Gay-marriage advocates are now in court seeking to impose gay marriage on all 50 states, whether we like it or not. In today's Wall Streeet Journal op-ed, "Gay Marriage, Democracy and the Supreme Court," Princeton Prof. Robby George (NOM's chairman of the board) is the intellectual powerhouse who explains just how irrational and destructive making up a constitutional right to same-sex marriage would be.
Read it and rejoice!
Key excerpt:
"It would be disastrous for the justices to do so. They would repeat the error in Roe v. Wade: namely, trying to remove a morally charged policy issue from the forums of democratic deliberation and resolve it according to their personal lights. ...
"By short-circuiting the democratic process, Roe inflamed the culture war that has divided our nation and polarized our politics. Abortion, which the Court purported to settle in 1973, remains the most unsettled issue in American politics--and the most unsettling. Another Roe would deepen the culture war and prolong it indefinitely. ...
"Lawyers challenging traditional marriage laws liken their cause to Loving v. Virginia (which invalidated laws against interracial marriages), insinuating that conjugal-marriage supporters are bigots. This is ludicrous and offensive, and no one should hesitate to say so."
Help NOM fight back against the irrationality! Donate here. We need just $3000 this week to help us jump-start NOM's New York PAC. If you can afford to help with just $5, 10, or $100--or even $500 for marriage--we'll use your seed capital to grow a $500,000 war chest first in New York and then across this great nation.
Thanks so much for all you do. Truth first. Kindness also. But truth always.
Brian S. Brown
Executive Director
National Organization for Marriage
20 Nassau Street, Suite 242
Princeton, NJ 08542
bbrown@nationformarriage.org
68 Comments
Also from the column:
ROBERT P. GEORGE: "Opponents of racist laws in Loving did not question the idea, deeply embodied in our law and its shaping philosophical tradition, of marriage as a union that takes its distinctive character from being founded, unlike other friendships, on bodily unity of the kind that sometimes generates new life. This unity is why marriage, in our legal tradition, is consummated only by acts that are generative in kind. Such acts unite husband and wife at the most fundamental level and thus legally consummate marriage whether or not they are generative in effect, and even when conception is not sought."
Indeed, this is the basis for the marital presumption of paternity which is vigorously enforced. The first principle of which is that each of us is responsible for the children we (as part of a procreative duo) bring into this world -- barring dire circumstances or tragedy. There is no comparable sexual basis for SSM that is embedded into the SSM laws -- whether SSM has been imposed by judicial fiat or enacted by legislation. SSM is not consummated as a sexual type of relationship, at law, and yet SSMers emphasize sexual orientation. They do so on the assumption that sexual differentiation is of the utmost importance. But the societal importance is not explained by SSMers except in terms of identity politics.
The conjugal union of husband and wife is a sexual type of relationship, at law, and is thus a public type of relationship for which society has empowered government to regulate the parameters. The public aspect arises from the sexual aspect in large part. Indeed, the unity of fatherhood and motherhood, based on the complementarity of man and woman, is the obvious special reason for the special status of the social institution of marriage.
There is no special reason for special status for SSM -- apart from the demand that gay identity politics be pressed into the law and wielded as the weapon that trumps all other considerations.
There is NOTHING about SSM that cannot be done outside of SSM; there is nothing about it that merits special treatment via a licensing regime on part with marital status. SSM amounts to a license for friendship; and yet SSMers demand special treatment for some friendships apart from the rest of the nonmarriage category of living arrangments and types of relationships. This directly contradicts the SSM rhetoric that society pay no heed, make no judgement, give neither approbation nor disapprobation for sexualized relationships. Indeed, apart from the rhetoric, SSMers insist that the law does not distinguish between sexualized arrangements and nonsexualized arrangements - due to privacy.
If that is so, then, what is the point of the licensing of same-sex friendship? It is not the sexualized aspect, as SSMers runaway from that when it comes to imposing a sex requirement for SSM eligibility. It is not even the friendship aspect -- for the same reason. What is being licensed is not gayness.
And so it comes full circle. The marriage law does not regulate sexual orientation but it does regulate the union of husband and wife. And the marriage law does not use sexual orientation as a criterion of eligibility nor ineligibilty, but it does regulate the sexualized type of relationship -- the sexual basis of which is embedded in the law via the marital presumption of paternity.
SSM demands are closely anlogous with the demands of those who pressed racialist identity politics into government regulation of marriage via the anti-miscegenation system. If not for the claim that the interests of a particular identity group should over-ride the core meaning of marriage, neither the SSM movement nor the anti "interracial" marriage system is intelligible.
ROBERT P. GEORGE: "If marriage is redefined, its connection to organic bodily union—and thus to procreation—will be undermined. It will increasingly be understood as an emotional union for the sake of adult satisfaction that is served by mutually agreeable sexual play. But there is no reason that primarily emotional unions like friendships should be permanent, exclusive, limited to two, or legally regulated at all. Thus, there will remain no principled basis for upholding marital norms like monogamy."
SSM argumentation is aimed at forcing cultural change via legal redefinitions.
Sexual monogamy can occur outside of marriage, they will say just as they say about procreation. And sexual monogamy can be absent within marriage, they will say just as they say about procreation.
Of course, same-sex sexual attraction or same-sex sexual behavior or same-sex romance -- all of this -- can occur outside of SSM and, indeed, without a government licensing regime. But SSMers insist that this is the basis for government involvement with SSM. Their arguments, in terms of the law, are as superficial as their cultural observations.
However, the social institution of marriage does normalize sex integraton and responsible procreation. This is at the core of the institution which is foundational to civil society. Because it is of such great societal significance, it also has an overflow effect in terms of both the law and the culture of nonmarital sexualized relationships.
A couple of examples: it is the norm for unwed cohabitating man-woman couples to expect sexual monogamy -- in a marriage-like way. This is a cultural expectation that arises from the marital norm.
Another example: many jurisdictions now have enacted unwed presumption of paternity for the sexualized relationships of men and women. This imitates the marital presumption but is much more cumbersome precisely because of the lack or the diminishment of sex integration outside of marriage; yet it operates on the first principle of responsible procreation whereby the man (i.e. the husband) is lawfully presumed the father of the woman's (i.e. the wife's) children during their sexualized relationship (i.e. their conjugal relationship). It is the sexual aspect that provides the basis for this presumption of paternity outside of marriage. That is not so for any one-sexed arrangement whether licensed as SSM or not.
There are other overflow effects that come from the social institution of marriage's core meaning. These would be suppressed both legally and socially if the SSM campaign succeeds in suppressing the core meaning of marriage. There would be no source for the overflow outside of marriage.
SSMers fail to distinguish SSM from the rest of the nonmarriage category. They end-up where they begin: they point to governmental power to license arbitarily. Such arbitrary use of governmental power is supposedly at the heart of the SSM campaign's complaint about the man-woman criterion of marriage law. Yet they cannot justify special treatment of the type of relationship they have in mind when they refer to SSM -- hence they attack, reject, disparage anything that distinguishes marriage from SSM. If SSM is so meaningless, they figure, then marriage must be made meaningless too.
The union of husband and wife is not based on idenitity politics but SSM has nothing to sustain it but gay identity politics. Without that, there is no core meaning for SSM. And, without the core meaning of marriage there would be no special status for the social institution of marriage; and that guts the idea that SSM is a vehicle for giving "the homosexual relationship" a special status in society -- something that SSMers seek. If marriage loses its core meaning, as per the rejection of it by SSMers, then to what will SSM be attached? Not to marital status, for eventually that status will be emptied of its special justification.
Mr. George's paragraph above says much more than SSMers have cared to contemplate. Their argumentation is stuck on stupid because SSMers rely on standards that they abandon when SSM is tested by those same standards. No special reason for special status? Oh well, they say, marriage has special status and we'll just push SSM up on the back of marriage for a free ride.
Chairm,
In your blogs, I can not help but appreciate the depth of knowledge of marital law, courage of conviction in stating your case, and intelligibility of your posts. Keep up the good work as you bring clarity to an issue that all too often gets emotionalized such that what is at stake gets lost in the shuffle. Again, props to you, Chairm, for delineating the essence of SSM and why standing for marriage is so crucial and critical to civilization, both now and in the future.
Thank you for the kind words, Nicholas.
I've contributed to a small grup blog that focusses on marriage and related issues. These various topics have been discussed at greater length in our archival blogposts over the past several years.
See: The Opine Editorials
http://opine-editorials.blogspot.com/
There is also a growing list of pro-marriage bloggers, some of whom are linked at Opine. Marriage defenders have answered the rhetoric of the SSM campaign. The SSM campaign is still stuck in its old stale argumentation from the 1990s.
Post on!
Chairm,
I have visited the Opine Editorials Blogspot on numerous occasions and have enjoyed the posted articles there. I have yet to post as I feel my time is better served here on NOM's Blog as you, On Lawn, the Playful Walrus, and others, have the bases covered on Opine. Mind you, that is not to say I won't post, just that I haven't as of yet. Anyway, keep up the Good Work.
Some corrections
“It would be disastrous for the justices to do so. They would repeat the error in Roe v. Wade: namely, trying to remove a morally charged policy issue from the forums of democratic deliberation and resolve it according to their personal lights. …”
Actually, until we change our US Constitution, courts will continue to be obligated to strike down unconstitutional laws. So long as they adhere to this constitutional mandate, our democracy will be safe. If they start kowtowing to the angry mobs, our democracy is imperiled.
“By short-circuiting the democratic process, Roe inflamed the culture war that has divided our nation and polarized our politics. Abortion, which the Court purported to settle in 1973, remains the most unsettled issue in American politics–and the most unsettling. Another Roe would deepen the culture war and prolong it indefinitely. …”
“Roe” didn’t polarize anything: politicians chose to inflame a malleable public with a wedge issue, just as with same-sex marriage. Maybe the public should reject the politics of wedge issues! As far as the democratic process, we are a representative democracy: citizens rarely vote on laws. Obviously some states use the plebiscite process. There’s no reason to think that nationally prohibited marriage discrimination will change that.
“Lawyers challenging traditional marriage laws liken their cause to Loving v. Virginia (which invalidated laws against interracial marriages), insinuating that conjugal-marriage supporters are bigots. This is ludicrous and offensive, and no one should hesitate to say so.”
Whatever conjugal-marriage is, people who believe in it can continue to practice it. But the state should stop granting marriage licenses on the basis of sexuality, which, as the Iowa Supreme Court noted, it is doing when it uses gender composition to determine which couples may marry, and which may not.
Kevin it appears that the word, correction, does not mean what you think it means.
You have failed, again, to provide even one actual correction.
And, again, you've cite the Iowa pro-SSM court opinion which contradicts your own stated standards of argumentation. Indeed, your last paragraph contains a blatant contradiction within it.
On the other hand, you appear to want not only to neuter marriage but also to desexualize it. Yet here you are emphasizing sexual orientation and gay identity politics. Again.
Chairm,
I don't think you're really in a position to be criticizing the repetition of others. Like a broken record, you repeat your "paternal notion of childhood" or whatever, as if repeating it makes it sensible or persuasive.
You never recognize the inherent difficulty faced by the discriminatory nature of marriage statutes with regard to the US Constitution's Equal Protection guarantee. So much for the legal system, eh? You never mention any concern for the insecurity of children in households with unwed parents, gay or straight. You ignore Maggie Gallagher's own points on the benefits of marriage to the married couple, as if gay couples don't deserve health, wealth and happiness.
What gives with you? What's your deal? Who are you shilling for?
Kevin,
So the states that have used the "plebiscite process" of voting on laws are being unconstituional? What happened to states rights? Do they not supercede even the federal government's reach in areas not enumerated by the US Constition? If so, how do we reconcile both the Tenth and Fourtenth Amendments? Help me understand as I am merely a "plebeian."
Nicholas:
Did i say that states with voter referendums were acting unconstitutionally? No, I didn't. I said that the 14th Amendment guarantees that all citizens will be treated equally under the law.
State rights doesn't mean states can pass unconstitutional laws. Sorry.
"Princeton Prof. Robby George (NOM’s chairman of the board) is the intellectual powerhouse who explains just how irrational and destructive making up a constitutional right to same-sex marriage would be."
He can't be that bright if he thinks that there is anyone who believes there is a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, although court rulings regarding marriage suggest a much stronger argument supporting such a right than against. The constitutional issue is one of Equal Protection: that all citizens be treated equally under the law. It's pretty simple.
Kevin, you have AGAIN cleared your throat by claiming to have corrections on offer but then proceed to fail to offer even one actual correction.
This is your pattern.
In your second paragraph you managed to mangle the marital presumption of paternity by misstating this vigorously enforced legal principle as “paternal notion of childhood”.
That earns you another failing grade for basic reading comprehension. You can't possibly expect readers to respect your opinion on the marriage law when you display such ignorance of the basics.
In my previous comments in this very thread I discussed nonmarital families and equality. Yet now you complain that I ignore something that I had just written about here.
The misrepresentations flow from your keyboard. Is it political hackery or naivete? Maybe it is just incompetence. Perhaps it is a deliberate effort to mislead. Your own words are full of errors.
You know, the comments you begin with that throat clearing about offering your correction of others.
I have not ignored what you accuse me of ignoring. You have either not read my comments on these topics, not comprehended what was said, or are now trying to dodge the challenge put to you here in this comment section.
I think the latter is true to your established pattern.
If you have even one correction of the column to make, then, plainly state it, Kevin, or find another way to clear your throat.
No, going on about your theories about the Equal Protection clause of the US Constitution does not buy you a pass.
No, misrepresenting Maggie Gallagher does not buy you a pass.
No, falsely accusing me of something does not buy you a pass.
Stick to the column. Mr. George has said more than you have shown an inclination to contemplate.
You pose as someone up-to-speed on the legal issues and yet you misrepresent even the pro-SSM court opinions that you (superficially) mention.
Tell me, Kevin, does the US Constitution empower the judiciary to legislate? No, as I think you have previously conceded. Now, can you plainly state the difference between judge-made law and judicial interpretation of the law?
Clue: when a judge writes an opinion for the court, the idea is not to inject his own view of what the law ought to be but to interpret the law as it is.
You talk about equality and yet have failed, utterly, to distinguish SSM from nonmarriage. Indeed you have failed to distinguish marriage from nonmarriage. We've discussed this, Kevin, and your failure compounds with each comment you make while dodging the basic challenge.
If you depend only on the arbitrary power of government, then, your complaint regarding Equal Protection is null and void.
Kevin,
So then, you are wanting to have your cake and eat it too, right? I mean, you want marriage for anyone and everyone, whether they be OS or SS? How can marriage be for all? If some OS couples need not apply, how then does that make it suitable for SS couples? It seems to me that there isn't a middle ground here. I cannot be both for OSM and SSM. It is either or not both and. Why? Simply by the definition of marriage as the union of male and female, husband and wife. Wherein is this discriminatory? It would be only if marriage was intended for everyone when obviously it is not.
Kevin, your comment @ August 15, 2009 at 1:14 am, is simplistic and self-referential blather.
1. You say that no one believes there is a constitutional right to SSM.
2. You say you believe that there is such a right rather than that there is no such right.
3. You say that if one believes there is such a right, then, one is not so bright. You, for example?
As for the Equal Protection argument, or rather the rhetoric you depend on, the right to SSM, if one were to exist, depends on distinguish SSM from nonmarriage, surely. Indeed, if this right is the equivalent of a right to marry, then, you must begin by distinguishing marriage from nonmarriage -- AND distinguishing SSM from nonmarriage as well.
You haven't done so. Neither have the various pro-SSM court opinions you superficially mention.
But the US Supreme Court marriage precedents have connected the right to marry with procreation and sex integration. Unfortunately, you reject the special reason for the special status of the social institution. So this talk of a right to SSM, based on equal treatment, is bogus.
The bet you can do, Kevin, is to demand that marriage be flattened so that society can no longer treat it differently from the broad range of types of relationships and kinds of living arrangements. Nonmarriage must be treated the same as marriage, as per your own stated standards.
Suddenly the US Constitution will require that marriage become meaningless, you say? For the sake of what, precisely? Not for equality, for you are falsely equating nonmarriage with marriage.
A lot of words, Chairm, and it's all empty. I know you enjoy painting the SSMers as some sort of sneaks and scoundrels but it's the OSMers who are using sneaky tactics, false ads, want to hurt children and deny consenting adults the tangible and intangible benefits of marriage. Live it up!
Nicholas:
Like Chairm, you’re trying way to hard and making things needlessly complicated. The state grants a marriage license to couples. Imagine if the state said that black couples would no longer be permitted to marry. You would have no difficulty understanding the constitutional impermissibility of such a change. Now replace black couples with same-sex couples. You should feel, from a legal but maybe not cultural standpoint, the similar disgust you felt when black couples were denied the right to marry.
Another way to look at this: imagine if states also denied fishing licenses and drivers’ licenses to gay people. Wouldn’t this be illegal? Wouldn’t the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection kick in? I hope it’s clearer now.
Chairm,
I really don't deserve all the attention I get from you! But you serve as a useful foil for my remarks and for that I thank you.
For readers interested in how constitutional Equal Protection guarantees require that states offer marriage licenses to both same-sex and opposite-sex couples, I invite you to read the Iowa Supreme Court opinion from last spring. It's posted at the Court's website, easily found with Google.
Chairm,
“No, going on about your theories about the Equal Protection clause of the US Constitution does not buy you a pass.”
These aren’t my “theories,” but rather, the decisive factor in several cases involving marriage. The most recent state court decision, in Iowa, found UNANIMOUSLY that Equal Protection required the striking down of Iowa’s discriminatory marriage statute. I don’t buy passes, Chairm, I make sound arguments.
“No, misrepresenting Maggie Gallagher does not buy you a pass.”
Maggie Gallagher wrote an article I found online where she enumerates the many benefits of marriage including longer life, greater wealth, happier children, etc. For her to then determine that homosexuals and their children are unworthy of these benefits is quite unseemly. I sure hope I don’t meet her in a dark alley some day. She frightens me.
“No, falsely accusing me of something does not buy you a pass.”
I correctly identified your propensity you use repeat non-sensical and unpersuasive arguments to propel your ill-conceived notion that states must discriminate against same-sex couples when granting marriage licenses.
“…does the US Constitution empower the judiciary to legislate?”
No, the US Constitution instructs courts to strike down laws which do not treat all citizens equally. Hence the Iowa and Massachusetts courts striking down those states’ marriage statutes. Courts are free to recommend a remedy for flawed laws or statutes, and often do so, especially when civil rights are involved.
“You talk about equality and yet have failed, utterly, to distinguish SSM from nonmarriage”
I have no desire to “distinguish SSM from nonmarriage.” But if you must: same-sex marriage is marriage between two people of the same sex. Non-marriage is, well, non-marriage. There, wasn’t that easy??
I do have a desire to see our nation’s laws respected, especially specific instructions to us from the Founders in the US Constitution.
“Indeed you have failed to distinguish marriage from nonmarriage.”
Marriage is a legal contract between two consenting adults, specifically two adults who possess a valid marriage license with their names on it. Anything else is non-marriage. Have we cleared this up now?
Chairm,
“But the US Supreme Court marriage precedents have connected the right to marry with procreation and sex integration.”
But that reflected social demands not legal demands. Now that the Court has decriminalized all sexual behavior between consenting adults, and states are invoking Equal Protection to strike down discriminatory marriage statutes, the landscape has changed.
Court decisions have confirmed the right of convicted murderers to get married; if they wish to reproduce, perhaps via conjugal visits, they have that right. Same with convicted child molesters. Courts have also ruled that “deadbeat” parents have the right to marry and produce more children.
“The bet you can do, Kevin, is to demand that marriage be flattened so that society can no longer treat it differently from the broad range of types of relationships and kinds of living arrangements.”
Nope, no one’s asking that the status of marriage be altered from its lowly status, thanks to rampant adultery and divorce. The only change to marriage is who gets to participate. It’s just like voting: when women got the vote, voting didn’t become any less important to men who voted. The status and nature of voting, its implications to both citizens and to the future of the Republic didn’t change. Society has never regretted expanding a fundamental right previously limited.
Sometimes an outsider sees things the most clearly:
From yahoo.com:
“Atali Staffler, a Brigham Young University graduate student from Geneva, Switzerland, said she joined the 200 or so people who filled a downtown amphitheater for the event [the national “kiss-in,”] because she has watched her gay father and many gay friends struggle to find their place.
The 31-year-old, who was raised Mormon but is not active in the church, said the church shouldn't be involved in Prop. 8.
"I encourage them to promote the values they believe in and to defend their religious principles in advertisements, but civil rights have nothing to do with religious principles," she said.”
Well said. I hope media coverage of the nationwide kiss-in doesn’t overshadow coverage of NOM’s HomophobiaFest in Rhode Island tomorrow!
Kevin, whether scoundrels or not, the argumentation of SSMers is at issue. If, as in your case, the established behavior exemplifies the tactics and strategy of the SSM campaign, then, it is relevant. It is of a piece.
The same-sex category is not the equivalent of "gay". The opposite-sex category is not the equivalent of "straight".
In case you are ignorant of the fact, there are consenting adults who are ineligible to marry each other -- whether "straight" or not.
Meanwhile the marriage law does not use sexual orientation for eligibility nor for ineligibility.
It is SSM argumentation that presses gay identity politics into the discussion of marriage law.
Compare your own emphasis on that with your so-called argument against the centrality of responsible procreation. You say there is no law that forces people to procreate; no law that forces those who procreate to marry. Well, the same goes for same-sex sexual attraction; same-sex sexual behavior; same-sex romance. If, by your own stated standard, there is no legal requirement and, if by your own stated standard, something can occur outside of SSM, then, it is not essential to SSM. Okay, well, your emphasis on sexual orientation and on gay identity politics is a bust.
Yet the marital presumption of paternity is based on the sexual relationship type whereby the man (husband) is presumed (by vigorously enforced law) to be the father of the mother's (wife's) children. This the sexual aspect that makes of marriage a public relationship type that includes sexuality as a basis for eligibility and ineligibility.
Hence the lines drawn against some consenting individuals (i.e. against some related people, against some previously married people, against some underaged people). Take away the sexual aspect that is of public significance and what is left? You have yet to say.
So by your silence on this matter, your persistent silence by the way, the only criterion that would stand is consent. And consent that is NOT based on sexuality.
That would make all your talk about sexual orientation and gay identity a bust, a double-bust.
See Mr. George's remarks about licensing friendship.
I recommend that people read all of the pro-SSM court opinions with an eye to the standards of argumentation used.
The contradictions are blatant. That is a state court opinion and has zilch to do with the US Constitution. Kevin keeps confusing this with his rhetoric.
Typo correction: "The contradictions in the Iowa court opinion are blatant. That is a state court opinion ..."
Kevin it is the height of intellectual dishonesty for you to agree with Maggie Gallagher on the benefits of the social institution of marriage when you reject the essentials (the core meaning) of that social institution.
These are NOT governmental benefits that are sent in the mail to license holders.
These not benefits or bennies that the government doles out.
These are benefits of husband and wife, together, entering a social institution whose essentials you have rejected as bigoted.
Put another way: you have failed to distinguish marriage from nonmarriage; you have failed even to distinguish SSM from the rest of the nonmarriage category; and yet you pretend to compare to things for which you cannot plainly state the essentials that distinguish them.
How can you ascribe any sort of nongovernmental benefit to marriage when you can't say what marriage actually is? Likewise, how can you compare marriage -- or this meaningless thing you have in mind -- with SSM -- another meaningless thing you have in mind?
Ah, you no doubt depend on government licensing to distinguish these things. And you thus misrepresent Maggie Gallagher's writings on the nongovernmental benefits of the social insitution.
And that dependance of yours, Kevin, emphasizes your contradiction of your own complaint about the supposed arbitrariness of the marriage law's man-woman criterion.
You do not make sound arguments. You wave your hands a great deal and stomp your feet even more. That does not buy you a pass.
Kevin, the state recognizes the union of husband and wife. It necessarily and justly discriminates between marriage and nonmarriage.
You are fearful of being anything but indiscriminate. Hence your rhetorical attempt to render marriage as meaningless as SSM -- by your own stated standards.
You discriminate when you seek to raise a subset above the rest of the nonmarriage category. And on what basis do you seek to do that?
Right, on the very basis that you reject the core meaning of marriage. You emphasize sexual orientation and gay identity. Somehow these things are of such importance to you that the rest of the nonmarital families in need must be treated as second class by the government.
No, you do not really stand on equal protection. If you did, you'd not use sexual orientation and identity politics to seperate a tiny subset of the nonmarriage category from the rest of that category.
Within marriage the sexes are integrated and responsible procreation is provided for.
SSM is sex-segregative. Within SSM there is no procreation. And within SSM there is no sexual basis that merits the special public status that marriage merits.
Whatever the good (and the bad) of the arrangement you have in mind when referring to SSM, you have not yet explained how it places SSM above the rest of the nonmarriage category. But you do go on quite a bit about the necessity of licensing what you cannot distinguish.
In neither Iowa nor Massachusetts has the judiciary struck down marriage statutes. You need to recheck your facts, Kevin.
Likewise in these states there is no legislation that has enacted the merger of SSM and marriage. Again, recheck your facts.
You have just given examples of abuses of judicial review. Examples that contradict your own vague citation of the US Constitution. Indeed if you read the Massachusetts constitution the judiciary is barred from doing what the legislature is empowered to do -- and which the legislature has NOT done for SSM in that state.
Yet SSM licenses have been issued. Please reconcile this with you vague stand on the US Constitiution regarding the judiciary.
Kevin, you cleared up nothing. You depend on the arbitrariness of issuing licenses for something you have failed to distinguish. Your remarks on this point are circular.
The social institution of marriage was not created by the Government. It is not owned by the Government.
This is a foundational social institution of civil society. And government arises from civil society, not the other way around. The People are not owned by Government. This is among the most significant of the first principles embedded in the US Constitution and our form of republican constitutional governance.
SSM argumentation has a way of corrupting all that it touches, including the public understanding of law, governance, and the foundations of our civilizaton.
Kevin said:
"But [US Supreme Court marriage precedents] reflected social demands not legal demands."
Given your emphasis on identity politics, I doubt you can explain the difference between social and legal demands.
Think about it: the law includes the man-woman criterion which stands for sex integration; the law includes the requirement to consent to all that marital status entails, including the marital presumption of paternity (see responsible procreation).
So these are the demands of the law.
Your demands are contrary to the law. Instead you demand that identity politics be pressed into the law to over-ride the core of marriage. This you do to make marriage mean less and less. Your demands are contrary to the societal interests in the special status of the social institution of marriage.
You make social demands, not legal demands, and try to force cultural change through legal imposition of a change that society rejects. That is why you rely so much on the abuse of judicial review.
Kevin said: "Now that the Court has decriminalized all sexual behavior between consenting adults"
But you recently insisted that sexuality be taken out of consideration. So what has sexual behavior got to do with SSM? There is no legal requirement that forces people to engage in same-sex sexual behavior for SSM licenses.
According to your own stated standards, SSM is not a sexual type of relationship, at law, since there is no such requirement that would force an all-male or an all-female arrangement to engage in same-sex sexual behavior for an SSM license.
SSM licenses do not regulate sexual behavior, as per your own comments.
Kevin, you need to read the court opinions that you have been citing regarding criminals and the like. You might come back and correct yourself on a few key points. Do your homework.
Kevin said:
"The only change to marriage is who gets to participate."
Particpate in what? If you are thinking of marriage, then, please plainly state the difference between marriage and nonmarriage.
You know, other than the license for participation in something you have failed to distinguish.
Kevin said: "It’s just like voting: when women got the vote, voting didn’t become any less important to men who voted."
Suppose that the Government decided that it owned the vote. Further suppose that identity politics would be the trump card on deciding who got to vote. Then, that would be very much like the imposition of SSM.
SSM is a subset of the nonmarriage category. You would show special treatment for that subset over and above the rest of the nonmarriage category of families in need of protections.
I bet when you think of "same-sex" you think of gay. But the same-sex category of relationships and living arrangements includes a much broader range than "gay". Indeed, protections are merited based on vulnerabilities, not based on identity politics.
So your vote analogy would have the Government take ownership of the vote -- bestowing it based on identity politics rather than on the meaning of the self-governance. The arbitrariness is blatant.
And readers will note that Kevin peppers comments with his bigoted shots against those with whom he disagrees.
Namecalling is his first resort. The rest follows from that.
* * *
The principle of freedom of conscience is chief among the first principles of good governance.
It is at the heart of religious freedom -- not just in terms of how we govern our society but also in terms of how within religious faith, such as that which Mormon's espouse, we rely on freedom of conscience as a matter of religous principle.
Athiests and agnostics rely on freedom of conscience, too. The secularism of our laws relies on the pluralism that allows for such freedom and principle.
Yet Kevin, superficially, says the opposite by invoking the words of someone with whom he agrees. Those words were ill-considered.
Kevin, calling something a civil right does not buy you a pass. It does not mean that you get to drum religious principles out of the public square just because identity politics drives your every thought on the subject of marriage.
Your comments belie a peculiar sectarianism which directly opposes the pluralism of a society that is founded on religious freedom. Without freedom of conscience the right to vote would be meaningless. Of course, SSMers in California and elsewhere have been keen to refer to majority rule as mobe rule so it probably your latest comment should come as no surprise.
Indeed, given Kevin's reliance on the abuse of judicial review, it would seem he has contradicted himself again. The vote of a judge is not a vote of personal conscience, yet consider the analogy with the complaint that Kevin just quoted. When a judge presses his personal social policy preference into a judicial opinion, especially in the name of identity politics, he makes no distinction between a civil right and a religious-like belief. Kevin would have readers believe that doing this is wrong -- only when voters do it in a legitimate election but not when judges do it in an abuse of judicial review.]
The two-sexed core of marriage arises from the two-sexed nature of humankind, the opposite-sexed nature of human procreaton, and the both-sexed nature of human community. None of that is create nor owned by Government.
The right of a husband and wife to have their union recognized is a fundamental right -- but not because of a government issued license.
Civil society depends on of sex integration and responsible procreation -- the core of the social institution that the Government neither creates nor owns. The authority to license is based on what marriage actually means. It is not based on Government arbitrariness. And no Government is empowered to abolish the two-sexed nature of humankind, the opposite-sexed nature of human procreaton, nor the both-sexed nature of human community.
But given Kevin's circular rhetoric about government licensing being the only thing that he can think of that would distinguish marriage from everything else, it appears that in his view the SSM merger with marriage necessitates government ownership.
And more. It necessites suppression of freedom of conscience and it necessites the stygmatization of religious principles that merit marriage with the meaning the SSMers seek to abolish from the sight of government.
The trouble is that the People have a government, not the other way around. And I do not mean "Government" with a capital G, but government with a lower case g which signifies government with the consent of the governed.
SSM is based on identity politics. And identity politics is one of the most reliable sources of bigotry, hatred, injustice, and even violence. When the Government sets itself against the governed, and uses identity politics to assert supremacy over marriage and over civil society, then, religious principles have everything to do with civil rights.
And, Kevin, it is true that you do not deserve much attention.
However, your comments and behavior here typify the SSM campaign and its argumentation.
When the surface of SSM argumentation is scratched, there is not much that merits the attention that SSMers demand.
The nonmarriage category includes families, especially those with children, who experience certain vulnerabilities. These vulnerabilities are caused by the decline in the social institution of marriage. That decline is not irreversible.
So in the longterm we need to strengthen marriage and that means we begin by reaffirming the core meaning of the social institution.
In the short and medium term we have nonmarital trends the factors of which are caused by and, in a spiral of descent, are also causes of increased sex segregation and a decrease in responsible procreation. In other words, the nonmarital trends are the flipside of the societal significance found in the core meaning of marriage.
So those nonmarital trends need to be reversed. In recent years we have seen signs that the decline of marriage had been stalled and that some negative trends might even be on the mend. But the SSM campaign came along and sucked all the oxygen out of the room. The nonmarriage purpose of SSM argumentation has been a huge distraction from the hard work that needs to be done. Many marriage defenders are standing against the anti-marriage movement but fighting with one hand while the other is lifting up people who are in vulnerable nonmarital families. We are thus at a disadvantage when defending against those who make it their primary focus to abolish the core meaning of marriage both in the law and in the culture.
But we must do both: defend and affirm marriage while also providing protections for those families who are suffering outside of marriage.
The latter should not come at the cost of merging nonmarriage with marriage. Not in terms of the law. Not in terms of the culture. Marriage is special for special reason. That reason is disparaged by the SSM campaign each and every day.
As I said to Kevin, the best he can do is to flatten marriage and reduce it to a meaningless status. No special reason for special status? Then no special status at all.
SSMers might try to cling to special status based on identity politics, but the problem with that is they are trying to attach SSM to marriage. If SSm is meaningless, societally, the merger would gut marriage as well. And that helps no one -- not even those who seek to elevate gay identity politics on the back of marital status.
If the special status is unsustainable under a merger of SSM and marriage, then, SSMers are shooting themselves in the foot.
If they want to argue for special status for gayness, then, they ought to do so forthrightly. Marital status is a special status. But it is not based on sexual orientation. It is not based on a purely personal and private type of arrangement. So if they seek special status on par with marital status, in the name of gayness but not in the name of a societal significance, then, there is really nothing there.
The emptiness of their argumentation reflects this.
What is it about gayness that deserves all this special attention by society? What is it about gayness that requires the government to license it?
It is not one and the same as the societal significance of sex integration and responsible procreation. They announce that each time they attack this core meaning of marriage.
Once again, readers might review Mr. Georges column and consider these questions in light of his clear-eyed view of the SSM campaign and its reliance on the abuse of judicial review.
Chairm:
“The same-sex category is not the equivalent of “gay”. The opposite-sex category is not the equivalent of “straight””
Sure they are. The Iowa Supreme Court recognized this specifically in their opinion. The correlation between choosing a same-sex partner and being gay is essentially 100%. That some states still discriminate against same-sex couples fails constitutional muster both on sexuality-based discrimination and gender-based discrimination (the state is using gender to determine what couples can and can’t receive a marriage license).
“Yet the marital presumption of paternity is based on the sexual relationship type whereby the man (husband) is presumed (by vigorously enforced law) to be the father of the mother’s (wife’s) children.”
First of all, DNA testing precludes the need for any assuming or presuming. Second, presumptions of paternity are circumstantial to marriage, not descriptive of it. A presumption that paternity belongs to the husband is relevant only if there are children involved. It’s a remedy for a specific circumstance. It doesn’t define the institution. Just ask any married couple.
“Take away the sexual aspect that is of public significance and what is left? You have yet to say.”
I have said many times. You just like to ignore because it makes you uncomfortable. Marriage is a public benefit because it creates a more stable environment for the raising of children. This is true regardless of the gender composition of the parents. The personal benefits of marriage, such as longer life, greater wealth, greater happiness, etc., benefit society by creating households less in need of public assistance. Same-sex marriage specifically benefits society in making a marriage option available that is more desirable to a minority of adults, who are then less likely to marry an opposite-sex partner and then divorce. Anything than reduces the divorce rate is a benefit to society, ceterus paribus.
“That is a [n Iowa] state court opinion and has zilch to do with the US Constitution. Kevin keeps confusing this with his rhetoric.”
Here’s my thinking: the Iowa state constitution contains an Equal Protection clause based on the US Constitution’s Equal Protection clause. In its unanimous decision striking down Iowa’s discriminatory marriage statute, the court used Iowa’s Equal Protection clause as the basis for its decision. Ergo, the US Constitution’s Equal Protection clause should do nationally, what Iowa’s constitution accomplished locally.
“Kevin it is the height of intellectual dishonesty for you to agree with Maggie Gallagher on the benefits of the social institution of marriage when you reject the essentials (the core meaning) of that social institution.”
It is the height of intellectual dishonesty, and the depth of moral depravity, for Maggie Gallagher to recount the many benefits of marriage and then actively work to deny access to marriage for a group she disapproves of, especially when the welfare of children is involved. Can you imagine Ms. Gallagher raving about the benefits of inoculation against childhood diseases, but pronouncing black children ineligible?
“How can you ascribe any sort of nongovernmental benefit to marriage when you can’t say what marriage actually is?”
Marriage is the legal union of two consenting adults in possession of a marriage license. For the umpteenth time! Religious folks are free to consider marriage as something else; they can believe that marriage is between only a man and a woman. That doesn’t change as states grant access to marriage to same-sex couples. What religious folks DON’T get to do is determine what marriage is for the rest of us. And I an grateful to the US Constitution for that protection.
This is a marvelous summary of why gay couples want to marry. It is from the Iowa Supreme Court’s opinion in Varnum et al:
“As other Iowans have done in the past when faced with the enforcement of a law that prohibits them from engaging in an activity or achieving a status enjoyed by other Iowans, the twelve plaintiffs turned to the courts to challenge the statute. They seek to declare the marriage statute unconstitutional so they can obtain the array of benefits of marriage enjoyed by heterosexual couples, protect themselves and their children, and demonstrate to one another and to society their mutual commitment.”
Chairm,
With regard to the connection between the Iowa Constitution and the US Constitution, I have forgotten how well written the Varnum decision was, including this:
“The framers of the Iowa Constitution knew, as did the drafters of the United States Constitution, that “times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress,” and as our constitution “endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom” and equality.”
Kevin --
Your remark about DNA testing is astoundingly stupid.
Unlike you, neither the marriage law nor society takes the default position that all marital mothers have been impregnated by men other than their husbands -- UNLESS a DNA test proves the husband to be the father.
The legal presumption is rebuttable and the cirteria for that take into account the possibility that a husband or a wife might challenge the presumption of paternity.
Most children, by far, born to marriages have parents whose parental status is not dependant on DNA testing. The correlation is very high.
The presumption is not challenged generally; but when it is challenged courts have found that the presumption is reliable in about 80% of cases. Not 80% of all marriages; 80% of those cases where the presumption has been challenged. So the correlation is far more signicant that your default position that all married mothers have cheated on their husbands and have been impregnated by other men.
By the way, the unwed presumption of paternity is much less reliable. Yet both presumptions, being rebuttable, are based on the sexual relationship of man and woman. The social institution has influence that you would disparage for the sake of gay identity politics.
The marital presumption of paternity is vigorously enforced across the country. The sexual basis of this has zilch to do with SSM.
The 0% correlation is obvious.
Meanwhile, there is NO legal requirement for same-sex sexual behavior for people who show-up for a license to SSM. By your own stated standards, the lack of such a requirement, forcing all who SSM to engage in same-sex sexual behavior, there is 0% correlation between the same-sex category of SSM law and gayness.
What did you say earlier about social demands versus legal demands?
Right, your have again contradicted yourself on a point you had emphasized as of the utmost importance.
For someone who showed up to 'correct' Mr. George's column, you don't produce much in the way of corrrection -- except to invite correction of your own flawed comments.
Kevin,
I am not the one complicating the issue. I understand full-well what marriage is-union of male and female, husband and wife. Always has been and always will. You will argue that marriage has changed as society has changed and therefore we must make a concommitant change to marriage in order for it to be "updated" to our times. In other words, because a, b, and c, marriage is no longer "as it was created," and consequently, marriage, as originially intended, no longer applies to our day. So, then, as marriage, over the years, fell prey to the evil that men do, does that mean that it no longer is the union of male and female, husband and wife?
Also, so it isn't okay for someone to stand up for what they believe on religious grounds (defining marriage, in this case), yet it is okay for the converse to be true? Oh, that is right, per another blogpost, I am to live my faith not vote my faith. As if that dichotomous relationship could exist. And if compartmentalizing faith is such a possibility, why even classify myself as a "believer?"
Kevin said: "Marriage is a public benefit because it creates a more stable environment for the raising of children."
1. Your response is a concession that there is no sexual aspect of SSM that makes it a public type of arrangement.
2. The sexual aspect of marriage is extrinsic to your view of SSM.
3. Your response does not reconcile with your disparagement of the marital presumption of paternity.
3. Based on your insistence that legal requirements define marriage, the raising of children is required for a license to SSM. By your lights, no children, no license.
Of course you will dodge this implication because you have failed to provide a public aspect of SSM that would distinguish it from nonmarriage.
I have already mentioned that there are many millions more nonmarital families than those you emphasize with your preoccupation with gayness.
4. Raising children, in your view, is more stable with a government license. So that magic would work on polygamous and polyamorous arrangements, too, if your response is to be taken seriously.
You will need to explain "stable" in a way that distinguishes SSM from the rest of the nonmarriage category.
It has become clear that the lack of a public sexual aspect for SSM has distinguished SSM from marriage -- by your own comments here. But that lack does not distinguish SSM from other nonmarital arrangements.
Kevin, have you graduated from high school?
Kevin said: "Ergo, the US Constitution’s Equal Protection clause should do nationally, what Iowa’s constitution accomplished locally."
You mean the judiciary at the national level should abuse judicial review the same way that the state judiciary did in Iowa.
You have dodged the point I made that neither the Massachusetts nor the Iowa state courts struck the marriage statutes. You are wrong on that point.
Also, the legislatures in those states did not legislate the SSM merger. You are wrong on that point, too.
Now, please reconcile this with your previous comment in which you said that the judiciary is not empowered to legislate.
The will of the judges does not buy you a pass, Kevin. Your reliance on the abuse of judicial review is now very well established here.
Kevin, your continued misrepresentations of Maggie Gallagher discredit you, not her.
The social institution of marriage is at stake. But SSMers are very prone to hyper-personalization for the sake of evasion of the actual disagreement.
Kevin has shown himself to be no exception.
Kevin said:
"Marriage is the legal union of two consenting adults in possession of a marriage license. For the umpteenth time!"
Right, so you repeat your circlular talk about a license justifying a license.
The license is issued for special reason. The special reason justifies the special status.
You have offered nothing that would distinguish marriage from nonmarriage. Probably because you cannot say what would distinguish SSM from nonmarriage.
So you point to the license alone and your arbitariness is conceded. Again.
But maybe for you marriage does not merit a special status at law. Please clarify.
* * *
Kevin announced:
"Religious folks are free to [...] believe that marriage is between only a man and a woman. That doesn’t change as states grant access to marriage to same-sex couples. What religious folks DON’T get to do is determine what marriage is for the rest of us. And I an grateful to the US Constitution for that protection."
1. Marriage is not a purely religious idea nor is it a purely religious institution.
Indeed, if you paid attention, you might learn that folks like Maggie Gallagher and Robert George make their arguments based on nonreligous aspects of marriage.
They also correctly note that the SSM campaign overtly seeks to set Government in direct conflict both with the social institution of marriage and with religious people who defend its core meaning.
The assertion of supremacy via identity politics was repudiated in the case of the racialist view of marraige.
Here you are asserting gay identity politics as the trump card that would repress the core meaning of civil society's foundational social institution.
SSM is not foundational. Even by your own words there is no societal meaning for SSM other than gay identity politics. If there was more you would have said it by now.
Instead you have now cited bits from pro-SSM court opinion that are more appropriate for a stump speech for elected office than for a judicial opinion.
I will try to help you clarify your view here: you claim that if government licenses marriage then it must also license SSM.
And SSM is indistinguishable from the rest of the nonmarriage category -- not by its core meaning but by the license itself. That's all there is.
Hence, in your view of marriage, it is the government license and only the license that distinguishes marriage from nonmarriage.
In other words, since a license is the distinctive feature of SSM (or as you would have it) then a license is the only distinctive ffeature of marriage.
Do you not see the circularity of your reliance on the license rather than on the meaning of the social institution which merits the speical status for which the license is emblematic?
I guess not. Well, you should be more thoughtful on this point before you feel particularly entitled to (wrongly) accuse others of things with which your own comments have been infested.
Your thinking on SSM is closely anologous with the thinking of racialists who sought to embed anti-miscegenation in the marriage law and in constitutional jurisprudence. Identity politics does not buy you a pass, Kevin.
Kevin, the same-sex category does not correlate 100% with gayness.
You are thinking, perhaps, of a sexualized subset of this category.
That contradicts your insistence that sexuality be taken out of consideration.
There is no same-sex sexual attraction requirement and no same-sex sexual romance requirement anyplace that SSM is licensed.
You might reply that there is no sexual attraction and no sexual romance requirement in marriage law.
This proves my point that your comments have been tinged by intellectual dishonesty.
Your supposed 100% correlation depends on something that is not required and, thus, is not an essential in the law.
Two "straight" women are ineligible to marry under the man-woman criterion of marriage. There is no sexual basis for presuming that one of the women is the father of the other's children. This is true whether or not the two women are "straight" or "gay" or whatever.
The two women might be sisters or mom-daughter. Lacking the public sexual basis for eligibility, there is no such basis for ineligibility, according to your own stated standards, Kevin.
Two "gay" men are not required to meet some mutual sexual attraction test in order to qualify for a license to SSM, right? They won't get each other pregnant either. And they are not required to raise children. So there is no sexual basis upon which to conclude that the same-sex category excludes the nonsexual type of relationships or arrangements. The category is far more broad than you have recognized.
Your citing the pro-SSM court opinion in Iowa does not change this problem with your argument, Kevin. It rather discredits the very reasoning of that court of which you are so fond.
Anyway, the overall point is that there is no test for gayness that is used for ineligibility; and none for "straightness" used for eligibility.
If just showing up was all that was required, then, there would be no eligibility rules at all -- except, you know, just showing up and demanding a license.
The eligiblity lines are drawn around the core of the social institution. And that core merits special status.
So your repeating that the license is the license is the license, wel, that just does not meet the challenge that has been put to you. And, no, the pro-SSM court opinion does not meet it either.
Typo correction: "And SSM is *distinguishable* from the rest of the nonmarriage category — not by its core meaning but by the license itself. That’s all there is."
Religious principles that recognize and support the man-woman criterion of marriage are in alignment with the core meaning of the social institution.
Kevin, your axiomatic belief on SSM is your own leap of faith. You would impose that on all of society. You've offered nothing else.
Kevin you have argued on your own behalf that the same-sex catgegory is defined by sexuality. So don't try to disown the assertion of 100% corrrelation. As I said, if you think that is a big deal in the pro-SSM court opinion, then, you lack of sound argument on that point discredits your comments and your support of that court opinion.
Reflect on that and you might learn something about your own pattern of intellectual dishonesty.
Kevin said: "making adultery and divorce illegal"
Neither are at the core of the social institution. Adultery is grounds for divorce and it entails the public sexual aspect that you deny.
But let's use your own stated standard: if you thought that SSM is defined by gayness, you would push for government to make it illegal for "straight" people to SSM. You don't. You deny the sexual aspect of marriage while emphasizing the sexualized subset of the same-sex category.
The hypocrisy is blatant.
Religious and social beliefs of what marriage is and isn’t vary greatly. Some people think marriage is supposed to last a lifetime, others think it lasts only while both parties find it satisfying. Some religions believe marriage must be between a man and a woman, others have no such gender-based belief. I’m reminded of the Mormon effort to fight same-sex marriage in Hawaii, claiming that all religions require marriage to be between a man and a woman. This lie was exposed, in an act of heroism, by the local Buddhist community, which filed a brief with the court decrying the Mormon church’s assertion that all religions see marriage as a sacrament between one man and one woman. Buddhism makes no such assertion. Even within the Christian churches, beliefs about the dual gender nature of marriage vary. The lies being told by religious leaders and their believers in this issue is breath-taking.
“Kevin, your axiomatic belief on SSM is your own leap of faith. You would impose that on all of society. You’ve offered nothing else.”
I’m far less interested in SSM per se than I am in the welfare of children and respect for the US Constitution. Your axiomatic disregard for the US Constitution and the welfare of the children being raised by same-sex couples, goes beyond the pale. Not once have you or other homophobes expressed any concern about these kids, or about violating the Constitution, let alone denying the health and wealth benefits of marriage to same-sex couples. Not once. Never.
It is simply inexplicable that, hiding behind a flimsy veil of concern for the safety of organized religion in the public square, (NOM specifically notes its faith-based connection, by the way), opponents of same-sex marriage are willing to:
- compromise the wellbeing of children, CHILDREN, who have the bad luck to be raised by a gay couple. Evidently these children deserve second-class status for having the temerity to be born to, or raised by, gay people. Perhaps these children should be branded on their foreheads to make them more easily identifiable.
- compromise the intent of the US Constitution’s 14th Amendment guarantee of Equal Protection, established precisely to avoid legally tyrannizing a minority
- compromise the health and happiness of gay couples by denying them access to an institution proven, in Maggie Gallagher’s own words, to extend life, increase wealth, and provide a more beneficial environment for children
I don’t know which is more offensive: Ms. Gallagher’s six-figure income to wage war on homosexuals and their children, or that so many of my fellow citizens support her in her efforts. What a country. Only in America can someone be an outspoken supporter of the benefits of an institution, and simultaneously argue that some people should be legally denied access to that institution. Mind-numbing.
Chairm:
I think you really are taking leave of your senses, or just enjoying the nuttiness that accompanies the descent into madness.
“Neither [adultery or divorce] are at the core of the social institution. Adultery is grounds for divorce and it entails the public sexual aspect that you deny.”
This “foundational” institution, as you call it, is obliterated by divorce. Literally. That’s divorce’s intent. Adultery violates that premise of marriage: undiluted devotion and trust. Yet you’re ok with both. But somehow same-sex couples marrying gets under your skin. So let me get this straight: blowing up a building is ok, covering it with graffiti is ok, but letting same-sex couples into the building is strictly verboten.
“But let’s use your own stated standard: if you thought that SSM is defined by gayness, you would push for government to make it illegal for “straight” people to SSM. You don’t. You deny the sexual aspect of marriage while emphasizing the sexualized subset of the same-sex category.”
Any adult, regardless of sexual orientation, should be able to marry another consenting adult. If two straights guys want to marry, let them.
I suppport judical review of the Constitution.
You, Kevin, favor the abuse of judicial review.
I support protection equality for the broad range of vulnerable families outside of marriage.
You, Kevin, favor only the gay subset.
Your false allegations against others, including myself, reveals not an altruistic interest in fairnes nor in children. It does belief your special pleading in the name of identity politics. Your can claim ignorance on your part of my views on nonmarital families, but such a claim discredits your partcipation in our discussions. Your lack of good faith disagreement is now on display in your own words.
You now object that there are lines drawn for eligibilty to marry. It numbs your mind, you say, that people are denied access to the institution.
As you know, there are people in opposite-sex relationships and arrangements whose eligibility is denied. Maybe you think that is anti-heterosexual or something, I dunno.
When someone chooses a nonmarital alternative, such as the one-sexed arrangement (sexualized or not, gay or not, licensed or not), that person chooses not to enter marriage. If you find it mind numbing that they would deny themselves access to the social institution, then, you should take it up with them.
Kevin your remark about divorce confuses the particular with the general.
The marriage of a particular couple is dissolved but the social institution remains intact. If that were not the case, then, when the first couple divorced, no others would have been able to enter the "obliterated" social institution.
Your proposal is that due to nonmarital trends, such as divorce, we must obliterate the foundations of civil society. Again, it appears to me that you seek to make marriage mean less and less.
Your have said that divorce makes the social institution mean less. Indeed you claim this is a major beef of yours since a rise in divorce does harm to the social institution but also to society and to individuals. Well, how come you now cite divorce as necessitating making marriage mean even less?
You now pretend to know my view on adultery and divorce. But you just read my comment -- and quoted me verbatim -- and then totally misrepresented what I actually said.
Here is what I said:
"Neither [adultery or divorce] are at the core of the social institution. Adultery is grounds for divorce and it entails the public sexual aspect that you deny."
You still deny that public sexual aspect, right? You have insisted that this be taken out of consideration. Well, only when it comes to marriage; but when it comes to SSM you wish to inject some sexual aspect that you would not embed into the SSM law.
Anyway, are you now asserting that adultery and divorce define SSM? If so, you will need to explain if (as it appears) this excludes the sexual aspect that you have been emphasizing all along.
By the way, Kevin, the marital presumption of paternity has a long afterlife where divorce has occured and children had been born to the marriage. It is vigorously enforced not as a remedy but as a first principle of responsible procreation.
On the question of making it illegal for two "straight" individual to SSM, you have explicitly abandoned your own stated standard.
You either agree that the same-sex category correlates 100% with gayness or you do not. It appears that you disagree with your previous remark. You own that correlation, Kevin, because you have argued in its favor -- even before citing that bit from the Iowa court. Both you and the court opinion are wrong on this point.
Kevin please supply the primary source for you claim about what the Mormon Church said about "all religions" and marriage. If you can't, then, drop the quibble.
Typo correction: "Your false allegations against others, including myself, reveals not an altruistic interest in fairnes nor in children. It does belie your special pleading in the name of gay identity politics."
I have to say this is quite the conversation. Go Chairm and Nicholas! You guys are awesome.
If I could just put my two cents in, the consequences to children here are obvious and tangible. It's a travesty to have any children in a situation where they're robbed of the influence of a mom or a dad on purpose. Single parenting is bad enough, but this is no solution.
Kids deserve a mom and a dad. Go NOM! I appreciate the work you're doing here.
The thing I can't figure out is why Kevin and his friends in the activist gay movement want to exclude one gender from marriage. How is that equality?
The marriage of the sexes excludes no gender, and includes both sides of humanity. This is the only kind of arrangement that can adequately give the next generation the role models it needs to perpetuate family unity.
"I’m far less interested in SSM per se than I am in the welfare of children and respect for the US Constitution. "
Permitting same sex relationships and welcoming them as equal to marriage will further the disconnect and divide between healthy families and the chaos we're seeing. Kevin, switching one bad idea for a worse one is not the answer. I agree there ought to be less divorce, fewer unwed mothers etc. but banning one gender from children is cruel and only worsens the problem.
Marteen,
Thank you for the encouraging words. I would encourage you to continue to "put your two cents in." There can never be enough pro-marriage supporters defending marriage as the union of male and female, husband and wife. And as long as I have days (thanks be to God), I will continue to do so.
Mia Avanante,
Bravo! Well said. The exclusion of a gender is not equality, as you said. SSMers will contend that marriage is not about who comprises the marriage (as in the two genders) yet insist that it be a one-gendered relationship. Huh? So on one hand marriage isn't about gender but on the other hand it is?
Nicholas said: "I would encourage you to continue to “put your two cents in."
I second that motion.
That goes for marriage defenders, SSMers, and those undecided alike.
In addition I would encourage readers to keep note of the stated standards of argumentation. Sometimes these are brought to the surface during back-and-forths. Sometimes these are stated upfront.
Noting these standards is important. If marriage is to be scrutinized then the same standards need to be applied to SSM.
The real question is, what is marriage?
SSMers tend to deny there is any core meaning to this social institution. So that part of the discusson bogs down into nonresponses and attempts to change the topic.
Marriage defenders need to go further than stating axiomatic assertions -- whether of faith or of opinon -- and dig deeper to answer the question, what is marriage?
On the other hand, if SSMers insist on changing the topic we can accomodate them. What is SSM?
Dig deeper than the usual vague notions. Apply the same scrutiny to SSM that SSMers insist upon when dissecting marriage.
If either marriage or SSM lack coherency, then, the problem is one of distinguishing marriage/SSM (i.e. the proposed merger) from nonmarriage (everything that is not marriage).
The government does not license a license -- but that is often what SSMers end-up saying before they return to pressing gay identity politics into the discussion again.
We only need to look to Canada to see how the core meaning of marriage has almost been lost due to the legalization of SSM. Is this the type of society you want for America? Canada has become a free love like Woodstock concert that never ends.
There is one human race and its nature is two-sexed. Marriage does not exclude but rather includes both man and woman. This inclusion arises from the opposite-sex basis of human procreation and from the both-sex basis of human community.
Marriage does not arise from the racialist view that humankind is divided into subspecies based on skin color.
The core meaning of marriage is pluralistic, contrary to the peculair sectarianism of SSM argumentation.
Judicial review is about obeying the Constitution; but the SSM campaign's courtcentric approach depends on the abuse of judicial review whereby the governed are expected to obey judges who impose their will over the Constitution.
And where children are involved, SSM means the segregation for fatherhood and motherhood. SSMers do not claim that children are at the core of SSM; indeed, they insist that SSM has zilch to do with children.
Except, you know, when they want to falsely equate SSM with the most pro-child social institution we have.
For a double-dad or double-mom scenario, there are two pre-requisites, at least: parental relinquishment and government intervention to assign a replacement.
That is the virtual inverse of the core meaningn of marriage.
Adoption does not bestow marital status but marital status is a legitimate factor in prioritizing children -- because the union of husband and wife can unite fatherhood and motherhood.
Third party procreation (i.e. use of donors) is extramarital procreation even when married people partake of it. Going outside of the one-sexed relationship is a requirement for the double-dad or double-mom scenarios; but this is not done for the sake of the yet-to-be-conceived children.
Adoption is for children in need; it is not mean to primarily serve needy adults.
And human procreation is two-sexed; the first principle of responsible procreation is that each procreative duo is responsible for the children they bring into this world; they are not mere donors.
So whether Kevin meant adoption or third party procreation, he pointed outside of marriage, not at its core meaning.
And when he poses as one lamenting the divorce trends, he directly contradicts his own statement that "marriage keeps couples together". Indeed, the rates for dissolution of SSM are higher than for marriage so gender composition matters.
On the other hand, even in the wake of divorce, marriage provides for responsible procreation. The marital presumption of paternity has a long afterlife beyond divorce.
Indeed, most of the children residing in same-sex households migrated from the previously procreative relationships of either mom or dad (i.e. typically husband-wife unions). These children have both mom and dad but one or the other is not resident. But it seems that Kevin is narrow-mindedly assuming that the nonresident parent is irrelevant. These children have the protections of children of divorced or estranged parents. The core of marriage is no small matter even when it comes to the very children that Kevin likes to drag into the spotlight -- minus their mom-dad origins.
Maybe about 4% of the children in same-sex households were adopted -- and that includes some padding due to second-parent adoption. Less than 1% of chldren in such households were attained via third party procreation. The law does not consider these children to be invisible, despite the hyperbolic rhetoric of SSMers.
The core meaning of marriage:
1. Provision for sex integration.
2. Provision for responsible procreation.
3. These combined as a coherent whole (i.e. a social institution of civil society).
Now, is there a core meaning of SSM? Please provide the legal requirements that define that core meaning, if there is such a thing for SSM. And please explain how that distinguishes SSM from the rest of the nonmarriage category, if indeed it distinguishes at all.
Kevin, we've covered your objections to the centrality of procreation in marriage, however, you still haven't listed to definitive legal requirements of SSM. Not romance. Not sexual attraction.
And it is circular for you to say it is a license for something that you have not distinguished. A license for a license? That's like providing consent to consent. You need to do better than that if you hope to provide a sound argument in favor of spcial status for SSM.
Marital status is a special status for special reason. Reason that you reject.
Maybe you can provide a substitute special reason for special status?
Typo correction: "Adoption does not bestow marital status but marital status is a legitimate factor in prioritizing adoptors of children — because the union of husband and wife can unite fatherhood and motherhood.
Typo correction: "Adoption is for children in need; it is not designed to primarily serve needy adults." There is no adult right to adopt.
Clarification: And human procreation is two-sexed; the first principle of responsible procreation is that each procreative duo is responsible for the children they bring into this world (barring tragedy or dire circumstances); they are not mere donors. No one who creates children for a deliberately motherless or fatherless home does this for the sake of the children who have yet to be created and whose birthright is denied.
Kevin, as per your usual misconstructions, individuals might have their own particular reason(s) to marry. But that does not mean that there is no core meaning of the social institution.
When you complained about divorce, you basically said that no-fault divorce tends to make marriage mean less. And you thought that was not a good thing for society.
Yet here you can't seem to grant marriage its core meaning. Nor its essentials, nor its universal features, nor even a simple description based on the legal requirements.
Instead of marriage, provide the defintive legal requirements for a license to SSM.
Remember, your implicit rules, as per your own attack on the core of marriage (especially your disparagement of responsible procreation) are as follows:
If (fill-in the blank) can occur outside of SSM, then, it is not essential to SSM.
If (fill-in the blank) is not compulsory, then, it is not essential to SSM.
If the government does not revoke SSM status because of (fill-in the blank), then, it (i.e. the blank) is not essential to SSM.
That basically wipes your slate clean of such notions as love, romance, sexual attraction, same-sex sexual behavior, or even gayness. You have conceded as much.
Last time you ended-up saying the license to SSM is the essential thing. But that is like saying, a license to (fill-in the blank). Likewise if you say consent is the essential thing because you need to plainly state two what consent is given. To SSM. Well, what is the core meaning -- the essentials which define the thing you call SSM?
When people enter the social institution of marriage, society, via the governing authorities, shows prefential treatment because of what marriage actually is. Not because of what individuals might privately consider their personal reasons to marry. The insitution already exists; it is not necessary for the newlyweds to reinvent the thing with their own individualized reasons.
SSM argumentation seeks to demolish the edifice in the name of asserting the supremacy of gay identity politics over marriage law, over the constitution, and indeed over principles of liberty upon which society affords various statuses for living arrangements and types of relationships.
There are basically four statuses.
1. Outlawed -- due to harm to individuals or to society.
2. Tolerated -- live and let live mans neither societal approbation or societal disapprobation.
3. Protected -- more than the tolerative status, protective status is based on certain vulnerabilities which society seeks to mitigate somewhat. It is not proscriptive but a form of remedy; the basis for the vulnerabilities is NOT promoted nor is it encouraged as a social good. Rather, the mitigation of risks, especially to children, is an attempt to provide a social good.
4. Preferred -- more than tolerative and more than protective, the preferential status is based on the specialness of the type of arrangement or type of relationship. This is promoted, encouraged, and if government is involved it is to regulate rather than to claim ownership. Preferential status is based on the thing being preferred and its benefits to society.
SSM argumentation boilsdown to a call for protections rather than preference -- that is, if the identity politics is removed from the argumentation. And the nonmarriage category is far broader than the gaycentric emphasis of SSMers. Since SSM argumentation provides nothing to distinguish SSM from nonmarriage, and offers no sepcial reason for special status, the solution is protective status and not preferential status.
A just society does not conflate protective with preferential statuses.
SSM argumentation actually disapages the core meaning of marriage such that it would be demoted from preferential status -- even demoted from protective status -- and maybe even barely tolerated. SSM argumentation mistakes the core of marriage for bigotry. That is unjust.
I would like to quote what an influencial Jewish Rabbi had to say about homosexual "marriage."
"Their phony 'marriage equality' bill is like a 'currency equality' bill, demanding that counterfeit money be accorded the same respect as legal tender and should be treated as such."
"the procreation of children is one of the ends of marriage. I do not hesitate to say that it is the most important object of matrimony, for without it the human race itself would perish from the earth." --Lord Penzance NJ 1921
"At bottom, civil society has an interest in maintaining and protecting the institution of heterosexual marriage because it has a deep and abiding interest in encouraging responsible procreation and child-rearing." --Bipartisan US Congress 1996