NOM BLOG

Infographic: The State of Marriage in the States

 

Stateline has produced a helpful infographic showing the landscape of marriage laws across the United States and a history of various state-level marriage votes over the years (click for full-size):

It is interesting to note that, with the exceptions of California, Maine, and South Dakota, every state which has voted to protect marriage has done so by more than 55%. Will North Carolina join these states tomorrow?

56 Comments

  1. Posted May 7, 2012 at 12:30 pm | Permalink

    Why the heck is California not black?

    We won it fair and square- who cares that a judicial conspiracy is attempting to deprive the people of their sovereignty in the matter?

    They won't.

    The law of the land in California is one man one woman marriage.

  2. Pete
    Posted May 7, 2012 at 1:09 pm | Permalink

    Whatyaknow, all highly educated, healthy states. Bravo.

  3. Ash
    Posted May 7, 2012 at 1:21 pm | Permalink

    Maryland is going black in November.

  4. private_joker
    Posted May 7, 2012 at 1:40 pm | Permalink

    Great informational map.
    TO listen to the counterfeit marriage crowd one would think the opposite of what this map portrays, but then again the ssm ilk usually aren't friends with the truth.

  5. Barb Chamberlan
    Posted May 7, 2012 at 1:42 pm | Permalink

    Agreed, Pete, the folks in those dark grey states are indeed highly educated and healthy. Kudos!

  6. John Noe
    Posted May 7, 2012 at 1:46 pm | Permalink

    I am with you Rick on CA. How can it not be black. It would take arrogant judges to overule. The people not only voted on this matter but they amended their Constitution.
    It would be the ultimate arrogance on the part of judges to rule that it is unconstitutional to amend your own Constitution. Even the CA Supreme Court did not go that far.
    As far as WA and MD may allow, it goes before a vote of the people before it is to be allowed.

  7. Woody
    Posted May 7, 2012 at 2:16 pm | Permalink

    California is black because litigation on Prop 8 is pending. The ban against SSM was struck down by a disctrict court and its ruling was upheld by a circuit court. The district court ruled that the ban would remain in effect pending the outcome of appeals.

    New Mexico should be in dark brown. This is because the state does not have a ban in its state constitution.

  8. AD
    Posted May 7, 2012 at 3:51 pm | Permalink

    Get ready for more and more yellow states in the next few years! Voting on human rights goes against everything the USA stands for.

  9. eliasasm
    Posted May 7, 2012 at 4:13 pm | Permalink

    AD,

    voting on human rights, also, goes against the Jesus message and the word "God" which I have challenged people here to debate. No takers. What was it that Dan Savage called them? Apparently he spoke the truth.
    I find it telling that these people will stop at nothing to do something to me and don't have the respect or consideration to at least talk to me about it. Says it all.

  10. Little Man
    Posted May 7, 2012 at 4:24 pm | Permalink

    Nope. Misleading title.

    Nowhere in the USA has legislation been passed about 'gay marriage'. Read the ballots, Bills, amendments.

    Yes, Read. And the problem is resolved.

    Legislation, ballots are is always about same-sex marriage or civil unions or partnerships (which would include blood-related partnerships).

    Even with tricky titles, same-sex 'marriage' doesn't convince, once you see it as a civil matter, not a religious matter. Nothing incorrect with people voting their religion (as we all do), but if there's a marriage or civil union license involved, it becomes certainly a civil matter. At that point, it is no longer just about love (which comes and goes).

  11. Little Man
    Posted May 7, 2012 at 4:26 pm | Permalink

    Pete doesn't realize the shape of the economy in California, and pretends to speak Spanish: 'Whatyaknow, all highly educated, healthy states. Bravo.'

  12. Little Man
    Posted May 7, 2012 at 4:30 pm | Permalink

    eliasasm: I will talk to you about it. Not everyone has your amount of free time, though.

  13. Pete
    Posted May 7, 2012 at 4:33 pm | Permalink

    It took 22 years for 50% of Americans to accept interracial marriage after Loving v Va. It takes the wisdom of the judiciary to outweigh the ugly blinding bigotry.

  14. Posted May 7, 2012 at 4:42 pm | Permalink

    Little Man @4:30:

    Very nicely done :-)

  15. Posted May 7, 2012 at 4:44 pm | Permalink

    Pete:

    The American people never once voted to adopt constitutional amendments over miscegenation laws.

    The American people have never once *not* voted to protect marriage against the insane agenda of the marriage corruption movement.

    Your attempt to foist your illogical "race=gender" meme has failed, already, in every instance where it has been tried.

    Even in Cali.

    Now don't get me wrong, if you want to keep on going to war with a battle plan that we have already defeated 31 times (32 tomorrow)......go ahead!

    And come to think of it, your attempt to try a new one out in NC hash;t fared any better.

    Some things are just too insane to sell, Pete.

    Like marriage corruption.

  16. Pete
    Posted May 7, 2012 at 4:47 pm | Permalink

    Rick, rationalize much?

  17. Pete
    Posted May 7, 2012 at 4:49 pm | Permalink

    And you keep proving my point, the mob rule over minorities is ugly.

  18. eliasasm
    Posted May 7, 2012 at 5:25 pm | Permalink

    @Little Man,

    Bring it :)

    I would like to start with the religious aspect, if that's ok with you, since it appears as though that's where all this starts.
    I posted a video that shows a young man talking about his interpretation of homosexuality in the bible. I have to say it stopped me dead in my tracks. His interpretation seemed to be logical and fit in with what I see as Jesus like and Godly. The 6 stories that deal with this issue seem to be more about harming others and being true to yourself, not sexual orientation. The Lot story about men raping men is just that, raping and forcing yourself on someone. That would be abominable. The same if you lie with a man like a women would be an abomination since you are not being true to yourself. It really doesn't look like the issue is sexual orientation. Wouldn't "God", if there is such a thing, speak of goodness and kindness which this interpretation does as opposed to the current interpretation where the outcome is not so good? I mean, look what is happening right here.
    What say you? And thank you.

  19. eliasasm
    Posted May 7, 2012 at 5:35 pm | Permalink

    @Rick DeLano#13,

    And mob rule over a minority is called tyranny and leads to a dictatorship. Minorities in America have rights, too, as much as you hate to think so.
    Looks like you are a United States of America corruptor doesn't it?

  20. Posted May 7, 2012 at 5:59 pm | Permalink

    "There are non-religious arguments against neutering marriage:

    1) Men and women are different. Even most of the people who try to deny this demonstrate that they understand this to be true. After all, if men and women were not different, all, or at least three, of the terms in "LGBT" would have no meaning.

    2) The pairing of a man and a woman is different than the pairing of two men or two women. It is the only kind of pairing that is able to naturally produce new citizens (who, unlike the adults, do not consent to the relationship), even if not all do. This alone is enough to give the state more interest in the pairing of a man and a woman.

    3) Men and women are different in personal relationships. If that difference matters enough to someone in picking a lover, how can it not matter when it comes to the parent-child relationship?

    4) State licensing of bride+groom pairings provides children with a role model, guardian, and bonding partner from each of the two sexes that comprise all of society, legally bound to each other as well as the children; generally, this is good for children.

    5) It is constitutional, moral, common, and necessary to treat different kinds of relationships differently.

    6) One need not believe homosexual behavior, relationships, or people to be harmful, sinful, or inferior to accept any or all of #1-5.

    All law discriminates and imposes someone's morality.

    There is no moral or Constitutional reason that prohibits a voter from ever voting in a way that is consistent with their religious beliefs.

    Conversely, it is the argument of marriage neutering proponents that is internally inconsistent. Marriage neutering advocates must minimize the differences between the sexes while also maintaining that the differences provide insurmountable obstacles to them forming a heterosexual relationship. They argue that men and women are not really different at all, then argue that they are so different they can’t possibly be happy marrying someone of the opposite sex. This is a paradox that ultimately undermines their argument."

    (quote credited to the eminently sensible "The Playful Walrus")

  21. eliasasm
    Posted May 7, 2012 at 6:47 pm | Permalink

    @DoE#18,

    Sure, great, fine, whatever. However, whether gay marriage is or isn't doesn't change what everyone of us is. All of everything that you are trying to do to make people what you think or anyone thinks they should do, isn't going to make them or anyone change. This is why this whole gay marriage thing is so absurd. You are not going to change anything about what it is that you want to make the issue be. Seriously, every single argument you all come up with is to change and decide who people are and how they lives their lives. You can write all the laws you want until your dying day, you are not going to change what you want to change. It has never happen and that's because it's impossible. You cannot make something be what it is not. This is, it seems, to be the problem, not looking at the big picture. People are who they are. That can't be changed.

  22. Creighton
    Posted May 7, 2012 at 6:55 pm | Permalink

    Rick

    "Your attempt to foist your illogical "race=gender" meme has failed, already, in every instance where it has been tried."

    It isn't that hard to support this meme.

    The Black Civil Rights Movement and the Gay Civil Rights Movement, including the treatment of the minority involved by the majority, are remarkably similar.

  23. Creighton
    Posted May 7, 2012 at 6:59 pm | Permalink

    DoE:

    "Men and women are different. Even most of the people who try to deny this demonstrate that they understand this to be true. '

    No one on our side is trying to claim that men and women are the same. All gay men and women know that men and women are different.

    I'm a gay man. I know women are different. I know that I am not emotionally or physically attracted to women.

    All of your subsequent arguments are shallow at best. All of your repetitive arguments won't change the fact that there is no rational basis whatsoever to deny gay couples the opportunity to legally marry. Civil marriage is not a finite pie.

    I also see that you abandoned your "gender discrimination" mantra for "neutering marriage". Props on being so very clever.

  24. Posted May 7, 2012 at 8:49 pm | Permalink

    "every single argument you all come up with is to change and decide who people are and how they lives their lives."

    Uh, nope. Those who don't wish to marry according to the existing sex integration rules of marriage are free to exercise the option not to marry. I'm ok with that.

    "you are not going to change what you want to change."

    Uh, nope again. I don't want to change anything or anyone. I want to keep marriage laws intact. Man+woman, as our country has always upheld.

    I'm afraid you have me confused with someone interested in promoting sexual identity politics. That wouldn't be me.

    You have a great evening. :)

  25. Posted May 7, 2012 at 8:52 pm | Permalink

    Creighton, you make call my arguments "shallow" as much as you like. I can live with that. :) Promoters of SSM are obligated to explain why marriage should be neutered. Go for it! Please be thorough.

    I'll chalk your being new to NOM to not knowing that I've been using "marriage neutering" AND sex integration/sex integration for several years now. No worries, you couldn't have known, unless you went back through a couple years of NOM blogposts.

    Have a great evening! :)

  26. MarkOH
    Posted May 7, 2012 at 8:54 pm | Permalink

    DoE #18
    "It is constitutional, moral, common, and necessary to treat different kinds of relationships differently."

    Uh, actually it's not. It's called discrimination. The same things were said to defend the prohibition of interracial marriage. Separate but equal is not consistent with our Constitution.

  27. Posted May 7, 2012 at 10:01 pm | Permalink

    DoE,

    I am not new to NOM. Used to post as RJ. That was banned after Louis Marinelli came to support marriage equality after a nice discussion I had with him. I've been following your comments for a few years. On this forums "marriage neutering" is relatively new for you.

  28. Posted May 7, 2012 at 10:02 pm | Permalink

    Ahh. I see that the ban on "RJ" was simply an IP ban.

    Anyhow, my point is simple: Allowing gay couples the opportunity to legally marry makes for a stronger society. It creates more secure households, which de facto improve the safety and security of the communities around them. It serves the very same purpose that occurs when straight couples marry: that is the creation of socially supported and legally secure families.

  29. Posted May 7, 2012 at 10:04 pm | Permalink

    DoE,

    Marriage equality for gay couples is also important because it is the solidification of their family unit in a way that everyone understands and supports: through marriage. In this, marriage is not changed or neutered. It isn't suddenly something different. In fact, there is no transformation of the institution at all. It remains the same. A word is not defined by those who use it. Instead, a word is defined by what it does: unites couples in a way that implies permanence, security, and love.

  30. Posted May 7, 2012 at 10:11 pm | Permalink

    DoE,

    To continue, this push for marriage equality isn't going away. It has been present for decades and will continue to be present until resolved in the way of equality for gay couples. Why? Because society conditions young adults to get married and form families with someone they love in order to be most happy. The only natural recourse for gay men and women in this is to do so with someone of the same gender.

  31. Posted May 7, 2012 at 10:13 pm | Permalink

    Marriage present only one gender isn't neutered marriage or spayed marriage. It is marriage, still. Why? It is approached with the very same purpose, intentions, goals, and mindset: to build a family with the person you love for the betterment of one another and the next generation, many of whom are without parents and could be loved by any parents, same-gender or opposite-gendered.

  32. undercover
    Posted May 7, 2012 at 10:13 pm | Permalink

    So this week's war, is the war on gays, as President gloom and doom, and VP foot in mouth, has yet again accused the opposition of doing, what they themselves are doing, yet condemning the opposition for doing it.

    I smell desperation from the democrats and it stinks.

    Still not gonna help tomm when NC votes to support real marriage.

  33. Posted May 7, 2012 at 10:17 pm | Permalink

    So why should marriage become a gender-neutral institution? After all is said and done, the strongest answer is simple. The benefits of marriage equality are immense. Countless gay couples, young and old, will begin to feel welcome in this society once again. This will improve the social health of our population significantly and will be one less point of division. There will be stronger and more secure homes and communities. There will be more fairness and equality for all involved. Lastly: there will be no negative consequence to straight couples or children. Whatsoever.

  34. Randy E King
    Posted May 7, 2012 at 10:29 pm | Permalink

    RJ,

    The opposition to your designs is rooted in five thousand years of history and tradition and will never go away; whereas you cannot even agree on the definitions of the words you use as you attempt to lend an appearance of acceptability to your depravity.

  35. Randy E King
    Posted May 7, 2012 at 10:30 pm | Permalink

    Marriage corruption will be fought at every turn.

  36. Posted May 7, 2012 at 10:36 pm | Permalink

    Randy,

    You really make absolutely no sense. Your "5000 years of history and tradition" comment is only supported by your shallow, revised form of history.

    I define words just fine. Marriage as we know it is the union of two people in love for the common purpose of lifelong companionship. It results in the formation of a family.

    Then we have you. Who misapplies the word 'corruption' in order to instill discord, division, and figurative poison.

  37. Posted May 7, 2012 at 10:39 pm | Permalink

    As for the acceptability of my "behavior". I am accepted just fine among my friends, families, coworkers, and the immediate society around me. More importantly, I am accepted by the man I love.

    It's a shame that you look upon love and hate it. That's very inhumane of it. Your behavior is despicable. Given your behavior and treatment of others, I would even rightfully label you a miscreant.

  38. AD
    Posted May 7, 2012 at 10:47 pm | Permalink

    RJ, they don't WANT us to feel welcome in society, or to live happy lives. They are absolutely not concerned about other people at all. They want gay people to be sad and miserable, because they believe we are inferior.

  39. Posted May 7, 2012 at 11:09 pm | Permalink

    AD, I know. I am happy, however, knowing that their actions against us are of an old mindset that is slowly dying of old age, peacefully and without suffering, of course.

    I give it another decade at most. That'll make me 38, ensuring that I have only had to pay... say... 25 to 30k more than my straight counterparts simply because of the fact that I am gay.

    I'm just glad I don't have any estranged family who hate teh gayz enough to challenge my future husband should something happen to me.

  40. Posted May 8, 2012 at 2:07 am | Permalink

    RJ:

    OK then.

    See you in ten years.

    :-)

  41. Posted May 8, 2012 at 2:28 am | Permalink

    No, RJ. Turning marriage into an always bride/groom union to a sometimes bride groom union has far-reaching implications, especially when it comes to paternal, maternal, and child rights.

    Man+woman marriage always guarantees a child both a mother and a father, SSM never does. The two are not the same, and do not have an equal impact on society. Man+woman integrates both sexes, SSM segregates them. SSM discriminates against the opposite sex. Man+woman supports equal representation of both sexes every time.

    The two are fundamentally distinct. Only an opposite-sexed union can create life AND provide that new life with both-sexed parenting. The other never can, with documented negatives.

    There are far more negatives with SSM, than positives for society at large.

  42. Posted May 8, 2012 at 2:37 am | Permalink

    Lastly, RJ, we-the-people don't license and regulate marriage to improve self-esteem, to govern love, or to dictate feelings. We regulate marriage to ensure responsible procreation. If you're waitng for marriage to feel validation for homosexual behavior, you might recall that in the Netherlands, where ssm has been teh law of the land for quite some time, depression, illness, family dysfunction and suicide are still quite high in the portion of the population which self-labels as "gay." Marriage is no panacea for affiliating with a gay political identity.

  43. Posted May 8, 2012 at 2:43 am | Permalink

    "Marriage equality for gay couples is also important because it is the solidification of their family unit in a way that everyone understands and supports: through marriage. In this, marriage is not changed or neutered. It isn't suddenly something different. In fact, there is no transformation of the institution at all. It remains the same. A word is not defined by those who use it. Instead, a word is defined by what it does: unites couples in a way that implies permanence, security, and love."

    Frankly, the same argument could be made for sibling marriage or polygamous marriage, and, as always, with no reference to sexual orientation. So, if we're not willing to legalize those particular loving relationships as "marriage," why should we do so for same-sex relationships?

    What does "gay" have to do with it?

    I wish you a good night.

  44. Posted May 8, 2012 at 3:05 am | Permalink

    DoE,

    "To continue, this push for marriage equality isn't going away. It has been present for decades and will continue to be present until resolved in the way of equality for gay couples. Why? Because society conditions young adults to get married and form families with someone they love in order to be most happy. The only natural recourse for gay men and women in this is to do so with someone of the same gender."

    Well, the issue may persist, but we will continue to point out that marriage laws don't make sexual orientation or political affiliation a requirement for marriage. And, if liberal France can quash ssm, then conservative America should be able to hold things at bay, unless the whole country becomes corrupted by identity politics. Then, say good-bye to any kind of free society.

    Freedom to associate does, in no way, qualify anyone to redefine marriage from a sex-integrated union to a sex neutered union. Associate freely. Love freely. Just remember that love is neither governed, nor regulated, but sexual unions are.

  45. Ash
    Posted May 8, 2012 at 9:13 am | Permalink

    Great points, DoE. SSM has NOT resulted in the improved mental health of gay people in the Netherlands.

    And notice that when marriage supporters predict that ssm will harm the institution of marriage, SSMers say there is "no proof," and label the predictions are useless theorizing. But that's exactly what *they* do. They theorize that ssm will improve society in so many ways--a claim for which there is zero scientific evidence.

  46. Posted May 8, 2012 at 12:12 pm | Permalink

    DoE, but we are not talking about "sibling marriage" or polygamous marriage, are we? No. Those are all types of relationships that transcend sexual orientation. We are discussing same-gender couples vs. opposite-gender couples. In denying a sibling marriage, you are denying one TYPE of relationship in light of other types. In denying same-gender couples marriage equality, you are stamping out all forms of valid romantic relationships for gay couples.

  47. Posted May 8, 2012 at 12:40 pm | Permalink

    RJ said, "In denying same-gender couples marriage equality, you are stamping out all forms of valid romantic relationships for gay couples."

    First of all, we-the-people don't license and regulate romance. Nor do we deny rights of association. Why do some "types" of relationships qualify for marriage, and others, not? Maintaining the man/woman requirement for marriage does not prohibit same-sex couples from enjoying all the romance they can muster. So, your argument does not hold water.

    Furthermore, you may not be arguing for polygamy, but polygamists are. They'll be asking for the same "rights" as the pro-SSM group, and what rationale will there be to deny them?

    And, by what rationale, or authority do you state that "sibling marriage" or polygamy "transcend sexual orientation," but marriage between same-sex couples doesn't? Let's say that 3 men are "in love" and want to get married. By your rationale, what justification would there be for denying them a "marriage."

  48. Ash
    Posted May 8, 2012 at 4:52 pm | Permalink

    Well, yesterday I wrote that Maryland is going to become a black spot on the above marriage map, but my comment was caught up in moderation.

    Nevertheless, I still love the NOM Blog!

  49. Daniel
    Posted May 8, 2012 at 7:10 pm | Permalink

    Ash writes:

    Great points, DoE. SSM has NOT resulted in the improved mental health of gay people in the Netherlands.

    You cheer DOE for saying something that she did not say. Also noteworthy that you do not support the assertion re: mental health in the Netherlands.

    Meanwhile, closer to home, we se definite improvements in health - mental and otherwise - for gay men in NH since they gained marriage equality.

    Cheers!

  50. imimrtl
    Posted May 9, 2012 at 1:03 pm | Permalink

    "There are non-religious arguments against neutering marriage:

    1) Men and women are different. Even most of the people who try to deny this demonstrate that they understand this to be true. After all, if men and women were not different, all, or at least three, of the terms in "LGBT" would have no meaning.

    Not sure how this is relevant but ok.

    2) The pairing of a man and a woman is different than the pairing of two men or two women. It is the only kind of pairing that is able to naturally produce new citizens (who, unlike the adults, do not consent to the relationship), even if not all do. This alone is enough to give the state more interest in the pairing of a man and a woman.

    totally agree, which is why infertile couples aren't allowed to marry in the US.

    3) Men and women are different in personal relationships. If that difference matters enough to someone in picking a lover, how can it not matter when it comes to the parent-child relationship?

    Which is also why we don't allow obese parents to marry because they might make their kids fat.

    4) State licensing of bride+groom pairings provides children with a role model, guardian, and bonding partner from each of the two sexes that comprise all of society, legally bound to each other as well as the children; generally, this is good for children.

    Definitely, which is why we sure don't allow divorce, never take children from parents that abuse their kids, and why straight parents always make straight children.

    5) It is constitutional, moral, common, and necessary to treat different kinds of relationships differently.

    Constitutional: Yep because same sex marriage is expressly forbidden in the constitution and the part where it says "secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves" with the definition of liberty being "The state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life." ...yeah that part was a typo.

    Moral: Yep because there is only one moral standard in the US. That is why we only have one religion with one denomination.

    Common: Yep because the majority is always right.

    Necessary: I actually agree with this one, it is necessary to treat people differently...just like we should treat religious people differently than non-religious because they are more moral therefore are set to a higher standard than us in which case if they are now subject to the laws set down within that book. Adultery...that's a stonin'! Disrespect your parents...that's a killin' too.

    6) One need not believe homosexual behavior, relationships, or people to be harmful, sinful, or inferior to accept any or all of #1-5.

    Yep, because stating a bunch of "facts" supporting your argument while saying they are not precursors for supporting your argument makes total sense.

    All law discriminates and imposes someone's morality.

    Yep which is why you would have no problems with everyone voting to ban prayer in all homes in the US because after all...all law discriminates against someone.

    There is no moral or Constitutional reason that prohibits a voter from ever voting in a way that is consistent with their religious beliefs.

    True...you can vote however you want to...no matter who it hurts. But it is very much within the courts power to interpret and strike down that vote if it violates how they interpret the constitution.

  51. orthodox christian
    Posted May 9, 2012 at 1:24 pm | Permalink

    SSM and homosexuality NO!
    Traditional Marriage and Traditional Family YES!

    Who am I to go against God Almighty and Eternal?

  52. Chairm
    Posted May 11, 2012 at 2:39 am | Permalink

    RJ/Creighton/etc.,

    You said:

    "The Black Civil Rights Movement and the Gay Civil Rights Movement, including the treatment of the minority involved by the majority, are remarkably similar."

    Talk about hyperbole. You are one sick little lq

  53. Chairm
    Posted May 11, 2012 at 2:46 am | Permalink

    RJ/Creighton/etc.,

    You said:

    "The Black Civil Rights Movement and the Gay Civil Rights Movement, including the treatment of the minority involved by the majority, are remarkably similar."

    Talk about hyperbole. You are one sick little lad if you think that the evils of white supremacy are remarkably similar to the man-woman requirement of marriage law.

    Why would you discount history in that way?

    On the other hand, the assertion of the supremacy of gay identity politics as per SSM rhetoric and argumentation -- and your own gay favoritism -- is closely analogous with the assertion of white supremacy under that form of identity politics.

    The racists selectively segregated the sexes via an identity filter; your pro-SSM view uses the gay identity filter to selectively segregate the sexes under the auspices of the foundational social institution that integrates the sexes. Likewise, both identity filters deeply discount and obstruct the provision for responsible procreation which is the core meaning of marriage (combined coherently with sex integration). Abuse of marriage for nonmarriage purposes is also remarkably similar in both assertions of supremacy over our society.

    Marriage integrates the sexes; each one-sexed scenario is sex-segregative and that is supposed to be a desirable feature.

    Marriage provides for responsible procreation; each one-sexed scenario is nonfertile, inherently, and that is so regardless of gay identity.

    No, the raxcist analogue is the SSM campaign -- including its minority-rule tactics and its smearing of the principles of good governance.

  54. Chairm
    Posted May 11, 2012 at 2:56 am | Permalink

    RJ, same-sex sexual behavior is immoral, always. It is not the moral equivalent of coitus of husband and wife. It is different and, even if tolerable, it does not merit special treatment that sets the gay subset of nonmarriage over and above the rest of the types of relationships and livinig arrangements in the nonmarriage category.

    You said: "we are not talking about "sibling marriage" or polygamous marriage, are we?"

    Right, you are not talking about that because, given your own argumentation, you cannot reasonably distinguish between your favored subset of nonmarriage and the rest of nonmarriage.

    The best you might do is copy-paste from the boundaries around the core meaning of marriage; a core meaning that you expect society to reject as hateful and unjust.

    That puts you at odds with yourself.

    On what reasoned basis might some same-sex scenarios be banned (to use the pro-SSM rhetoric) from SSM?

    The prototypical sibling friendship is platonic so you can't object to that type of relationship on the basis of incestuous sexual relations.

    You can't even rely on sexual behavior or even sexual attraction as the basis for ineligiblity, according to your own homosexual emphasis in your pro-SSM remarks.

    You can't revive concerns about procreation as the basis for ineligiblity, likewise, because that is supposedly unfair, according to SSMers. Besides, siblings of the same sex would not pose the sort of concerns that justify the line drawn at opposite-sex siblings under marriage law today. And according to the anti-procreation remarks of SSMers, infertile siblings ought to be made eligibile.

    That is not a slippery slope argument, by the way. Your own argumentation swallows all of that whole without even chewing.

  55. Chairm
    Posted May 11, 2012 at 3:01 am | Permalink

    Nothing you have offered, Creighton, can justify the limit to twosomes. So, polygamous-like SSM is also on the table because it is also swallowed whole by your own arugmentation.

    You can't arbitrarily draw a line against related people nor against those inclined to form threesomes or moresomes. You need far more than your argumentation has equipped you with.

    The evils of white supremacy are not "remarkably similar" to the man-woman requirement of marriage law. You would be a sick lad to think such a thing.

  56. Posted May 12, 2012 at 2:35 pm | Permalink

    One man to one woman is recorded in heaven