Rhode Island's First Annual Celebrate Marriage and Family Day!


The National Organization for Marriage - Rhode Island (NOM - Rhode Island) is thrilled to announce its first annual "Celebrate Marriage and Family Day" on August 16th from 3 - 8 pm on the beautiful waterfront property of the Aldrich Mansion ( in Warwick, Rhode Island. This positive and encouraging event will include live music, children's activities, 2nd Honeymoon and vacation giveaways, a chance to bring a picnic or purchase food on site to enjoy while overlooking Narragansett Bay, and an ice cream social. The highlight of the day will be the opportunity for husbands and wives to renew their wedding vows in this idyllic setting.

All aspects of the afternoon, save for food and beverages purchased at the event, are free of charge, including the ice cream social.

Many of us spent January through July fighting to defend marriage and family from being redefined and weakened in Rhode Island. Now it's time to be positive and celebrate the goodness and importance of marriage between a man and a woman. The marriage vow renewal is a chance for husbands to look into their wives eyes, and vice versa, and say, 'Sweetheart, it's been 5, 10, 15, or even 50 years, and I would marry you again.'

Providing the live music will be Sojourn, ( a Christian band from Louisville, Kentucky, as well as local talent. Maggie Gallagher, President of the National Organization for Marriage will provide a brief address. Children's activities will include pony rides, face-painting, and other amusements. Feel free to bring a picnic (no grills please) or purchase the catered meal. Meal costs are $10/adult and $8/child. Family rates will be arranged.

NOM - Rhode Island appreciates its many partners in making this event an on-going success. These partners include The Diocese of Providence, Coastline Ambulance, SHINE 1220 Radio, as well as scores of volunteers from local businesses and faith communities.

For more information visit, or call us at 401-228-7602.

We look forward to seeing you there.


  1. Kevin
    Posted August 14, 2009 at 10:18 pm | Permalink

    I'm afraid to ask, will same-sex married couples from next door Massachusetts and Connecticut be welcome?

  2. Kevin
    Posted August 14, 2009 at 10:22 pm | Permalink

    I just read the invitation flyer and it says it wants to celebrate marriage as it "was created." Doesn't that mean where a man owns his wife for the purpose of protecting his property and status for his heirs? If this is the intent, it will be interesting to see how the wives in attendance at the event feel about it!

  3. Alice
    Posted August 15, 2009 at 2:27 pm | Permalink

    You make an interesting point but I must say I disagree with you the Sacrament of Marriage was and is still upheld as an institution to protect the family unit, the main focuses of Marriage are to procreate and rear children and as an act of unity between man and woman,I believe you have you definition of marriage backwords if you look at the teachings of the Church this is what you will find as the definition of Marriage,not that which you contend it to be. With all due respect what you speak of as marriage in your post is not that for which it was instituted as in the Church. For it is in this Holy Sacrment that the love between man and woman is made Holy and Divine with the help of God through all life's tribulations of raising a family,not that which the secular world makes it to be and not that which you speak of above

  4. Wes
    Posted August 15, 2009 at 9:28 pm | Permalink

    "I just read the invitation flyer and it says it wants to celebrate marriage as it “was created.” Doesn’t that mean where a man owns his wife for the purpose of protecting his property and status for his heirs? If this is the intent, it will be interesting to see how the wives in attendance at the event feel about it!"

    No that's not what it means and you know it. God created marriage as being between a man and a woman for the purpose of procreating children and rearing them with a male and female role model. Any additional meaning you come up with is your own personal smear.

  5. Kevin
    Posted August 16, 2009 at 7:59 am | Permalink

    God didn't create marriage. That's a religious belief, and applies only to people of faith who choose to believe it. Efforts to impose a religious interpretation of marriage on non-believers (or even other unwilling believers) is contrary to the US Constitution. Have a nice day.

  6. Wes
    Posted August 16, 2009 at 8:09 am | Permalink

    "God didn’t create marriage. That’s a religious belief, and applies only to people of faith who choose to believe it."

    God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. And even if you don't believe in Genesis, there is no question that men and women were made for each other whether by divine will or evolution. Either way, the natural family is formed by a man and a woman.

    "Efforts to impose a religious interpretation of marriage on non-believers (or even other unwilling believers) is contrary to the US Constitution."

    So is outlawing bigamy, polygamy, and incestuous marriages unconstitutional too? For what reasons other than religious ones are those marriages forbidden?

  7. Kevin
    Posted August 16, 2009 at 1:55 pm | Permalink

    Whether you believe in the Biblical description of the origins of man or not, marriage is in no way necessary to bring males and females together to form families.

    The Bible actually supports polygamy and incest: Adam and Eve share common DNA, thanks to the rib, and their grandchildren are the product of their children's incestuous sexual relationships. Bigamy is outlawed because it is unfair to the unknowing spouse.

    Notice that we don't enshrine the Ten Commandments into law. Or that divorce, though prohibited by Jesus Christ himself, is perfectly legal.

  8. Wes
    Posted August 16, 2009 at 5:49 pm | Permalink

    Marriage provides a stable family envorioment and provides incentive for the mother and father to stay together for the benefit of their children.

    I myself do not take the book of genesis literally but rather view it as more of a metaphor. But whether one's definition of marriage is based on religion or not, marriage between one man and one woman has been the cornerstone of stable societies for generations. Civilizations have always crumbled when sexual laws have been liberalized from the Romans to the Sumerians.

    Though I can understand the need for divorce if the cause is adultery or physical abuse, however.

  9. Kevin
    Posted August 16, 2009 at 9:42 pm | Permalink

    "Marriage provides a stable family environment and provides incentive for the mother and father to stay together for the benefit of their children."

    Almost. Try:

    Marriage provides a stable family environment and provides incentive for the parents to stay together for the benefit of their children.

  10. Nicholas
    Posted August 17, 2009 at 3:55 am | Permalink


    Your knowledge of Scripture is laudable if not specious.

    Give me references for where incest and polygamy are supported.

    Also, surely you can recognize, that although this nation was founded upon Judeo-Christian principles, we have become less so over the years. So then, as society continues its downward spiral, so too would its adherence to belief in God, the Bible, and Truth. And this is progress? Oh, right, the futher we get from God, the better as we show ourselves to be "enlightened" beyond belief.

    Lastly, the continual insistence of genderless parents is rather insulting. I take very seriously being a man, a husband and a dad. My wife (female) does too. Are you genderless? Did you lose this along the way? Or is being male or female inconsequential to you-it just so "happens." It seems to me to be yet another attempt to demean marriage to the point that it means nothing in order to foist SSM onto what "little" is left of an institution that "has left the building." If so, then why attach it to an institution that is in such "ill-repair" and in need of a "makeover?"

  11. Wes
    Posted August 17, 2009 at 5:23 am | Permalink

    Every child needs a mother and a father. Tons of studies show that kids do far better than those who lack one or the other.

    Gay couples cannot bear children without resorting to artificial means in an effort to mimic heterosexuality. And when they do, they deliberately deny that child either a mother or a father.

  12. Posted August 17, 2009 at 2:19 pm | Permalink

    SSM is "in no way necessary to bring gay men or lesbians together."

    Imposing a merger of SSM on marriage is a leap of faith in the supremacy of gay identity politics. It is based on this peculair form of sectarianism.

    SSM argumentation is premised on the Government's ownership of the foundational social institution of civil society.

    Government did not create marriage nor does it own marriage. Indeed, civil society is neither created nor owned by Government.

    The People have a government, not the other way around.

  13. Posted August 17, 2009 at 2:24 pm | Permalink

    At the core of marriage, the first principle of responsible procreation is that the procreative duo (ie the union of husband and wife) are respondible for the children they bring into this world, barring dire circumstances or tragedy. It means that the married father and mother stick around to be more than sperm or egg donors.

    The idea is to provide a stable family environment whereby mom and dad stay together for the benefit of each other and their children. The integration of the sexes and the provision for responsible procreation is combined as a coherent whole. This is definitive of the social institution of marriage.

    SSM argumentation mistakes this for bigotry.

  14. Posted August 17, 2009 at 2:50 pm | Permalink

    SSMers emphasize same-sex sexual attraction. Thus they concede that sex differentation is of the utmost importance to their argumentation.

    So sex differentation, even by the stated standards of SSMers, is not a religous myth.

    The nature of human procreation is opposite-sexed. Also not a religious myth.

    The nature of human community is both-sexed, not one-sexed, not sex-neutral. This is not a religous myth.

    SSM is sex-segregative. Fact. SSM is not procreative. Fact. SSM is not a foundational social institution. Fact.

    SSMers deny the public sexual aspect of marriage (i.e. the union of husband and wife) while insisting that same-sex sexual attraction defines SSM.

    Across the anthropological record, marriage has united the sexes and provided for responsible procreation. It is a social institution with essentials that have not changed. These essentials are not mere traditions. These are universal features. But SSM argumentation disparages the social institution -- see recent comments above -- while claiming for SSM many magical powers that do not manifest in the anthropological and historical record.

    SSM is not marriage. SSMers repeating, ad nauseaum, the contrary is pure assertion on their part and thus very much an axiomatic belief promoted with a religous-like fervor.

    Marriage is distinctive from nonmarriage. SSMers cannot distinguish SSM from nonmarriage.

    So SSMers doubletalk when they complain about the supposed arbitariness of the man-woman criterion of marriage law, while they assert the abitrariness of licensing something they have not distinguished.

    If they had a better argument, they'd have made it by now. They don't, so they zealoously pivot in a circle around their axiomatic belief. They have nothing else to offer but the spectacle of their attack on the core of the social institution of marriage.

  15. Robert
    Posted August 17, 2009 at 4:00 pm | Permalink

    I agree completely. SSM is not marriage, it's the twisted shadow of something real. It doesn't protect or produce children, and doesn't serve the public interest, only self interest. Kids deserve more than that. If you want to have your own ideas, keep them private, don't force them on the productive public.

  16. Susan
    Posted August 18, 2009 at 10:35 am | Permalink

    Kevin, congratulations on your perseverence. I am impressed you are still here and I hope you are being well paid for your dedication to the fight to legitimize and promote homosexuality. Further moral decline is something this society really needs.

    As we can all see, you are getting dizzy from the spinning of lies you have been doing for months. Outright lies and bogus claims generally have very short legs and as such do not take one very far. You have not come very far I am afraid.

    Your "equality" arguments are as contrived as your identity. Just a few examples:

    1) you believe that people get married just because they love each other. You say you think that because your married friends told you so. So you have learned that from somebody else. Yet, later you claim to be a heterosexual widower, who I would presume, was once married. So, either you did not marry your wife out of love or, more llikely, you lied about being a widower. Of course, that would make you a more sympathetic and appealing homosexual rights crusader.

    2) you claim not to be a homosexual, just a fair minded person on a quest for justice. Yet, you appear to be quite familiar with homosexual "sexual" acts -- you call them fun and enjoyable (nauseating most of us, I am sure).

    3) you claim not to be an activist, yet you have dedicated all of your time to this blog.

    Draw your own conclusions.

  17. Kevin
    Posted August 18, 2009 at 12:49 pm | Permalink

    No effort is too great in educating the public against hatred. Tracking NOM and a few other hate-based websites is just my way of giving back I guess. It doesn’t take much time since so few people even come to this website.

    I do think people marry for love these days. I know I did. I think that’s a good thing, rather than the arranged marriages of the past, or the original intent of marriage, where the wife was a man’s property, no matter how she felt about him as a person.

    I’m not sure my personal identity or traits makes much difference in arguing against marriage discrimination. All kinds of people dislike hate-driven policies, and are specifically against marriage discrimination, violation of the US Constitution and a policy that specifically targets and diminishes children. This one’s a no-brainer, unless, I guess, you don’t have a brain.

  18. Susan
    Posted August 18, 2009 at 4:14 pm | Permalink


    Because of people like you, words like "hate", "bigotry" , "intolerance", "prejudice" are fast losing their meaning. "Equality" and "civil rights" will soon follow. The radical left throws these these terms around freely and readily brands anybody who disagrees with their agenda a bigot (and another favorite "b" word, should the "enemy" of the project at hand be a woman).

    You and people like you accuse others of prejudice, yet you pander to religious prejudice and hate by branding all who disagree with you "Christians." You and people like you intimidate, harass, boycot, and try to destroy those who disagree with you. Yet you want to be perceived as victims. You and people like you are the pinnacle of hypocricy.

    Your "equality" arguments are as fictitious as your identity. Your job entails spinning and twisting laws and facts until naive and impressionable minds cannot follow you anymore and end up agreeing with you, just to make you go away. You have managed to spin an impressive web of bogus "legal" arguments. Perhaps you have managed to confuse the younger and the more naive. That is your job after all.

    I believe the fraud behind your blog identity (the fraud you do not dispute) is relevant because your assumed identity affects the way your arguments are perceived. The radical gay activists' target are the young and the naive members of the heterosexual population. Your fictitious identity -- a heterosexual widower on a quest for "equality" -- might have given your arguments an undeserved aura of objectivity.

  19. Mia Avanante
    Posted August 18, 2009 at 8:50 pm | Permalink

    Wow, she nailed you there Kevin. Sounds like you've got an identity crisis, or a telling the truth crisis. That actually explains a lot. I have to admit, reading through a few of these I thought you were legit. I guess stretching the truth to fit your reality is just par for the course though with gay activists.

  20. Leona
    Posted August 18, 2009 at 8:55 pm | Permalink


    i just want to ask you something, do you know some gay persons? no, i have a better question, do you know "gay" families? who you think you are to judge? you say that gay activists are intolerant, i have to agree, intolerance exists on the both sides of this issues, but you clearly do not want to compare both...gays are being victims of people who think they can say to a gay couple how they should live their live's, i assume that you would not want to hear a person telling you how you should live your life, with who you should or shouldn't marry.

    Damn, i'm not hear to condemn you for what you believe, i'm sure your not a bad person but, we need to hear the other side...we cannot always think about religion, we have to think about our brothers and sisters who are here and need our love and friendship, c'mon, is not calling a "intolerant" that we will be happier or more secure...but talking, a simple conversation can help.

    Peace *

  21. Posted August 19, 2009 at 4:09 am | Permalink

    Leona, individuals are free to live and love as they wish. Indeed, to choose to form a one-sexed arrangement (homosexualized or not) is a liberty exercised, not a right denied.

    You injected gay identity politics into your response to Susan. This is central to the SSM campaign's axiomatic belief that to disagree with the SSM merger is itself an act of bigotry.

    If only those disagreerers knew a gay person! Come on. That's rather patronizing of you.

    Openly homosexual persons wrote letters to the editor voicing their support for the Yes side on the CA marriage amendment. Homosexual voters delivered about half of the margin of victory.

    See, the reverse of what you said is that such people should get to know themselves better. If only they did, they'd not be so bigoted against homosexual people. Or somesuch.

  22. Leona
    Posted August 19, 2009 at 5:14 am | Permalink

    only 2% of them chairm, probably they dont want to marry, i would never merry too so...but more than 40% of heterossexuals voted against proposition 8, and why? and why youngers are so much in favor of gay marriage and olders don't? if youngers also know their grandfathers so well...

    Look, you don't need to give such excuses to justify your oppostion to SSM, i have nothing to do with your opinions i respect that... but you need to meet some of this people, some families...i know that the majority of people on the "gay" side know very well the other side of the issue, majority gays and their straight supporters have their religious familes, and if youngers (like me) are so much in favor of gay marriage and olders don't, it's because most of this youngers have their parents or grandparents against SSM.

    Peace *

  23. Paul
    Posted August 19, 2009 at 5:21 am | Permalink

    Kevin, why do homosexuals target our youth and brainwash them with this contrived definition of equality? There is nothing in the constitution about same gender marriage. This is why the SSMers are about to be laughed out of federal court. Homosexuals are free to enter into non criminal relationships, have fun trying to find a state interest that expands this definition to marriage. Families, and responsible procreation are in the state interest.

  24. Paul
    Posted August 19, 2009 at 5:30 am | Permalink

    In our state, the 'Families First Act' will place children with heterosexual christian families and prohibit gays and lesbians from adopting or having children through artificial means. More simply, children deserve a mother and father, who speaks for them?

  25. Kevin
    Posted August 19, 2009 at 8:27 am | Permalink


    “Because of people like you, words like “hate”, “bigotry” , “intolerance”, “prejudice” are fast losing their meaning.”

    Because of people like you, these words and the practices they describe, are very much alive.

    “You and people like you accuse others of prejudice, yet you pander to religious prejudice and hate by branding all who disagree with you “Christians.””

    Not true. I’m just identifying the single most commonly cited reason homophobic people give for opposing same-sex marriage: it’s against the Bible. Even this website is affiliated with “faith communities.” Using religion as cover for personal prejudices is disgusting and it doesn’t fool God.

    “You and people like you intimidate, harass, boycot, and try to destroy those who disagree with you.”

    How long have you been a paranoiac? Don’t be so timid in the face of reasoned opposition. Either change your point of view, or be confident that your view carries substance. You’ll always struggle if deep down you know you’re supporting the unsupportable.

    “Your “equality” arguments are as fictitious as your identity.”

    My equality arguments stem from the logic used in the supreme courts of Connecticut, Massachusetts and Iowa, where Equal Protection clauses in those states’ constitutions require invalidating discriminatory statutes, including marriage statutes.

    “Your fictitious identity — a heterosexual widower on a quest for “equality” — might have given your arguments an undeserved aura of objectivity.”

    Let’s say I’ve lied about my identity and wife’s death. Does that make my arguments less reasonable? Are you really suggesting that the truth depends on the messenger? Are the needs and rights of children brought up by same-sex couples any less important? Does honoring our country’s constitution become less important? Do fairness and social harmony have a different place in society depending on who I am?

  26. Susan
    Posted August 19, 2009 at 11:12 am | Permalink

    "Let's say I've lied about my identity and wife's death. Does that make my arguments less reasonable?"

    Kevin, thanks, we all need a good laugh sometimes. But, again, you miss the point.

    First, your arguments that the law supports homosexual "marriage" have no basis in law, as has been repeatedly demonstrated on this blog.

    Second, what needs to be emphasized, this fraudulent quest for "equality" is nothing more than a clever device to further legitimize and promote homosexuality, something that would affect all of us.

    Third, the young and impressionable minds in the heterosexual population are the radical gay rights activists' target. Here, the personna of the gay rights crusader becomes important because of the bias element. A "heterosexual widower", in addition to invoking sympathy, would be considered more objective by the younger and the more naive.

    Should my observations about your fraudulent identity be considered shooting the messenger? I do not think so. I think your fictitious "legal" arguments needed to be placed in the context they belong to, and not be allowed to stay in the fraudulent context you invented.

    Should you and your agenda be considered dishonest? I think so.

  27. Leona
    Posted August 19, 2009 at 11:34 am | Permalink

    promote homossexuality? i didn't understand what it means but....your affraid of what susan? most of my gay friends were raised in catholic familes, i'm a straight girl raised in a "non-catholic" family, but i consider myself a christian and i go to church every sunday morning, i'm just who i am, my parents don't have to agree or disagree with my religious life...but i also have my gay friends and i think it's ridiculous to separete them of the institution of family...

    you can define a family...there are so many ways to create a child...i have a friend which was created by her Grandma, some peope were created just by a father or just for a mother, it hurts you so much to see a children being raised by 2 moms or 2 dads?

  28. Kevin
    Posted August 19, 2009 at 12:21 pm | Permalink


    “First, your arguments that the law supports homosexual “marriage” have no basis in law, as has been repeatedly demonstrated on this blog.”

    Well, you better tell state courts because they seem to think Equal Protections clauses in state constitutions require treating all citizens equally. How could these judges get it so wrong?? What do you know that they don’t?

    “Second, what needs to be emphasized, this fraudulent quest for “equality” is nothing more than a clever device to further legitimize and promote homosexuality, something that would affect all of us.”

    Again, smart judges on states courts appear to be perpetuating the notion of equality. And the US Supreme Court has already put its stamp of approval on homosexuality, by decriminalizing state laws punishing it. I’m not sure one can “promote” any kind of sexuality. Nature just takes its course and you feel how you feel. Promoting acceptance and tolerance of homosexuality, of course that is a perfectly acceptable state goal.

    “Third, the young and impressionable minds in the heterosexual population are the radical gay rights activists’ target.”

    Well then heterosexuals should gear up to counter with efforts of their own. I can imagine school “sexuality” days, where booths manned by competing staffs of heterosexuals and homosexuals hand out pamphlets touting the virtues of their particular sexuality. Armed with the facts, teens can go home to their parents and discuss the pros and cons of both sexualities, and determine which one best meets their needs.

  29. Meagan
    Posted August 19, 2009 at 12:36 pm | Permalink

    pick your favorite state court ruling and make your point right? Nah. The state courts overwhelmingly reject your arguments and those espoused by the state courts of Iowa, Massachusetts and California. If you want to legislate from the bench, you can make up any reasoning you want. If you want to follow law, the rules are a little different. What's the tally so far Kevin? Only a handful are willing to legislate from the bench, the rest adhere to the law.

  30. Meagan
    Posted August 19, 2009 at 12:53 pm | Permalink

    "I can imagine school “sexuality” days, where booths manned by competing staffs of heterosexuals and homosexuals hand out pamphlets touting the virtues of their particular sexuality."

    This is exactly what parents don't want and students don't need. Since when are schools the social battleground? Pushing any brand of deviant sexual behavior as equal to what nature intends is only going to confuse and encourage deviant experimentation. It's not the providing of facts, but the promotion of deviancy that you espouse. No thanks.

  31. Susan
    Posted August 19, 2009 at 1:49 pm | Permalink

    Yes Kevin. All children should be presumed transgender or transhuman until they reach puberty, at which time homosexual crusaders should be given an ample opportunity to recruit them.

    Indeed, most homosexuals become homosexual through such recruitment -- or more commonly through molestation or seduction by other homosexuals -- at the time they suffer from low self-esteem and peer rejection issues. You take this process one step further -- ALL children should be targets for homosexual recruiters, and such recruitment should be conducted in schools.

    You have finally admitted that your extreme homosexual "rights" agenda has nothing to do with "equality", but all to do with homosexual indoctrination of our children. You are not simply a self-proclaimed Orwellian-style "anti-hate" police, littering legitimate websites with illegitimate claims. You and other homosexual extremists are mostly annihilistic lunatics.

  32. Leona
    Posted August 19, 2009 at 3:38 pm | Permalink

    susan you really need to come many childs are being raise for homossexual couples right ex-boyfriend was raised by 2 dads, and he's straight, so many friends that i have were raised by gay couples, they are all you know what? you need to know this familes, you don't have to change your opinions, but stop judging them if you don't know them...they just love each other, LOVE, do you know what love is?

    Gays are persons, they have an heart, they work, people like you say that they are agaisnt God and that God hates them...but let me ask you this, how can a father hate their own son? do you think that God would be happy if he read your rude comments?

    I just know that, someday, God will give us a big "jumble of ears" for the lack of compassion that exist on the both sides of issue, specially on your side susan.

    God loves EVERYBODY!
    Gay, Straight, Black, White, God Loves You!

  33. L. Marie
    Posted August 19, 2009 at 3:43 pm | Permalink

    Leona, you seem to be concerned solely with the emotive aspects of this issue, but take the logic further, if pedophiles wanted to change public policy, would we be lacking compassion to tell them we didn't think that was a good idea?

  34. Susan
    Posted August 19, 2009 at 4:15 pm | Permalink

    Kevin said:
    "I can imagine "sexuality" days, where booths manned by competing staffs of heterosexuals and homosexuals hand out pamphlets touting the virtues of their particular sexuality."

    I think Kevin forgot to add that the homosexual representatives will be using, among other things, samples of various anti-viral medications to entice our children to become homosexual.

    Anybody who has any doubt about what this "marriage equality " battle is really all about should read and re-read this statement, made here publicly by a gay rights activist. Indeed, my hope is that this statement is used in a new ad campaign advocating public opposition to the radical gays' assault on the traditional marriage.

  35. Paul
    Posted August 19, 2009 at 5:12 pm | Permalink

    Finally, Judge Walker rejected the drivel from LAMDA, ACLU and the NCLR request into intervene in the Federal California Prop 8 case. Sets to put this issue to rest in January 2010. Appears to be overwhelming support for the States interest in insuring responsible procreation.

  36. Susan
    Posted August 19, 2009 at 5:24 pm | Permalink

    Leona, your time would be better spent studying the principles of English grammar and spelling.
    As far as I remember, you claim to be from the great country of the U.K. I also remember that you are 19 years old, and thus still in the most impressionable, idealistic and naive time of your life.

    Nevertheless, since you have decided to become a homosexual rights crusader, you may want to start with your own country. Perhaps you should devote your time to advocating homosexuality and homosexual "marriage" in the the U.K.'s very large Muslim community. Print some pamphlets (Kevin can help you) and just do it. I wish you luck.

    In the meantime, you have missed the point. The discussion here is not whether homosexuals are nice people. We are discussing homosexuals' aspirations to indoctrinate our children about "virtues" of homosexuality.

    Any heterosexual person with any insight will oppose that. Homosexuality is, at the very least, a very unhealthy lifestyle -- consider the epidemics in the homosexual communities: AIDS/HIV, genital herpes, hepatitis, syphillis, suicide, etc.. Parents decide when and how it is explained to their children. Homosexuals want to take that right away. This is the gist of what is behind the homosexual "marriage" quest. Not love.

  37. Leona
    Posted August 19, 2009 at 6:47 pm | Permalink

    Again susan, i just cannot believe that you said what you's see one thing...I know very well the both sides of this issue, I KNOW Gay People very well, you don't.

    For Christians like you be blind were always the "best" attitude...but let me say something to you, homossexuals would never take away the right of that parents that want to teach their childrens there points of views..but do you think this is right to teach a child to hate some people because their diferent? i'm sorry but, if your bible say to love your neightboor as yourself, your words are really scary...and if homossexuals want to recruit childrens, explain me, why they shouldn't begun with their own childs? why the majority of childs raised for homossexuals are straight?

    Really, i don't know how gay marriage affect your life...your marriage affected homossexuals?

    to me it's simple, if you don't agree with gay marriage, it's ok, that's your right but...don't think that you have the right to tell to the others how they should live their live's...if olders, "teenagers" and atheists can get merry , why gays cannot? you don't want to teach your children to love diferente people but you want them to tell their children's that they are less equal than childrens raised by straight parent's?

    Ok, ok......if you think you're right, ok, i respect your opinion...but understand that some people are diferent of you...please, can we enter in a respectful dialogue?


  38. L. Marie
    Posted August 19, 2009 at 10:20 pm | Permalink

    Leona, why have you not addressed Susan's points? Kevin has just declared his desire to see homosexuality taught in schools alongside health education. Susan says that this would take away from a parents' right to teach their children. You did not address the issue. Stop distracting with non issues. To disagree is philosophical, not emotional---there's no hate involved whatsoever. Stick to the subject.

  39. Nicholas
    Posted August 19, 2009 at 11:17 pm | Permalink


    Finally something I can agree with you on, but only in part.

    You are right in asserting that God isnt fooled or tricked by people/organizations that use "faith" as a cover for prejudice; however, it seems to me that you presume that anyone that uses "faith as a crutch" in opposition to SSM does so without merit. What, the concerns of someone of "faith" aren't pertinent to the discussion? Or is it just that you don't want them included in the discussion since marriage is just a state sanctioned institution anyway? If so, then why do people still get married in the church? Even the State recognizes church marriages as legitimate since the presiding minister does so on behalf of the state. Also, before the State got involved, how was marriages recorded?

    Again, you label anyone of "faith" homophobic because of their view on SSM/homosexuality. Why do you insist on doing this? Is it to skirt the issue at hand-what marriage really is, the union of male and female, husband and wife or do you have some other endgame in mind?

  40. Jon
    Posted August 20, 2009 at 1:47 am | Permalink

    Hey everybody,

    I'm pretty sure Kevin was being facetious when he said the thing about the pamphlets in schools. It was clearly a ridiculous situation intended to point out the obvious--that one's sexuality cannot just be logically chosen, and that "promoting homosexuality" does not have much meaning to it. He's trying to say that what SSM supporters are trying to achieve is the acceptance of homosexuality. They're not recruiting--for there is no way to "recruit" a naturally heterosexual person into being a homosexual one.

    You all took his comment way, way, way too seriously. It was clearly sarcastic. Just thought you all should know.

  41. Posted August 20, 2009 at 2:16 am | Permalink

    Leona, according to the largest post-election poll, about 1 in 5 self-identified homosexual voters cast a Yes ballot on the CA marriage amendment. The sample is very small so it could have been a greater share or a lesser share.

    The point is that gayness or knowing gay people is not the magic bullet with which to eraise opposition to the SSM merger.

    * * *

    The age thing has become a theme of the pro-SSM side.

    Just like your suggestion that I "need to meet some of these people" as if I have not.

    Perhaps you meant that people ought to learn from experience?

    Good for you, Leona, that is a fine sentiment.

    Of all the thousands of SSMers I have met and discussed SSM with, not one has plainly stated the core meaning of marriage. Not one has been able to distinguish SSM from the rest of the nonmarriage category.

    I've read and listened. I've asked. I've taken their own stated standards at face value. I've compared their understanding of marriage with the anthropological and historical record and it appears to me -- albeit an old guy -- that SSMers generally do not know what they are talking about.

    So they talk about gayness instead.

    SSM argumentation -- since before the 1990s -- has been a vehicle for the assertion of supremacy via identity politics. That sort of assertion was repudiated when racialists used it to abuse the marriage laws and the judiciary. No SSMer -- of the thousands I've encoutered -- has refuted the repudiation of such an assertion and yet they rely on it in terms of gay identity politics. No SSMer in published books or periodicals has abandoned gay identity politics.

    And by SSMer I refer not just to gay people who would like a license for SSM, but to those who favor the SSM merger -- whether they identify themselves as gay or not.

    The social institution of marriage has been with us for thousands of years. Protocols and regulations around the pareaeter have changed, sure, but there are universals that have remained unchanged. Do you know what these are? How would you know if not by the accumulated wisdom of generations before you?

    Do you not believe that each new generation learns from such accumulated wisdom? It is impossible for a lone individual to do that sort of work. It is not possible for a single generation to accumulate this wisdom from scratch.

    So, contrary to the SSM campaign's propaganda, a youthful face does not give you more credibility on the marriage issue.

    Indeed, as young people mature, live by their mistakes and successes, the coherency of the social institution will prove itself out. Consider what has been learned from the rise in divorce during a single generation. Or unwed cohabitation. Or the supremacy of identity politics. What previous generations have learned, future generations inherit. The good, the bad, and the ugly. Each generation passes that inheritance onto the next.

    Youth in itself is not an obstacle to wisdom, of course, but neither is it an assurance of it. My advice to you, in return to your advice offered to me, is to learn more about the marriage issue beyond the talking points of the pro-SSM side. Dig deeper.

    There is little point in having an opinon about SSM if you do not face, directly, the actual disagreement on the marriage issue

    It is pointless to agree to disagree if you have not yet understood the actual disagreement.

    Whether it is in a courtroom, in a legislative assembley, in a public forum such as this, it has been my extensive experience that SSMers will ellide the actual disagreement and will avoid holding their own viewpoint to the standards by which they have attacked the core meaning of marriage.

    That sort of behavior ought to be a big red flag for anyone young enough to have inherited the reprecussions of the "sexual revolution" generation. Marriage is not meaningless. Neither is it a vehicle for identity politics.

    There is more to it than that. Far more.

  42. Posted August 20, 2009 at 2:24 am | Permalink

    Kevin said:

    "My equality arguments stem from the logic used in the supreme courts of Connecticut, Massachusetts and Iowa"

    So where these court opinions are flawed, so is your argument.

    And where your own stated standards help to highlight those flaws, your own argument is destroyed.

    You can't disown this, Kevin, so you might as well read those court opinions again and compare them with your stated standards. If logic and reason prevail, then, you will recognize that these pro-SSM court opinions (i.e. the legal reasoning) amounts to an abuse of judicial review.

    Just becuase a judge sayso does not make it so. Especially when the judiciary is not empowered to legislate, as you've already acknowledged.

  43. Posted August 20, 2009 at 2:31 am | Permalink

    Kevin said:

    "Are you really suggesting that the truth depends on the messenger? [...] Does honoring our country’s constitution become less important?"

    You attack the messenger all the time. It is your starting point. You begin with the axiomatic assertion that to disagree with the SSM-merger is itself an act of bigotry.

    And then you dishonor the constitution by relying on the abuse of judicial review. You dishonor your own stated standards by abandoning them when others test your assertions with those same standards.

    And when it comes to the children in families outside of marriage, you return to gay identity politics to demand special treatment for only a tiny subset of the nonmarital families in this country.

    Thus you also dishonor your professed concern about children.

  44. Posted August 20, 2009 at 2:42 am | Permalink

    Kevin said:

    "approval on homosexuality, by decriminalizing state laws punishing it"

    Decriminalization is not approval. And Lawrence was about privacy and not about a public relationship that is licensed by the government.

    Maybe this is where you find the public sexual aspect of SSM. In something the US Supreme Court opined was a matter of privacy. Hence, it is not the public sexual aspect of SSM, even by your own standard of argumentation.

    Still, judges are human beings and they make mistakes. The Lawrence opinion has so much fluff in it that it hardly stands as the basis for much of anything. Whether or not the behavior ought to be considered criminal is not a matter for the judiciary to decide. I disagree with criminalization of that behavior but I don't agree with the offered reasoning of the Lawrence majority. But even if we take that reasoning as being meritorious, your own pro-SSM argumentation is destroyed by the privacy versus public aspect at issue.

    And, if you want the judiciary to settle social policy, then, your view on Lawrence -- reading more into it than appropriate -- is your way of demanding that the judiciary go beyond the judicial role when it comes to the marriage question.

    Your viewpoint unravels like a loose ball of yawn.

  45. Posted August 20, 2009 at 2:56 am | Permalink

    Leona said of homosexual voters who voted Yes on the CA marriage amendment:

    "probably they dont want to marry"

    Actually those who want to SSM also do not want to marry for they reject the core meaning of marriage and chose a nonmarital alternative.

    You don't just start with the axiomatic assertion that SSM is marriage. Begin with what marriage is. What are the essentials without which the arrangement would not be marriage. THEN you look at SSM and compare it with the large nonmarriage category. Can you show how SSM is different? THEN you can compare SSM with marriage.

    Anyway, the very low participation rates in SSM (under whatever guise -- SSM merger, civil union, registered partnership, or even the very broad category of same-sex householding) indicates that the vast majority of the adult homosexual population is not keen to SSM.

    That's true in Holland, the UK, Canada, as well as the places in the USA where SSM has been imposed.

    No, when SSM is merged with marriage there is another reason than the desire to participate in SSM that drives the political imposition. And that thing is identity politics of the gay variety.

    And contrary to your pleadings about tolerance, identity politics (in its various forms) has shown itself to be one of the most reliable sources of social conflict, injustice, hatred, bigotry, and political authoritarianism. The drive behind the SSM merger has not shown itself to be an exception, even if your youthful eyes perceive it to be benign beyond doubt.

  46. Posted August 20, 2009 at 3:30 am | Permalink

    I summed up the way these discussions typically go, based on experience:


    I've witnessed this over and over in all kinds of scenarios. Courtrooms or public debates or even pro-SSM homilies in religious services. The summary applies in the religous and irreligious contexts.

    Indeed, it applies to discussions amongst Buddhists who themselves are divided on the question of whether Buddhism is a religion or a philosophy.

    It applies to discussions that have occured in this blogsite's comment sections, too.

  47. Susan
    Posted August 20, 2009 at 10:27 am | Permalink

    "Im pretty sure Kevin was being facetious when he said the thing abou the pamphlets in school"


    Admirable attempt to do damage control. Too late. We all know Kevin meant what he said (there goes his Chirstmas bonus).

    Any reasonable person can see that the "marriage equality" battle is just a facade of something much bigger and very far reaching. Kevin gave us a taste of it through his own vision of our children being recruited by radical homosexuals in schools. That is the ultimate goal and the young and the naive among us need to know that.

    And contrary to your self-serving statements, as I am sure you know, sexuality can be strongly influenced by certain life experiences. For example, an adolescent suffering from a low self esteem or feelings of rejection by his peers is an easy target for a homosexual. In fact, most homosexuals become homosexual that way.

    Your statement that sexuality cannot be changed is also false. A Columbia University psychiatrist, well-ragarded in homosexual circles (voted to remove homosexuality from APA's mental disorders list), paradoxically later cured homosexuality in 90%+ of the subjects in his study.

  48. Susan
    Posted August 20, 2009 at 10:42 am | Permalink

    "What SSM supporters are trying to achieve is the acceptance of homosexuality"


    "Acceptance of homosexuality"? I thought this battle was about "marriage equality."

    You have again revealed the ultimate goal of radical gay activists' fraudulent assault on marriage. The goal is simply to further legitimize and promote homosexulity.

    You have not done much better than Kevin.

  49. Posted August 20, 2009 at 1:16 pm | Permalink

    Susan, Jon's spin is stranger still because Kevin has asserted that approval of homosexuality is already accomplished via the Lawrence decision.

    If the SSM merger asserted in the pro-SSM court opinions that Kevin and other SSMers laude is any indication, then, approval rather than equality is the explicit goal of this proposed change in the marriage law.

    And that stands at odds with the insistance that sexuality be taken out of consideration, anyway.

    * * *

    Jon said: "They’re not recruiting–for there is no way to “recruit” a naturally heterosexual person into being a homosexual one."

    As a longtime advocate of SSM has (cynically) observed:


    About the assimilation question, some queer-identified marriage critics worry [...] about a strategy of mimicking heterosexuals. [...] Something far more important, far more interesting, and potentially far more transformative [is happening]. What is quite remarkable is that the majority heterosexual culture is increasingly coming to resemble gay culture.


    * * *]

    He called it reverse assimilation. This he said will be freedom from marriage.

    He said that the queer agenda is not just about sex and sexual justice but is a demand for deeper change than inclusion. He referred to "turning queer" as being "loyal to God".

    He asked that society throw caution aside and take the plunge for "Justice Love". And that means redefining fidelity beyond pair-bonds.

    He admitted that he dodged this issue of plural relations when he wrote about same-sex marriage. But even at that time he had foreseen where the pro-SSM argument must lead. He chose to just put that off for the time being.

    * * *

    So the recruitment effort, as such, is aimed toward the queering of society starting with the young captive audience in our public school system.

    If marriage is taught to be basically a meaningless thing created by the government for no societal purpose, as SSM argumentation insists, and if the SSM merger is designed to equate the husband-wife union with nonmarriage, as SSMers demand, then teaching "gay marriage" to young students is the equivalent of teaching falsehoods about human sexuality, human community, human procreaton, and, yes, the social institution of marriage and the principles of self-governance.

    The arguments of the SSM campaign are steeped in identity politics. That also will be taught to young students. Afterall, the SSM campaign's emphasis on sexuality is rhetorical because their interest is not in justice but in "just us". Redefining marriage and human sexuality by the limitations of SSM argumentation is what they seek to impose: and that means suppressing the core meaning of the foundational social institution of civil society.

    Meanwhile, as Kevin inisists, SSMers are not very sincere about the SSM merger because, according to their view of the Lawrence decision, approval for homosexuality has already been accomplished. The implementation of this imposition is at issue, for SSMers.

    Now, whether or not one approves of homosexuality, or is indifferent, or disapproves, the real issue is marriage. And SSMers cannot expect schools to teach marriage if the concept of marriage cannot be distinguished from nonmarriage. SSMers fail to distinguish and yet they do demand that the core of marriage be taught to be bigoted. On that they are not fearful of being discriminate. So they would gut the teachings on marriage and into the hollowed-out thing they would pour their assertion of supremacy via identity politics.

    See: Polyamory as part of the "justice agenda"

  50. Susan
    Posted August 20, 2009 at 7:59 pm | Permalink


    The quotes you included are more frightening than anything I have read on this subject before. We all know what this assault on marriage is all about, but to hear a same sex 'marriage" advocate state openly and unapologetically that we should all "be loyal to God" by supporting further "queering" of our society is enough to make one vomit.

    I believe it is insecurity (and later arrogance), often in conjunction with mental illness underlying homosexuality, that drives a homosexual radical. Under a "liberated" hedonistic front of radical homosexuals we generally find unhappy, self-obsessed people, for whom homosexuality is the essence of their existence. "Queering" of our society is supposed to spread the misery around, and as a result, make homosexuals feel better about their homosexuality.

    The good news is that increasing numbers of people are starting to understand the gravity of what is really at stake in this homosexual "marriage" battle.

    Very few of us will knowingly permit "queering" of our children by radical homosexuals. That is why we have to continue our fight against homosexual "marriage."

  51. Nicholas
    Posted August 20, 2009 at 11:41 pm | Permalink


    I continue to applaud your boldness in calling out (no pun intended) what is really behind the SSM campaign. Your candor is both appreciated and necessary in exposing SSM for what it is-the complete and utter dismantling of marriage as the union of male and female, husband and wife such that it can be rebuilt in their image and likeness.

    As is the custom, SSMers will continue to point out marriage has changed over the years from when it was first instituted and therefore allowing SS couples to "marry" only acknowledges this "ever-evolving" notion. What SSMers fail to admit is that, if marriage is continually "evolving," then even their own "marriage" won't resemble the very parameters by which they insist on for their own. So then, in say five years from now, will the nation be battling over marriage as merely a perfunctory role? Seems to me that this idea is at the heart of the SSM campaign.

    Again, keep up the good work. It is much appreciated.

  52. Posted August 21, 2009 at 4:23 pm | Permalink

    The SSMer I quoted above uses the term, queering, in terms of changing attitudes toward sexuality.

    He is not saying that the goal is to change the sexual proclivities of people. He is saying that the goal is to reorientate society itself. Individuals, he says, ought to have different priorities and so societal attitudes need to change.

    It comes down to a litany of false equivalencies, including equating marriage to SSM and equating of heterosexual to homosexual. This is not about equality, mind, but about finding the lowest common denominator.

    The speaker claims that the prototypical gay example is the leading example of how society ought to regard human sexuality -- and indeed to regard all kinds of living arrangements and types of relationships. He does not distinguish marriage from nonmarriage, in his vision of queering society.

    He seeks to correct society by asserting the supremacy of gay identity politics.

    In my view, marriage is indifferent to gayness. Marriage is not SSM. It has a core meaning. So SSMers seek to throwaway that core and thus equate SSM with marriage. But doing that does not provide a difference between SSM and nonmarriage; it just knocks marriage down.

    So they seek to uplift this fale equivalence. How? By standing on tip-toe holding identity politics above their heads. However, as this speaker's vision is anti-marriage, his form of identity politics promotes the dismantling of much more than marriage.

    The more socially responsible approach, I think, is to reaffirm the core of marriage (not throw it away), strengthen the marital trends in society (not push the nonmarital trends further), and to also extend protections (mostly nongovernmental) for the nonmarital families (especially those with children) who exist outside of marriage. Their vulnerabilities are due to the lack (or diminishment) of sex integration and responsible procreation so we should not equate nonmarriage with marriage. SSMers seemto think that a license would solve those vulnerabilities -- but only for the gaycentric verson of nonmarriage.

    The protection equality I favor does not treat gayness as special. Not for approbation and not for disapprobation. Rather the protections are neutral and based on those vulnerabilities experienced outside of marriage. But protections are not designed to encourage more nonmarriage. They are an accomodation due to the decline that the social institution of marriage has suffered. The goal is to help marriage bounce back so the need for these types of protections outside of marriage is less widespread.

    SSMers go the other way around. They want to favor a tiny subset of nonmarriage; and they seek special status for gayness. They turn their noses up at protection equality and would do nothing to help marriage bounce back. They disaprage what marriage does for society and thus can't sustain, with their argumentation, the special status of marriage in our society.

    The speaker I quoted is blatant about this. But his vision is in full accord with the sort of SSM argumentatin that has been presented in courtrooms, legislatures, and in forums like this blogsite's comment sections.

    So, by his use of the term, queering, a person who is sexually attracted to the opposite sex could become queered in attitude toward the opposite sex.

    I guess this can be illustrated by the silence with which SSMers great the question: why should society treat all unions of husband and wife as if they lacked either husbands or wives?

    Or, why should society promote the disunity of fatherhood and motherhood?

    The speaker explains his reasons without embarrassment. But he, too, remained silent on these questions when he had published books and articles arguing in favor of SSM. Now that he has admitted this, we should take him at his word. He was presented as a leading light of the SSM campaign.

  53. Posted August 21, 2009 at 4:48 pm | Permalink

    Nicholas, SSMers have argued that there are no universal features of marriage. The get this impression because there are variable features.

    But to say that something has evolved is to say nothing if they cannot plainly say -- this is marriage and this is how we know it is marriage.

    You start with the thing itself. You identify it. Then you can track changes. You can track what is variable and this helps to identify what is universal.

    A state license points to something. SSMers point not to marriage but at the license. They would have government point not at marriage but back at itself as the issuer of the license. SSMers go in circles when they make the license the essence of marriage.

    Government recognizes what it has neither created nor owned. Civil society is not a government department; marriage is foundational of civil society and government is erected on that bedrock, not the other way around.

    So, sure, there are variables -- just as governments have come and gone -- but civilization and governments alike are built on something solid.

    Unlike the bedrock of marriage, SSM argumentation is a patch of quicksand. And SSMers invite all of society to join them there.

    The marriage defender needs to find firm ground upon which to stand and fight for society. Don't get trapped in the quicksand of homosexual this and homosexual that. Reason and respect for human dignity does not support the removal of civil society from the bedrock of marriage.

    What is marriage?

    What is SSM?

    The two are different things. The latter is in the nonmarriage category and cannot be distinguished except through identity politics. A license for that is not a license to marry.

    But treating marriage like nonmarriage is a license to queer society.

  54. Susan
    Posted August 21, 2009 at 6:48 pm | Permalink


    You are clearly very knowledgable about this whole business. You also seem exceptionally calm, if not resigned, discussing ideologies and goals, which cannot be perceived as anything other than sheer madness espoused by people determined to destroy life as we know it.

    Which brings me to another question. Has the APA ever been every formally challenged about its 1973 decision to declassify homosexuality? Basically, without any new clinical data, homosexuals became "sane" overnight. I know there have been books and various scathing accounts of what went on, but has anybody ever challenged this political move formally in the medical community or even court?

    The recent APA decision (an ad hoc committee composed largely of homosexual psychiatrists) to denounce reparative treatment of homosexuals further demonstrates the trend of science being political rather than scientific. Of course, very few mentally fit people take the APA seriously, but the fact is that the APA's actions have helped pave the way to the mess we are in now.

    What is happening is very disturbing. To cater to a tiny portion of our society, science yields to politics and so does law.

  55. Kevin
    Posted August 22, 2009 at 12:44 pm | Permalink


    “To cater to a tiny portion of our society, science yields to politics and so does law.”

    What’s your theory as to why this tiny minority is so powerful then? Why are state supreme courts caving in, heterosexual citizens (such as California’s 48% who opposed marriage discrimination last November) offering their support to same-sex marriage, even prominent attorneys like David Boies and Ted Olsen all lending a hand to support same-sex marriage?

    What “science” opposes homosexuality, love between two people of the same sex, the raising of children by same-sex couples?

  56. Susan
    Posted August 22, 2009 at 4:37 pm | Permalink

    "What is your theory as to why this tiny minority is so powerful?"


    Three main reasons:

    1) Money used to buy judges and politicians.
    2) Intimidation, harassment, boycotts of anybody who disagrees.
    3) Radical left indoctrination of a large segment of our society, with greatest credit going to the liberal media.
    4) Outright lies perpetuated by gay rights activists (again, with credits going to liberal media) about public perception of homosexual "marriage" intended to influence public opinion about the subject.

  57. Susan
    Posted August 22, 2009 at 5:30 pm | Permalink


    As to your last question:

    1.) If homosexuality were the norm (e.g., constituted the predominant sexuality or the sole sexuality) there would be no humanity, or any animal life on our planet. Indeed, you would not be here today if your mother and father did not create you together.

    2) From existentialist and scientific point of view, homosexuality is therefore inherently undesirable and annihilistic.

    3) Homosexuality is undesirable because, like any vice, ends up being detrimental to health. Consider AIDS/HIV, genital herpes, syphillis, hepatitis, rectal cancer epidemics among homosexual men, depression/aggression (mostly lesbians).

    4) Over 25 years since the outbreak of the AIDS/HIV epidemic and despite all the information available about AIDS/HIV, homosexual men still constitute by far the greatest contributor to the epidemic today. WHY? Is it because homosexuality is a legitimate and desirable lifestyle? I don't think so.

    5) Homosexuality is a mental disorder (or, more PC, "lifestyle"), although highly curable in motivated individuals. Incidentally, ex-homosexuals are harassed and intimidated by homosexuals, their names are posted on the web, etc. Why? Because homosexuals want us to believe that they can't change, which is not the case.

    6) Ideally, children need a mother and a father, as the two sexes complement each other in their child-rearing abilities.

    7) Children crave both a mother and a father, and suffer emotionally when mother or father is absent from their lives.

    8) A child of divorced parents, however unfortunate, knows and generally spends time with both of the parents.

    9) A child whose parent died, or for whatever reason, is not in the child's life, has memories or at least knowledge that he or she had both parents at one point, just like most of his or her peers.

    10) A child raised by two homosexuals is deprived, by design, of a mom or dad, which is inherently cruel and highly detrimental to the child.

    11) A child raised by two homosexuals is more likely to become homosexual, which brings you back to my first point.

  58. Posted August 23, 2009 at 3:50 am | Permalink

    The same-sexed arrangement is not outlawed, Kevin, as you have acknowledged previously.

    It is tolerated. And increasingly protected. But it offers no sexual basis for a special status on par with marital status.

    Same-sex householding is a very unstable environment and the dissolution rates for SSM are much higher than for marriage. A license to SSM does not keep them together, contrary to your assertion that it would.

    Sure, you might point to this or that exception that has lasted decades, but that disproves your assertion that a license is necessary to do that.

    For a double-dad or double-mom scenario, the child's parents must be split-up. That is contrary to your claim that such a scenario keeps parents together. Whether it is adoption or third party procreaton, such scenarios attain children by fulfillment of at least two pre-requisites: 1) parental relinquishment and 2) government intervention to assign a replacement.

    That is the virtual inverse of marriage -- see the presumption of paternity and its sexual basis.

    Sure, you might hope to create a new standard -- one based perhaps on the judicial doctrine of de facto parentage or somesuch -- but it would have not be based on whatever an all-male or an all-female arrangement might do sexually.

    And that renders your emphasis on sexual orientation rather irrelevant. Afterall, there are far more children living in nonmarital arrangements where the adults are NOT eligible to marry and ARE heterosexual, than there are children residing in one-sexed arrangements who do not have both mom and dad (even if either mom or dad is now nonresident).

    You have asserted that DNA testing has superseded the core of marriage (especially responsible procreation as per the marital presumption of paternity). That's absurd but you do understand that DNA testing is based on the two-sexed nature of human procreation, right? Paternity testing is about establishing fathers to support their children and the mothers of their children. It is not about denying the societal significance of this.

    But deny you have.

    But your assertion that DNA testing replace the trust between husband and wife -- as a default position -- is anti-marriage in the extreme. It even destroys your rhetoric about the expectation of sexual monogamy. It tears down your vague comments about polygamy.

    Indeed, the one-sexed scenario has prompted courts to grant co-equal parental status to three adults for one child. In one case the two lesbians insisted that the father was essential to the well-being of the child and so they did not want the father to relinquish his parental status. Neither did he. But the second woman demanded parental status as a second mother even though the child already had both a mom and a dad. The father was married and had children with his wife, too. But so far the court has not granted his wife co-equal parental status just because, you know, she's married to her husband. So I guess the lesbian twosome got special treatment that is not afforded other step-families which are, in SSM parlance, "straight".

    The problems with your rather superficial commentary on these topics, Kevin, are legion. Each comment you make just presents yet another opportunity to correct your errors and clarify the profound flaws in SSM argumentation in general.

  59. Posted August 23, 2009 at 3:57 am | Permalink

    Correction: "But so far the court has not granted his wife co-equal parental status over the child who lives with the lesbians because, you know, she’s married to her husband." She's the mother of her own children, born of her marriage with her husband, but she can't do like the second lesbian and demand equal parental status over her husband's child living with the lesbians. The same-sexed arrangement was the reason given by the court to grant co-equal parental status to the three adults -- one of which neither adopted nor helped conceive the child.

  60. Kevin
    Posted August 23, 2009 at 9:45 am | Permalink


    “Indeed, the one-sexed scenario has prompted courts to grant co-equal parental status to three adults for one child. In one case the two lesbians insisted that the father was essential to the well-being of the child and so they did not want the father to relinquish his parental status.”

    What a lucky child to have three adults fighting over who gets to love him the most!

    Your argument about dual-gender parenting would be more convincing if you would address the following:

    - why are single people permitted to raise children without the missing gender?
    - Why are dual-gender parents permitted to divorce when there are minor age children in the house, thus creating dual household, single gender parenting arrangements? Children of divorce are raised in less than optimal circumstances, unlike the children of same-sex parents in one household, raising children as a cohesive harmonious unit.

  61. Posted August 25, 2009 at 5:34 am | Permalink

    You may gest but the court's bestowing of triple co-equal parental status is unprecedented.

    Anyway, your gleeful clapping might indicate that you support marriage licenses for the practice of polygamy. Or for polyamory.

    * * *

    Kevin asked: "why are single people permitted to raise children without the missing gender?"

    Who do you think "permits" that? It appears that the totalitarian streak in your argumentation has risen to the surface.

    This is from your list of pro-SSM talking points, no doubt. I've come across it many times.

    Get to your point. What are you asking about, really? You seem to have changed the subject from marriage to something else.

    * * *

    - Why are dual-gender parents permitted to divorce when there are minor age children in the house, thus creating dual household, single gender parenting arrangements?

    Again with the "permitted".

    Tell you what. You have emphasized adult consent. So you have your own sad answer.

    And, frankly, when the adultcentric view of family and marriage is held above that of the childcentric view, well, society tends to suffer -- as do the individuals involved in particular instances.

    This undermines your argument for SSM.

    * * *

    The vast majority of the children in same-sex households have both mom and dad. One or the other is nonresident. The parents had a sexual relationship (typically marriage) so unfortunately same-sex households raising children are examples of the very thing you claim to be lamenting.

    As I explained previously, a tiny minority -- about 4% -- of the small child population in same-sex households were attained via adoption; and a fraction of 1% by third party procreation (donors). These are also examples of segregating fatherhood from motherhood.

    Marriage integrates fatherhood and motherhood. And, yes, divorce segregates -- not just in this or that particular instance but also as a practice and a concept. Children whose parents split-up are subjected to the adultcentric view. Most divorces are not for life-and-death reasons nor for childcentric reasons. The "culture" of no-fault divorce has done harm by cutting meaning out of marriage. You seem to want to dissect the heart out of marriage just to satisfy some odd demand that this would be consistent.

    Consistently adultcentric, yes. Consistently disparaging of marriage, yes. Consistently sex-segregative and anti Responsible Procreation, yes.

    Children live in nonmarital arrangements. Among them, millions of such homes are not eligible for marriage. Very few of such arrangements are "same-sex households".

    Yet your emphasis is on the adultcentric view, the gaycentric subset, and the question of "permitting" this or that.

    Why are some consenting adults not permitted to SSM, Kevin? For example, some related people (not all) or some underaged people (not all) or some previously SSM'd people (not all)?

    You previously said something about protecting society with these sorts of ineligibilty rules. Well, you have now clapped your hands in glee at the prospect of institutionalizing co-equal triple parental status. So even when children are dragged into the spotlight in your argumentation, it is not for the sake of children.

    SSM lacks a core meaning. It lacks a public sexual aspect. It lacks a childcentric view. It is a bad idea posing as a solution despite the lack of an actual problem to solve.

    Children being raised in same-sex households already have the protections accorded children of divorce or estranged parents. And if either mom or dad chooses to relinquish parental status, then, second-parent adoption may be an option. But SSM does not bestow parental status on a nonparent.

    Not, unless, a court is persuaded to press gay identity politics into family law and grant tripartite parental status.

    In Pennsylvania, a court did this but the adults were not consenting. Two women split-up. One was a mother; she married the child's father (a "donor"). Ordinarily a non-related adult has no legal relationship with a child except through the adult relationship. The mother did not want her ex-lesbian partner to be involved in her child's life. The lesbian partner had not adopted the child so her relationship with the child was through the mother only. The mother's lack of consent did not stop the court. Indeed, the fact the child had two parents -- a mom and a dad -- did not stop the court. The court did not even raise a sweat in forcing this third person on the family.

    Now you might think that is fine because gay identity politics supersedes all precedents. But consider if the third adult did not consent but the mom-dad insisted on child support or somesuch. Then, if the court followed its flawed reasoning, the child was get a third parent -- at least for financial support -- and thus that third adult would be forced to adopt the child.

    Not adopt as in the normal route of adoption; no adoption can be forced legitimately. But identity politics has a way of turning totalitarian inevitably.

  62. Posted August 25, 2009 at 5:47 am | Permalink

    And, for the record, Kevin please restate my "argument about dual-gender parenting" and provide a link to the comment from which you gleaned this.

    By the way, the operative word is sex (man and woman), rather than gender (masculine and feminine). If you want to subsitute gender, then, you want a different discussion that is not focussed on marriage.

    Fatherhood and motherhood are united in marriage even if particular mom-dad duos split-up and divorce -- or never marry.

    Why do SSMers keep wishing to judge marriage by divorce? It is an odd approach. Afterall, the rates for dissolution are much higher for SSM than for marriage. Meanwhile the participation rates are much lower for SSM than for marriage. That's a topic that SSMers invite but do not show-up to discuss.

    The fact that SSM is a marginal practice within the adult homosexual community, and a practice already besotted with high dissolution rates, kind of destroys the hyper optimistic claim that SSM would expand marriage or solve all ailments experienced in that segment of the population which is openly homosexual. It says very little in favor of childraising in same-sex households, much less under the rubric of SSM.

  63. Posted August 25, 2009 at 5:54 am | Permalink

    I would also point out that when your arguments are met head-on and refuted, Kevin, you don't acknowledge the problem. Instead you trot ahead with something else.

    There is no progress in these discussions precisely because SSM argumentation will throw anything at the wall to see what might stick. When the garden hose is turned on and the mud washed away, the SSMer just piles up another heap of mud and starts throwin gthe same pitches all over again.

    Adult consent is not a trump card. A license for something you have failed to distinguish is not a winning hand. And even though you cherish the assertion of supremacy via gay identity politics, neither the constitution nor justice requires society surrender. Quite the contrary.

  64. Michael
    Posted August 25, 2009 at 8:36 am | Permalink

    Chairm, I don't think you understood Kevins point at all. I read your response and it does not answer his questions, it just seems to be a long and confusing rant that avoids the issue.

    You keep on bringing up the point about the childeren, but all you are doing is making an unsupported assertion that contridicts the research.

    The American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association, and National Association of Social Workers state: "The abilities of gay and lesbian persons as parents and the positive outcomes for their children are not areas where credible scientific researchers disagree. Statements by the leading associations of experts in this area reflect professional consensus that children raised by lesbian or gay parents do not differ in any important respects from those raised by heterosexual parents. No credible empirical research suggests otherwise."

    The research has consistently shown that same sex parents are as fit and capable as heterosexual parents. SSM is legal in 6-7 countries currently and has been as early as 2003 for one or more. There has been no evidence from these countries to support the claims made here and by NOM concerning SSM, society, and children involved. Even in the states that SSM is now legal, there have been no reports or studies to support the claims of NOM.

    Even if you ban same sex marriages it does not discouraged gay and lesbian individuals from forming families, be it with children conceived in previous relationships, by adoption, artificial insemination or surrogacy.

    If you would like, I can provide a large amount of examples of scholarly citations to support this. SInce there are so many, I will forward them by email or post them on an webpage if requested, rather than posting them in a comment.

    Chairm, So far I have not seen any support for the claims against SSM made here by NOM. With 7 countires allowing SSM and many recongnizing them, I would think that you or NOM counld produce some citations from studies done on that support your assertions.


  65. Posted August 25, 2009 at 2:18 pm | Permalink

    Michael, please tell me what "unsupported assertion" I made. And then cite the comment in which you think you gleaned this.

    And to tie it together, please plainly state the point that Kevin was trying to make, as far as you can tell.

    * * *

    As for your rant accusation, that is poor form on your part. My account is factual. Trying to wish it away does not stand as a substantive response to what I actually said.

    You ought not to project your emotional state onto other commenters here.

    * * *

    Nonetheless, your remarks do hold some significant concessions. Please confirm, correct, or clarify.

    Your referred to "same-sex" parents. Then you referred to "heterosexual" parents.

    You must know that the same-sex category is not definitively homosexual.

    There are single parents who are of different sexual orientations: so where you comparing single parents to single parents?

    Also, not all one-sexed scenarios raising children are homosexual scenarios. And two-sexed scenarios can and do include homosexual persons.

    If sexual orientation of the parents is more significant than their sex, please explain this in terms of outcomes for children.

    And if you meant to compare parenting by homosexual twosomes with parenting by heterosexual twosomes, please report the number of children studied in the longitudinal studies of random samples -- if you can. For your assertions to have weight, you will need more than political statements by political organizations.

    The child population living in same-sex households is so small that longitudinal studies of random samples has been evasive for researchers. But you pose as being familiar with the research. I doubt you are. In fact I bet you are citing conclusions from very limited and flawed studies.

    As I said, the vast majority of children in same-sex households already have both mom and dad. So you are not referring to children in about 95% of those relatively few households. Not unless you wish to pretend that the nonresident mom or dad's parental status is revoked and the second adult resident has adopted. There have not been THAT many second adoptions in the USA, as you might know, so I am guessing that you are misinformed on the research.

    If by "same-sex parents" you meant parents in same-sex households raising children who were attained by "same-sex" adoption, then, you must have extensive research on adoptive homes that provide the basis for the comparison and the conclusion you asserted. I doubt you have more than a propagandic assertion, but if you do have more please cite it.

    And, no, your emotional state is not relevant to the evidence. Please do not project onto it nor onto other commenters here.

    * * *

    Perhaps you meant the 1% of children in same-sex households who were attained via third party procreation (use of "donors") and can cite the research that provides the basis for the comparison and the conclusion you have asserted.

    I doubt you have that but you are free to cite it if you have something.

    On the other hand, perhaps you are just claiming some basis for coequal triple parental status for the adults involved in the lives of most of the children in same-sex households where the kids already have mom and dad duos.

    See my previous remark about polygamy and polyamory.

    * * *

    SSM is not illegal anyplace in the USA. Niether is not banned.

    And marriage is not one-sexed.

    * * *

    And, no, listing citations that do not address the points in this comment will not suffice.

    You have made certain concessions, I believe, that are strongly implied in your comment.

    If there is a lack of research on theh points I raised here, then, your assertions are virtually baseless.

    If that research is based on flawed studies, then, your assertions are not based on social scientific facts but on something else.

    If you are not comparing apples to apples, that's okay, given the weakness of social scientific methods there is lots of room for speculation based on the limitations of "the research".

    If you wish to transform your speculations into facts, then, that's a different matter. But you have conceded that doing that would be wrong.

    Also, since SSM does not bestow parental status for second adults in the vast majority of same-sex households, your argument about SSM and parenting seems rather weak.

    Indeed, even the rosey estimates of pro-gay organizations in California estimated that only half of domestic partnerships would convert to SSM if it was available. And participation rates in domestic partnership is very low. Most same-sex households are unlikely to convert to either domestic partnership or SSM. And since 90% or so of the adult homosexual population does not reside in same-sex households, and 97% of the adult homosexual population does not reside in such households with children, you entire comment is suspect.

    As I said of Kevin, it appears the interest is adultcentric, not childcentric.

  66. Posted August 25, 2009 at 2:30 pm | Permalink

    And, Michael, Kevin did not respond substantively to my comments. Yet you chose to chastize me. Odd, since I did respond to Kevin's rather lame questions: as I said, his emphasis on adult consent is the emphasis manifested in the nonmarital trends. SSM does nothing to correct those trends. Should SSM be expected to do anything positive for marriage and for society? I dunno -- it seems that SSMers insist this issue is primarily about adult consent.

    See the points made about triple parental status, polygamy, and polyamory. And about the sleight of hand used by SSMers when discussing "the research" on parenting.

  67. Posted August 25, 2009 at 2:46 pm | Permalink

    By the way, adoption does not bestow marital status. Neither does the mere presence of children in a household. That's so in the case of remarriage where the husband, for example, is not the father of his new wife's children. Indeed, a formal step-parent adoption is necessary even if the father of the children is deceased. Marriage won't do what direct adoption is designed to do.

    Why do SSMers pretend that SSM would do what marriage does not?

    Probably for the same propagandic reason taht SSMers pretend that marriage does nothing that SSM can not also do. They disparage the marital presumption of paternity -- which, Michael, is a legal presumption that is vigorously enforced (aka a relevant fact in the marriage law).

    So when you point to adoption, you don't point at the core of SSM nor the core of marriage. Indeed, marital status is a legitimate factor in the prioritization of potential adoptors. Integration of fatherhood and motherhood with marriage is of societal significance and is thus also manifest in sensible adoption practices.

    If you point to third party procreation, then, you point outside of marriage and not at its core. This practice is extramarital procreation even when married people use it. They go outside of their conjugal relationship to create a child. When a single person or other one-sexed arrangement uses this to create a motherless or fatherless home by design, then, it is an adultcentric approach. Indeed, there is no child existing -- he is yet-to-be-conceived -- and so there is no best interest of the child at stake prior to the decision to create a fatherless or motherless home. Where the use of third party procreation involves a husband and wife union, it at least provides for the unity of fatherhood and motherhood. That, in my view, does not justify the commidification or the manufacture of children. People can do it but that does not mean society approves of it. Where it is not enabled by legislation, the practice is strongly discouraged and reduced.

    So, pointing to divorced parents (of which one forms a same-sex household), pointing to adoption (where there are at least the prerequites of parental relinquishment and government intervention to assign a replacement), and pointing to third party procreation (which is extramarital), does not point to the core of marriage but rather outside of marriage.

    But given the pro-SSM emphasis on these three things, whenever children are dragged into the spotlight of gay identity politics, it would appear that SSM is at least marginally about these things. And if that is so, then, pointing at them does not point to the core of SSM but to its outer edges or its margins.

    Again, this reinforces the adultcentric view of licensing romance or sexual attraction. Of course, SSMers do not really wish the government to license those things but they do emphasize adult sexual orientation anyway.

  68. Posted August 25, 2009 at 3:00 pm | Permalink

    Michael, you last paragraph in your comment is far too vague.

    That you have not seen what is plainly in view is not a problem of NOM's but rather a problem whereby the gay identity filter is obstructing your sight.

    Be more specific if you wish to challenge assertions. I have found that SSMers use double-standards. So be prepared to discuss your standards by which you judge marriage; those same standards will be used to test your assertions about SSM.

  69. Michael
    Posted August 25, 2009 at 6:40 pm | Permalink

    I'm not sure why my points were so hard for you to understand. Also, you have made many assumptions about

    Please show citation to support your claims of the ill effects of SSM. Though you may consider them only political organizations, the conclusions of The American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association, National Association of Social Workers state, American Academy of Pediatrics, the Canadian Psychological Association, Royal College of Psychiatrists, and Australian Psychological society carry far more weight than you still unsupported assertions.

    As I mentioned in my last post, there are 7 countries where SSM is legally recognized for up to 6+ years. I am yet to see a report or study to show the results you or NOM claim would be caused by SSM.

    What does he amount of SScouples who would marry if it were available have to do with a persons right. Also, if children were not in the plans, how does that justify refusing them the right to marry if they decided too. The California supreme court believes that procreation is not a factor in marriage and stated, "Although the state undeniably has a legitimate interest in promoting "responsible procreation," that interest cannot be viewed as a valid basis for defining or limiting the class of persons who may claim the protection of the fundamental constitutional right to marry. . . .
    The personal enrichment afforded by the right to marry may be obtained by a couple whether or not they choose to have children, and the right to marry never has been limited to those who plan or desire to have children."

    so, You have not show any support for your claim on the effects of SSM on children, and marriage is not considered by the courts to be about children, but instead about the rights of a couple.

    I too could give a list of people from different walks of life I feel are not fit to have children, and my opinion may or may not be flawed. Whether or not my opinions of who is fit to have children is correct, it in no way could be used to limit any particular person or groups rights. I find it frightening that there are people who do.


  70. Michael
    Posted August 25, 2009 at 6:41 pm | Permalink

    The second sentence in the previous comment should have been, "Also, you have made many assumptions about me and my points."

  71. Posted August 26, 2009 at 12:46 am | Permalink

    Michael you are frightened, not by those who disagree with you, but by your own emotional unease with being anything but indiscriminate.

    Society ought not be afraid to be discriminating: marriage is NOT nonmarriage. We distinguish marriage from the rest by what makes marriage, marriage. There is a core meaning which SSMers attack as bigoted and, as you would have it, as being a frightening boogeyman.

    You ought not to quiver at the thought that responsible procreation and sex integration have far more societal significance than whatever is at the core of SSM. Instead, you should take it as an opportunity to lift SSM up to stand on its own two feet.

    Plainly state the distinguish feature(s) that make SSM, SSM. How is it not nonmarriage?

    Have courage. If you like the CA pro-SSM court opinion (its legal reasoning), then, you could even cite the bit where SSM is distinguished from nonmarriage; and where marriage is distinguished from marriage. Try not to get dizzy going in circles, mind.

  72. Posted August 26, 2009 at 12:47 am | Permalink

    Typo correction: "where marriage is distinguished from nonmarriage"

  73. Posted August 26, 2009 at 12:50 am | Permalink

    Name the assumptions, Michael.

    And please back-up the truck and state what you think is Kevin's intended point. Earlier you suggested I had missed it.

    Also, while the truck is backed-up, please state the supposedly "unsupportedf assertion" you think I made earlier.


  74. Posted August 26, 2009 at 1:38 am | Permalink

    Michael, do you agree fully with the bit you quoted from the CA pro-SSM court opinion?

    I had asked for your standards of argumentation on this matter and instead of replying directly you supplied this quote.

    Can you state, in your own words, the stqandard of argumentation that this quote implicitly relies upon?

  75. Posted August 26, 2009 at 1:55 am | Permalink

    Michael, is it your assertion that partcipation rates are irrelevant?

    And irrelevant to "the research" you have in mind?

    How about same-sex householding with children -- noting the various means by which such households have attained children? Irrelevant, also?

    You might reread my previous remarks about the lack of randomized samples and longitudinal studies as a major problem that undermines the certainty of your assertions (i.e. speculations).

    Also, perhaps reread the part where I explained how SSMers insist that marriage and children are disconnected but that SSM and children are connected. The virtual inverse is more like it.

    I know. You want to assert a "right" to equate SSM with marriage. Well, you can assert it politically of course -- and try to change the law through legislation -- but to claim a constitutional right to marry one must first establish how marriage is different from nonmarriage. You claim a right to something, not a right to nothing, surely.

    But even before that, the SSMer must establish how SSM is different from nonmarriage. Your complaint is based on sexual orientatin or idenity, is it not?

    From this basic work you might then make comparisons and do "the research".

    I had asked you about 'same-sex' parenting and you did not reply. Did you mean to refer to comparison of single parent scenarios -- there are studies on that very thing but these have been prompted mostly by child-custody scenarios in the wake of divorce or estrangement and in which lesbian mothers sought to find support for retaining custody of children. There is very little research on gay men with which to compare. And the total number of children studied in even the remotest semblance of 'same-sex' parenting (being generous in anticipation of what you might have in mind with that term) is so small that your assertions (i.e. speculations) seem way out of proportion to the available evidence.

    You assert something about 'same-sex' parenting. You assert something else about SSM. You conflate the two in your comments but that misrepresents "the research".

    I think you have quite a bit of clearing up to do here.

  76. Posted August 26, 2009 at 2:12 am | Permalink

    For the record, Michael are you associated with Kevin in some way?

    I am not assuming, but I am asking because it is a pattern here that an SSMere shows up to trot out old talking points, each refuted, and then disappears only for another SSMer to pop-in to trot out the same old talking points and ... rinse and repeat.

    Are you pinch-hitting for Kevin? Are you Kevin? For the record, please.

  77. Charles
    Posted August 27, 2009 at 1:22 am | Permalink

    "You ought not to quiver at the thought of responsible procreation and sex integration have far more societal signifigance than whatever is at the core of SSM."

    You ought not to quiver at the thought that what is at the core of same sex marriage has nothing to do with whether or not gay marriage has any "social signifigance" or benefit at all.Since when is the freedom or the civil right to marry based on the benefit one's marriage might provide to others?
    The rights and liberties of individuals should not be determined by thier social utility,nor by popular ballot.Conservatives on this issue should stick to purely religious arguments against gay marriage,not that I would agree with them,but for thier own sake.They're beginning to sound much like the relativists they claim to oppose by using what are primarily collectivistic or utilitarian arguments against an entire group of people.
    We all know where that leads.

  78. Kevin
    Posted August 27, 2009 at 1:59 pm | Permalink


    “I am not assuming, but I am asking because it is a pattern here that an SSMere shows up to trot out old talking points, each refuted, and then disappears only for another SSMer to pop-in to trot out the same old talking points and … rinse and repeat.

    Are you pinch-hitting for Kevin? Are you Kevin? For the record, please.”

    What’s been refuted? That children are better off when their parents are married, regardless of the gender composition of those parents? That it violates equal protection guarantees in the US Constitution to discriminate against same-sex couples for the purpose of granting marriage licenses? That the religious purpose of insisting on opposite-sex only marriage imposes a faith belief on believers and non-believers alike? That adultery and divorce, completely legal and supported by Christians, is actually damaging to marriage, while same-sex marriage is not?

    No, Charles is not I. Smart people often reach the same conclusions, though.

  79. Nicholas
    Posted August 27, 2009 at 6:32 pm | Permalink


    Why do you continue to claim "That children are better off when their parents are married, regardless of the gender composition of those parents?" So being male and female is insignificant altogether? So why are we then? Or does being male and female only have significance within a SS relationship as you seem to insist?

    Also, Ms. Gallagher, Chairm, and many others, have stated their case time and time again without imposing a "religious" definition of marriage. Its just seems to be falling on deaf ears in your case.

    Lastly, your continual remark that adultery and divorce have changed the core of marriage makes me question whether you know what the core of marriage is. No doubt they have hurt marriage, but they have not changed the core. The core is still intact as the union of male and female, husband and wife. Always has been and always will be no matter how much SSMers try to trivialize it.

  80. Nicholas
    Posted August 27, 2009 at 11:53 pm | Permalink


    Rather optimistic aren't we? Unless DOMA is deemed unconstitutuional and all marriage statutes are rendered null and void, "marriage equality" will wage on in perpetuity. In fact, as Roe v. Wade made abortion legal, the controversy of the issue remains todays as much as if not more than ever. The same fate will be that of SSM regardless of the eventual outcome.

    And no, even in twenty years, I still won't recognize counterfeits. And why should I? Because you say so? Because of a "marriage license?" Because the sky will still be blue? That is akin to saying that the letters "a" and "b" are phonetically the same.

  81. Charles
    Posted August 28, 2009 at 12:32 am | Permalink

    If a Marxist is one who believes that the state should control the means of industrial production by regulating,restricting, or punishing any kind of economic activity that doesn't benefit the state,then what does one call a person who believes that the state should control the means of sexual reproduction by regulating,restricting,or punishing any kind of sexual activity outside the boundaries of traditional marriage that doesn't result in the production of children to benefit the state?

    Seems inconsistent to me,that conservatives seek to privatize just about every institution in society,yet still cling to the idea of socialized marriage.

  82. g. lafave
    Posted August 28, 2009 at 3:24 am | Permalink

    Charles, who is advocating control? What we choose to encourage is because it is healthy and good. It is by free choice. You have your choice, let others have theirs.

  83. Posted August 28, 2009 at 4:44 am | Permalink

    Chales said: "what is at the core of same sex marriage has nothing to do with whether or not gay marriage has any 'social signifigance' or benefit at all."

    I've asked about the societal significance of same-sex union and I asked for the special reason for special status (note that marital status is a special or preferential status and SSMers demand as much).

    Charles downgraded societal to "social" significance.

    He then parlayed ineligibility for a marriage license into a supposed right to a license to same-sex union.

    This unjust piggybacking shows a lack of courage to make same-sex union stand on its own two feet.

  84. Posted August 28, 2009 at 5:23 am | Permalink

    Charles, you referred to "an entire group of people" but did not explicitly name that group.

    You would not define that group via "primarily collectivistic or utilitarian arguments", right?

    You would not go all relativist on us, right?

    It might help the discussion if you clarified what you mean by these terms -- collectivistic, utilitarian, and relativist. We may not share a common understanding. Your remarks seem contradictory to me.

    * * *

    Marriage is a universal social insitution. A social institution has coherency. Its core meaning provides that coherency.

    Society, via governing authorities, recognizes and shows preference for this foundational social institution.

    If you wish to make government blind to the core of marriage, then, you seek to blind society as well -- but in the opposite direction, by using government to suppress that core meaning. Or, you might prefer that we describe that as government's indifference to the definitive features of the thing being recognized or licensed.

    This core exists, Charles, whether or not you approve of it. I would given SSMers the opportunity to specify what the core of same-sex union is, too. Maybe you would deny this for both marriage defenders and SSMers. Hence my request for you to clarify the "entire group of people" you have in mind.

    Do you believe that marriage does NOT merit a special status? That a license is rather superfluous anyway?

    Some in favor of SSM are explicit about this. And they argue with consistency that marriage should be flattened to a private arrangement because it has no special reason for special treatment. Private reasons suffice. Social reasons are irrelevant. The government would treat all private arrangements as equal -- except those which might harm society. Those would be outlawed. All other arrangements would be tolerated. That would fall short of the preferential status now accorded marriage; and short of the protective status now accorded part of the nonmarriage category. Tolerance is as far as the government, on behalf of society, ought to go, they say.

    So harm to society becomes the hallmark of what is outlawed, rather than benefit to society as the hallmakr of what is shown preference, as per your previous remarks.

    But maybe I have misread -- would you be kind enough to confirm, correct, or clarify? Thanks.

  85. Posted August 28, 2009 at 5:32 am | Permalink

    Charles, the conservative view of marriage? More liberals and moderates have voted in favor of state marriage measures than have conservatives.

    On the other hand, the far left you go the more inclined are people to disparage the core meaning of this foundational social institution. So you may be onto something there about the extreme liberal view of something of societal signifiance. I think it has more to do with susceptibility to identity politics than to the actual ideological underpinnings that differentiate the parts of the liberal-moderate-conservative spectrum. Some conservatives are prone to identity politics, too. The marriage issue is one which cuts across political and ideological lines.

    That is why it is important to distinguish marriage from nonmarriage.

    And why, if SSMers had the courage, they'd distinginguish the relationship type they have in mind from the rest of the nonmarriage category, if that is even possible at law. You know, without resort to identity politics, collectivism, utilitarianism, and relativism.

  86. Posted August 28, 2009 at 5:35 am | Permalink

    Kevin, each talking point you pitch has been knocked out of the ballpark.

    I thought you might like to take a turn at bat, but you are still pitching the same old talking points. The bases never get loaded with you on the mound. And it seems the inning never ends.

  87. Posted August 28, 2009 at 5:57 am | Permalink

    Charles your analogy with industry is inapt. You have taken the words, reproductipn and production, and played a word game. That's all.

    It is intriguing that you would view the creation of human life (human procreation) as the manufacture of human beings (industrial production). That dehumanizes all involved.

    What, if any, significance (societal or otherwise), does your viewpoint place on human procreation? Given your remarks, the question arises: does your viewpoint include a distinction between "sexual reproduction" and "asexual reproduction"?