the couple who get drunk, have sex, get pregnant, and get married when they should not. Or the gay couple who choose to adopt(or have naturally), make an educated, informed, loving choice? It seems you are arguing against heterosexual marriage unless they've basically put up some sort of research.
No, modern generations have proven the mother and father aren't strictly necessary, as long as the child is well exposed to the world. We've learned this every time our country has had a war, plus other countries. Same-sex marriage didn't do this.
Besides, if you cared about children, you'd understand the need for same sex marriage to protect the children and give them a better environment. The "integration of the sexes" argument has already been debunked.
You need a link for loving parents vs. non loving parents?
Google for "Child abuse By David A. Wolfe"
Loving parents beat non loving, heterosexual or non heterosexual. Having children you should care about children. Perhaps you aren't ready?
Quit twisting your words, using "special rules" (as someone on this website likes to call it), backtracking, saying "it always comes down to name calling, you SEXIST!!!!!!". LOL.
You, "sir", are HILARIOUS. Backwards and backwards. Please look at your children and actually consider what would happen if one of them is gay. You'd rather them be unhappy to procreate, for your own twisted comprehension of the world?
Yes, Jeffrey, Marty and the ilk here always misrepresent what marriage is. It's all about kids - but if you're straight and don't have them then it's still ok, but it's all about having children. If you're gay just be unhappy, unhappy parents who abuse their children are the BEST! They go in circles. It doesn't matter, more of the country is seeing the light, the religious nutjobs altering god's word are dying of old age, people are starting to see things as they are instead of thru red colored glasses NOM tries to promote.
Gender Bias?? LOL, oh man, you're cracking me up... It's as if you don't even read or know what you're talking about.
Sorry for the hateful/fun comment, but... seriously?? These are your arguments still? To say they've been pretty much debunked would be nice. Same old arguments. It's all about protecting heterosexual couples, it is absolutely NOT about protecting the child. What's in the child's best interest? This, and this only. Heterosexuals can mess it up, but Gays?! HOW DARE THEY!?!
That's gender bias, that two women or two men can't raise children in a happy, healthy, home. A broken home is more common to heterosexual couples than homosexual couples, one of these two groups made the valid choice of having a child.
Marty: Oh, one more thing. I know of a few heterosexual couples who have had children and only see benefits in gay couples adopting or having naturally. There, I've countered your assertion that people lose interest in SSM when they get older(give any idea 60 years and it'll go from liberal to conservative, or something like that someone said once). It also counters your argument that people who have children become against SSM when they are younger.
Anecdotal evidence counters anecdotal evidence. Spouting it off as complete truth does none of us any good.
Two polls so a plurality in favor of gay marriage recently, the tides are turning. You can't assume there are less people out there with children than, say, 10 years ago? Or even 5 years ago? Even 2 years ago? Are people killing off their children? If so, that makes heterosexual marriage look _terrible._ I hope not(and seriously doubt it) and discourage that as a solution ever. Couples(straight and gay) are out there waiting to adopt and give an unbroken, loving home.
Jeffrey,
As i said earlier, if same-sex couples want to have children (knowing they will be additionally burdened by unmarried 'parents') that is their choice. Those who make it do so with their eyes wide open.
But while removing that burden by legally recognizing SSM will benefit the children whose parents have already accepted that burden, it will also result in even MORE children being deliberately denied either a mother or a father.
For that reason alone I am happy to leave the burden in place. If marrying a member of the opposite sex is simply too burdensome for you, then you should seriously think twice before bringing children into the world.
Thats my story and I'm sticking to it.
Marty, I'm a widowed heterosexual. I am a man who was married to his college sweetheart. Your argument that it's ok to burden the children of same-sex couples by preventing their parents from marrying is shameful and immoral. I can't imagine hating gay people so much that I would punish their children this way. It's unspeakably disgusting, in my mind. And to argue that gay couples shouldn't bear or raise children, since they're not allowed to marry, is simply beyond the pale. The right to reproduce is unquestionably the most basic of human rights, regardless of how you are coupled (or not coupled, in the case of single parents).
Your argument isn't even logical. If you think it's crucial that children have a mom and a dad, you should be arguing to make it illegal for same-sex couples to HAVE AND RAISE CHILDREN, not against them getting married. You don't even understand your own point of view, just that you hate gay people and want to stop them from having legal legitimacy as couples. Very sad for you.
You keep saying that I hate gay people when you know that isn't true. I just think that mothers and fathers are unique and important enough that every child deserves their own.
YOU would sacrifice a child's right to a mother and a father to serve the desire of homosexuals, while I would sacrifice the desire of homosexuals to serve the rights of children. Two sides of the same coin I suppose, but I find your position far more dishonorable.
Marty, how exactly are a mother and father different. Any role that a mother can have a father can too and vice versa, except for breast feeding.
Why would you have someone marry someone of the opposite sex in order to have a child. Wouldn't you think that having two loving parents in general regardless of the parents' sexual orientation is better than having a male and female who are unhappily married.
A child does not solely learn from their parents, but their entire environment so by implying that a child cannot have a
Marty, I think you hate children more than you hate gay people. Because the arguments against legalized same-sex marriage are so flimsy, it's hard not to see a level of homophobia. I know that my own personal distaste for homosexuality could easily distract me from what's fair, for both homosexuals and their children.
If a child has a right to a mother and a father, then why aren't you arguing against single parenthood, to the point of making it illegal? What about parents like me, who lose a spouse and (so far) have not remarried? Am I cheating my two daughters out of a proper female mothering input? Why don't we have standards for parenting? Are you suggesting that any male or female couple automatically makes for good parents? I'd rather see kids raised by two loving, honest lesbians than by two dishonest, law-breaking immoral heterosexuals. Again, you're trying too hard to come up with a reason to stop same-sex marriage, and you're willing to hurt the children of gay couples in the process. Please explain why you feel this way.
The leftists campaigning for same-sex pseudo-marriage in California let their white sheets slip:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/5/26/735641/-To-Repeal-Prop-8,-Keep-Black-And-Hispanic-Turnout-Low,-and-Counter-Mormon-Money.
"If a child has a right to a mother and a father, then why aren’t you arguing against single parenthood, to the point of making it illegal?"
First, as a social conservative, I AM working to reduce single parenthood. Second, I have no idea why you think I should be so absolutist about it to suggest actually making it illegal.
I'm not often for punishing people for making poor decisions. But I am in favor of discouraging it by reasonable legal means, and stigmatizing it in social ways.
"I’d rather see kids raised by two loving, honest lesbians than by two dishonest, law-breaking immoral heterosexuals."
Sure, so would I. But i keep wondering why you (and many others) always frame it in such stark terms -- as if "loving honest heterosexual parents" are not an option? Why is that always off the table?
Jeffrey and Joey,
Please don't feed the bears...
(You'll have to read that link for the relevance).
Answer this question, what do you mean when you say, "Have children"?
When we use that phrase we mean that two people gave birth and are raising a child.
When marriage neuterists use that phrase that means something more like a possession, in their care is a child.
From the link mentioned:
Having children in a sense of being the parents and taking responsibility for how they procreate through their commitment to each other and the child is what we understand as marriage. It is concerned with the relationship which creates (has) those children.
The second kind of have is a noble cause, and is a good argument for a secondary system of recognizing mutual trust and dependency. When I see one say, "you’re willing to hurt the children of gay couples in the process", I don't think that is true. A program of reciprocal beneficiaries would be much more inclusive and not biased towards homosexuals.
Seeing your concern for children in households outside of marriage, do you agree to the support of children in households where sisters have banded together to raise their children? Two friends (men) that have banded together to raise their children who are not gay? A woman who moves in with two elderly benefactors (friends of the family or parents) to raise her children?
Is that "marriage"?
No, its a reason to have a program for such circumstances. I program like Hawaii's Reciprocal Beneficiaries. But its not marriage in and of itself.
Marty, How dishonest of you! You're working to reduce single parenthood? Why don't you just "work to reduce" the incidence of same-sex marriage, rather than make it illegal? When something is made illegal, it makes it impossible. There's a huge gulf between discouraging legal behavior, like divorce and adultery, which heterosexuals freely indulge in, and making something illegal.
Again, so long as same-sex couples are legally permitted to form, and to bear/raise children, the argument that they can't get married only hurts their children. Your point of view would make sense if you wanted to outlaw same-sex couples and same-sex child-rearing. I'm assuming you don't. Therefore, the argument against letting same-sex couples marry is hypocritical, irrational, and ultimately hurts children. Congratulations, you're homophobic and childphobic!
Marty, How dishonest of you!
Jeffrey, lets be more careful before shooting off, please.
For instance after that shocking opener, I see...
When something is made illegal, it makes it impossible.
Theoretically that may be true. But the vision of the perfectly totalitarian state has never materialized (thank goodness).
There are also various levels of criminalization all the way to neutral, and on the other side various levels of encouraging and benefiting certain relationships.
Marriage doesn't work on criminalization. People who aren't married aren't "illegal". People who are married are encouraged for a purpose, they are encouraged to help everyone involved in the human mating practice to recognize each others rights and needs.
As Marty pointed out...
Especially, why is it off the table (for some) to have a program specifically designed to make the very parents to combined to have the children recognize their responsibility and needs of that child so they, primarily, will be the loving parents? What better way to ensure their rights and the rights and needs of both spouses?
Marty, your logic makes sense to me. Look a the counties where Prop 8 passed and you'll find counties with more families. I think a lot of people love the person who identifies as homosexual while being offended at the idea of changing marriage. Why? Because at the gut level, proponents of so-called gay 'marriage' are, like Jeffrey, saying that any construction of family is fine. Which is also saying that what it means to be uniquely a mother or a father doens't matter. And that is offensive.
I don't understand why it is so difficult to acknowledge that two women can't provide fatherhood and two men can't provide motherhood. We are now in the realm of calling the obvious 'hateful'.
Mary Ann: Which is also saying that what it means to be uniquely a mother or a father doens’t matter. And that is offensive.
And I think that's exactly what pro-SSM people need to understand if they want to get why some people "oppose" SSM. It's not always about being anti-gay, or homophobic, or thinking gays are immoral and all that religious stuff.
It's just that SSM implies that the male/female dynamic is completely irrelevant to marriage; that the struggle male/female couples go through to stay together (for children or whatever reason) isn't important or being rewarded through "marriage" anymore.
SSM strips the poetry of male/female bonding (and it's consequences and potentials) from marriage, and leaves commitment alone as it's core meaning.
No matter how feminine a man is, he still isn't bringing the context of a "woman" to a relationship. Nor can even the most masculine woman know what it's truly like to grow up as a man. Sure, the personalities of same-sex couples can be vastly different. But they still bring the same sexual "context" to the relationship, while heterosexual couples are binding very different world experiences together.
And again, I'm for SSM, as it just seems like the fair thing to do, even though it makes me sad to see the specialness of male/female relationships becoming irrelevant.
But I do wish pro-SSM people would sometimes stop to really listen to why some people feel a sense of loss with SSM, and just acknowledge it, and hopefully recognize that it IS a valid feeling to have - even if it's something we need to get over in the interests of equality for all.
Marie,
I'm glad you bring up the sense of loss, and I agree that pro-SSM people should be able to calmly acknowledge that.
Its exactly the sense of loss that urges me to protect the family structure, because of a child's permanent loss or denial of a mother and father. If for example, a mother dies, or a father decides to be absent from the family, that loss means a permanent source of sadness, and perhaps abandonment and anger for a child. Why would people purposely set up a domestic situation in which a child is denied a mother and father? Do the couples' wishes outweigh a child's needs?
Considering everyone involved, and not just SS couples, I don't think its truly fair to change marriage if it means changing family in that way.
You people are arguing the bizarre! Why do you think marriage results in good parenting? And if a male parent and a female parent are so crucial, why not outlaw single parenting? When it comes to children, you're missing the very serious point: same-sex couples, like opposite-sex couples, aren't going to not have children because they can't marry. Having a child is too crucial a basic human desire, and right, to require permission of any kind. So if children are going to come anyway, isn't just basic human decency to give those kids the security of married parents, whether the parents are the same sex or not? Why punish the children?
It's shocking how opponents of same-sex marriage are willing to use children as pawns in their war against same-sex couples. Children deserve to have married parents in any circumstance. It's disturbing that opposite-sex parents choose to forego marriage, especially once the kids start coming. I don't understand it. It's not fair to kids. And the same holds true for same-sex couples: they should get married and provide some legal security to hold their relationship together, which benefits their children. Honestly, people let's put the welfare of children ahead of our dislike of homosexuals, ok?
"It’s just that SSM implies that the male/female dynamic is completely irrelevant to marriage; that the struggle male/female couples go through to stay together (for children or whatever reason) isn’t important or being rewarded through “marriage” anymore.
SSM strips the poetry of male/female bonding (and it’s consequences and potentials) from marriage, and leaves commitment alone as it’s core meaning."
I think SSM recognizes that love and commitment are much more important to a marriage than who the participants are. If you doubt that two people of the same sex can fall in love and commit for life, then your concerns about SSM might ring true.
Let's face it, rampant adultery and divorce have taken the "poetry" out of marriage, long before SSM started becoming legal and normal. Of course, no one wants to make divorce or adultery illegal. Odd.
While yes there are inherently different experiences that are brought to a relationship with another. This combination of experience is also unique to a particular relationship, yet there seems to be an overlying assumption that male and female experiences needed to raise a child. When arguing about sexual context, realize that there is no set series of things that any individual must go through to have experience being a certain sex.
So how can you know that a male and male or female and female relationship would not bring equally supportive sexual context to a relationship where a child is involved?
Jeffrey: I think SSM recognizes that love and commitment are much more important to a marriage than who the participants are.
Yes, my point exactly. SSM recognizes or suggests that the male/female dynamic is irrelevant now. And maybe it always was, I don't know, but it stings to hear that when you're someone who's kinda worshipped the specialness of that dynamic all their lives.
If you doubt that two people of the same sex can fall in love and commit for life, then your concerns about SSM might ring true.
I don't doubt it at all. I know a few gay couples, and they're wonderfully in love and committed to one another in beautiful and caring relationships. Honestly, I'm not "bashing" gays, or disbelieving their relationships as being less valid in anyway.
I'm just saying that as a not so well informed, middle-aged woman, lol, I've become very used to thinking of marriage as a union of opposite sexes, a blending of polarities. I realize it's mostly just habitual thinking on my part, and I need to "get with the times" and expand my ideas. And I'm trying.
I just ask that SSM people cut some of us a break, and realize it IS a challenge to change concepts we've grown up with all our lives. Assuming that we're bigots and anti-gay just because we squirm a bit or say we feel a sense of loss with SSM isn't really fair, any more than labeling gays as demonic and perverted is.
Let’s face it, rampant adultery and divorce have taken the “poetry” out of marriage, long before SSM started becoming legal and normal. Of course, no one wants to make divorce or adultery illegal. Odd.
Actually, all that just proves to me is how very difficult it can be to hold male/female relationships together, and makes it all the more special and poetic to me when people DO manage to make it work.
Fisking Jeffrey,
You people are arguing the bizarre!
No real response to that statement. I like to point out these opening shots before fisking. It helps establish the tone...
Why do you think marriage results in good parenting?
A number of reasons.
1) Marriage encourages the parents to understand and accept responsibility for children before they create them.
2) Marriage encourages both genders that create the child to love, honor and cherish each other. This translates to a child who sees both halves of their identity cherished and nurtured, which encourages better self esteem in the child.
3) Marriage encourages both people who share the identity with the child to help raise the child. This is a more secure starting point for deciding parental policy for each child.
4) Marriage encourages appreciation of integration, meaning both the man and the woman find more success in marriage as they value each other's unique contribution to the family formation.
And more, but I think you get the gist...
And if a male parent and a female parent are so crucial, why not outlaw single parenting?
This is a non-sequitor. How is encouraging parents to recognize their commitments to the children they create together not fulfilling the purpose we find so crucial?
I don't see why more dramatic means are necessary. Besides I don't appreciate what kind of legislation you are contemplating without more specifics. How would you effectively outlaw single parenting without stomping on the mutual consent that fosters good marriages?
But in case you miss the overall point, let me underline that no imagined hypothetical and bizarre solution on your part negates the validity of the solution suggested in my part.
same-sex couples, like opposite-sex couples, aren’t going to not have children because they can’t marry
Allow me to repeat the question I gave above...
The point to underline here, is that a conflation on your part does not indicate neglect in my part.
So if children are going to come anyway, isn’t just basic human decency to give those kids the security of married parents, whether the parents are the same sex or not?
That's "don't feed the bears" logic. And selectively (read biased) applied, as noted above...
Why punish the children?
Lets give a real face to that. Consider Gov McGreevey who divorced his wife and then sued the court to remove any access his wife has to the children. You see, having found that he was gay he wanted full court protection from any disappointment he had in his infidelity from the marriage.
I ask you, why punish the children?
Children deserve to have married parents in any circumstance.
Which in and of itself does not recieve disagreement from me. As I mentioned before...
I'd appreciate your answer to that question.
Let’s face it, rampant adultery and divorce have taken the “poetry” out of marriage, long before SSM started becoming legal and normal.
You aren't the first to relate the progress in destroying marriage that is no-fault divorce. You aren't the first to relate the neutered marriage bandwagon to be hitched to the same horse of adult self-interest at the expense of the children.
I'll just let that point sink in for a bit
1. Amber
Posted May 28, 2009 at 1:29 pm
This whole sick lifestyle needs to go away for good, and be voted down. Why should I, a tax-paying citizen have to pay out of my tax money for their sick, vile lifestyle? These are mean, hateful, anti-religious bigots that just want to keep jamming their perverted agenda down all our throats! They are disgusting people who want to force our schools and churches to accept their lifestyle as love and beautiful, which not the case; it is totally sick incest and vile behavior. If this vile evil bill is passed across the whole United States, what stops a brother from marrying his sister, or a mother from marrying a son, or a classmate in school from marrying her girlfriend? Enough is enough, this has nothing to do with civil rights, or homophobia. It’s JUST WRONG FOR A MAN TO MARRY ANOTHER MAN, OR A WOMAN TO ANOTHER WOMAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
you’re missing the very serious point: same-sex couples, like opposite-sex couples, aren’t going to not have children because they can’t marry.
Disagree. First, most opposite sex couples do wait until their married before having children. Second, if being unmarried is such a "burden" for the children of same-sex couples, then certainly a good number of same-sex couples will not be having children because they don't want them to be disadvantaged.
It's not like they "accidentally" become pregnant or anything.
Some same-sex couples accept the burden, but surely many/most do not, for the sake of the kids. Removing that burden will result in more children being intentionally deprived of their father or mother, which, as I said, seems a cruel and unusual thing to do to a kid.
Interesting how many proponents of SSM argue from the negative. Of course divorce and adultery are problems, legal but never desirable.
If SSM supporters argue from a positive SS couple and the typical, positive married couple, a man and woman is still best for children, and still what children desire and deserve.
Even arguing from the negative backfires, though. The whole point that its tough for kids from broken homes or single-parent homes upholds the reasons for having a mother and a father.
Marie, I'm a middle-aged heterosexual man and it took me about an hour to think through the implications of this issue and reach the logical conclusion that same-sex couples, especially those with kids, should be not only allowed but should be encouraged to get married and form the most stable relationship possible. That's marriage.
It's not about what you or I are comfortable with. It's about what's legally permissable, morally right and fair. Maybe you really do have the best of intentions toward gay couples. But it's not really very fair that same-sex couples should have to wait for something as fundamental as the right to marry the person we fall in love with while the the rest of us get comfortable with the idea.
C'mon, Marty, argue from a point of honesty!
"First, most opposite sex couples do wait until their married before having children. Second, if being unmarried is such a “burden” for the children of same-sex couples, then certainly a good number of same-sex couples will not be having children because they don’t want them to be disadvantaged."
They wait until marriage BECAUSE THEY CAN GET MARRIED! If you aren't permitted by law to get married, then there's nothing to wait for, is there? Again, what human being who wants to produce children is going to put off having children until they can legally marry? I know I wouldn't. If marriage is important to the children of heterosexual couples, then it's important to the children of homosexual couples. There simply is no way to argue otherwise.
And the male/female parenting argument makes no sense regarding marriage: gay couples are already forming and having children. Single people are having children, by choice. Married heterosexuals with kids divorce all the time, weakening the influence that one of the parents (the non-custodial parent) has. If the male-female parenting dynamic is so crucial, why aren't we outlawing divorce for couples with children? Why don't we outlaw voluntary single parenting?
"Interesting how many proponents of SSM argue from the negative. Of course divorce and adultery are problems, legal but never desirable."
So let's make SSM legal, and call it undesirable, just like we treat divorce and adultery.
"If SSM supporters argue from a positive SS couple and the typical, positive married couple, a man and woman is still best for children, and still what children desire and deserve."
I agree. Let's outlaw divorce and force couples with children to stay together until all the children reach 18. Let's make it illegal to have a child out of wedlock. Let's force divorced parents to remarry within six months or face losing their children. And widowed persons, like me, would get 12 months since we need time to grieve and regroup.
"Even arguing from the negative backfires, though. The whole point that its tough for kids from broken homes or single-parent homes upholds the reasons for having a mother and a father."
See above recommendations.
Jeffrey: But it’s not really very fair that same-sex couples should have to wait for something as fundamental as the right to marry the person we fall in love with while the the rest of us get comfortable with the idea.
I agree, and I've said that I'd set aside any personal hangups of mine and vote for SSM, were I given the chance.
But it'd be nice to hear SSM people say, "hey look, I get where you're coming from too, and your sense of loss is understandable" instead of seeming to want to just dismiss it as if it never mattered.
Ok Marie, I'll say it: your sense of loss is understandable. I wish I could say it with more genuine heartfelt feeling. I do believe your feelings count. But I've become hardened and, well, unyielding, on this issue after having read so many cruel, unkind, selfish people who think marriage is too sacred for loving gay couples and their children, but not so sacred that divorce and adultery, far greater threats to the institution of marriage, should in any way be legally curtailed. It's utter selfish hypocrisy, something I can't stand.
Let’s outlaw divorce and force couples with children to stay together until all the children reach 18. Let’s make it illegal to have a child out of wedlock. Let’s force divorced parents to remarry within six months or face losing their children. And widowed persons, like me, would get 12 months since we need time to grieve and regroup.
Either you really believe this, and would support it yourself, or you're just arguing like a 14 year old would. Which is it? Are you in favor of banning divorce?
people who think marriage is too sacred for loving gay couples and their children, but not so sacred that divorce and adultery, far greater threats to the institution of marriage
If you honestly believer that, then I'll ask you what you've asked me several times: Why aren't YOU working to outlaw divorce and adultery? Obviously these are "far greater threats" that impact far more people than a handful of gays.
So will you join me in the fight to end divorce and ensure that all children have a mother and a father of their own? Or are you just being facetious?
Marty, what people are pointing out is that NOM supporters are hypocrites and bigots. NOM wants to outlaw some forms of family that NOM feels is destructive, but NOM is not willing to outlaw other forms of families that NOM feels is destructive. Why is that?
Stephanie,
You have things very, very wrong.
How is NOM outlawing any form of family?
Me thinks you adding way to much hyperbole padding to your representation of other's positions.
Jeffrey notes:
They wait until marriage BECAUSE THEY CAN GET MARRIED!
They can and should get married, right? Because they have the possibility of having kids (meaning creating new life between them) and we want them to be prepared for that responsibility before hand.
This is a responsibility that means we target marriage to assist this directly.
As was noted elsewhere...
Jeffrey misses the irony in his own statement...
But I’ve become hardened and, well, unyielding, on this issue after having read so many cruel, unkind, selfish people who think marriage is too sacred for loving gay couples and their children, but not so sacred that divorce and adultery, far greater threats to the institution of marriage, should in any way be legally curtailed.
Emphasis mine.
Of course we know that divorce and adultery -- are not marriage. I don't see divorced couples asking for the same rights as marriage with the divorced spouse, nor adulterers for that matter.
Jeffrey, you are really driving a contradiction there, I won't disagree with that.
Stephanie, we fight the battles that are in front of us, not the ones entrenched behind enemy lines. Every social conservative I know is adamandly opposed to no-fault divorce and adultery, as well as out-of-wedlock sex and abortion. We DO fight these battles every chance we get.
But at the moment, only SSM is bringing up absurd court cases and constitutional amendments at every possible opportunity.
You complain that NOM is a single issue organization -- but I suspect you have no love for broader efforts like Focus on the Family or the Knights of Columbus either.
No, Marty, I’m not in favor of outlawing divorce and adultery, any more than I am in favor of outlawing marriage for same-sex couples, especially those with children. But if you and others want to make the argument that NOM purports to make, that marriage needs to be “protected,” then let’s go all the way and protect it: let’s make divorce and adultery, which often leads to divorce, illegal.
And if we’re just trying to create the best possible world for kids, because they’ll suffer without an on-premises mother and father, it’s even more reason to outlaw divorce. At least for couples with pre-majority age children. Call me crazy, but when couples divorce, one person usually goes somewhere else to live. This creates a dual household situation, which is less than optimal for children. It gets even crazier when the divorced pair starts dating other people. We cannot as a society permit this kind of less than optimal upbringing for our children. We must all come together and work to make divorce illegal. If only for the children. I suggest NOM take the lead here, and start gathering signatures for a ballot proposition in California. Maybe the Mormon church can kick in millions of dollars to help out.
I'm sure NOM appreciates your advice Jeff.
Jeffrey,
No, Marty, I’m not in favor of outlawing divorce and adultery, any more than I am in favor of outlawing marriage for same-sex couples, especially those with children.
No one here that I've read is contemplating either.
As Playful Walrus points out...
On Lawn: Marriage, as a religious, social, or legal institution has helped protect children and give them the best arrangement possible in which to be raised
I agree, but how do you/we answer the question about why then is marriage allowed for infertile heterosexual couples, or heterosexual couples who have no intention of raising a family?
Aren't childless, heterosexual marriages "meaningless" then?
I'm honestly asking, I'm not trying to argue. I can't bring a child into this world, so I'm struggling with whether or not I "deserve" the privilege of marriage.
but how do you/we answer the question about why then is marriage allowed for infertile heterosexual couples, or heterosexual couples who have no intention of raising a family?
It's called equality. You don't have to have children to marry -- but you DO have to meet the basic (slim, tiny even) requirements. Heck, even GAY people can and do manage to marry, just like everyone else does.
Marie,
I agree, but how do you/we answer the question about why then is marriage allowed for infertile heterosexual couples,
Theres a number of reasons. But probably the most humanitarian and salient is that people who suffer from infertility really suffer from a disability. And the millions that are pumped into fertility medicine show how much they struggle with that.
Do you want to cut them out? Do you want to set them out because of their disability?
I don't think you do. So the question remains to be asked, in relation to this discussion, is homosexuality a disability? My answer is no, so it does not afford the same exception. What is yours?
or heterosexual couples who have no intention of raising a family?
I know of more than a few who set out with no intention of having children that wound up having children. That is the nature of the human mating practice. I think their marriage is a noble venture to state that if a child happens, they are prepared to do the right thing and support the child and each other in raising the child.
Aren’t childless, heterosexual marriages “meaningless” then?
For the infertile couples, you cannot deny that they are certainly looking for something more...
But I'd not call it meaningless. I'd also not call any unmarried relationship meaningless. I don't see the two as correlating at all.
Marty - I do think I understand your position better now. I see where you're coming from, but I fundamentally disagree with you when it comes to the importance of having a mother and a father for children. The way I see it, there is so much diversity within the male and female populations, that there is not necessarily anything that a male and female can bring to a child's upbringing that a same-sex couple could not (except, of course, for the obvious fact of their gender). When I said that I believed same-sex parents could be just as good as a mother and a father, I meant just that.
That is, I do not wish to put it in such stark terms as to say that there is no option of "heterosexual loving parents". Of course, heterosexual loving parents are probably the majority of parents in the United States (at least, I hope so, since the majority are heterosexual). Instead, I would put a loving homosexual couple on an equal plane with a loving heterosexual couple as parents. Studies have shown that homosexual parents can be good parents and that children can grow up happy with homosexual parents, so why must these families still be considered "broken", just because there isn't a mother and a father? That said, I know you have good reasons for believing in the importance of a mother and father, I'm just trying to show you my perspective, and maybe expand your notion of non-broken families.
That said,, children are not the only important topic marriage brings to the table. What about the other rights of married couples? Shouldn't gay couples be allowed to visit each other in hospitals, etc. (you've heard this argument before, so I won't go on). You can say that civil unions can do this and they don't need marriage, but I think if you look at first-hand accounts, when it comes to crunch time in the hospitals gays who have civil unions are often denied their rights. These problems would disappear if same sex marriage became a regular part of our society.
On Lawn - You need to understand that same sex couples can have children (and i understand, they aren't both the biological parents) and can be good parents. Would you still be opposed to gay marriage if same sex couples were only allowed to adopt children, and provide children with loving homes when they would have none otherwise? Or do you care more about preserving the "integration of the sexes" than about creating loving family units?
You need to understand that same sex couples can have children (and i understand, they aren’t both the biological parents)
I realize you mean well, but honestly I doubt you've though this through. Can you really say that the care of a child (to you "have") makes a marriage. So can two sisters, or two friends, or a woman with two elderly benefactors. So can single parents.
Are those situations better off being called "marriage" for the sake of the children?
Or do you care more about preserving the “integration of the sexes” than about creating loving family units?
I don't think love of your own kind is the kind of love that really forms the basis of society. I think it is the love and integration with those different that becomes a truly tolerant and tempered society.
In short, I think anyone who complains that integration is bad and should be shunned because it may not have love in it, should talk once again to the civil rights leaders of the 60's.
Ultimately I think anyone who cares about children wants them to have the best chance at success in life. Other factors being equal, having two parents married to each other, instead of just two parents, is the more secure arrangement for children. If a same-sex couple choose to have children, society has good reasons to want to see this couple married, if only for the sake of the children. It's time to put personal and religious bigotry aside, for the sake of children.
Jeffrey, let me edit your comment, because it is no very far from my position...
The only change is a slight one, the fountain of life is the man and woman who create the child. They are the ones that share the heritage, identity with the child, and all else being equal the two best suited to build self-respect and teach tolerance to the child.
Thats a significant factor which is the baby which should not be thrown out with the traditional marriage bathwater...
Jeffrey said,
'Ultimately I think anyone who cares about children wants them to have the best chance at success in life. Other factors being equal, having two parents [ I agree, if you mean a Mother and a Father] married to each other, instead of just two parents, is the more secure arrangement for children.'
If a same-sex couple choose to have children... they have to do so in a laboratory environment, taking genetic material from outside the union, and they have to deny these children either a Mother or a Father.
Other things being equal, denying children a Mother and a Father does not make for a secure arrangement. Children long for and deserve BOTH. A broken home is broken precisely because of this.
'It’s time to put personal and religious bigotry aside, for the sake of children.' False labels won't silence everyone. Rather, Jeffrey, its time to put embitterment and personal adult interests aside- for the sake of the children.
On Lawn and MaryAnn, your arguments are against same-sex PARENTING, not same-sex marriage. The topic is same-sex marriage. I am not aware of any movement to stop same-sex couples from bearing and raising children. What we're talking about is society's interest in keeping adult parents of children together. Marriage tries to do that. Although in this day and age, it is far too easy to dissolve a marriage, it certainly does something to keep two adult parents together. And that's why it's crucial that same-sex couples, especially those with children or who intend to have children, need to have the right to marry.
On Lawn and MaryAnn, your arguments are against same-sex PARENTING, not same-sex marriage.
Depends. Parenting means creating children, in which there is no "against" state. Its like being against dehydrated water.
As far as raising children, (another way to take "parenting" or "have") I have no problem with that. There are many situations where people are raising children, sisters, mother-dauther pairs, even young women with elderly benefactors. I think we should include all of them in this discussion.
On Lawn and MaryAnn, your arguments are against same-sex PARENTING, not same-sex marriage. On Lawn and MaryAnn, your arguments are against same-sex PARENTING, not same-sex marriage.
You need to speak with someone you trust about how children are created. You seem confused.
I am for recognizing specifically the man-woman relationship in marriage, because those are both the mother and father. If you feel the same, you would support the same focus.
As far as movements, check out this site.
Jeffery said: "your arguments are against same-sex PARENTING, not same-sex marriage"
But Jeffery you have asserted that SSM is right because of the children. So you can't walk that back now.
Either you are wrong, and SSM is not really about children (neither same-sex parenting nor any other kind of parenting) or it is definitively about children and parenting.
Which argument suites you today?
* * *
You emphasize sexual orientation. Does this not mean that you acknowledge the significance of sex differntation when it comes to human relationships?
Sure, I think it must mean that. But maybe you meant something else.
Responsible procreation is a coherent set of principles and practices. It is embedded at the core of the social institution of marriage. You can't just dig that out of marriage and expect to leave the social institution intact.
The first principle of Responsible Procreation is expressed in the marital presumption of paternity.
The principle is that each of us, as part of a procreative duo, is responsible for the children we bring into this world. The man and the woman co-create their offspring. This principle is vigorously enforced in our family law traditions in this country. It is not a fluke or an accident of anti-gay discrimination.
Surely you can accept that much.
Well, the marital presumption of paternity is based on the opposite-sexed nature of human procreation: the husband is presumed the father of the children born to his wife during their marriage. Even the criteria for challenging this presumption are based on human procreation and not merely on intentionality or some sex-neutral concept of the origin of parental status.
We are born equal, of a man and a woman. It is profoundly significant.
Responsible Procreation begins even before the child is conceived -- we don't force people to engage in premarital sexual relations and nonmarital procreation BEFORE issuing a license to marry. But this principle is what people consent to when they enter marriage. It makes marriage a sexual type of relationship; and THAT makes marriage a public type of relationship. And all the rest hinges on this core.
Fatherhood and motherhood are integrated. This unity is the basis for the small community of family that arises from the union of husband and wife. And from this civilization rises and is sustained.
Surely you are not against this integration of the sexes -- not against the solidarity of motherhood and fatherhood, right?
Whatever the merits, and demerits, of the one-sexed arrangment, it is not a form of marriage.
We don't treat all unions of husband and wife as if they lacked one or the other.
Chairm: "Fatherhood and motherhood are integrated. This unity is the basis for the small community of family that arises from the union of husband and wife. And from this civilization rises and is sustained."
I certainly won't argue with this or your other points. All of which illustrate how SSM doesn't fit within the original, traditional intent of marriage.
But as someone pointed out, are there any *legal* reasons to prevent SSM? Even if we prove that SSM is outside the intent of "marriage," is that really enough to justify the courts or legislatures legally banning it?
Marie But as someone pointed out, are there any *legal* reasons to prevent SSM? Even if we prove that SSM is outside the intent of “marriage,” is that really enough to justify the courts or legislatures legally banning it?
Careful with the language here, because we aren't talking about "legally preventing SSM" or "banning it". We're talking about granting State Recognition of it. Or not.
Nobody's going to jail, and there are many churches that will "marry" homosexual couples, who can go home and act like husband and husband. It's no crime, and has been going on for a long time.
To add to Marty's points, Marie, I'd say that marriage is about marriage.
It is not about sexual orientation nor is it about identity politics. The racist kind of identity politics was repudiated but SSMers here would cloak their own gay identity politics under the reasoning of that repudiation.
In law and in social policy society can legitimately show preference for the foundational social institution of civilization. It is amazing that this has been placed in some doubt.
I've asked SSMers to distinguish SSM from all the other types of relationships and living arrangements which are clearly outside of marriage.
They can't come up with any distinctive features that they'd embed into the law governing SSM.
They deny there is a core meaning for SSM. They just want to climb onto the back of marriage and freeride.
If SSM has some great societal significance, something that advantages society to the extent that society must now become blind to sex integration and responsible procreation, then, the onus is on the SSMers to plainly state what it is.
They can't offer a core meaning other than to say that they insist that the nonmarital relationship they have in mind must now be equated with the union of husband and wife. This false equivalence is their core meaning for what they push on society.
It amounts to the assertion of supremacy for identity politics -- in this instance gaycentric identity politics -- and that's a threat to the liberty of all people, including those who sympathize with or support a milder version of gay identity politics.
No dissent will be tolerated. No opposition. This use of marriage for a nonmarriage purpose is not benign. It is meant to innoculate this form of politics.
Meanwhile, society can, and does, extend protections to families that experience certain vulnerabilities because they exist outside of marriage. This is comparable to a protective status.
While that is more than a merely tolerative status, it is not a preferential status. Again, I ask, what merits preferential treatment if not sex integration and responsible procreation combined at the core of our foundational social institution? If there is something that merits preferential status, SSMers have not plainly stated what they think it might be.
So, clearly, tolerance and protection is not the same thing as outlawing.
In California SSMers have domestic partnership but that's not enough, for some unstated reason. It is not about equality, obviously, if they mean to attack the core meaning of marriage for the sake of their supremacy over the marriage law.
Marie, I think I should also add that the core of marriage is not a tradition. There are universal features. But, yes, there are variable features which are expressed as traditions.
When marriage defenders use the term, traditional marriage, it is done in an effort to give a name to marriage -- in contradistinction with "gay marriage". The marriage law will recognize marriage, not different versions of marriage. But "traditional marriage" is a rhetorical device not to be taken literally.
I know, the whole marriage debate has too many semantic quibbles, but this one is a major point of difference.
As I've said, there is no gay requirement in laws that govern SSM. SSM is neither gay nor marriage. But it is one kind of arrangement within the wide range of nonmarital scenarios. Protection equality is far more merited than so-called "marriage equality" as SSMers say on their bumperstickers.
It is SSM argumentation that wants to empahsize sexual orientation and identity politics. Some marriage defenders respond to that by discussing their own views of homosexuality and gay identity. If SSMers want to base the relationship type they have in mind on 1) a license (thus making it a public type of relationship) and 2) same-sex sexual attaction/behavior, then, those views are invited and should not be chased out of the public square.
My invitation to SSMers to state the core meaning of the relationship type they have in mind -- call it marriage or whatever -- and then justify any boundaries that would run around that core meaning. If it has no core meaning, then, it does not merit a special status (marital status is a special or preferential status) -- tradition or no tradition.
On Lawn - Your comparison of same sex marriage to the segregation of the 1950s-1960s is laughable. By allowing same sex marriage you are in no way segregating the two genders as wholes. Marriages are about two individual people. Segregating in schools, on the other hand, was keeping two entire races of children apart from one another.
A better analogy would be to say that the "gender segregation" in gay marriage is equivalent to the "racial segregation" in a marriage between two white people or two black people. Are you going to say that when two white people decide to get marrying that they are discriminating against other races, and that by allowing their marriage to happen we are therefore segregating like in the 1950s? No. Because same sex marriage isn't institutional segregation. Don't try to pretend that civil rights leaders would be on your side, trying to oppress the minority of today's age.
One thing is very clear in these posts-regardless of what side of the issue you are on, the discussion runs the gamet of emotion. In the few times I have posted, albeit, rather inarticulate and perhaps circular, I have had to give myself a few moments to calm down before blogging, lest I be seen as a hot head and without the wherewithal to process, and then intimate, a counterblog or even a blog period. All of this is to say, if I have said anything to anyone that has been deemed offensive, I hereby apologize, lest again, I be seen as someone who is calloused and without concern for fellow bloggers. That doesn't change the fact of where I stand-in support of traditional marriage. Alas, I digress. Onto the blog, if you are still with me.
To all bloggers, my question(s) concerns that of: what is marriage anyway? Why was it instituted, and by whom? Also, what need was there to institute marriage in the first place? And, why was that need, whatever it may be, only seen as being fulfilled in a marriage of a man and a woman?
A better analogy would be to say that the “gender segregation” in gay marriage is equivalent to the “racial segregation” in a marriage between two white people or two black people.
You're forgetting the children who are living in gender segregated households. Familys founded on gender segregation.
Family -- which is what Marriage creates -- are about alot more than "two people".
It's cruel and unusual to deprive a kid of a father, simply because of your own gender bias.
Anyway the racial analogy fails because race is irrelevant to marriage, as the Loving court found -- what matters is gender.
"Orientation" is just as irrelevant as race in that regard and I'm certain the Loving court would have agreed.
Chairm says:
“But Jeffery you have asserted that SSM is right because of the children. So you can’t walk that back now. Either you are wrong, and SSM is not really about children (neither same-sex parenting nor any other kind of parenting) or it is definitively about children and parenting.
Which argument suits you today?”
Why must there be only one good reason for SSM to be legal? I’ve talked about the benefit to children because it appears that NOM wants to somehow connect opposite sex marriage with child-rearing. My point is, whatever benefit the children of opposite-sex married couples receive, the children of same-sex parents deserve no less.
As is becoming all too common on this thread, Chairm, your arguments relate to PARENTING not marriage. The whole “children need a father and a mother” relates to parenting, not marriage. You’re falling for Ms. Gallagher’s attempt to equate marriage and parenting. Any of these parenting arguments could similarly be used against intentionally single mothers or fathers, divorced or widowed parents (like me) who don’t remarry, or unmarried heterosexual parents. It’s a completely dishonest attempt to tarnish same-sex couples. Marriage is an institution that creates a solid legal connection between two people. That more solid relationship benefits children in the care of those two married adults. That doesn’t make those two people better parents, regardless of their gender.
Marty says:
"It’s cruel and unusual to deprive a kid of a father, simply because of your own gender bias."
I agree. So let's make it illegal for single women to visit a sperm bank and conceive a child without a clear and present father. Let's force widowed women with children to remarry within 12 months of their husband's death. Let's force married couples with children to stay married and/or live under the same roof until all minor children are grown.
Let's hold heterosexual parents to the same high standards we want to hold homosexual couples to.
Chairm says:
“If SSM has some great societal significance, something that advantages society to the extent that society must now become blind to sex integration and responsible procreation, then, the onus is on the SSMers to plainly state what it is.”
Actually, it’s society’s burden to determine why a state can issue a marriage license to some adult couples and not to others. The notion that a married couple must be of opposite sexes has not been very well explained, especially considering that no one appears to object to the formation and legitimacy of same-sex adult couples in the first place, nor the right of these couples to bear and/or raise children.
“It amounts to the assertion of supremacy for identity politics — in this instance gaycentric identity politics — and that’s a threat to the liberty of all people, including those who sympathize with or support a milder version of gay identity politics.”
It does no such thing. It amounts to Equal Protection: that the law cannot treat different groups differently in the application of the law. Mixed race couples didn’t want “supremacy,” they wanted equality. Same for same-sex couples.
“No dissent will be tolerated. No opposition. This use of marriage for a nonmarriage purpose is not benign. It is meant to innoculate this form of politics.”
Why do you expect a warm welcome for your attempts at forcing your hate/fear or religion based views on others? You’re trying to stop same-sex couples, even those with children, from enjoying the same legal relationship you want for yourself. It’s utterly selfish. Why should it go unopposed by those of us with a stronger sense of social equality and justice???
“In California SSMers have domestic partnership but that’s not enough, for some unstated reason. It is not about equality, obviously, if they mean to attack the core meaning of marriage for the sake of their supremacy over the marriage law.”
The law has little tolerance for “separate but equal” accommodations. There’s no good reason to have two separate institutions, civil unions and marriage, that reach the same destination. It’s like separate water fountains for whites and blacks. Or separate schools. I have no idea what your “core meaning” concept, which you mention repeatedly, is supposed to mean. Similarly, “supremacy over the marriage law” requires explanation.
Jeffrey:
I agree. So let’s make it illegal for single women to visit a sperm bank and conceive a child without a clear and present father.
Yep. Let's do that.
Let’s force widowed women with children to remarry within 12 months of their husband’s death.
Ridiculous. Death leaves a kid fatherless, but it's not done on purpose. Well, if it is it's called murder.
Let’s force married couples with children to stay married and/or live under the same roof until all minor children are grown.
Nah -- even kids with divorced parent's still have a mother and a father.
But intentionally creating a fatherless child? Yeah, the closest analogy is murder.
But Marty, we really want to create the best possible environment for children. That's what NOM bases its opposition to SSM on. Any widowed parent who is so selfish as to not want the best for their children should be punished. The death of the spouse may not be intentional, but not remarrying certainly is. And divorce clearly compromises the relationship between the two parents. Kids often blame themselves for the divorce, rightly or wrongly. So let's outlaw divorce for people with children. Let's force widows to remarry, to ensure a viable opposite sex parental influence.
It's all for the best for children. I recommend that NOM expand its mission so that it truly can benefit children and their inalienable right to two parents of opposite sexes.
Jeffrey: It amounts to Equal Protection: that the law cannot treat different groups differently in the application of the law.
I think the point is that some people feel that a legally recognized "commitment between two consenting adults" isn't the same thing as a "commitment between a man and woman often for the purpose of biological procreation."
That perhaps yes, a "commitment between two consenting adults" should be recognized as an institution, but rewards and benefits should be structured specifically for that sort of relationship - rather than expand and dilute an existing institution to encompass relationships it wasn't intended for.
Marie says:
“I think the point is that some people feel that a legally recognized “commitment between two consenting adults” isn’t the same thing as a “commitment between a man and woman often for the purpose of biological procreation.””
Those people who think that are certainly within their rights to do so. I know I don’t really think of two 20-somethings getting married for the first time as the same thing as two elderly widowed persons remarrying after losing their spouses. Yet both are legally called marriage. I think there’s a big difference between being against something and making it illegal. Why can’t people who are against SSM be satisfied to be against it, not engage in it, but let others who think it’s the right thing to do, go ahead and do it.
“That perhaps yes, a “commitment between two consenting adults” should be recognized as an institution, but rewards and benefits should be structured specifically for that sort of relationship - rather than expand and dilute an existing institution to encompass relationships it wasn’t intended for.”
I don’t understand how SSM “expands and dilutes” marriage. I presume those are negative things. Yet if we’re concerned about the well-being of the institution of marriage, shouldn’t we turn our attention to adultery, which often degrades a marital relationship, and divorce, which literally destroys a marriage? Arguing against SSM is like saying that it’s terrible to paint one’s house green, but that it’s no big deal to burn your house down. No serious person thinks divorce should be illegal, even though it literally destroys a marriage, and, for Christians, Christ is clearly against it. Why must the perceived Biblical prohibition against SSM be enshrined in law, while Christ’s specific and frequent condemnations against divorce have no effect on the legality of divorce?
Jeffrey: I don’t understand how SSM “expands and dilutes” marriage.
I guess the argument would be that it's intent and definition becomes less specific with SSM, going from celebrating a male/female union specifically, to celebrating a commitment between ANY two people.
That's not necessarily a BAD thing though is it? It's kinda sweet to see love celebrated in all it's forms, even if we have to move beyond traditional intents and definitions to do so.
I have to apologize to you, I realize it must be aggravating and painful for you to hear some of the things being said here, myself included at times.
The more we talk though, the more I see how my own insecurities (oh believe me, I have my own problems to work through, lol) make me want to keep that male/female distinction clear... but for personal, selfish purposes really.
And that's really not fair to you or other loving SS couples, is it?
Marie, I'm a widowed straight middle-aged man. I'm not in a SS relationship. There is a lesbian couple two doors down from me, who are raising two boys and who are quite personable and talkative about SSM. I was gay-friendly before they moved in, but knowing them has furthered my understanding of their predicament as a same-sex couple.
I'm not personally affected by this issue but I have the capacity, as I assume most people do, to see that what's right for me isn't necessarily what's right for someone else. I couldn't care less if there are people who are against SSM. What causes concern is that there are people who think it should be illegal, all while enjoying the benefits of marriage for themselves. There's a line that's been crossed and it ain't pretty. For those against same-sex marriage, or any kind of marriage, avoid it for yourself. Just let others participate.
Jeffery said: "Any of these parenting arguments could similarly be used against intentionally single mothers or fathers, divorced or widowed parents (like me) who don’t remarry, or unmarried heterosexual parents."
Close but not quite right.
Marriage is a social institution. It is accorded a special status in our customs, traditions, and laws. That is due to its core meaning.
The scenarios you described (well some of them) are part of the nonmarital trends that should cause concern for all of us, no matter whether in favor of SSM or not.
The SSM campaign tries to portray the defense of marriage as an attempt to tarnish nonmarital families. This is not so.
You mentioned widows for example. Responsible procreation's first principle is that each of us is responsible, as part of a procreative duo, to the children we bring into this world -- barring dire circumstances or tragedy. The death of a husband or a wife is a tragedy that often brings dire circumstances.
It is not the equivalent of a one-sexed scenario which deliberately creates a child for a fatherless or motherless home and family. Now, a one-sexed scenario could be a lone individual or a twosome or a moresome. Choosing to segregate fatherhood from motherhood is anti-thetical to the core meaning of marriage. Such a choice is an act of will to create its own cirlcumstance; it is not the product of a dire circumstance or a tragedy.
I don't think that the loss of a father or a mother -- the loss of a wife or a husband -- due to death is the ethical, legal, moral equivalent of choosing to disunite motherhood and fatherhood. Do you?
Jeffery said: "Let’s hold heterosexual parents to the same high standards we want to hold homosexual couples to."
The marital presumption of paternity is such a standard and it is vigorously enforced. It is not based on sexual orientation. It is based on the opposite-sexed nature of human procreation. As such, it protects men and women who were once married, had children, and are now living in same-sex households of one kind or another.
See, that's how equality works with the core meaning of marriage.
Jeffery said: "it’s society’s burden to determine why a state can issue a marriage license to some adult couples and not to others."
Okay, please justify the boundaries of marriage.
Why can some related people marry but not all related people? Why some previously married people but not all previously married people? Why some underaged people but not all underaged people?
In other words, why some consenting adults but not all consenting adults?
You have taken on the burden to show how the boundaries around marriage are sustainable within SSM arugmentation.
I don't think you can do it without plainly stating the core meaning around which such boundaries would run.
Civilizations have had various boundaries -- some more grey than others -- but always around the societal concerns for sex integration, responsible procreation, and these combined as a coherent whole (i.e. as a social institution of civil society). Protocols, regulations, traditions, and the like are reflected in the laws of each culture. These are adaptations to the core of marriage itself.
You would disregard that core but you have also assumed the burden of justifying the exlcusion of some people.
Jeffery said: "The law has little tolerance for “separate but equal” accommodations."
You keep invoking this bumpersticker mentality.
I don't mean to pick on you Jeffery, as many if not most SSMers do this.
Two sexes. Mixing the sexes.
This is now to be equated with subdividing humankind into subspecies and barring the mixture of "races".
There is one human race and its nature is two-sexed. The essence of human procreation is the combining of opposite sexes. The nature -- or the essentials -- of human community is the integration of both sexes.
So this "seperate is not equal" bumpersticker stuff contradicts all of that.
SSM argumentation would use marriage for the purpose of giving special status to the selective segregation of the sexes under the auspices of marital status. That's like calling sex segregation the new sex integration.
SSM arugmentation often disparages the mixing of sexual orientations in marriage. To hear and read SSMers is to witness the proposed social taboo on such mixed marriages.
So SSM is about using the law for sex segregation and using social taboo for segregating based on sexual orientation.
The man-woman basis of marriage does neither.
The racist analogy of SSM arugmentation is profoundly flawed.
Marie @ Posted May 30, 2009 at 12:09 pm, thank you for accurately representing the actual disagreement.
There is a legitimate concern about protections for people whose families are outside of marriage.
But "protection equality" suffices and does not require the attack on the core of marriage that the SSM campagin has undertaken.
Indeed, even in places like Massachusetts, the localized merger of SSM with marriage is far less inclusive than protection equality.
The range of nonmarital families is far wider than "consenting adults" in sexualized arrangements. It includes millions more than gay and lesbian people in relationships.
Same-sex householding (a category broader than SSM or Civl Union or Domestic Partnership) is something in which maybe 10% of the adult homosexual segment of society participates. It is a marginal practice even within the openly gay and lesbian population. So this merger of SSM with marriage would exlude the vast majority of people in that "classification".
It is not a good vehicle for carrying protections to people outside of marriage.
Chairm
No worries, I don’t feel picked upon. “Separate but equal” is hardly a “bumper sticker” mentality: ask a black man or woman who is old enough to have experienced having to use a separate drinking fountain or separate restrooms. The Supreme Court’s 1953 decision in Brown v. Board of Education, Topeka, is considered a major milestone in American jurisprudence, and codifed the law’s objection to “separate but equal” legislation. It is unlikely that two separate laws, one describing civil unions and one describing marriage, both with identical obligations and privileges, would withstand judicial scrutiny, especially when intended for two separate groups.
You say:
“There is one human race and its nature is two-sexed. The essence of human procreation is the combining of opposite sexes. The nature — or the essentials — of human community is the integration of both sexes.”
Marriage is no way requires procreation. That has become a suddenly important feature of marriage as a way to defend against same-sex couples, who cannot reproduce using “conventional” approaches. No serious person argues that an infertile man or woman shouldn’t be allowed to marry. What marriage actually does is create a legal relationship for a couple. While most couples form based on opposite-sex sexual attraction, some couples form based on same-sex sexual attraction. Since no one appears to object to the formation of these same-sex couples, it is hard to argue that they should be denied the same legal protections as opposite-sex couples.
Jeffrey: Marriage is no way requires procreation. That has become a suddenly important feature of marriage as a way to defend against same-sex couples...
Well, I *think* the argument goes something like this. I'm not saying I actually agree with the following, but this is the argument as I understand it:
1) The states currently have marriage requirements based on an expectation of procreation (consent, distance of genetics, and in most states: opposite sexes)
2) Therefore, the states apparently intended the civil institution of marriage to be used as a vehicle for creating stable, male/female relationships for the biological bearing and raising of children. Not required, but intended
3) The state takes a calculated risk when granting the institution to all (qualified) opposite-sex couples, as not all can or will produce children. But since couples may change their mind, medical advances may make it possible for infertile couples, etc., it's "worth it" for states to cast a wide net. And in any case, the state wants to recognize and reward the (biological) parenting dynamic, whether actual, potential or representative
4) Since same-sex couples don't represent that biological parenting dynamic, they fall outside of the original intent of marriage, and thus marriage isn't an appropriate institution to protect same-sex committed couples
Again, I'm just playing devil's advocate here, it's not necessarily my personal opinion. In fact, I think it's possible NOM may be making a false assumption when they imply that the state "invented" the institution to encourage anything.
NOM seems to be implying that the state gives marriage it's meaning, and so if the state redefines what marriage means, it redefines what all our marriages mean.
But I'm beginning to think it's US who bring our own meaning and definition to a framework which the state provides. Expanding that framework to be more inclusive doesn't change the "meaning" of my marriage, as I've brought that meaning to it myself. The civil institution is just a tool, a framework to work within.
If the civil benefits of marriage were tailored to parenting, I'd be more inclined to insist that SS couples require their own institution to protect and encourage their commitments. But since the "rewards" of marriage are legal and financial, I don't see any point in making a distinction.
Rather than "inventing" marriage, it seems to me the states merely recognized and embraced how people were already bonding at the time. The state adapted to what the people were already doing and regulated it for it's own benefit - it didn't sit down and "invent" an institution to encourage mating.
And now the times have changed. Gays were forming relationships way back in our (american) history too, but they were silent about it. Now that they're speaking up, maybe it's time that the state again recognize what's already happening with it's citizens, and expand/redefine it's institution accordingly?
Marie, I think you have presented the most reasonable explanation for the state’s role in marriage: that of regulation. I think you’re correct: the state got involved in regulating marriage, because marriage was essentially a commercial transaction, and wives were property. Talk about the definition of marriage changing! Can you imagine a woman today agreeing to be her husband’s property? While some women today agree to be subservient to their husbands in accordance with biblical instructions, even most Christian women expect to be an equal partner in the marriage, and not property. We even changed the marriage vow from, “I now pronounce you man and wife [i.e., the female property of the man]” to the more common “husband and wife.” Of course, we always put the male role first, because we can’t completely give up on the idea of male dominance LOL.
I think it’s really important to distinguish between the experience and value of marriage, from who gets to participate. Obviously, the law makes that distinction. Otherwise, divorce wouldn’t be available, and legal. I mean, if marriage is substantially defined as between one male and one female, then the only valid reason to divorce would be that one of the persons in the marriage had a sex change operation! And there must be more to getting married than merely being of different sexes, because otherwise, any male and any female would be happy to marry any other female or male so long as the opposite-sex pairing requirement was met. Clearly, couples require other things before they agree to marry someone. That tells me that “opposite-sexness” may not be the most important institutional requirement for marriage. In fact, it seems to me, gender considerations are really a personal consideration, not an institutional consideration. As rare as it might be, a marriage does not automatically get dissolved if, during the course of a marriage, one person has a sex change operation, resulting in a same-sex couple. There is such a couple in the community next to mine. They were interviewed in a local paper, and the wife wants to remain in the marriage despite her husband’s conversion to an anatomical female. Although same-sex marriage is illegal in Michigan, where I live, the article said that their marriage would not automatically be dissolved when Steve’s (now going by Stephanie) transformation to anatomical female was complete.
Jeffrey: As rare as it might be, a marriage does not automatically get dissolved if, during the course of a marriage, one person has a sex change operation, resulting in a same-sex couple
True, but it's also not universally valid anymore either. Assuming the couple lives in a non-SSM state, each agency, company or institution can then decide whether they recognize the "marriage" or not, pointing out that the state doesn't recognize same-sex unions as "marriage."
In other words, "it's valid until it's not." The couple will merely "get away with it" until someone notices the conflict and has a motive to point it out.
Jeffery, the bumpersticker mentality I referred to is in the SSM campaign's stretching of the racist analogy.
Brown v. Board of Education was poorly reasoned, even if it produced a desirable conclusion.
Due to its poor reasoning the court became mired in the administration of school bussing and the like. It also was an example of the abuse of judicial review and has set a really lousy example for subsequent court decisions. It has taught the wrong lessons about how courts function in a constitutional republican form of government.
A just outcome could have been reached with judicial restraint and and adherence to the text of the Constitution.
No, I don't agree that Brown v. Board of Education is the right model for deciding constitutional matters.
Jeffery said:
"Marriage is no way requires procreation. That has become a suddenly important feature of marriage as a way to defend against same-sex couples, who cannot reproduce using “conventional” approaches."
You may not realize it, yet, but what you just said is a huge distortion of the actual disagreement regarding the centrality of procreation in marriage.
First, marriage is a social institution. It is not merely a private arrangement. Its meaning is expressed in the universal features that have persisted across cultural, relgious (and pan-religious/nonreligious), lines. This is not a fluke. Nor is it arbitrary.
Marriage requires consent to all that it entails. People who enter the social institution ought to know what they are walking into. Married people are not a little bit married. They are married and consent to all that this entails -- including the marital presumption of paternity.
This is based on the joining together of fatherhood and motherhood. This is a universal feature. It is not some new concept or practice.
Your remarks about infertility are standard boilerplate SSM argumentation. But that elides the actual disgreement.
To illustrate, surely you do not now claim that homosexuality is a disability.
Further, the lack of one or the other sex is NOT infertility.
If you insist on discussing this subtopic, let's settle on one comment section and keep it there. It has been discussed, at length, in previous comment sections so you might want to take a look under the ealier blogposts. That way we can avoid repeating ground already well-covered.
Marie said, in part, that:
"imply that the state “invented” the institution to encourage anything."
That is not the implicatoin. Marriage is foundational to civilizaton. It is not owned by the government nor is it created by the government. Marriage is pre-political; it is pre-government; and I mean this even today. Marriage is the foundation upon which we build and sustain civilization. Marriage is a form of self-governance and it models the societal need for a governing authority. It is the first community, based on the union of the sexes and the profound need to care for children whose birthright is protected by mom-dad rather than by the state. The state's authority is dervied from civil society; not the other way around.
Jeffery said:
" I mean, if marriage is substantially defined as between one male and one female, then the only valid reason to divorce would be that one of the persons in the marriage had a sex change operation!"
Heh. Okay, your sense of humor is still intact. I appreciate the hyperbole. It is good to share a chuckle now and again in these kinds of discussions.
Jeffery said:
"And there must be more to getting married than merely being of different sexes, because otherwise, any male and any female would be happy to marry any other female or male so long as the opposite-sex pairing requirement was met. Clearly, couples require other things before they agree to marry someone. That tells me that “opposite-sexness” may not be the most important institutional requirement for marriage."
Just by realizing that there is a difference between the heterosexual category, the opposite-sex category, anbd the marraige eligibility category means that you are getting closer to recognizing the need to understand the core meaning of the social institution of marriage.
It is not a purely private relationshp with a purely private meaning.
The criteria for eligibility hinge on societal concerns for something that defines marriage itself.
To define is to identify the features or elements which, when combined, distinguish marriage from the rest.
To define also means to set limitations -- i.e. eligibility criteria.
The limitations will vary in terms of degree but marriage always has limitations. And these are always based on what marriage actually is -- its essentials without which society could not distinguish marriage from the rest.
So, in that context, look at SSM and explain what are the essentials -- the combination that is universal for all instances where a place has enacted or imposed SSM in the law. This is a recent innovation that has occured in several places so you can cite their laws if these illustrate the relationship type, at law, that you have in mind. Maybe these places have fallen short and you would add some other legal criteria to define it or to set its eligibility limitations.
Chairm
“No, I don’t agree that Brown v. Board of Education is the right model for deciding constitutional matters.”
I didn’t ask if you agree with it. I was stating a fact: that it has become a landmark decision that creates a huge impediment to the creation of two identical statutes with two different names: civil unions and marriages.
You keep talking about parenting issues. I don’t know if you’re just avoiding the obvious point but I’ll state it again. Nowhere in any marriage statute is there a requirement that a married couple become parents. Similarly, in not a single state must a person be married to bear and/or raise a child. Nor is there any legal requirement for a person who is a single parent to seek out an opposite sex person to exert an opposite sex influence on a child. How is marriage a requirement of parenting, and vice versa? Marriage is about the couple, not their children.
“Your remarks about infertility are standard boilerplate SSM argumentation”
Standard boilerplate or not, my remarks about infertility negate the argument that marriage is about procreation. If it were, marriage statutes would so state, and states would deny infertile couples the right to marry. No state does this, not one. Ergo, no procreation requirement. Nobody’s marriage dissolves if no children appear within a certain amount of time.
“To illustrate, surely you do not now claim that homosexuality is a disability.”
No, homosexuality is not a disability. It is a normal variation in human sexuality. Just as being left-handed is a normal variation of human dexterity.
“Marriage is foundational to civilizaton.”
I agree. That’s why same-sex couples, especially those with children, should not only be permitted to marry but they should be encouraged and expected to do so. Social stability is important.
“It is not owned by the government nor is it created by the government.”
You better tell that to the government. They issue the marriage licenses. I challenge you to portray yourself as a married person on, say, your federal tax forms, when in fact you don’t possess a marriage license. It is because the government gets to say who can marry and who can’t that we’re having this discussion.
“Marriage is the foundation upon which we build and sustain civilization.”
If this is true, then your time is better spent blogging about the evils of adultery and divorce, rather than same-sex marriage. Same-sex couples are proponents of marriage and its benefits; they’re your allies. It’s people who engage in divorce (Rush Limbaugh, darling of the conservative, “pro-family” types, has been divorced THREE times!) who want to wreck civilization. It is peculiar, to say the least, to argue that an institution is crucial to society, but only some people may be permitted to participate.
“[Marriage] is based on the union of the sexes and the profound need to care for children whose birthright is protected by mom-dad rather than by the state.”
I disagree. Marriage is based on the human propensity to form couples, and a desire to protect those couples. As stated before, the benefits of marriage to children are the same for gay and for straight couples: stability.
Jeffery said:
"a landmark decision that creates a huge impediment to the creation of two identical statutes with two different names: civil unions and marriages."
Ah, so you rely on the abuse of judicial review.
And, yeap, merging marriage with nonmarriage is not justifiable.
Jefferey,
Your use of boilerplate does not make advance your argument in favor of SSM.
But you have now invoked certain rules that are stuck on stupid. By this I mean, your rules would destroy your claim for SSM.
The rules are:
1. If (fill-in the blank) is not a legal requirement, then, it is not an essential feature of marriage, at law.
Use that on your own assertions about SSM. See what survives, if anything.
2. If (fill-in the blank) occurs oustide of marriage, it is not an essential feature of marriage, at law.
Again, use your own stated standards to test your own claims about SSM.
All you'd be left with is some vague notion that consenting adults may consent -- but to what?
Meanwhile we do have definitive legal requirements which you dislike and so try to brush aside.
Such as the marital presumption of paternity and the man-woman criterion; and the various provisions that flow from these essentials, such as those for consummation, adultlery, and annulment.
Like I've said before, the rules for eligibility are not arbitrary; not all consenting adults are eligible but the lines are drawn based on the core meaning of marriage itself. Abandon that core, and what is left?
The rules you invoked do not provide guidance and are self-defeating for they would destroy your arguments in favor of SSM.
* * *
Being left-handed does not require losing one's other hand. The human form is not one-handed.
Jeffery said:
"Social stability is important."
Hence the societal significance of sex integration and responsible procreation which combine at the center of the social institution of marriage.
This is what makes marriage an influence of social stability; this is what makes marriage a foundational social institution.
But that does not fit SSM, by your own admission via the insistance that this is not relevant to your support of merging SSM with marriage.
* * *
The issue is not merely marriage licenses. For you and others have insisted that the relationship type you have in mind is defined personally. Marriage is a public type of relationship, not a private agreement. Hence society, via the authority delegate to government, is party to each marriage.
The societal significance of marriage is recognized by government, not created nor owned by government.
Chairm:
Where are you getting this "core meaning" of marriage argument? The Bible? The Oxford dictionary? Our government? Who's to say what exactly the core meaning of marriage is and if there is such a thing, shouldnt it be fluid just like everything else in life?
If society refused to budge on anything we'd still be having slaves, refusing women the right to vote, etc.
Jeffery said:
"It is peculiar, to say the least, to argue that an institution is crucial to society, but only some people may be permitted to participate."
Is this your way of proposing the abolishment of eligibility criteria?
I read in your remarks that you wish to abolish the core meaning of marriage and would rather leave it in the ownership of Government, but I had thought you might still agree that not all consenting adults ought to be eligible.
What makes marriage crucial to society is what marriage defenders defend.
We've been doing that long before SSM was pushed to the top of the agenda via the SSM campaign.
The nonmarital trends appeared to be stalling, if not slightly reversing, but then along comes this goofy argument for SSM which has sucked all the oxygen out of the room.
SSM argumentation reinforces the divorce culture and the other nonmarital trends. It does zilch to stall nor to reverse any of these negatives. And where it has been enacted or imposed -- even for more than a decade -- it has not become normative among the adult homosexual population. It is a marginal practice and participation rates are very, very low and declining.
If (or in my veiw when) SSM fails as a social influence on gay and lesbian people, that segment of the population will not even blink. Because it is not even so highly valued in its own right. It is valued as a vehicle to innoculate gay identity politics. That accomplished, if it is indeed impose don society, the success or failure of SSM, as a normative influence, will be of no real consequence to the homosexual population.
But blinding government, and blinding the culture, to the core meaning of marriage will have consequences. SSM would lock-in the negative trends already gaining rapidly in the past ten years or so. And that trajectory will be important to all of society -- including the homosexual segment. Most of all, it will be very difficult to undo once entrenched as SSMers hope for it to become entrenched.
Not to come completely out of left field with this one..but why NOT throw away the "elligibility criteria" of marriage (as you put it)?
Marriage, after all, should be free to everyone regardless of race gender or sexual orientation...
It's not like taxes or something, where if you make enough money if you get lumped into a certain group. Or a driver's license where you have to pass tests, be a certain age, etc. It's not a black or white aspect of life you should have to "qualify" for.
The only reason people bring up the elligibilty argument is to say that marriage is somehow "sacred" or "special". And if that REALLY were the case, then there would be MORE requirements to be enforced (age for one, so that 17 year olds cant get married--or the elimination of divorce--if marriage IS sacred right?)
Chairm
You think the Iowa Supreme Court, all married and presumably heterosexual, abused the Iowa Equal Protection clause in reaching their decision?? All seven?? It was a unanimous decision!
“If (fill-in the blank) is not a legal requirement, then, it is not an essential feature of marriage, at law.”
I never said this. Love is a feature of (most) marriages but you don’t have to be in love to get married. “Taking vacations together” is pretty common among married couples, but the law doesn’t require it. I think you have a layered, complex view of marriage, as do I. Where we part ways is in who gets to participate in it. You think marriage is defined, in part, by who participates. Well, could you please tell Rush Limbaugh to “stop participating”?! He’s giving marriage a bad name, with his three divorces. Which brings up an interesting question: should a person who keeps getting divorced (Rush has three divorces under his belt) be cut off at some point? Is it “marriage abuse” at some point? What respect is shown to the institution of marriage if there is no objection to a heterosexual person who clearly isn’t good at it, all while objecting to the lesbian couple getting married who have been together for 15 years?
What are they consenting to? Consenting adults are consenting to be married to each other. It’s no more complex than that. Once they do that, they get a marriage license, possibly have a wedding, and then enjoy/suffer the ups and downs, and ins and outs of marriage.
“Such as the marital presumption of paternity and the man-woman criterion”
Only you presume paternity and a male-woman requirement. Many of us don’t presume them. That forms the basis for the discussion I guess. I can’t come up with any good reasons why an adult same-sex couple can’t be allowed to marry. I can think of a number of reasons why NOT permitting them to marry is illegal, immoral, unjust, discriminatory, arbitrary and not in society’s interest.
“Like I’ve said before, the rules for eligibility are not arbitrary.”
No, they’re not. Both persons should be adult, and consenting. Beyond that, I don’t have strong convictions. I always think it’s better for children to have married parents but I wouldn’t require parents to be married.
“Marriage is a public type of relationship, not a private agreement”
How? What if I don’t tell anyone I’m married? Can the public stop me from marrying, if I meet the eligibility requirements? How does this impact SSM?
“I read in your remarks that you wish to abolish the core meaning of marriage and would rather leave it in the ownership of Government, but I had thought you might still agree that not all consenting adults ought to be eligible.”
I absolutely endorse the core meaning of marriage! In fact, that’s why it’s so hard for me to stand by and watch others withhold marriage from certain couples. The core meaning isn’t about gender or parenting, it’s about love and commitment. In fact, I’d put commitment ahead of love. But it’s also the companionship, the trust, the partnership, etc. These are the things of marriage, and they can be enjoyed by both opposite-sex and same-sex couples. Marriage must mean something more important than merely being opposite-gendered. Otherwise any male could marry any female and be happily married. And unless their genders changed, no opposite-sex couple would ever divorce.
“SSM argumentation reinforces the divorce culture and the other nonmarital trends.”
Actually it has the opposite effect. If homosexual persons, longing for companionship and security, can freely marry other homosexuals, they might not be drawn into ill-fated marriages with heterosexuals that end in divorce.
Your scenarios of doom and gloom should SSM become widely available are I think unfounded. Easy divorce is the real threat to marriage. How will you know if/when SSM fails? When the divorce rate among gay couples is as bad as it is among straight couples? When it comes to marriage, you are trying to save the doghouse when the house is engulfed in flames and burning to the ground. In case that metaphor isn’t clear, SSM is small potatoes compared to pre-marital sex, unpunished adultery and legal divorce in terms of threats to marriage and society.
Jeffrey: What are they consenting to? Consenting adults are consenting to be married to each other. It’s no more complex than that.
Can I give you a virtual hug, lol? I keep sitting here, frustrated at not being able to put into words what's bothering me, and you keep finding ways to express things I'm thinking so clearly and patiently... even though you apparently have no "stake" in all this. So just... thank you
Bear with me as this post will be lengthy and rather verbous, but I can no longer stand by idly, as so many do, and not take a stand.
If marriage is no more a civil institution summed up by the phrase, "a loving, committed relationship," then I guess all the couples who co-habitate intending to marry should then be considered in this category of marriage. Oh, that's right. They have the ever-popular Common-Law Marriage applied to them. just in case. Also, why not include life-long partners that occur in nature outside of humans? Wouldn't that qualify as well? The point is-marriage must specifically be defined lest it become devoid of any meaning whatsoever. Moreover, if marriage is to become an umbrella term for all manner and forms of coupling, then lets call an apple an orange. Maybe even left right? In other words, marriage must only refer to that of male/female union since that is how it was instituted by God from the very beginning. Oops, I did it. I invoked God into this discussion. I can do no other as a Christian(Biblically based) for God is the One who created us male and female, and instituted marriage afterward (Genesis 1:27 and 2:24).
I know, I know. Some will say I am imposing my beliefs/convictions onto you. Not really, unless there is Truth to what I post. Last time I checked, too, this blog is completely and totally volunteer, so the exchange of dissenting voices is permitted and encouraged.
I will agree, though, there are some male/female couples that shouldn't get married in the first place. That is tantamount to this discussion. In fact, when Jesus was asked about divorce, due to His response, some concluded that it would be better off to not marry (Matthew 19:1-12). Additionally, in Jesus' response to the question about divorce, He said, "Haven't you read that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female.'" "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh." "So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore, what God has joined together, let no man put asunder." Jesus continues onto say that the only reason divorce is ever granted is in the case of infidelity. Also, He said that it was due to the hardness of our hearts that divorce was even permitted, but that it was never God's intention in the beginning. In other words, Jesus' own definition of marriage recognizes only that of the male and female variety as that is how we were created. Additionally, divorce was never, and let me repeat that, never a part of God's original plan, but that due to our hearts being calloused to God and His plan, divorce was granted, but then, only in the case of infidelity (adultery).
While on the subject of divorce and adultery, why and how are they a threat to marriage? They only are if the couple thinks that is an option to begin with, otherwise, neither should even be a factor. The argument will be, he has changed since being married, or she isn't the person I married? So then, you want out because of x,y,z. Give me a break. It is not like the marriage just all of a sudden fell apart. If so, then there was no foundational support from the get go. If a couple can't survive hardaches, hardships, and the such like, then why get married? Mostly, as has been pointed out by others, for financial stability. Although, I agree with that in part, I don't in total as marriage has to be more than just the sum of its parts. Otherwise, no one would marry or be encouraged to marry. Am I encouraging that couples live together (co-habitate), by no means. What I am suggesting is that we rethink the ramifications of marriage before doing so lest we continue down this quagmiric puddle and all marriages are annulled and no longer valid under new stipulations that the gov't, state, overseeing body seem happy to apply at their whim.
Again, some will say I am a bigot, intolerant, out-of-step with the times, old-fashioned, discriminatory, a hater, a sexist, a hypocrite, and so on and so forth. Why and how? Because I stand up for marriage as only between a man and a woman and til death do us part. If that is the case, then call me what you will, as I know some will. It doesn't change anything. If anything, it only gives credence to God's plan and purpose for His creation.
Nicholas: Again, some will say I am a bigot, intolerant, out-of-step with the times, old-fashioned, discriminatory, a hater, a sexist, a hypocrite, and so on and so forth
Not at all Nicholas, you just spoke your opinion. I agree with most of what you say, at least in terms of how *I* think of marriage. Being heterosexual, and since I kinda worship the the whole male/female relationship idea, this would be the meaning *I* bring to marriage.
The catch though is since we're talking about the secular, civil institution of marriage granted by the state - and not how churches should define it - I'm not comfortable with making my personal, somewhat spiritual opinion into a law everyone else must follow.
I keep coming back to the idea that it's the state's job to provide a reasonable "framework" for committed couples to bond legally, and then up to us to define what each of our relationships mean. For me, that might be celebrating the sacredness of the male/female union. For others it might be a acknowledging a purely non-religious, yet loving and committed relationship.
Marie,
Thank you for the kind words. I still think there will be some who will think I am bigoted. etc. And it not just an opinion on the matter. It is what I believe.
As to the catch about marriage being a secular, civil institutution, if that is all marriage is, then, I wouldn't be blogging about it. I would agree with that sentiment and leave it be; but, it is obviously more than just a civil institution. I mean, we all have to recognize that marriage existed way before there were governments defining it. Also, regardless of what my reasoning for being against it, do I not have a right to be against it anyway?
Marty, I'm actually not complaining that NOM is a single issue organization. I was trying to get NOM member to admit the obvious. If heterosexuals allow NOM to have their way, then us heterosexuals will soon see more laws infringing on our rights. And you admitted it. You are the same people who want to outlaw no fault divorce, teach abstinence in schools (yet oppose abortion), etc... It's funny how conservatives say they want less government, but then they constantly wan the government in people's bedrooms and families.
Jeffery said:
"You think the Iowa Supreme Court, all married and presumably heterosexual, abused the Iowa Equal Protection clause in reaching their decision?"
You would classify people based on sexual orientation even when it comes to assessing their reasoning?
Why is that?
* * *
When you disagreed with the centrality of procreation, you did invoke those rules.
* * *
You said:
"Consenting adults are consenting to be married to each other."
That is circular.
I have asked what marriage is.
Now you say that marriage is what people consent to when they marry.
I again must ask you, to what do they consent?
If it is a private agreement, then, your own stated standards must destroy your answer above.
* * *
You said:
"Only you presume paternity and a male-woman requirement."
No, the law vigorously enforces these requirements. These are among the universal features of marriage throughout the millennia. In more general terms, these represent the provision for responsible procreation and the unity of the sexes. Not all two-sexed arrangements (sexualized or not) are eligible. Boundaries are based on the universals; some boundaries are more strictly drawn -- and some are drawn with shades of grey. But eligibility criteria set and enforced by governing authorities is another universal feature of marriage.
The SSM campaign is very much about redrawing boundaries and eligibility criteria. So we must return to the question: what is the meaning of SSM, at law, such that boundaries are justifiable and sustainable?
* * *
You said: "What if I don’t tell anyone I’m married?"
Well, if a man marries a woman and does not tell her that they are married, there would be a lack of consent.
You probably meant "what if the husband and wife did not tell others", right? Okay, but the government is party to each marriage. Hence the license signifying a special status. That special status arises from a special reason. It does not arise from no reason at all. It does not arise from a vague, anemic, reason that other nonmarital arrangements also fit. It is a special reason for a special status -- and that arises from the societal significance of some core meaning.
Maybe society is not part of the deal, in your view. In which case, why the clamor for a license to SSM and why the insistence that the laws treat a private arrangement on part with a public type of relationship?
* * *
You said:
"Marriage must mean something more important than merely being opposite-gendered. Otherwise any male could marry any female and be happily married."
Yes, it does mean more than gender. It means integration of man and woman on the most intimate level but also on the societal level in multiple and complex ways. One of the most obvious is the solidarity of fatherhood and motherhood.
If you think love is the core meaning of marriage, then, your own stated standard would destroy such a meaning for there is no legal requirement making this mandatory. Nor does the government unilaterially dissolve marriges based on some special "love test". How much love? What kind of love? And all the rest.
You added commitment, just as you've pointed to consent, but once again the question is in front of your nose: commitment to what?
Commitment to commitment, perhaps? Consent to consent? Commitment to consent?
No, it is commitment to the core meaning and this is a public meaning. And it is expressed in definitive legal requirements. That expression is nsot the creation of marriage by government, but it is the acknowledgement of the societal importance of a foundational social institution. It is foundational not for nothing. It is a social institution, not a private agreement. It is more than you've yet acknowledged. And I guess tha tis why it is so hard for you to see that society, through government, acknowledges a core meaning in its laws, customs, and traditions.
If you depend only on love as the core of marriage, then, you depend on the relatively modern tradition of romance. And SSM argumentation has derided reliance on tradition alone for the law.
You need more to justify the change you desire in the law and in our culture.
Chairm
“You think the Iowa Supreme Court, all married and presumably heterosexual, abused the Iowa Equal Protection clause in reaching their decision?”
You would classify people based on sexual orientation even when it comes to assessing their reasoning?
Why is that?
I pointed out their presumed heterosexuality to emphasize their potential axe to grind. Human sexuality doesn’t effect ability to reason, that I’m aware of: clearly Iowa Supreme Court justices used reason, rather than religious dictates or emotions, to decide the case before them.
* * *
I answered the question, “what are they consenting to?” They are consenting to be married to each other. And to abide by the marriage law that binds them, with its rights and obligations. Is that clearer?
* * *
You said:
“Only you presume paternity and a male-woman requirement.”
No, the law vigorously enforces these requirements.
Only in 45 states. And that number appears to be getting smaller, as New Hampshire and New York may soon join the states offering marriage without gender discrimination.
These are among the universal features of marriage throughout the millennia.
Ah, the “it’s been like this forever!” argument. Like lots of long-standing traditions and beliefs, marriage for opposite-sex couples only has outlived its usefulness.
“In more general terms, these represent the provision for responsible procreation….”
Once more, this time with feeling! Marriage has nothing to do with procreation. Married couples are not obligated to procreate. Couples with children are not obligated to marry. Single people can freely bear and/or raise children. And on and on and on and on and on and on.
“But eligibility criteria set and enforced by governing authorities is another universal feature of marriage.”
Finally, someone who doesn’t equate marriage with religion. And yes, by all means, let’s let the governing authorities determine who may or may not marry, and let’s hope they create marriage statutes that do not discriminate unnecessarily, and that withstand constitutional scrutiny.
“The SSM campaign is very much about redrawing boundaries and eligibility criteria.”
Well, yeah. SSM proponents want states to stop discriminating against same-sex couples when issuing marriage licenses. There is an artificial boundary drawn that limits marriage to opposite-sex couples only, in 45 states.
“Well, if a man marries a woman and does not tell her that they are married, there would be a lack of consent.”
It is impossible to marry someone without his or her consent. Your construct isn’t possible.
“…why the clamor for a license to SSM and why the insistence that the laws treat a private arrangement on part with a public type of relationship?”
Same-sex marriage is no different from opposite-sex marriage in being of a public or private nature. The only difference is the differing gender composition of the couple. It’s like distinguishing between same-race marriage and mixed-race marriage.
“It means integration of man and woman on the most intimate level but also on the societal level in multiple and complex ways. One of the most obvious is the solidarity of fatherhood and motherhood.”
Integration of man and woman on the most intimate level applies only to an opposite-sex marriage. A same-sex marriage integrates two people of the same sex on the most intimate level.
“If you think love is the core meaning of marriage, then, your own stated standard would destroy such a meaning for there is no legal requirement making this mandatory.”
I think love is the core experience of marriage, if done properly. Legally, love isn’t required at all. But rarely have I ever heard someone admit he or she was marrying someone he or she didn’t love. And quite often it is cited as the motivator for getting married, or at least an important precursor.
“You added commitment, just as you’ve pointed to consent, but once again the question is in front of your nose: commitment to what?”
Commitment to the other person. Have you ever been married?!?!
“….it is commitment to the core meaning and this is a public meaning. And it is expressed in definitive legal requirements. That expression is nsot the creation of marriage by government, but it is the acknowledgement of the societal importance of a foundational social institution. It is foundational not for nothing. It is a social institution, not a private agreement. It is more than you’ve yet acknowledged. And I guess tha tis why it is so hard for you to see that society, through government, acknowledges a core meaning in its laws, customs, and traditions. If you depend only on love as the core of marriage, then, you depend on the relatively modern tradition of romance. And SSM argumentation has derided reliance on tradition alone for the law. You need more to justify the change you desire in the law and in our culture.
It looks like you’re saying that the traditional meaning of marriage cannot be changed. Thanks goodness, I guess, that you acknowledge that marriage has changed, given the “relatively modern tradition of romance.” And I would add, the “relatively modern tradition” of rampant divorce. I thought the traditional definition of marriage was, “until death parts us”? So we agree that the definition of marriage can and has changed. I consider this progress!
Jeffery said:
"Easy divorce is the real threat to marriage."
Well you got me there.
But you also illustrate my point about how SSM argumentation locks-in the negatives.
In brief, the notion of "easy divorce" made marriage mean less in the law and in the culture.
SSM would make it mean even less.
Maybe you think it would make marriage mean more? Howso?
Jeffery you emphasized sexual orientation when assessing the Court's reasoning. Now you say: "clearly Iowa Supreme Court justices used reason".
Okay, in simple terms, describe their use of reason. What was their starting place if not same-sex sexual attraction and romance?
Do you agree that this is not a legal requirement?
Jeffery said:
"They are consenting to be married to each other. And to abide by the marriage law that binds them, with its rights and obligations. Is that clearer?"
Clearly, you are claiming that the special status of marriage is its own justification.
That's arbitrary.
* * *
I know it is a cherished quirk of SSMers to forecast the future, but you have now promised that the marital presumption of paternity will be abolished across the country when SSM is merged with marriage.
Thanks for being clear on that.
* * *
Jeffery said:
"lots of long-standing traditions and beliefs, marriage for opposite-sex couples only has outlived its usefulness."
Universal features are not traditions. You are attacking the core of marriage as a social institution.
But I do thank you for clarifying that in your pro-SSM opinion the union of husband and wife is useless.
And it will soon be followed by the uselessness of the tradition of same-sex romantic sexual love.
Oh, hang on. That's not a legal requirement for SSM. The government does not force people to engage in it. And people can do it outside of marriage anyway. SSM is not a sexual type of relationship, at law. It is sexless and but not sex-neutral, somehow.
Meanwhile there is that marital presumption of paternity, based on human procreation being opposite-sexed, that makes the union of husband and wife a public and a sexual type of relationship, at law.
But you'd abolish that to ensure that all unions of husband and wife are treated like they lacked either husbands or wives.
That would make marriage pretty useless, sure.
* * *
You said: "Marriage has nothing to do with procreation."
Yeh, once more with feeling and stompinig of feet. You are attacking a strawman and in the process you are attacking the basis of your own arguments in favor of SSM.
SSM has nothing to do with romantic love. SSM couples are not obligated to engage in romantic love. Couples with children are not obligated to SSM. Single people can freely bear and/or raise children. And on and on and on and on and on and on.
* * *
You said: "Finally, someone who doesn’t equate marriage with religion."
Right back at you.
SSMers keep attacking religious beliefs just because those beliefs reinforce the core meaning of marriage in our pluralistic society.
SSMers keep claiming that the disgreement is solely about religion versus the law.
Meanwhile, "finally", you have noticed that I have not made a religious argument for marriage. The universal features cross religious, irreligious, and pan-religious boundaries.
But SSM argumentation's reliance on identity politics is about asserting a peculair sectarianism on all of society.
That is more like the purely religious arguments than perhaps you are emotinally and intellectually equipped to admit. At least not yet but maybe eventually.
* * *
Jeffery, even a man and a woman cannot be deemed married without the consent of society, via the authority delegated to government.
You have said that adults who consent must be issued marriage licenses. Well, a lone individual can consent and the government can consent and there you have a marriage, right?
I am illustrating the flaw in your assertions about consenting adults. The number two would be an artificial boundary in light of your argumentation in favor of SSM.
* * *
Jeffery said:
"Integration of man and woman on the most intimate level applies only to an opposite-sex marriage."
It applies to all marriages. But you are correct, sex integration does not apply to arrangements that exclude one or the other sex.
That's the point. And this disproves your use of a racial analogy. Indeed it shows that sex-segregation is more closely analogous with racial-segregation.
I know, you will return to the emphasis on sexual orientation, one which does not exist in the law.
Jeffery said:
"It looks like you’re saying that the traditional meaning of marriage cannot be changed."
When people use the term, "traditional marriage", they are distinguishing marriage from "gay marriage" or "same-sex marriage". The latter two are oxymorons.
The term, traditional marriage, used to refer to traditions and customs of this or that culture or subgroup within a society. But that's not the meaning in the context of discussing SSM.
Folks who are disagreeing with you on SSM are simply trying to adjust to the prevalent terms used by SSMers.
If you choose not to acknowledge this, then, okay, you'd choose to keep wasting your time attacking strawmen.
Marriage has changed, sure, but some things have remained unchanged.
Such things as the two-sexed nature of humankind, the opposite-sexed essentials of human procreation, and the both-sexed necessity of human community. From this marriage arises and its special status -- culturally and legally -- is justified and sustained.
You said: "Thanks goodness, I guess, that you acknowledge that marriage has changed, given the “relatively modern tradition of romance.” And I would add, the “relatively modern tradition” of rampant divorce."
The two are strongly related. Your pro-SSM argumentation depends on the former and locks-in the latter.
And, as I've repeatedly said, the regulations and the protocols of marriage have varied even as the core has not.
You do understand the difference between universal and variable, right? The difference between the essentials of a social institution and the traditions that are a society's adaptations to those essentials?
Maybe you have not studied social institutions, anthropology, and so forth. I think you have faithfully recited the themes of SSM argumentation like a true zealot and trooper. You deserve credit for that. I just wish you'd look more deeply.
Jeffery said:
"Commitment to the other person."
Designated beneficiaries entails this. But it is not marriage.
You probably meant to say that they make a joint commitment to something. That something being marriage.
Again, it is circular. You need to establish the meaning of marriage before speaking of this commitment.
Otherwise you are not distinguishing marriage from the rest. This is basic stuff, Jeffery.
It is the sort of spadework that is incumbent upon any reformer. You clearly want cultural change to follow the legal change you desire. The burden is on you to plainly state the special reason for special status.
Based on your argumentation, the union of husband and wife does not merit the legal by-products that you have been citing as the purpose of marital status.
Jeffrey: if, during the course of a marriage, one person has a sex change operation, resulting in a same-sex couple.
This got me thinking though... according to opponents of SSM, would this relationship no longer be a "marriage?"
If the person divorced and remarried the "opposite" (relative to their change) sex, would that be a "real" marriage now?
Chairm
“But you also illustrate my point about how SSM argumentation locks-in the negatives. In brief, the notion of “easy divorce” made marriage mean less in the law and in the culture. SSM would make it mean even less. Maybe you think it would make marriage mean more? How so?
And Opposite-sex marriage (OSM) argumentation doesn’t use negatives? Isn’t “collapse of society as we know it” kind of a negative? The legal meaning of marriage is unchanged, whether referring to SSM or OSM.
Here’s how the Iowa court reasoned, from what I remember of the decision summary: sexuality is an immutable characteristic of a human being, and comes in primarily two flavors: heterosexuality and homosexuality. People form romantic couples based on their sexuality: same sex or opposite sex. Iowa’s marriage statute specifically prohibits same sex couples from marrying, which they said essentially the same as discriminating against homosexuals. Homosexuals have been identified as a protected class, because of institutionalized bias and discrimination against them. Therefore, the state is discriminating against homosexuals by granting heterosexuals but not homosexuals, the right to marry. I think they cited the Iowa state constitution’s Equal Protection clause. I think you’re better off reading the six-page summary rather than have me try to recreate their argument.
“I know it is a cherished quirk of SSMers to forecast the future, but you have now promised that the marital presumption of paternity will be abolished across the country when SSM is merged with marriage.
Thanks for being clear on that.”
Evidently it’s a cherished quirk of OSMers, too, hence the creation of the National Organization for Marriage, and this website. I don’t think NOM and other OSMer’s on websites like Townhall.com would devote so much energy and money to stop progressive states from changing their discriminatory marriage statutes if they were unconcerned about the advance of SSM.
I never said abolished across the country. I highly doubt the usual socially backward states will drop their discriminatory marriage statutes anytime soon. Of course, if Iowa can do it, so can they!
“Universal features are not traditions. You are attacking the core of marriage as a social institution.”
I’m attacking discrimination based on sexuality and/or gender. OSM is hardly universal anymore. I may very well be attacking marriage as a social institution but my motive is to improve it.
“But I do thank you for clarifying that in your pro-SSM opinion the union of husband and wife is useless.”
Nope, never said that. I place great value on the union of a loving, committed couple, regardless of its gender makeup, especially if children are involved. I believe it’s better to create a stable environment for children and married parents are better than not married parents in that regard.
“Meanwhile there is that marital presumption of paternity, based on human procreation being opposite-sexed, that makes the union of husband and wife a public and a sexual type of relationship, at law.”
At this point, I’m gonna say, “whatever, man” whenever you bring up the marital presumption of paternity. I don’t know what you mean and I highly doubt that most married couples know what it means. And I’m pretty sure nobody ever got married in order to obtain it or honor it.
“SSMers keep claiming that the disgreement is solely about religion versus the law.”
Hardly. SSMers like me at least are far more concerned about Equal Protection concepts and gender/sexuality discrimination. To be sure, it is extremely troubling to hear OSMers argue that SSM is against biblical guidance, as if it’s ok to enshrine religious doctrine into law. What’s next? Making divorce illegal? Working on the Sabbath? American Christians have often been unable to honor the secular nation of the US and our tradition of religious tolerance. Imposing Christian ideals on a minority non-Christian population is very disturbing. Fortunately, these efforts usually fail, and just end up making Christians look bad.
“But SSM argumentation’s reliance on identity politics is about asserting a peculair sectarianism on all of society.”
Actually, no. SSM is not in place of OSM. Persons whose faith requires that if they marry, they marry someone of the opposite sex will still be able to get marriage licenses. They can honor their faith needs appropriately. They won’t be able to impose their faith beliefs on non-believers though. But I’m sure they have no intention of doing that, right?
“You have said that adults who consent must be issued marriage licenses. Well, a lone individual can consent and the government can consent and there you have a marriage, right?”
I’m going to pretend that this is a serious concern of yours. A marriage license is a legal contract. A contract requires at least two parties. The rights and obligations in the marriage statute define behaviors between two people; there’s no benefit to a single person. The definition of marriage comes unglued if a single person could “marry.” Compare that to replacing an opposite-sex couple with a same-sex couple. The rights and obligations of marriage remain completely intact and meaningful. It’s like the word “couple.” By definition it means “two people.” If a club holds a “couples only” night, and a single guy tries to get in, I think he’d be met with resistance.
I dunno, maybe some day schizophrenics will win the right to marry themselves.
“[Integration of man and woman on the most intimate level] applies to all marriages. But you are correct, sex integration does not apply to arrangements that exclude one or the other sex.”
If there’s two men or two women in the marriage, exactly how can “integration of man and woman” occur?
“When people use the term, “traditional marriage”, they are distinguishing marriage from “gay marriage” or “same-sex marriage”. The latter two are oxymorons.”
An oxymoron occurs when an adjective modifies a noun absurdly. “Jumbo shrimp.” Gay marriage isn’t an oxymoron. It’s a term like “male nurse”, using an adjective to modify a noun in order revise some implicit piece of information, in this case, “femaleness.” If a nurse is a man, it’s not absurd to call him a male nurse. It’s a fact. Of course, the term male nurse is falling out of use as more men become nurses. And I’m sure we’ll all drop “gay” before marriage as more gay couples marry.
“Marriage has changed, sure, but some things have remained unchanged. Such things as the two-sexed nature of humankind, the opposite-sexed essentials of human procreation, and the both-sexed necessity of human community. From this marriage arises and its special status — culturally and legally — is justified and sustained.”
Yes, humans will still be male or female, and reproduction will always require a male component and a female component. And both sexes will live in communities. And birds will always fly overhead. Do any of these musing relate to marriage? Humans will always form couples, too, of whatever gender composition. And I suppose states will always say, ok, you couples out there, if you’re really serious about each other, you can make a contract between you that gets you specific rights and obligations, and signals to others that you’re no longer in the dating pool. And none of this requires any reference to the gender composition of the couple.
Chairm
““Commitment to the other person.” Designated beneficiaries entails this. But it is not marriage.”
Anyone whose marriage lacks commitment has a dreadful marriage. Commitment is not “designated beneficiaries.” Commitment is devotion. It’s exclusivity. It’s for the long haul.
“You probably meant to say that they make a joint commitment to something. That something being marriage. Again, it is circular. You need to establish the meaning of marriage before speaking of this commitment. Otherwise you are not distinguishing marriage from the rest. This is basic stuff, Jeffery.”
Many persons would argue that commitment in a marriage is “basic stuff,” Chairm. Of course, the law is silent on the quality of a marriage.
“It is the sort of spadework that is incumbent upon any reformer. You clearly want cultural change to follow the legal change you desire. The burden is on you to plainly state the special reason for special status.”
My “spadework” is my familiarity with the law and its distaste for unnecessary discrimination, and fondness for equal protection. Just like the Iowa Supreme Court noted. I don’t really care about cultural change although I think society’s acceptance of same-sex couples is where the cultural change took place. Same-sex marriage is just a logistical issue by comparison. Since I’m not arguing for special status for anyone or anything, I am and shall remain unburdened. The burden appears to be on the anti-SSM crowd to come up with legal reasoning why a state should be able to issue marriage licenses to one kind of couple but not to another. So far, success at that has been limited. But it has managed to make religion look bad, particularly the Mormon church, as well as OSM-only types look unconcerned with child welfare.
Based on your argumentation, the union of husband and wife does not merit the legal by-products that you have been citing as the purpose of marital status.
Huh?
Jeffery,
You have now established that you have no substantive answer to the question about that to which people commit.
You have established that you are not familiar with the societal and the legal significance of the marital presumption paternity.
You have misconstrued the provision for responsible procreation for some theoretical mandate for the government to force married people to procreate. You've continue with this line even after being corrected repeatedly.
You have conceded that you don't care about the marriage culture. The influence on the culture of the marriage law, in your view, is trivial.
Your comments illustrate that you have not distinguished SSM from the rest of the nonmarriage category.
You have not shown that "same-sex" is one and the same as "homosexual". Nor that "opposite-sex" is one and the same as "heterosexual". You have confused categories. You have used false dichotomies and false equivalencies.
You have avoided stating whether or not in your view marriage is a public sexual type of relationship. This indicates that on this point your thoughts are ambiguous or uncertain or that you concede that your argument renders marriage nonsexual, at law.
Yet you have emphasized homosexuality even though the vast range of relationships and arrangements outside of marriage are neither homosexualized nor sexualized.
Yet you seek a special status based on the small subset that you define by homosexuality -- a criterion that makes no appearance in the laws for SSM wherever it has been imposed or enacted. And you do not propose such a requirement in your arguments.
SSM is not a sexual type of relationship, at law, according to your own stated standards. You reject the marital presumption of paternity and would thus render marriage itself nonsexual as well.
Your refuse to carry the burden that your proposed reform entails.
And now you take a shot at religion and at the Mormon church. And you further misrepresent the people who defend the most pro-child social institution as being "unconcerned with child welfare."
As for your "Huh?" please plainly state the justification for the legal privileges and rights that come with marital status.
That status is not its own justification. Your own stated standards would deried arbitary use of governmental authority. Yet here you offer no justification based on what marriage is.
See your lack of a substantive answer for the question about commiment. Marriage may be something to which people commit. But what is marriage, in your view?
Silence on this only concedes that your view is ill-formed and superficial.
Jeffery said:
"I think you’re better off reading the six-page summary rather than have me try to recreate their argument."
Your attempt at summarizing the summary is adequate but I thnk you'd be better off reading the entire opinion for yourself.
The Iowa Court opinion is not well-reasoned. Your summary reveals that you got the gist of the opinion. And still you return to it even thought it contradicts your own stated standards. Thus, it is the conclusion, not the reasoning, that you favor.
* * *
Where SSM has been merged with marriage, the law no longer recognizes and privileges the social institution of marriage. Instead a substitution has been elevated above marriage.
That substitution is specious. Your own remarks show it lacks a core meaning. Indeed, you have used certain rules of argumentation that destroy your own argument in favor of this merger.
That directly contradicts the SSM campaigns complaint about the supposed arbitrariness of the man-woman basis of marriage.
Maybe you deny it, but your words reveal the leaps of faith of a gay activist. Yours is a sectarian view of society and of the marriage issue. And it is this which you seek to impose on our pluralistic and very open society.
* * *
You said: "A contract requires at least two parties."
Is not the government a party to the contract? Yes, of course. And the consent of society, via the authority delegated to government, is what consenting adults seek when they show up for a license to marry.
* * *
You said:
"If there’s two men or two women in the marriage, exactly how can “integration of man and woman” occur?"
It cannot. I said so. You agree. The one-sexed arrangement is sex-segregative.
* * *
You said:
"Gay marriage isn’t an oxymoron."
You have not explained how it is "gay" much less how it is marriage.
Of course, you have denied a gay identity filter and so your are left with holding the truth that this phrase is an oxymoron.
It also is an absurdity in the immediate sense that you would even bother to claim it is marriage when you haven't distinguished marriage from the vast range of nonmarital arrangements and types of relationships. The lack of a gay requirement compounds the absurdity of the phrase as per our defense of it.
* * *
You said: "Do any of these musing relate to marriage?"
Well, these are the facts. You can mocke this as mere musings all you wish. But you have not provided justification for a special status.
What you have done is attempt to hoist nonmarriage up onto the back of marriage for a free ride.
And in doing so you have attempted to negate the core meaning that justifies the special status.
Your viewpoint actually amounts to an argument against marital status -- the flattening of marriage to the extent that it becomes indistinguishable from all other kinds of arrangements and types of relationships.
You may be well-intentioned, and I take your intentions at face value, but the huge holes in your descriptions of marriage, the law, and the culture make everything you've said in favor of SSM very, very, very suspect.
Nothing holds your argument together except gay identity politics being asserted as a trump card against all dissent and opposition. Your disgreement with marriage is not really about marriage, afterall.
Whether or not you are gay yourself, whether or not you comprehend the holes in your viewpoint, is irrelevant at this point. Your remarks here have revealed these flaws in SSM arugmentation. You have faithfully repeated the pro-SSM themes and for that readers can be thankful.
Typo correction (at least of one I noticed): The lack of a gay requirement compounds the absurdity of the phrase as per your defense of it.
Chairm
“You have now established that you have no substantive answer to the question about that to which people commit.”
I’m sorry you wrestle with the concept of commitment. It means an intent for long-term involvement. I sympathize with your spouse.
“You have established that you are not familiar with the societal and the legal significance of the marital presumption paternity.”
Me and a lot of people are unfamiliar with that concept. Whatever it is, I don’t know of anyone who got married in order to achieve or honor it.
“You have misconstrued the provision for responsible procreation for some theoretical mandate for the government to force married people to procreate. You’ve continue with this line even after being corrected repeatedly.”
Well, since there’s no connection legally between marriage and procreation, it’s tough to understand how a subset of procreation, “responsible procreation,” can be related to marriage. It fails the logic test.
“You have conceded that you don’t care about the marriage culture. The influence on the culture of the marriage law, in your view, is trivial.”
I don’t think my view of the influence of marriage on culture is relevant to whether SSM should be legal or not. In terms of culture, though, SSM is just part of our culture’s rethinking of gender requirements: women got the right to vote; men can become nurses, fathers can not work and stay at home with the kids, women can play college sports, etc. The country began down the path of de-gendering institutions well before SSM showed up. And probably these other efforts at uncoupling gender distinctions from institutions had to happen, and lay the groundwork, for general public acceptance of SSM.
“Your comments illustrate that you have not distinguished SSM from the rest of the nonmarriage category.”
Sure I have. Since married couples enjoy specific rights and obligations, they differ from non-married couples. OSM and SSM couples enjoy the same rights. So, SSM is distinguished for the “nonmarriage category.”
“Yet you seek a special status based on the small subset that you define by homosexuality — a criterion that makes no appearance in the laws for SSM wherever it has been imposed or enacted. And you do not propose such a requirement in your arguments.”
Nope, no special status for anyone, heterosexual or homosexual. That’s the whole point. Let’s stop treating opposite-sex couples as a special combination for the purposes of marriage. They are not considered special for other purposes.
“Your refuse to carry the burden that your proposed reform entails.”
And you refuse to accept the burden of discrimination against some couples entails if OSM only continues. You refuse to acknowledge the burden on the children of SS couples who wonder why their parents aren’t married, like the parents of their friends. Opponents of SSM appear unconcerned with the jeopardy to children that unmarried parents create. We should be encouraging parents of either sexual orientation to marry, and solidify their long-term commitment.
“See your lack of a substantive answer for the question about commiment. Marriage may be something to which people commit. But what is marriage, in your view? Silence on this only concedes that your view is ill-formed and superficial.”
That you don’t like my answers doesn’t make my view ill-informed and superficial. But perhaps your judgmental nature makes it harder for you to understand and accept same-sex marriage.
“The Iowa Court opinion is not well-reasoned. Your summary reveals that you got the gist of the opinion. And still you return to it even thought it contradicts your own stated standards. Thus, it is the conclusion, not the reasoning, that you favor.”
I like both its reasoning and its conclusion.
“Maybe you deny it, but your words reveal the leaps of faith of a gay activist. Yours is a sectarian view of society and of the marriage issue. And it is this which you seek to impose on our pluralistic and very open society.”
I deny any leaps of faith. I am not a gay activist. I favor a non-sectarian view of society and the marriage issue. I want to impose non-discriminatory access to marriage on society. This permits individuals to choose the marriage arrangement that suits their personal and/or faith needs.
“You said: “A contract requires at least two parties.” Is not the government a party to the contract? Yes, of course. And the consent of society, via the authority delegated to government, is what consenting adults seek when they show up for a license to marry.”
Has anyone ever married the government? I know of no wedded couple who sought society’s permission or consent to be married. A prospective groom might ask for his bride’s father’s permission but that’s a social or cultural ritual. The father can say “no” and the couple can still get married. Society might get fed up with Rush Limbaugh’s unfortunate pattern of marriage and divorce but it’s pretty helpless to stop his behavior.
“Gay marriage isn’t an oxymoron.” You have not explained how it is “gay” much less how it is marriage. Of course, you have denied a gay identity filter and so your are left with holding the truth that this phrase is an oxymoron. It also is an absurdity in the immediate sense that you would even bother to claim it is marriage when you haven’t distinguished marriage from the vast range of nonmarital arrangements and types of relationships. The lack of a gay requirement compounds the absurdity of the phrase as per our defense of it.”
Gay marriage means marriage between two people of the same gender. There’s nothing oxymoronic about it. Maybe you’re more comfortable with the term “same-sex marriage.” A couple is married when the state says they are. Not you or I. You may have an opinion about the quality of a couple’s marriage but can’t have an opinion about the legality of the marriage.
“Your viewpoint actually amounts to an argument against marital status — the flattening of marriage to the extent that it becomes indistinguishable from all other kinds of arrangements and types of relationships.”
No, I’m really in favor of marriage, especially if kids are being raised by a couple. I think it’s great when two people are so committed to each other that they want to create a legal bond. Although I don’t disdain couples who choose not to marry. Everyone has his or her own reasons for getting married, or not getting married.
“You may be well-intentioned, and I take your intentions at face value, but the huge holes in your descriptions of marriage, the law, and the culture make everything you’ve said in favor of SSM very, very, very suspect.”
I think there’s a pretty solid, hole-free argument in favor of SSM. If you respect the law, you’d agree. If you love children, you’d also agree.
“Nothing holds your argument together except gay identity politics being asserted as a trump card against all dissent and opposition. Your disgreement with marriage is not really about marriage, afterall. Whether or not you are gay yourself, whether or not you comprehend the holes in your viewpoint, is irrelevant at this point. Your remarks here have revealed these flaws in SSM arugmentation. You have faithfully repeated the pro-SSM themes and for that readers can be thankful.”
I’m not really sure what “gay identity politics” are but I’m more concerned with discrimination based on gender. If two heterosexual males want to get married, I think they should be able to. They’re not gay and yet I think they should (and do, in 5 states) have the right to marry. I’m not “disagreeing” with marriage, whatever that might mean. I’m objecting to the state issuing marriage licenses to one kind of couple, while excluding another kind of couple. If human adults form couples, and find it advantageous to create a legal bond between them, why should some couples have the right and not others, based on gender? Gender considerations didn’t stop the couples from forming in the first place.
I’m as confident that our discussion has revealed the flaws in OSM “argumentation.” I hope lots and lots of people read this discussion. If I have faithfully repeated pro-SSM themes, well, that tells me I must be on the right track in terms of logic and law. I’m happy to have others agree with me!
Jefferey: If two heterosexual males want to get married, I think they should be able to.
Should they? That's where I start to wonder. Did the state have that kind of union in mind when it offered protections and benefits for people who married?
I agree that intimate, same-sex partners should be able to marry. But I'm not so sure marriage was intended to be used as a mere business arrangement between any two consenting adults?
There's a motive for states to encourage marriage between intimate couples, in that it creates more stable parenting environments, reduces promiscuity (and thus unwanted pregnancies), etc.
But to just open up marriage to anyone who wants to reap the financial and legal benefits of it... I'm not so sure that's what the states had in mind. What motive is there for the state to bond two friends or business partners together?
Marie,
Let me ask you: what reasons would two heterosexual buddies have for wanting to get married? In the interest of avoiding discrimination, I'm happy to let any two non-related consenting adults marry. The state doesn't get to question opposite-sex couples what their motivations are, leading to, say, someone marrying a friend so he doesn't get deported. Therefore, same-sex couples shouldn't be questioned either. This could result in two same-sex buddies getting married. But we currently permit opposite-sex buddies to marry, for whatever purpose So nothing really changes.
Marie,
I think you're right in your observations. And remember, abuses of marriage take many forms. It's appalling to me how Rush Limbaugh abuses marriage with his propensity for divorce. He either doesn't take marriage seriously, or is seriously deficient in conducting a marriage. Adultery and divorce are the ultimate abuses of marriage, and nobody wants to outlaw them. It strikes me as odd how same-sex couples wanting to marry seems to "threaten" marriage in some peoples' eyes, yet adultery and divorce get a pass.
Jeffery, you began your latest comment with a hyper-personalized insult. That is the tell tale sign that you have a very weak hand to play.
That Jon has patted you on the back, again, means he hopes your bluff with succeed.
Your response to Marie, who is sympathetic to "intimate, same-sex partners " confirms that your argumentation is about your fear of being anything but indiscriminate.
But for marital status to be sustainable, it must be distinctive. And that requires discrimination -- as in distinguishing one thing from the rest.
Since you have not undertaken the task of distinguishing marriage from the rest, and have not undertaken the task of distinguishing SSM from the rest, you would ighten your burden, as a proponent of a legal reform, and abandon even the concerns of a someone who would distinguish "intimate" relationshp types from the less meaningful type of parnership that you would embed in the law and -- despite your indifference -- also in the marriage culture.
Jon,
Blind leading the blind, no?
Tell me, give me one point that you think that Jeff said that was lucid. Just one. Because I haven't found one yet. Maybe, however, you can present them more logically?
Thanks,
Jeffery said:
"Me and a lot of people are unfamiliar with that concept [the marital presumption of paternity]. Whatever it is, I don’t know of anyone who got married in order to achieve or honor it."
What you don't know is irrelevant to the meaning of marriage. It is relevant your remarks in which you have repeatedly waved a dismissive hand at that of which you now readily concede you are ignorant.
This is a glaring admission on your part, given it has been explained multiple times in different ways -- including at your own request for an explanation.
Just a for instance, Jon, Jeffrey stated (presumably with a straight face)
The state doesn’t get to question opposite-sex couples what their motivations are, leading to, say, someone marrying a friend so he doesn’t get deported.
Actually, Jeff's statement is very wrong. marriage fraud is actively investigated in immigration cases.
And Jon, perhaps you can tell me how this logic from Jeffrey was "lucid"? If not lucid, how was it even reasonable?
Adultery and divorce are the ultimate abuses of marriage, and nobody wants to outlaw them.
Well, I hate to be the one to wake Jeffrey up to this fact in all his lucidness, but if he wants same-sex couples to be able to abuse marriage like others abuse it with divorce and adultery, he's barking up the wrong tree.
Adultery is definitely not recognized as a valid marriage.
Divorce, is doubly so.
And, on the b-side of that song we note that recognizing that marriage is between a man and a woman does not make same-sex relationships illegal. Nor does it make recognizing same-sex relationships illegal.
So with all that wrong in his argument, what did you find in it that was lucid?
When I referred to the marriage culture, you either misread or chose to elide by instead talking about "the influence of marriage on culture".
There is a marriage culture, as per Marie's description of her concerns when she spoke of her sympathy (and more, her support) for "intimate" partners. You brushed that aside. This confirms, again, that your remarks would trivialzie the influence on the marrige culture of your proposed legal reform.
That is an unserious attitude toward marriage as a social institution -- one foundatinal to civilization and one that is the most pro-child we have.
Jeffery, you have not substantiated what marriage is, in your viewpoint, but your answer has been ill-formed because you have repeatedly said that marital status is its own justification. That is circular.
Yes, I use my judgement when assessing the actual facts of marriage and the actual lines of argument used by SSMers such as yourself. Circular thinking is, in my judgement, not good enough.
When I pointed out that SSM argumentation relies on tradition you clapped your hands with glee and said that this must mean that marriage has changed. You missed two points.
1. The core meaning of marriage -- as identified by the universal features of this social institutio -- is not a tradition. Traditions of marriage are variables, as has been explained to you in other parts of our extended discussions.
2. Your arugmentation depends on the tradition of romance but SSM argumentation has repeated derided tradition as insufficient for the basis of a law. Your own rhetoric in your comments invoked this rule that tradition is changeable and thus insufficient basis for marriage law.
Taken together, your circular thinking has been dashed on the rocks of your own stated standards.
Just because SSM has no core meaning, you have chosen to play the very weak hand that would render marriage itself meaningless both at law and culturally.
Your cards are on the table for all to see.
Jeffery said:
"you refuse to accept the burden of discrimination against some couples entails if OSM only continues."
That is demonstrably false.
I have repeatedly pointed to the core of marriage upon which eligibility criteria are established.
Some consenting adults are ineligible within the opposite-sex category. The criteria are not arbitrary but are based on legitimate concerns about uniting the sexes and uniting motherhood and fatherhood. Combined, these concerns are at the core of marriage and so eligibility criteria will vary based on a society's adaptation to what marriage actually is. See the universal features.
The purpose of law is to dsicriminate. Sometimes a law might discriminate unjustly; but elibigibility criteria will always discriminate, even when it does this justly.
You have feigned interest in this, I think, when you said that some consenting adults are ineligible and that this is "fine" in your opinion. I've asked why you think that is "fine". Your response is amounts to a shrugged I-don't-know.
You said that I "refuse to acknowledge the burden on the children of SS couples"
False, again, as per my remarks about the provision for designated beneficiaries for families -- especially those with children -- who are outside the bounds of marriage. These families are defined by gayness but by needs that are experienced due to certain vulnerabilities; and these vulnerabilities arise because of the lack, or a defficiency, in sex integration and responsible procreation. Regardless of the burden incurred on society, and on these families, their arrangements remain nonmarital -- not due to unjust discrimination nor due to disregard; but rather due to just discrimination, based on what marriage actually is, and due to a steady and compassionate regard for the needs of such familes.
You said: "We should be encouraging parents of either sexual orientation to marry, and solidify their long-term commitment."
There is no sexual orientation criterion in the marriage law and none in the marital presumption of paternity. Most of the children, by far, living in same-sex households got there by marigrating with one or the other parent whose previously procreative relationship (i.e. typically marriage) entailed the presumption of paternity. Mom or dad might not be resident, but the nonresident parent's parental status remains intact -- because of the opposite-sex nature of human procreation.
Something your viewpoint would trivialize, even for these children you pose as if your flattening of marriage, and uniformed dismissal of the presumption of paternity, would serve children better than not.
Jeffery, you say you like the reasoning of the Iowa Court but that reasoning is destroyed by your own stated standards.
The opinion of that court depended on "same-sex attraction and romance" for which there is no legal requirement -- neither for eligibility nor for ineligibility.
There are other examples but that one is the most blatant.
The Iowa Court opinion displayed circular thinking. You favor that, I know, but the conclusion is not based on reasoning. It is a pre-drawn conclusion. That's an abuse of judicial review.
Jeffery said:
"Has anyone ever married the government? I know of no wedded couple who sought society’s permission or consent to be married."
The government is party to the agreement to marry. You have said that to marry is to consent to the government bennies. Consenting adults could do that in twos as well as in moresomes or onesomes. You haven't explained why this should not be so.
Instead you pose as if things should remain the way things have always been. Again, that contradicts your own stated standards.
A lone individual can enter an agreement with the government for government bennies. You said so.
When a license is issued, and eligibility criteria are enforced, the consenting adults do seek the consent of the government. That's fair when the government acts as proxy for society, as a whole -- rather than as a rubber stamp for identity politics as per the hyped emphasis on the gaycentric version of identity politics which is barey disguised in your comments.
Jeffery said:
"Gay marriage means marriage between two people of the same gender."
Your response to Marie earlier was an admission that even you believe what you just said is false.
Jeffery said:
"If you respect the law, you’d agree. If you love children, you’d also agree."
Or a person can both respect the law and love children and disagree with your fragile and profoundly flawed remarks about the law and about marriage.
Indeed, as your remarks have revealed, you respect not the rule of law but the abuse of judicial review in imposing conclusions that are pre-drawn in your favor.
And as your remarks have shown, you are very selective about which children merit the protections that you have favored for some but not all.
You have ascribed ill-motive to people with whom you disagree.
I have pointed to your admitted ignorance of marriage and to your circular thinking. But I would not, and have not, said that you are motivated by less than love for children. I have pointed to your being well-intentioned.
The hyper-personalized insult adds zilch to the substantive disagreement, but it is another tell tale sign of a weak position on your part.