In some ways, it was a typical summer wedding in Maine. Vows were exchanged, lips were locked and couples danced.
“I proclaim my committment out loud to you with pride and joy for all the world to see,” brides and brides, grooms and grooms and brides and grooms said to each other Saturday in West Market Square.
The ceremony, led by two Unitarian Universalist ministers, did not include the standard promises to love and honor. It also wasn’t legal.
That was the point organizers of Bangor’s annual Pride Festival and parade wanted to make — a majority of the couples who took part in the mock wedding ceremony can’t legally marry under Maine law because they are of the same sex.
If a referendum on the ballot in November is approved by voters, same-sex couples would be able to wed.
37 Comments
It's always a spectacle with these people. I think gay pride originated back when what is now referred to as "sexual orientation" for political purposes was the more correct, "sexual preference." Those who preferred to be homosexuals proclaimed their pride in making that choice.
But under today's standard,, if you were "born that way," what's to be proud of? That's like me saying I'm proud to have brown eyes; it's nonsense.
@OvercameSSA
Are you proud to be an American? Taking pride in the way you are born is not nonsense, it's quite ordinary, especially for minorities.
People are free to hire a mail-order minister to "marry" them to anyone or anything they desire, and there's nothing anyone can do to stop them.
The government interest in marriage, however, is and should remain uniting children with their mother and father.
Mail-order?! Bwa-ha-ha! Oh Barb, you low-thinkers never cease to amaze me.
To paraphrase: 'A church that doesn't believe what my church believes is no church at all.'
One-way to Baghdad or Tehran, darling. You'd be a hit.
And to have "government interest" one must have a solid reasoning for such...not some "mail-order" sociological study that attempts to refute decades of worldwide work.
Very middle-aged crowd, not even counting the couples taking part in the ritual. Interesting, given that this is often said to be a youth-driven cause.
@Barb: Then the government should not give benefits to heterosexual couples who get married with no intention of having children, correct?
@Katie,
The courts have already addressed your meme as "nothing more than a theoretical abnormality that has no effect on the traditional rational for marriage; procreation.” Pillars of society have a firm basis in the laws of nature; as opposed to the "theoretical abnormalities" you bemoan, or the sexual depravity you pimp.
If you truly thought your depravity was acceptable you would not be demanding it be declared to be that which it was incapable of being; the joining of opposites.
@Randy,
FYI, I am heterosexual and do plan to marry someday, so I can in fact "join opposites." Soooo I'm not sure where my "depravity" is coming from. Just because I support same-sex marriage?
Sorry to say, Katie, but in the bigoted mind (and hate filled rhetoric) of Mr. Randy E. King, you are depraved simply for supporting marriage equality for your gay and lesbian fellow citizens. You know, NOM leaders sometimes like to play it coy, and you'll hear Maggie (SOMETIMES) make comments to the effect that "gay unions" can be wonderful things, but they do not fit the definition of marriage. Then you get the unabashed haters like King. What's interesting too is how the leadership's OWN rhetoric changes when they're playing to bigoted crowd. Then all of sudden, gayness is "dysfunctional" and "unfortunate."
Well, Greg, why don't you explain to us how marriage is defined, what are the eligibility requirements for it, how those requirments came about, and why they should be changed, and what will be the consequences of those changes. Please also explain what the eligibility requirments have to do with sexual orientation. Also, name some (any) states that require proof of sexual orientation in order to qualify for a marriage license. And, speaking of "gayness," please explain how functional it is, how it benefits society, and why it should figure into marriage laws which govern kinship. Then, instead of simply complaining, namecalling, or tilting at strawmen, you could educate us. Wouldn't that be more productive?
Well, Evie, I know you'll get rankled if I use terms like "equal partners" and if I don't stress progeny in my definition of marriage, so it's kind of hard to come up with something that won't make you readily see red. I could stress the commitment of a loving couple and their desire to make a public declaration of that love and their intention to make it a lifelong union. You'll likely call that just selfishness and not contributing to the common good. I've heard all the arguments your side offers, and one would almost get the impression from same that in YOUR book marriage has nothing to do with actual romantic love.
I also note how your side loves to talk about "traditional" marriage and the "universality" of same, but then become indignant whenever you're reminded that marriage DOES vary significantly from culture to culture., that it, like just about everything else in human societies, is ALWAYS evolving, and that if we really went back to TRADITIONAL marriage, virtually no contemporary woman would want to buy into it.
You seem to be bringing up the old saw that ANY adult can already marry--albeit they may not be able to marry the person they actually LOVE. A trivial matter in your view, I'm sure.
How is gayness "functional," you ask. Well, I know your side also hates it when anyone dares to compare gay unions with infertile hetero ones, BUT those folks aren't exactly FUNCTIONAL in the sense you're implying either. You seem to be suggesting that producing progeny is what "benefits society," which is insulting to ANYONE who cannot or opts not to have children.
There are all kinds of ways to benefit society. Societies that accept their gay citizens do reap some real benefits from doing so. For one thing they tend to be truly open societies, in which creativity and individuality are accepted and prized. And they tend not to have so much blood on their hands.
You know Greg, you spent all that effort putting words in my mouth, conjecturing, and never actually answered any one of my questions. You spent all that effort telling me what marriage isn't, and not what it is. You talked all around it, but never got to the heart of the matter. And you never explained what gay identity has to do with marriage definition. You accused me of making implications, but never offered evidence. You took offense where none was intended. Is this how you intend to convince we-the-people to neuter marriage?
So you're "We-the-people," is it? I guess I'll have to address you in the plural, all y'all. OK, I'll try again. Marriage is the union of two loving, committed and equal partners who form a family, which may or may not include children either their own biological progeny or adopted ones. They commit their lives to one another, as well as their treasure (such as it is these days). There is indeed a public acknowledgement of this union--which does not mean that everyone in their society must approve of said union, but they do have to acknowledge its validity in law.
If everyone is free to marry the person he or she loves, then you're quite right in your implication that "gay identity" would have nothing to do with marriage. Neither would straight identity.
By the way, even if you're not the embodiment of "we-the-people" (or "us-the-people," after a prepositon), I cannot help but chuckle at the notion that you are "convinceable" on this subject. So in your case, I'd have to say I do not "intend to convince you." On the other hand, there may be people poking around this site who may actually be open minded enough to be convinced. Such things have been known to happen.
Well, it's a start Greg.
So, if I understand you correctly, "love and commitment" are the only eligibility requirements necessary for any two people to enter into marriage. Question: why only 2 (as opposed to 3 or more), and can that include individuals who are already close kin, and why or why not? What are the implications to presumption of paternity, paternity rights, freedoms of speech and religion, and what is the moral rationale behind SSM? The definition you gave could apply to the non-marriage category, as well. How are we to distinguish marriage unions from non-marriage unions. For example, a brother and sister could fit your definition. Thoughts?
@DoE
If I might be so bold as to answer in Greg's stead.
"Question: why only 2 (as opposed to 3 or more)"
To directly answer your question: only 2 people are permitted to marry in western civilization. If we were in another country, this would be a different discussion. Polygamous marriages exist in other countries, but that's not the country we live in, and their social mores are not our own. (I'll take this time to immediately intercept a predicted counterargument: "gay marriage is not in our culture either". Six states, Canada to the north, and several European countries all qualify as Western civilization, and they find that gay marriage is morally acceptable.) The same goes for incest too, by the way. It is unacceptable in America because it is unacceptable in America.
I'll take the time to bring up another point which I see seldom addressed. Of anyone talking about how this will lead to Polygamy, or Incest... it's -always- the opposition. The argument goes that if heterosexual marriage is infringed upon by homosexuals "joining the club", everyone else will be clamoring to be let in as well, correct? That being said, I don't see very many Polygamous Rights or Incest Rights groups rearing their heads to co-opt the gay rights movement... despite some's assertion that SSM would be the best thing to happen to them.
I'll tell you why this logic simply does not follow. European nobility (actually, let's face it, nobility across nearly all cultures) has had a fascination with continuing a "pure bloodline", meaning mating relatives in what I can assure you was a church-condoned marriage, back when churches had enormous political clout. Did the Nobility descend into homosexuality? No, because homosexuality and incest are not intrinsically linked.
Similarly, polygamous relationships are practiced not uncommonly in Africa and the Middle East. If you were to name the top regions friendly to homosexuality, would Africa and the Middle East rank -anywhere near- the top? No, because polygamy and homosexuality are not intrinsically linked.
I hope I've illustrated my point clearly enough.
It seems I'll have to split this up.
@DoE
If I might be so bold as to answer in Greg's stead.
"Question: why only 2 (as opposed to 3 or more)"
To directly answer your question: only 2 people are permitted to marry in western civilization. If we were in another country, this would be a different discussion. Polygamous marriages exist in other countries, but that's not the country we live in, and their social mores are not our own. (I'll take this time to immediately intercept a predicted counterargument: "gay marriage is not in our culture either". Six states, Canada to the north, and several European countries all qualify as Western civilization, and they find that gay marriage is morally acceptable.) The same goes for incest too, by the way. It is unacceptable in America because it is unacceptable in America.
(it seems like the other parts of my response are in moderation purgatory... please stand by, I suppose.)
The gist was that incestuous relationships and polygamous relationships have at various times and places (including the present) been sanctioned by no less an authority than The Pope. However, the opposition is always quick to point out that the legal recognition of homosexual unions is a new and untested idea.
If the acceptance of homosexuality would lead to the acceptance of incest and polygamy, why didn't the acceptance of incest and polygamy in their times and places not lead to the acceptance of homosexuality? (The answer is that they're not intrinsically related, and one does not follow the other.)
Respectfully, Andy, you have also kind of danced around the issue. Why was incest forbidden? And what component does Polygamy have, that SSM never does? The issue never was homosexuality vs. heterosexuality. The issue has always been sex integration vs. sex segregation. Gay identity politics is just a distraction. But, if you'll notice, Greg stated that what defines a relationships as marital consists only in the "love" and "commitment" of the individuals involved. ANd I pointed out that those two components feature in many relationships which we don't consider marital. So, circling back around, how do we distinguish marriage relationships from non-marriage relationships? What core features set marriage apart from all other public unions?
Eve, I don't think Greg said that love and commitment were the ONLY components defining marriage. He might have mentioned that the two people should be unrelated (as in level of consanguinity). There are good reasons for this (psychological factors in people brought up together, chance of genetic mutations). However, I note that close relatives are already family. One purpose of marriage is to form a new family and any form of incest would not do that. Close family members already have laws that recognise their relationship and give it a well-understood meaning in a social context. Polygamy in reality tends to be one man and more than one woman. No society could easily countenance the unequal nature and likelihood of exploitation that such a union would bring. One also has to consider the way in which dyadic unions operate as opposed to triadic. Triadic have imbalance built-in. Dyads of equal partners work well and are well understood. It would be social experiment to let rip on polygamy given the known history and the in-built power relations.
Re: children. Families other than strictly genetic offspring are not treated differently by the law or society. The state and society that recognise that genetic link does not guarantee responsible or effective parenting. Studies show that stability and security are the most important factors. (The genetic link is incredibily important and adoptees often pursue the nature of their 'biological parents. However, unless you are saying that adoption and single parenting should be banned then it is what it is vs intact biological families).
There is nothing magical about a man and a woman forming a romantic and family bond. Men and women overlap in most characteristics that we would think of wrt forming good relationships. It takes all sorts. And in case you hadn't noticed it, gay men and lesbians have a possbily even wider range of inherent characteristics that are traditionally associated with male or female.
In summary, the key features that define marriage are:
love
commitment
non-consanguinity
maturity (sane adults only can consent)
dyadic
It seems to me that without a deep love as a primary driving force then a marriage would be less than and would not be the best for chidlren, adopted or otherwise. There are good reasons why a fairytale wedding has become so popular. From a woman's perspective it is the public demonstration of that love and helps bind men to the common project, whether they plan to have children or not.
Over to you.
If marriage is only about love and commitment in the interest of making the partners happy, then why not let people marry their pets? I can't think of anything as committed to a partner as a dog is to his owner.
A man-dog marriage does no harm to society and provides happiness and security to the parties; according to the homosexualists perception of what marriage is, such relationships seem to fit the bill.
I seriously don't see the difference; I'm not saying that that's what so-called ss"M" leads to, I'm only saying it fits the parameters (even the commitment part is satisfied by a pet owner's right to commit on behalf of his pet). If that's all that marriage is, it is nothing.
If marriage is only about love and commitment, why should the government be involved in it at all?
I'm a small government conservative.
So, naturally, I don't favor the government obligating society to give special recognition to relationships simply because they are loving and committed.
@OvercameSSA
If you can't tell the difference between same-sex marriage and man-dog marriage, I don't know what to say to you. Making marriage between two consenting adults has nothing to do with animals.
@Ash
It is about love, commitment, and the creation of families. Homosexual couples adopt or have children (by untraditional means) as well. Isn't this obvious?
@DoE
I'm not sure what same-sex marriage has to do with incest. Can't incestuous, heterosexual couples have biological children? Why are they currently not allowed to marry? If the reasoning is only because of the possible genetic defects of their children, why are they still not allowed to marry if they are infertile? If you can answer that question, you can answer your own question about why allowing same-sex couples to marry wouldn't lead to allowing incestuous couples to marry.
"If you can answer that question, you can answer your own question about why allowing same-sex couples to marry wouldn't lead to allowing incestuous couples to marry."
Jon, I already knew the answer. I was simply wondering if Greg knew the answer.
Paul MC, respectfully, Greg said nothing more or less than that "love" and "commitment" are the requirements for marriage. He hasn't demonstrated thinking the issue through to deeper conclusions as you have. And, respectfully, you've raised the same straw men once again: (to paraphrase) "gender in marriage and parenting is irrelevant," even though it clearly is.
One core identifying feature of marriage has always been the integration of the sexes. One simply cannot ignore that fact. Even polygamy integrates the sexes. Marriage has always acknowledged the differences between the sexes, and supported the integration of them, recognizing that only a man + a woman can procreate (hence the didactic nature of that particular public union), and the rationale behind preventing incestuous marriages, and even the justification for preventing interracial marriages (an injustice no fair-minded person would promote).
You suggest that polygamy be prevented to avoid exploitation of women, yet SSM exploits women by stripping them of their legal claims to presumption of paternity. Polygamy, at least, is a consenting relationship that still preserves presumption of paternity; if individuals can consent to same-sex unions (and isn't the SSM claim often, "my marriage isn't your business"), than can't polygamists make the same demands? Muslim cultures easily countenance polygamy. Non-consanguinity is only relevant to sex integrated unions. While it is true that biological kinship does not guarantee responsible parenting, society still has the responsibility to promote responsible procreation via marriage between a man and woman, while disincentivizing (sp?) childbirth outside of marriage between a man and a woman. SSM is an endorsement of third-party parenting, creating less stability, not more, and more conflict, not less.
I'm interested in your phrase, "gay men and lesbians have a possbily even wider range of inherent characteristics that are traditionally associated with male or female." Can you please specify which characteristics exactly make a person "gay" or "lesbian?" If all citizens are to be treated equally, under the law, then why do we need to differentiate between "gay" or "straight?" You seem to be advocating the idea of sliding gender, and that gender is meaningless. If that is your implication (and please correct me if I'm wrong), how do gays and lesbians tell each other apart?
Jon -
You said, "If you can't tell the difference between same-sex marriage and man-dog marriage, I don't know what to say to you. Making marriage between two consenting adults has nothing to do with animals."
20 years or so ago, people would have said the same thing about so-called ss"m." "Guys marrying guys? Are you nuts?"
So why shouldn't marriage be between a person and an animal? Under the claimed criteria of love and commitment between 2 individuals, why not? Tradition? Because it's always been between 2 people? Because you think the relationship is somehow inferior to 2-people relationships? Because it is anti-pet lover? These are all arguments that homosexualists have rejected by those of us who support male-female marriage.
Can we just dispense with the argument that equates infertile heterosexual couples with same-sex couples?
Everyone knows of or has heard of stories about so-called infertile couples who end up conceiving children. Homosexual couples, on the other hand, are 100% certain not to conceive children.
As marriage is about regulating procreation, assuring that kids have their moms and dads and that moms and dads take responsibility for their kids, homosexual couples are irrelevant to its purpose,
"20 years or so ago, people would have said the same thing about so-called ss"m."...So why shouldn't marriage be between a person and an animal? "
Do you oppose allowing two men or two women to marry because you oppose bestiality? That's interesting logic. If you could be assured that allowing two ladies to marry would not lead to bestiality would you be less inclined to oppose those ladies marriage? If your answer is "no", you may need to find a different argument.
Overcame-
Why are you people so obsessed with bestiality?
Paul Mc has said this stuff before. As has Jon. As has most of the SSMers who have commented in the comment sections of the NOM blogsite.
Paul Mc said:
"One purpose of marriage is to form a new family and any form of incest would not do that. Close family members already have laws that recognise their relationship and give it a well-understood meaning in a social context."
How well do you understand that recognition?
Is it the equivalent of marital status? Nope. So you are still on the hook to justify denying them what you demand for others.
Just stick with the one-sexed scenario. You cannot invoke procreation because that is irrelevant to closely-related persons of the same sex.
You cannot invoke sexual behavior because same-sex sexual behavior is not a legal requirement for those who'd SSM anyplace where SSM has been imposed or enacted. No such legal requirement is proposed by the SSM advocates. You cannot use a non-requirement to draw a line against some people -- your own argumentation insists upon that rule.
SSM, at law, is not a sexual type of relationship. It is a friendship. The prototypical sibling relationship, for example, is nonsexual and yet loving and caring and all the rest. Why would you discriminate based on an inborn characteristic -- that of being born related?
So, what has sex got to do with it, given the rules of SSM argumentation?
What has procreation got to do with it, given the sex-segregative core feature of SSM?
Look, if you say that the law can get stuff wrong sometimes, then, you need to acknowledge that marriage has a reality independent of the law. That reality is rejected by the SSM idea.
The marital type of relationship unites the sexes; it is a comprehensive relationship and as such it entails bodily union; the same-sex scenario -- sexual or otherwise -- cannot manifest bodily union.
In reaction you might emphasize gay identity, again, and yet that does not manifest bodily union either. Nor does romance. Nor does love -- for you have already claimed that the platonic love of closely related people is no trump card. And, as per the rules of SSMers who argue against procreation as an essential feature of marriage, there are no legal requirements for romance, love, or gay identity for those who'd SSM -- anyplace -- and no such requirements are proposed.
You can stop and think through you claims about the line drawn regarding incest. Stick with the same-sex scenario and justify drawing such a line.
Michael C,.
The SSM idea and its argumentation sets aside all of the lines of eligibility and ineligibility that are based on the core meaning of marriage -- because SSM is a rejection of that core meaning.
1) integration of the sexes;
2) provision for responsible procreation;
3) these combined as a coherent whole.
SSMers need to depend on the SSM idea itself, and not on marriage, to justify any line drawn against any scenario.
They reject sex integration as a legitimate basis for lawmaking on marriage so they cannot revive that basis when discussing polygamy, for example. Nor when discussing age requirements, for another example.
They reject responsible procreation as a legitimate basis for lawmaking on eligibility so they cannot revive that as a basis for prohibiting related people. Nor, for that matter, for ruling out, in principle, the addition of a non-human to the pool of participants.
They cannot rely solely on consent. That to which consent is given (by the participants but also by society) is at issue here.
Thus you cannot reject item #3 in the core meaning of marriage without also rejecting the social institution as a social institution. The SSM idea is a poor substitute for the marriage idea. The SSM idea is an incoherent mess. It provides no basis for drawing lines of eligibility and ineligibility because it has no core around which to draw such lines.
SSM idea swallows whole the wide range of types of relationships and types of living arrangements that populate the large non-marriage category. It would depend on the arbitrary exercise of Government authority to impose SSM in the first place; and so it would depend on such arbitrariness to exclude people.
You must recognize that marriage law is for marriage and not for non-marriage. You must recognize that marital status draws a line between the marriage category and the non-marriage category. You must recognize that if this special status (marital status is a special status) is to be sustained, it must be justified rather than arbitarily propped-up.
You must recognize that if you want to draw a line between SSM and non-SSM, then, you need a non-marriage category whereby society justly discriminates between SSM and non-nonmarriage.
And you must recognize that you are on the hook to explain how SSM is marriage but that SSM is not non-marriage. You can do that only by looking at the independent reality of the type of relationship you have in mind. A reality independent of the law. A reality that cannot make unrelated persons related via same-sex sexual behavior, much less by gay identity.
I am quite sure your conscience will sound the alarm in your heart. Whether you respond aptly is another matter for you to figure out.
How could SSM make some unrelated people more related than those already too-closely related to be eligible to marry?
And if an all-male scenario, or an all-female scenario, can transform the participants such that they factually become very closely related, then, why would their sexual behavior not be incestuous?
I can talk to you about the husband-wife relationship and provide you with answers. But you supposedly know more about SSM than I. So please speak forthrightly on incest and say what you think it means for closely related people.
Stick with adults if you begin with the assumption that adult consent is necessary for the type of one-sexed relationship you have in mind.
The key distinction between marriage and non-marriage is that marriage is a structured sexual relationship that cohesively integrates human reproductive nature with the moral principles of the community.
For some reason, you did not even come close to mentioning that marriage is a sexual relationship.
Anyone who votes for "gay" marriage would actually vote to morally approve men having sex with men to all society, therefore.
They are voting to have all children told its morally acceptable for them to enter a a same sexual relationship when they grow up.
People who vote for "gay" marriage need to know they are not simply voting for the list you gave.
Thank you, Paul, for elaborating on my pointx and making the ones I would have made if I had the time to engage further with the NOM regulars (all five of 'em).
One should note, though, Greg, that Paul's points don't explain why the gay subset of same sex couples should be allowed to marry, while other same-sex couples should be left in the cold, so to speak, and on what merit?
Why do I get the feeling that this debate will still be happening long after we are all dead?
Sammy and Michael C:
I said nothing about having sex with animals; only loving relationships with animals. And, according to homosexualists posting here, marriage is about loving relationships and allowing people to marry whom they want.
So, keep throwing out the word "bestiality" to make me look outrageous, but I never spoke about that.