NOM BLOG

We Can Reclaim America and Restore Our Future

 

National Organization for Marriage

Dear Marriage Supporter,

Today is a historic day by any measure.

NOM joins the nation in extending our best wishes and prayers to President Barack Obama as he takes the oath of office for a second term as President of these United States of America. We hope and pray that President Obama is able in his second term to bring America together, to heal the divisions that exist in our nation, and to put our country on a firmer path to recovery and well-being for American families. We pray as well for the president's family and thank them for accepting the sacrifices that public service imposes on men and women who pursue it.

Today is also the day that we celebrate the birth of one of our great national leaders, Martin Luther King, Jr. Dr. King is rightly known as one of the greatest civil rights leaders in our nation's history, a cause he paid for with his life.

It is fitting that President Obama today takes the oath of office on two bibles — one belonging to Abraham Lincoln, and the other to Dr. King.

But as I reflect on the America we live in today and the society we are building for my eight children, I can't help but be concerned. Too many of our people live in poverty. They are impoverished not only by unemployment and the throes of a struggling economy, but by cultural forces that rob people of their inherent, God-given dignity, and entice them through false prophets and by false promises, often peddled in the guise of providing pleasure but that ultimately bring nothing but sadness and even despair.

Last November during the same election that sent President Obama to a second term, three states allowed marriage to be redefined with the president's misguided encouragement. If this is the path we're on, and it's not a good one. The President bears considerable responsibility for this as a result of his abandonment of the eternal truth of the uniqueness of the marriage relationship.

Yet as I watch the pageantry of a presidential inauguration I am reminded of the vast power and potential of our country to be a tremendous force for good.

How do we help America get on a better path, one that uplifts families, that inspires future generations to greatness?

Very simply, I think we need to call our nation to good — to pursue law and policies that promote social good and are based on moral truths.

I think one key is in the words of Dr. King, set forth so articulately in the spring of 1963 while sitting in jail in Birmingham, Alabama. King's Letter From Birmingham Jail called the nation to understand that there are just laws, and unjust ones. Dr. King said, "A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law."

Dr. King went on note that segregation laws were plainly unjust: "All segregation statutes are unjust because segregation distorts the soul and damages the personality. It gives the segregator a false sense of superiority and the segregated a false sense of inferiority."

Marriage is the very type of relationship that Dr. King would no doubt have recognized as just, rooted as it is in the moral law, observed over thousands of years as an eternal law, in perfect harmony with the law of God. It is a profoundly just institution that brings men and women together and provides children with the best opportunity to be raised by a mother and a father.

So many of our laws and policies today are out of harmony with natural law and nature's God. The killing of the preborn innocent in the name of privacy; the euthanizing of the infirm in the name of compassion; the destruction of embryonic humans in the name of advancement; the protection of pornography purveyors and the merchants of violence in Hollywood and the video game industry in the name of free speech; and the restructuring of instutions like marriage to provide emotional satisfaction to politically powerful adults, even as they strip from the law the right of children to a mother and father.

No, indeed, we as a nation are not on a good path.

But it is not too late to change direction and to choose a better path. If we are willing to keep Dr. King's admonition in mind to pursue policies that are just, that are in harmony with eternal, natural and moral law, then we can reclaim America and restore our future.

NOM is committed to working with all policymakers, legislators, judges and officials — President Obama included — to support policies that strengthen marriage and thereby uplift American families, protect children and advance the common good. That is our commitment to the nation, and that is our promise to you.

On this historic day, may God continue to richly bless this country, her elected and appointed officials, and the men and women who serve under her flag.

Contributions or gifts to the National Organization for Marriage, a 501(c)(4) organization, are not tax-deductible. The National Organization for Marriage does not accept contributions from business corporations, labor unions, foreign nationals, or federal contractors; however, it may accept contributions from federally registered political action committees. Donations may be used for political purposes such as supporting or opposing candidates. No funds will be earmarked or reserved for any political purpose.

This message has been authorized and paid for by the National Organization for Marriage, 2029 K Street NW, Suite 300, Washington, DC 20006, Brian Brown, President. This message has not been authorized or approved by any candidate.

66 Comments

  1. Chairm
    Posted January 21, 2013 at 2:00 pm | Permalink

    Compare and contrast:

    David Blankenhorn in 2009:

    Moral Dynamite
    http://opine-editorials.blogspot.com/2007/05/moral-dynamite.html

    Today's proponents of same-sex marriage in the United States are seeking to restructure marriage and use it for a special purpose. That purpose is to gain social recognition of the dignity of homosexual love. Diminishing homophobia is not one of marriage's public purposes.

    There is no true analogy between yesterday's racists and today's defenders of marriage's customary forms. The only accurate analogy is between the advocates of anti-miscegenation laws and the advocates of same-sex marriage, since each group wants to recreate marriage in the name of a social goal that is fundamentally unconnected to marriage.

    And --

    David Blankenhorn in 2012:
    http://opine-editorials.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-expected-good-of-adverse-influence.html

    I have written these things in my book and said them in my testimony, and I believe them today. I am not recanting any of it.

    The population as a whole remains deeply divided, but most of our national elites, as well as most younger Americans, favor gay marriage. This emerging consensus may be wrong on the merits. But surely it matters.

    I had hoped that the gay marriage debate would be mostly about marriage’s relationship to parenthood. But it hasn’t been. Or perhaps it’s fairer to say that I and others have made that argument, and that we have largely failed to persuade. In the mind of today’s public, gay marriage is almost entirely about accepting lesbians and gay men as equal citizens.

    To me, a Southerner by birth whose formative moral experience was the civil rights movement, this fact is profoundly disturbing.

    ====

    more ....

  2. Chairm
    Posted January 21, 2013 at 2:00 pm | Permalink

    SSMers dispute there is one human race.
    http://opine-editorials.blogspot.com/2011/03/ssmers-dispute-there-is-one-human-race.html

    Me: There is one human race and its nature is two-sexed.

    Mark: And it’s many raced but I don't see you insisting that each race be represented in all marriages.

    Me: Marriage includes both sexes of the same human race. You object. You assert, as per the anti-miscegenation system, that there is more than one human race. If you use the same criteria as that system, then, you reinforce the problem that makes gay identity politics the racialist analogue.

    Mark: Again, to follow the example you are trying to portray, you would need a member of each race and a member of each sex (which would include male, female and hermaphrodite) to make it a marriage. Otherwise, you are excluding SOMEONE and, per your twisted logic, that is not marriage.

    Me: There is one human race and its nature is two-sexed; marriage is comprised of a man and a woman; they are both members of the same race — the human race — and so their union meets even your own terms, Mark, that you would impose on marriage. The SSM idea, as argued by SSMers far and wide, is about segregating on the basis of sex and on the basis of sexual attraction and on the basis of identity politics. Yes, the SSMer is the racialist analogue.

    The attempt of SSMers to smear the core meaning of marriage as the equivalent of racisim does not withstand scrutiny. There are two-sexed scenarios that are ineligible because of the lines drawn around the core meaning of marriage; ineligibility to marry does not stamp “second-class” on such scenarios. Indeed, two heterosexual men would be ineligible as well and that does not stamp them with “second-class” status. Only through the lense of pro-gay bigotry can equal treatment be deemed 'second-class' treatment.

    Marriage, under the man-woman basis, is not restricted by identity politics; but SSM is promoted entirely on that basis.

  3. Posted January 21, 2013 at 2:01 pm | Permalink

    SSMers dispute there is one human race.
    http://opine-editorials.blogspot.com/2011/03/ssmers-dispute-there-is-one-human-race.html

    Me: There is one human race and its nature is two-sexed.

    SSMer: And it’s many raced but I don't see you insisting that each race be represented in all marriages.

    Me: Marriage includes both sexes of the same human race. You object. You assert, as per the anti-miscegenation system, that there is more than one human race. If you use the same criteria as that system, then, you reinforce the problem that makes gay identity politics the racialist analogue.

    SSMer: Again, to follow the example you are trying to portray, you would need a member of each race and a member of each sex (which would include male, female and hermaphrodite) to make it a marriage. Otherwise, you are excluding SOMEONE and, per your twisted logic, that is not marriage.

    Me: There is one human race and its nature is two-sexed; marriage is comprised of a man and a woman; they are both members of the same race — the human race — and so their union meets even your own terms, Mark, that you would impose on marriage. The SSM idea, as argued by SSMers far and wide, is about segregating on the basis of sex and on the basis of sexual attraction and on the basis of identity politics. Yes, the SSMer is the racialist analogue.

    The attempt of SSMers to smear the core meaning of marriage as the equivalent of racisim does not withstand scrutiny. There are two-sexed scenarios that are ineligible because of the lines drawn around the core meaning of marriage; ineligibility to marry does not stamp “second-class” on such scenarios. Indeed, two heterosexual men would be ineligible as well and that does not stamp them with “second-class” status. Only through the lense of pro-gay bigotry can equal treatment be deemed 'second-class' treatment.

    Marriage, under the man-woman basis, is not restricted by identity politics; but SSM is promoted entirely on that basis.

  4. Posted January 21, 2013 at 2:02 pm | Permalink

    I'll add that SSMers insist that the prototypical bride-plus-groom is a heterosexual relationship. Thus they complain that the man-woman requirement in law is based on unjust discrimination predicated on sexual attraction. They read into the law what is not actually written into the law.

    But what is the prototypical SSM for which they demand special status (marital status is a special status)? Well, they emphasize gay identity. They emphasize same-sex sexual attraction. And they insist on an equivalence between the all-male, the all-female, and the male-female types of relationships.

    We can take them at their word. They propose that SSM is segregative 1) by sex (either male or female), by sexual attraction (either male attraction or female attraction), and by group identity ("straight" and "gay" identity groups). But wherever SSM has been imposed or enacted, and wherever it has been proposed, there is no legal requirement for same-sex sexual attraction nor for gay identity. The SSMers read into SSM law what is not actually written in the law.

    Nonetheless, they propose a false equivalence. Marriage, even by their own argumentation, integrates the sexes (male and female), integrates by sexual attraction (male attraction and female attraction combined), and is neutral on group identity (racist or another other group identity is no barrier to eligibility to form the union of husband and wife).

    For them, the segregative is the new ideal upon which to revise marriage law. Granted, they would not bar bride-plus-groom relationships, but they would have society, through the force of law, treat all unions of husband and wife as if they lacked either husbands or wives. They would treat the integrative as segregative. This, for the SSMers, is the meaning of the SSM idea: the supremacy of gay identity supersedes the core meaning of the marital type of relationship.

    Now, read what Blankenhorn had originally said in his book in 2007 and compare that with what he has said in his pro-SSM opinion piece that appeared in the New York Times in 2011. It seems to me that he has decided to favor the gay identity group over the marriage idea and has done so with the absurd reference to his moral formation during the years of turmoil over segregation by racialist identity.

  5. Marc Paul
    Posted January 21, 2013 at 2:03 pm | Permalink

    Brian, the laws against the civil rights movement prevailed were once thought, firmly and conclusively and without room for doubt, the rooted in natural law.

    Scientific insight did not stop after Aquinas, much though the Church wish it it seems sometimes.

  6. Posted January 21, 2013 at 2:03 pm | Permalink

    The Parrillo concurrence of 2005
    http://opine-editorials.blogspot.com/2005/07/parrillo-concurrence.html?showComment=1121411340000#c112141139029000204

    Here's the full concurrence of Parrillo in the New Jersey Superior Court's affirmation of the constitutionality of the man-woman criterion of marriage in the appeal of Lewis v. Harris, June 14, 2005.

    Snippet: "Anti-miscegenation laws simply may not be equated with laws reserving marriage to opposite-sex couples. Marriage has an inherent nature, and race is not intrinsic to that status."

    And:

    The expected good of an adverse influence, Part 1.
    http://opine-editorials.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-expected-good-of-adverse-influence.html

    And:

    SSMers dispute there is one human race.
    http://opine-editorials.blogspot.com/2011/03/ssmers-dispute-there-is-one-human-race.html

    Me: There is one human race and its nature is two-sexed.

    Mark: And it’s many raced but I don't see you insisting that each race be represented in all marriages.

    Me: Marriage includes both sexes of the same human race. You object. You assert, as per the anti-miscegenation system, that there is more than one human race. If you use the same criteria as that system, then, you reinforce the problem that makes gay identity politics the racialist analogue.

    Mark: Again, to follow the example you are trying to portray, you would need a member of each race and a member of each sex (which would include male, female and hermaphrodite) to make it a marriage. Otherwise, you are excluding SOMEONE and, per your twisted logic, that is not marriage.

    Me: There is one human race and its nature is two-sexed; marriage is comprised of a man and a woman; they are both members of the same race — the human race — and so their union meets even your own terms, Mark, that you would impose on marriage. The SSM idea, as argued by SSMers far and wide, is about segregating on the basis of sex and on the basis of sexual attraction and on the basis of identity politics. Yes, the SSMer is the racialist analogue.

    The attempt of SSMers to smear the core meaning of marriage as the equivalent of racisim does not withstand scrutiny. There are two-sexed scenarios that are ineligible because of the lines drawn around the core meaning of marriage; ineligibility to marry does not stamp “second-class” on such scenarios. Indeed, two heterosexual men would be ineligible as well and that does not stamp them with “second-class” status. Only through the lense of pro-gay bigotry can equal treatment be deemed 'second-class' treatment.

    Marriage, under the man-woman basis, is not restricted by identity politics; but SSM is promoted entirely on that basis.

  7. Posted January 21, 2013 at 2:05 pm | Permalink

    Marc Paul, SSM is not based on scientific insight. Your comment is way off-target anyway.

    SSMers dispute there is one human race.
    http://opine-editorials.blogspot.com/2011/03/ssmers-dispute-there-is-one-human-race.html

    Me: There is one human race and its nature is two-sexed.

    Mark: And it’s many raced but I don't see you insisting that each race be represented in all marriages.

    Me: Marriage includes both sexes of the same human race. You object. You assert, as per the anti-miscegenation system, that there is more than one human race. If you use the same criteria as that system, then, you reinforce the problem that makes gay identity politics the racialist analogue.

    Mark: Again, to follow the example you are trying to portray, you would need a member of each race and a member of each sex (which would include male, female and hermaphrodite) to make it a marriage. Otherwise, you are excluding SOMEONE and, per your twisted logic, that is not marriage.

    Me: There is one human race and its nature is two-sexed; marriage is comprised of a man and a woman; they are both members of the same race — the human race — and so their union meets even your own terms, Mark, that you would impose on marriage. The SSM idea, as argued by SSMers far and wide, is about segregating on the basis of sex and on the basis of sexual attraction and on the basis of identity politics. Yes, the SSMer is the racialist analogue.

    The attempt of SSMers to smear the core meaning of marriage as the equivalent of racisim does not withstand scrutiny. There are two-sexed scenarios that are ineligible because of the lines drawn around the core meaning of marriage; ineligibility to marry does not stamp “second-class” on such scenarios. Indeed, two heterosexual men would be ineligible as well and that does not stamp them with “second-class” status. Only through the lense of pro-gay bigotry can equal treatment be deemed 'second-class' treatment.

    Marriage, under the man-woman basis, is not restricted by identity politics; but SSM is promoted entirely on that basis.

  8. Posted January 21, 2013 at 2:06 pm | Permalink

    SSM is not based on scientific insight. It is based on the supremacy of identity politics. Its promotion is closely analogous with the racist identity politics of the past.

  9. Marc Paul
    Posted January 21, 2013 at 2:09 pm | Permalink

    I am in a 25 year relationship with a man, one man. That is inherently, intrinsically, indubitably a good thing, not o ly for myself, though I value greatly the consequential emotional satisfactions, but also for society. Families are a buillding block. Conventional, single parent, gay, they are all families, nuclear and extended.

    A good round of NOM thought nonetheless but I'm afraid 2013 will be marked by other goodbyes notes as NOM,s credibility and funding drops further.

    Good luck with that. Or should I say Bon Chance?

  10. Posted January 21, 2013 at 2:17 pm | Permalink

    Friendship is a good thing, sure. Personal satisfaction in community with another human being, also a good thing, sure.

    But sibling friendship is not eligible to marry. Doesn't matter if the participants are both men nor if they are both self-identified as homosexual men nor if they are mutually attracted to each other sexually. The good of sibling friendship is not a trump card against ineligibility.

    Their mutual love may or may not be considered, by you, to be inferior to your feelings, but that is irrelevant to marriage. Perhaps you would claim that their relationship is of a different kind.

    Bingo.

    The union of husband and wife is of a different kind from what you have in mind in terms of the one-sex-short scenario.

    A scenario is one-sex-short in terms of the union of husband and wife which is comprehensive and oriented to procreation. Being comprehensive it is necessarily a bodily union in which the complementary unity of the sexes is manifested in sexual relations, reproductive in kind.

    When an SSMer pounds his shoe on the table and insists that the SSM campaign will bury us and marriage, well, we can note that history is on the side of this social institution and certainly not on the side of those who'd deconstruct it in law and culture.

  11. Posted January 21, 2013 at 2:19 pm | Permalink

    SSMers dispute there is one human race.
    http://opine-editorials.blogspot.com/2011/03/ssmers-dispute-there-is-one-human-race.html

    Me: There is one human race and its nature is two-sexed.

    Mark: And it’s many raced but I don't see you insisting that each race be represented in all marriages.

    Me: Marriage includes both sexes of the same human race. You object. You assert, as per the anti-miscegenation system, that there is more than one human race. If you use the same criteria as that system, then, you reinforce the problem that makes gay identity politics the racialist analogue.

    Mark: Again, to follow the example you are trying to portray, you would need a member of each race and a member of each sex (which would include male, female and hermaphrodite) to make it a marriage. Otherwise, you are excluding SOMEONE and, per your twisted logic, that is not marriage.

    Me: There is one human race and its nature is two-sexed; marriage is comprised of a man and a woman; they are both members of the same race — the human race — and so their union meets even your own terms, Mark, that you would impose on marriage. The SSM idea, as argued by SSMers far and wide, is about segregating on the basis of sex and on the basis of sexual attraction and on the basis of identity politics. Yes, the SSMer is the racialist analogue.

    The attempt of SSMers to smear the core meaning of marriage as the equivalent of racisim does not withstand scrutiny. There are two-sexed scenarios that are ineligible because of the lines drawn around the core meaning of marriage; ineligibility to marry does not stamp “second-class” on such scenarios. Indeed, two heterosexual men would be ineligible as well and that does not stamp them with “second-class” status. Only through the lense of pro-gay bigotry can equal treatment be deemed 'second-class' treatment.

    Marriage, under the man-woman basis, is not restricted by identity politics; but SSM is promoted entirely on that basis.

    I think that the words of MLK, and his actions, and his recognition of moral truth, all of this points to the defense of marriage as just and necessary.

  12. Chairm
    Posted January 21, 2013 at 2:21 pm | Permalink

    The Parrillo concurrence of 2005
    http://opine-editorials.blogspot.com/2005/07/parrillo-concurrence.html?showComment=1121411340000#c112141139029000204

    Here's the full concurrence of Parrillo in the New Jersey Superior Court's affirmation of the constitutionality of the man-woman criterion of marriage in the appeal of Lewis v. Harris, June 14, 2005.

    Snippet: "Anti-miscegenation laws simply may not be equated with laws reserving marriage to opposite-sex couples. Marriage has an inherent nature, and race is not intrinsic to that status."

    And:

    The expected good of an adverse influence, Part 1.
    http://opine-editorials.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-expected-good-of-adverse-influence.html

  13. Will Fisher
    Posted January 21, 2013 at 2:21 pm | Permalink

    Chairm, are you equating people who believe in legalizing SSM to segregationists like George Wallace, Strom Thurmond, Bull Connor, etc?

  14. Chairm
    Posted January 21, 2013 at 2:29 pm | Permalink

    No, I am not equating them, Will, but SSM argumentation and SSM rehtoric certainly does.

    SSM, we are told, is justified because the prototypical relationship that SSMers have in mind is

    1. Segregative by sex (male or female human beings).

    2. Segregative by sexual attraction (male or female).

    3. Segregative by gay identity.

    These three features are desirable, we are told, by those who advocate SSM.

    Indeed we are told that intermixing is morally wrong -- or wrong for utilitarian reasons or somesuch. On one hand the law is supposed to be neutral on these three features, yet, the SSMers demand that the marriage law be revised so as to grant favoritism to the gay identity group. Currently, under the man-woman legal requirement, the marriage law says zilch about gay identity.

    But that is because marriage law is for marriage, not that other stuff. Read what Blankenhorn wrote in his book in 2007. He has not recanted it. He was spot-on.

  15. Chairm
    Posted January 21, 2013 at 2:32 pm | Permalink

    Typo correction: his book was published in 2009, as my previous comment noted. Unfortunately that previous comment is still in the que.

  16. Will Fisher
    Posted January 21, 2013 at 2:37 pm | Permalink

    So arguing in favor of legalizing SSM is the equivalent of arguing in favor of racial segregation?

    My marriage is segregative. I discriminate against everyone who isn't my wife. And its a traditional one like you advocate, lol. Chairm, truly, you have a dizzying intellect!

  17. Chairm
    Posted January 21, 2013 at 2:45 pm | Permalink

    Will,

    You scoff but did you not, just now, equate monogamous marriage with segregation?

    Heh. Fire, ready, aim!

    I note that you did not deny that SSM is a segregative type of relationship. Instead you scoffed that your union of husband and wife is segregative.

    It is almost as if you wished to reinforce what I had said in the second last paragraph in my comment @ January 21, 2013 at 2:02 pm.

    I said: "they would have society, through the force of law, treat all unions of husband and wife as if they lacked either husbands or wives. They would treat the integrative as segregative."

  18. Clark
    Posted January 21, 2013 at 2:51 pm | Permalink

    Chairm: what are you even talking about?

  19. Chairm
    Posted January 21, 2013 at 2:51 pm | Permalink

    Will, your comment also illustrated something that SSMers display aplenty.

    You are fearful of being anything but indiscriminate. Of course, you discriminate between your wife and all others. And society may discriminate between marriage and other types of relationships.

    But why would the SSM campaign demand favoritism of the gay subset of the range of types of one-sex relationships that populate the large nonmarriage category?

    Gay identity? Sexual attraction? Gender? On each point the type of relationship they have in mind is segregative.

    The racist system was pressed in marriage law to selectively segregate the sexes via an identity filter; the system undermined the unity of motherhood and fatherhood, also via an identity filter; and the system disparaged the principles of responsible procreation. There is quite alot in common with the SSM campaign's goal of pressing gay identity politics into the law of marriage. The racist system corrupted all that it touched and it is no surprise that it used marriage for its non-marriage purposes.

  20. Will Fisher
    Posted January 21, 2013 at 2:52 pm | Permalink

    Chairm, if that's how you want to characterize our position fine. I think that a same sex couple that is willing to take on the same legal responsibilities as my wife and I ought to have the same rights.

  21. Chairm
    Posted January 21, 2013 at 2:54 pm | Permalink

    Clark, the conflict between the marriage idea and the SSM idea. The close analogy between the identity politics of the SSM campaign and that of the white supremacy system vis-a-vis marriage law.

    MLK's belief in the moral truth.

    SSMers dispute there is one human race.
    http://opine-editorials.blogspot.com/2011/03/ssmers-dispute-there-is-one-human-race.html

    Me: There is one human race and its nature is two-sexed.

    SSMer: And it’s many raced but I don't see you insisting that each race be represented in all marriages.

    Me: Marriage includes both sexes of the same human race. You object. You assert, as per the anti-miscegenation system, that there is more than one human race. If you use the same criteria as that system, then, you reinforce the problem that makes gay identity politics the racialist analogue.

    SSMer: Again, to follow the example you are trying to portray, you would need a member of each race and a member of each sex (which would include male, female and hermaphrodite) to make it a marriage. Otherwise, you are excluding SOMEONE and, per your twisted logic, that is not marriage.

    Me: There is one human race and its nature is two-sexed; marriage is comprised of a man and a woman; they are both members of the same race — the human race — and so their union meets even your own terms, Mark, that you would impose on marriage. The SSM idea, as argued by SSMers far and wide, is about segregating on the basis of sex and on the basis of sexual attraction and on the basis of identity politics. Yes, the SSMer is the racialist analogue.

    The attempt of SSMers to smear the core meaning of marriage as the equivalent of racisim does not withstand scrutiny. There are two-sexed scenarios that are ineligible because of the lines drawn around the core meaning of marriage; ineligibility to marry does not stamp “second-class” on such scenarios. Indeed, two heterosexual men would be ineligible as well and that does not stamp them with “second-class” status. Only through the lense of pro-gay bigotry can equal treatment be deemed 'second-class' treatment.

    Marriage, under the man-woman basis, is not restricted by identity politics; but SSM is promoted entirely on that basis.

    --

    I'll add that I think that the words of MLK, and his actions, and his recognition of moral truth, all of this points to the defense of marriage as just and necessary.

  22. Chairm
    Posted January 21, 2013 at 2:55 pm | Permalink

    Okay, Will, but what about siblings?

  23. Chairm
    Posted January 21, 2013 at 2:56 pm | Permalink

    Will, your own rhetoric and argumentation characterizes your position this way. You have not denied it.

  24. Posted January 21, 2013 at 2:57 pm | Permalink

    Clark, I am talking about the moral truth of marriage as per MLK's stated belief in the moral truth as the basis for just lawmaking.

    Me: There is one human race and its nature is two-sexed.

    SSMer: And it’s many raced but I don't see you insisting that each race be represented in all marriages.

    Me: Marriage includes both sexes of the same human race. You object. You assert, as per the anti-miscegenation system, that there is more than one human race. If you use the same criteria as that system, then, you reinforce the problem that makes gay identity politics the racialist analogue.

    SSMer: Again, to follow the example you are trying to portray, you would need a member of each race and a member of each sex (which would include male, female and hermaphrodite) to make it a marriage. Otherwise, you are excluding SOMEONE and, per your twisted logic, that is not marriage.

    Me: There is one human race and its nature is two-sexed; marriage is comprised of a man and a woman; they are both members of the same race — the human race — and so their union meets even your own terms, Mark, that you would impose on marriage. The SSM idea, as argued by SSMers far and wide, is about segregating on the basis of sex and on the basis of sexual attraction and on the basis of identity politics. Yes, the SSMer is the racialist analogue.

    The attempt of SSMers to smear the core meaning of marriage as the equivalent of racisim does not withstand scrutiny. There are two-sexed scenarios that are ineligible because of the lines drawn around the core meaning of marriage; ineligibility to marry does not stamp “second-class” on such scenarios. Indeed, two heterosexual men would be ineligible as well and that does not stamp them with “second-class” status. Only through the lense of pro-gay bigotry can equal treatment be deemed 'second-class' treatment.

    Marriage, under the man-woman basis, is not restricted by identity politics; but SSM is promoted entirely on that basis.

    --

    I'll add that I think that the words of MLK, and his actions, and his recognition of moral truth, all of this points to the defense of marriage as just and necessary.

  25. Posted January 21, 2013 at 2:59 pm | Permalink

    Clark, I am talking about the moral truth of marriage as per MLK's belief in the moral truth as the basis for lawmaking.

    Me: There is one human race and its nature is two-sexed.

    SSMer: And it’s many raced but I don't see you insisting that each race be represented in all marriages.

    Me: Marriage includes both sexes of the same human race. You object. You assert, as per the anti-miscegenation system, that there is more than one human race. If you use the same criteria as that system, then, you reinforce the problem that makes gay identity politics the racialist analogue.

    SSMer: Again, to follow the example you are trying to portray, you would need a member of each race and a member of each sex (which would include male, female and hermaphrodite) to make it a marriage. Otherwise, you are excluding SOMEONE and, per your twisted logic, that is not marriage.

    Me: There is one human race and its nature is two-sexed; marriage is comprised of a man and a woman; they are both members of the same race — the human race — and so their union meets even your own terms, Mark, that you would impose on marriage. The SSM idea, as argued by SSMers far and wide, is about segregating on the basis of sex and on the basis of sexual attraction and on the basis of identity politics. Yes, the SSMer is the racialist analogue.

    The attempt of SSMers to smear the core meaning of marriage as the equivalent of racisim does not withstand scrutiny. There are two-sexed scenarios that are ineligible because of the lines drawn around the core meaning of marriage; ineligibility to marry does not stamp “second-class” on such scenarios. Indeed, two heterosexual men would be ineligible as well and that does not stamp them with 'second-class' status. Only through the lense of pro-gay bigotry can equal treatment be deemed 'second-class' treatment.

    Marriage, under the man-woman basis, is not restricted by identity politics; but SSM is promoted entirely on that basis.

  26. Posted January 21, 2013 at 3:06 pm | Permalink

    Will, no same-sex scenario can consent to the sexual basis for the legal presumption (not a mere social assumption, by the way) that the husband will father, with his wife, the children born to he and his wife.

    You might concoct a nonsexual basis for SSM, but there is no principled basis today to presume that sexual attraction, sexual behavior, or gay identity that can reasonably entail the default consent to co-equal parental status.

    So you are mistaken regarding the definitive legal responsibility of marital status: the provision for responsible procreation.

    But take that out of the picture. Abolish it from your view of marriage. Now, what about the siblings? Assume they are of the same sex. Eligiblity, yes or no? And your reasoning ... ?

  27. David in Houston
    Posted January 21, 2013 at 3:09 pm | Permalink

    "...often peddled in the guise of providing pleasure but that ultimately bring nothing but sadness and even despair."

    Sadness and despair for whom, exactly? Not for the same-sex couples that are able to marry, without impacting anyone else's marriage or life. Brian, I'm sorry you feel sadness and despair in not being able to control everyone else's life, and not being able to define exactly what marriage is for all of society. Your personal definition doesn't even apply to straight married couples (that marriage is solely procreative), yet you continue to use hypothetical children as a sledge hammer against gay couples (some of which ARE raising children). Luckily, the majority of Americans are beginning to see through your disingenuous ideology. Three more states on the right side of history, a half-dozen more on the horizon.

  28. Posted January 21, 2013 at 3:13 pm | Permalink

    Will, do you think that there is a sexual basis fora legal presumption that a man would impregnate another man; or that a woman would be impregnated by another woman?

    If not, and I would expect not, then, SSM does not entail the sexual basis for the legal presumption that the husband will father the children born to he and his wife during their marriage.

    You might offer a nonsexual basis, I suppose, but that negates the big deal that SSMers make of the segregative points already noted. Same-sex sexual attraction, same-sex sexual behavior, gay identity -- none of that provides a sound basis for the default of co-equal parental status.

    You might, arbitrarily, borrow the marital presumption of paternity and apply it to an all-female scenario, I suppose, but it would have no sexual basis. And no paternal basis. But it would be a default only as a metaphor for the sexual basis of the marital type of relationship.

    I've been assured by SSMers that it would be illegitimate to base marriage law on a metaphor. Do you disagree or agree with that?

  29. Posted January 21, 2013 at 3:16 pm | Permalink

    Please define SSM for of society, David in Houston. Not a private definition.

    You, like most SSMers, have yet to understand the procreation argument. You keep misrepresenting it and end-up taking swipes at a strawman built from your misunderstandings.

    Your prominent error is found in your use of the phrase "solely procreative". Also your reference to "hypothetical children".

    SSM is not on the side of history. Marriage has withstood the test of time and its core meaning has persisted across the historical and anthropological records. SSM, not so much.

    But please do offer your definition of the one-sexed type of relationship that you have in mind.

  30. Posted January 21, 2013 at 3:18 pm | Permalink

    David Blankenhorn in 2009:

    Today's proponents of same-sex marriage in the United States are seeking to restructure marriage and use it for a special purpose. That purpose is to gain social recognition of the dignity of homosexual love. Diminishing homophobia is not one of marriage's public purposes.

    There is no true analogy between yesterday's racists and today's defenders of marriage's customary forms. The only accurate analogy is between the advocates of anti-miscegenation laws and the advocates of same-sex marriage, since each group wants to recreate marriage in the name of a social goal that is fundamentally unconnected to marriage.

    And David Blankenhorn in 2012:

    I have written these things in my book and said them in my testimony, and I believe them today. I am not recanting any of it.

    The population as a whole remains deeply divided, but most of our national elites, as well as most younger Americans, favor gay marriage. This emerging consensus may be wrong on the merits. But surely it matters.

    I had hoped that the gay marriage debate would be mostly about marriage’s relationship to parenthood. But it hasn’t been. Or perhaps it’s fairer to say that I and others have made that argument, and that we have largely failed to persuade. In the mind of today’s public, gay marriage is almost entirely about accepting lesbians and gay men as equal citizens.

    To me, a Southerner by birth whose formative moral experience was the civil rights movement, this fact is profoundly disturbing.

    http://opine-editorials.blogspot.com/2007/05/moral-dynamite.html

    http://opine-editorials.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-expected-good-of-adverse-influence.html

  31. Teri Simpkins
    Posted January 21, 2013 at 4:02 pm | Permalink

    If marriage has stood the test of time, as you state, why does it need protection from anyone, let alone same-sex couples? If it is so great, then why the high divorce rates? Why do so many decide not to get married? All this concern over something that has stood the test of time seems rather pointless. The mere fact that it has done so should satisfy you that it always will do so.

  32. Clark
    Posted January 21, 2013 at 4:59 pm | Permalink

    Chairm: need some more wind in that bag?

  33. Barb Chamberlan
    Posted January 21, 2013 at 5:17 pm | Permalink

    Thanks, Chairm, for your excellent comments.

  34. maggie gallagher
    Posted January 21, 2013 at 5:52 pm | Permalink

    Southern Protestants made Biblical arguments in favor of slavery--mostly in response to the Bibilical claims of abolitionists. But orthodox Catholicism has never to my view made a natural law argument for slavery.

    I'm sure some Catholic somewhere has. . .but Catholicism was a morally disruptive force in the slavery debate.

  35. Marc Paul
    Posted January 21, 2013 at 7:04 pm | Permalink

    Maggie,
    what is 'National' about NOM if it only represents a Catholic viewpoint? Don,t NOM make common cause with Mormon's, evangelicals? Sit at the same news conferences and seminars?

    Does his statement largely describe the workings of the US Supreme court? Or do they reference Bible texts alone?
    "We are all at a table together, deciding which rules to adopt, free from any vague constraints, half-remembered myths, anonymous patriarchal texts and murky concepts of nature. If I propose something you do not like, tell me why it is not practical, or harms somebody, or is counter to some other useful rule; but don't tell me it offends the universe." (Jonathan Wallace")

  36. Marc Paul
    Posted January 21, 2013 at 7:16 pm | Permalink

    Chairm,, siblings are already related. There is no need for new legal constructs to make them family. Indeed it would be un wise to modify or allow such variation leading to a hierarchy of familiality. There is no need to go beyond the simple definition of two unrelated consenting adults for equal marriage. That is he universal social and legal presumption currently. There is no categorical presumption of procreation.

    Integrative, segratative - rhetorical window dressing I'm afraid. They add nothing to the terms same sex or opposite sex.

  37. M. jones
    Posted January 21, 2013 at 8:10 pm | Permalink

    There is no pseudo marriage requirement in the Constitution. Our democracy is supported by the Constitution and interpreted by the Supreme Court of the United States. Chairm has made the important due process and equal protection argumentation for real, genuine man-woman marriage, to be made in April.

  38. Douggie
    Posted January 21, 2013 at 8:23 pm | Permalink

    I love how Chairm keeps saying that marriage discrimination is OK because its traditional, but then talks so patronizingly about the human 'race' using modern definitions instead of the 'traditional' meanings.

    There is only one -species- of humans(that we know of). But scientists don't really use the word 'race' anymore because it tends to cause stereotyping.

    I'm not really sure what the 'race' argument is even for though since no state with marriage equality forbids heterosexuals from marrying people of the same sex. By chairm's logic, that is equal treatment. For that matter, he claims that if gay marriage were the ONLY kind of marriage allowed, then that too would be equal treatment. If that argument sounds absurd to you(which it should) then imagine how bad it sounds to judges.

  39. Teri Simpkins
    Posted January 21, 2013 at 11:52 pm | Permalink

    M. jones, there is no requirement for marriage, period, in the Constitution.

  40. Gary47290
    Posted January 22, 2013 at 1:08 am | Permalink

    Maggie Gallegher claims: "Catholicism was a morally disruptive force in the slavery debate." She is certainly correct, The Roman Catholic Church was morally disruptive (I would even say morally repugnant), because the Pope did not clearly condemn slavery until a generation after the American Civil War resolved that question in North America.

    See: http://www.womenpriests.org/teaching/slavery1.asp

  41. Good News
    Posted January 22, 2013 at 6:08 am | Permalink

    "Or perhaps it’s fairer to say that I and others have made that argument, and that we have largely failed to persuade. In the mind of today’s public, gay marriage is almost entirely about accepting lesbians and gay men as equal citizens."

    The French fighting for the protection of marriage, have gotten their arguments to where it is all about the children, and their rights to have a mother and a father. And not allowing the marketing of women's wombs etc. Even the homosexual community in larger and larger numbers are fighting with them to protect marriage. And the French stay clear of the religious arguments of the like: "God made marriage" and "its a sin" etc.
    This gives them a much bigger audience and a much larger pool of sympathizers. And it stumps a large part of the other sides arguments. But America has a history of talking with their Bible, can they learn to talk otherwise on this issue, at least when in the political arena? You tell me; you're from the south.
    Unfortunately we both know that this cultural change is not at all built on logic. So I wonder if even the best arguments could stop it? But who knows, we need to get the largest number of people to see the justice in fact that human beings honor the man-woman union. And besides, good arguments will help the average person and the children to keep a healthier mind within their unhealthy civilization. And so allow them defenses against injustice. So keep at it all of you.

  42. Good News
    Posted January 22, 2013 at 6:09 am | Permalink

    @ Chairm.
    How, or where, or would you, introduce into your arguments the concept that now (more than ever in human history) same-sex couples can produce, conceive their own children? And how does this play into the SSMer's arguments.
    The idea being that if opposite sex couples can by law use science and artificial means to produce their own babies (the correctness or not of this topic having never come up in our society), why would it not be just for same sex couples to do so.
    I believe that this cultural change is as much a science and technological (economic potential) revolution as it is a psychological one. And that it is the medical, pharmaceutical, science lobbies that are pushing this change as much as anyone else. Or rather it is Wall Street and friends: Starry-eyed with the idea of all the new markets and money to be made from such a cultural change. Where men can be sold to men as openly as woman are sold to men, and in the baby making industry. In a time where the West is so desperately trying to keep its economic advantage over China and other up coming forces. As with slavery this whole thing is fueled by money, money, money. Our Western world wants to give science and technology moral authority over humanity for the sack of money, and an “idea” of progress. Of course it is the morality of Wall Street and not of science and technology that is doing this.

    Anyway. Thanks for your hard work. And to all those who fight to keep the uniqueness of the man-woman union from being diminished in our communities collective mind. And most importantly from being diminished in the minds of our children and in so doing diminishing their understanding of their own self worth as an independent and free human being. (An independent and complete-human-being is he, yes, but he is not a “complete-human-species”; for to become a completed-human-species he will have to join to the opposite sex. Will have to enter into a “comprehensive-union” or simply put in layman's terms of yesteryear – get married.

    (Now, let me go back and try to take in just a little of what you've written in the last post.)

    _____________

    @ Anyway Franck, I will always be happy that we will be able to tell our children that there are places in the world were such unhelpful things as the encouraging and promotion of homosexuality is outlawed for the well being of the citizens therein. And that there are places where homosexual marriages are unthinkable. In this way the children of our community will be curious to ask “why do is it outlawed there?” And so allowing them to think for themselves on the subject. And allowing us the possibility to answer them, and to teach them why its not allowed – and so helping reality to reign in our children's minds.
    I will also be encouraged to know that open homosexual couples will never be able to travel around the world as freely as heterosexual couples can. And that homosexual-marriages will never be able to be expressed around the world as heterosexual marriages. An in that is another understandable and just “inequality” that you can learn to live with my confused and yet quite happy and satisfied Franck: Enjoy the whether Franck, they make great artificial light now a days, where your body and mind actually think your under the light of the sun – and yet...

  43. CRSmith
    Posted January 22, 2013 at 8:02 am | Permalink

    I have to say, I don't understand 75% of this discussion, and I am a reasonably intellegent, educated, person. If NOM is going to have any impact at all, you all need to start making some sense to regular people like me. It seems like everyday there is more and more bad news, heck, did you hear the President's speech yesterday? We have to make sense to regular people to turn the tide.

  44. Ash
    Posted January 22, 2013 at 4:54 pm | Permalink

    Great points, Chairm. Keep hammering at the presumption of paternity argument. That's a doctrine present in all states this very day which only makes sense for heterosexual couples. And it is far more deeply rooted in the institution of marriage than tax benefits, visitation rights, or any of the other items given as the raison d'etre of marriage. That one statute of marriage totally eviscerates any claim of unfair treatment of same-sex couples. If anyone wants a "secular," rational argument against ssm, all they need to do is read up on the presumption of paternity. (A good place to start is Gage Riley's article: http://vjspl.org/PDF/Spring2012/_Gage.pdf)

    I love when you said that SSMers can propose the application of the presumption to lesbian couples, but only as a metaphor to the male-female relationship; that application has no sexual basis whatsoever. If two women can be "presumed" the natural parents of a child, then why not three people? Three people have the same ability to create a child through sex that lesbian couples possess.

    It's really sad how same-sex couples are trying to imitate heterosexual couples--even to the point of making a joke of our family laws. The only reasonable explanation for such foggy thinking is the promotion of identity politics that you speak of.

  45. Chairm
    Posted January 22, 2013 at 8:54 pm | Permalink

    Teri,

    You said: "If marriage has stood the test of time, as you state, why does it need protection from anyone, let alone same-sex couples?"

    Marriage does not need protection from couples. You sure like to flog strawman arguments.

    Government's duty, on behalf of society, is to get marriage law right. When it gets it wrong, then, the law obscures the truth of marriage.

    I mean, you claim that SSM is marriage and so you must at least concede that the law, in your view, can get marriage wrong sometimes and it can get it right sometimes.

    You also pointed to nonmarital trends in the same breath. I suspect you know what I have said is correct but you are reluctant to admit it to yourself.

    You said: "The mere fact that [marriage has withstood the test of time] should satisfy you that it always will do so."

    It does satisfy me, as I had said earlier. However, an unjust law -- such as the type SSMers demand -- is immoral and it invokes the moral call to prevent, or in some instances to correct, the wrong.

    It astonishes me no more when I see SSMers such as yourself rely so heavily on nonmarital trends to make your case in favor of the SSM idea. Take away the gay emphasis in your rhetoric and argumentation and what is left except for an anti-marriage sentiment that is intellectually shoddy.

  46. Chairm
    Posted January 22, 2013 at 9:13 pm | Permalink

    Marc Paul,

    Siblings are prohibited from becoming as closely related as husband and wife. Other related people can and do marry each other. So you favor barring some related people but not all related people based on ... relatedness?

    Marriage law already prioritizes the husband's wife or the wife's husband. Your objection is pretty thin stuff.

    You have not justified this prohibition. You merely asserted it. Just because that is the way it has always been -- or somesuch -- is not something that SSMers allow to hold water when they attack the man-woman basis of marriage across the historical and anthropological records. Nor do SSMers allow for any notion that the way things are now are the way things must continue to be. So you do need more.

    SSMers put eligibility on the table. They demand that the lines be justified. You cannot reasonably expect to dodge your own central theme: justify the prohibitions.

    But you merely asserted and did not justify. You did so in circular fashion: you pointed to something that siblings did not choose: they are born related. Or they are related via the choices made by others.

    Is their love inferior to "gay love"? Be forthright on this point. Stick to the one-sexed scenario and explain why siblings cannot SSM -- justify it.

    You also said: "There is no categorical presumption of procreation."

    False.

    The presumption of paternity is one of the most vigorously enforced legal presumptions in our legal system. If you are gay, then, I suppose you might have an excuse for misconstruing the point I made about consent to all that marital status entails. It just is not on your radar. But this would only raise the question -- what is the content of the consent that would be entailed in SSM law? Surely not something sexual for there is no legal requirement for same-sex sexual attraction nor for same-sex sexual behavior -- not anyplace where SSM has been entrenched in the law.

    Either legal requirements are decisive or they are not. Either the lack of a legal requirement is definitive or it is not. Please decide.

    ---

    You said: "Integrative, segratative - rhetorical window dressing I'm afraid. They add nothing to the terms same sex or opposite sex."

    Well, okay, you may be afraid to acknowledge that your gay emphasis is closely analogous with white supremacy identity politics.

    The substance is right there in front of your nose.

    If sexual attraction is the big deal you feel it is, then, the prototypical union of husband and wife integrates male attraction and female attraction. Is that not the basis for your complaint against the marriage law? Sure it is.

    You clearly favor introducing a segregative type of relationship under the law of marriage which is integrative on the very basis of your own complaint.

    That is the substantive problem with your argumentation and the pro-SSM attempt to analogize marriage with racism.

    As for "same-sex", well, SSMers routinely use the term, "same-sex couple" and compare it with "heterosexual couple". You would add sexual attraction to your own use of "same-sex". I do believe you have written comments with this usage here at the NOM blog. You added it. Not I.

    On the other hand, I have pointed out that "same-sex" scenarios are mostly not sexualized and not gaycentric. Most of the range of one-sexed relationships do not fit your gay emphasis. This is a significant point especially when it comes to your handwaving reaction to the query about siblings.

  47. Chairm
    Posted January 22, 2013 at 9:16 pm | Permalink

    Douggie said:

    "I love how Chairm keeps saying that marriage discrimination is OK because its traditional, but then talks so patronizingly about the human 'race' using modern definitions instead of the 'traditional' meanings."

    Surely you would agree that society may discriminate between marriage and other types of relationships.

    You would insist that society discriminate between SSM and other types of one-sexed relationships, right?

    So you favor discrimination. Unless, perhaps, you would abolish all the boundaries for marriage and oppose any boundary for SSM in terms of eligibility and ineligibility. Please clarify.

  48. Chairm
    Posted January 22, 2013 at 9:38 pm | Permalink

    Douggie, you agree that there is one human race. But that is not a new human insight into humankind. Modern science backs-up the moral truth that has been known before genetic drift was talked about.

    You said: "no state with marriage equality forbids heterosexuals from marrying people of the same sex."

    The truth is in your peripheral vision. You just need to turn and face it.

    The man-woman basis of marriage does not forbid a homosexual person, nor a homosexual man and a homosexual woman together, from forming a marital union. There is no homosexual criterion for ineligibility, now, under the longstanding marriage law.

    The law recognizes a type of relationship that integrates man and woman. It also recognizes that we are born equal of a man and a woman. The core meaning of marriage: integration of the sexes, provision for responsible procreation, and these combined as a coherent whole.

    SSMers want to abolish the legal requirement for bride and groom. They deride and seek to marginalize the legal requirement for the consent to the sexual basis for the marital presumption of paternity; which is the same sexual basis for consummation, annulment, adultery, injury, divorce and so forth.

    Now, compare that with the SSM idea. Each instance of SSM is segregative by sex, by sexual attraction (as per SSM argumentation), and by group identity (as per SSM rhetoric).

    There are legal requirements that express the core meaning of marriage. SSMers reject that outright. They reject the foundational social institution of civil society.

    Why?

    Well, they talk a lot about sexual attraction (male seperate from female sexual attraction in the types of relationship they have in mind); and the do emphasize gay identity politics at every turn in their promotion of the SSM idea; and they insist that the private meaning of this or that relationship is definitive of SSM and so there is no substantive societal meaning to the types of relationship they highlight. SSM is not social institution; and it is not foundational to civil society. They point to nonmarital trends and argue that these negative trends make their SSM idea more plausible. They count on those trends continuing. They cannot point to high participation rates in SSM, anyplace where it has been entrenched in law, because SSM is a marginal practice and has value primarily in political symbolism. It also has value in asserting the supremacy of gay identity politics over marriage and, thus, over much else.

    Douggie also said:

    "[Chairm] claims that if gay marriage were the ONLY kind of marriage allowed, then that too would be equal treatment. If that argument sounds absurd to you (which it should) then imagine how bad it sounds to judges."

    It does sound absurd, doesn't it, Douggie. We'd agree on that much.

    However, you presented a strawman and your swipes did not touch my argument.

    Why do you reject the marriage idea? Be forthright. Do you object to integration in marriage? Yes, it seems that for you all unions of husband and wife must be treated, by law and by government policy, and by the culture too if you had your way, as if they lacked either husbands or wives. They must be treated as one-sexed even when in reality such unions are definitively two-sexed.

    Or do you favor treating husband-wife relationships different from other types of relationships -- such as those that are segregative by sex, by sexual attraction, and by gay identity?

    Fairness forbids us from treating people differently, arbitarily. At the same time, fairness forbids us treating people the same, arbitrarily. You need to justify treating the gay subset of one-sexed arrangements as superior to the rest.

    But, hey, if you say that the SSM idea includes non-gay scenarios, then, you concede very much indeed. The gay emphasis of the SSM campaign would be superfluous.

    Likewise, you'd point out the emptiness of the pro-SSM complaint based on sexual attraction and the pro-SSM proposed remedy based on homosexual orientation and gay identity.

    Once again, however, we go back to the boundaries around SSM in the law that you would favor. Actually, the boundaries that your argumentation would be able to justify, that is more important than your arbitrary invocation of boundaries justified by the union of husband and wife. Afterall, you would not want such a union to define eligibility.

  49. Chairm
    Posted January 22, 2013 at 9:39 pm | Permalink

    I've a couple of comments in the que.

  50. Chairm
    Posted January 22, 2013 at 9:46 pm | Permalink

    Ash, thanks for the kind words.

    A pro-SSM blogger at Family Scholars blog, Barry Deutsch, insisted that using a metaphor as the basis for lawmaking on marriage would be immoral.

    Yet what is SSM but a metaphor for the union of husband and wife?

    You are correct, the sexual basis for the marital presumption of paternity (and for consummation, annulment, injury, adultery, divorce, and so forth) is extrinsic to SSM -- SSMers tell us so all the time -- and so its implications can be legislated for the all-male or the all-female scenarios based only on metaphor.

    Deutsch had made his claim about the use of metaphors when he thought that bodily union was merely a metaphor and real. It is a rather bizarre approach to human sexuality, but that was his big retort to the essay by George and company -- "What Is Marriage?"

    He insisted on raising the moral basis for lawmaking. But in discussion he quickly fled his own argumentation.

  51. Chairm
    Posted January 22, 2013 at 9:47 pm | Permalink

    Typo correction: "Deutsch had made his claim about the use of metaphors when he thought that bodily union was merely a metaphor and not real."

  52. Chairm
    Posted January 22, 2013 at 9:50 pm | Permalink

    To David in Houston:

    Please define SSM for of society, David in Houston. Not a private definition or definition(s).

  53. Chairm
    Posted January 22, 2013 at 10:00 pm | Permalink

    Will Fisher said:

    "I think that a same sex couple that is willing to take on the same legal responsibilities as my wife and I ought to have the same rights."

    Why would you limit that accomodation to the couple? What is the basis for a count of two persons in a same-sex scenario?

    Regardless of number, and regardless of sexual attraction, no scenario that lacks the other sex can provide for responsible procreation. See the sexual basis for the marital presumption of paternity.

    A lone person is a one-sexed scenario. A twosome, threesome, or morseome -- indeed a parade of persons of the same-sex -- all of these are scenarios lacking the sexual basis for co-equal parental status.

    So, apart from that big central responsibility, you are okay with the same-sex scenario provided the participants are willing?

    But again, look at the siblings.

    Assume they are same-sexed friends. Assume their friendship is not sexual and that neither of the siblings is a member of the gay identity group. Would their willingness trump their ineligibility to SSM? Please explain.

    But go the other way and assume they are in a sexualized relationship. Assume that each of the siblings is a member of the gay identity group. Would their willingness trump their ineligibility to SSM?

    If your answer is yes, in both cases, then, the sexual stuff is not decisive. Nor is the gay identity stuff. Willingness would be the trump card.

    But you answer no, in the first case, but yes, in the second case, then, their being siblings is trumped by the very stuff that SSMers emphasize when they complain about the marriage law and demand the revision to favor the type of relationship they have in mind.

    If you answer, no, in both cases, then, willingness is not without content, even in your view, and so we return to the defining features of the type of relationship that you have in mind that would justly distinguish SSM from the rest of the types of one-sexed relationships that would be ineligible to SSM.

    Sometimes SSMers use rhetoric and argumentation that is like jelly -- almost impossible to pin down. Perhaps you can be more substantive and less superifical than most SSMers.

  54. Chairm
    Posted January 22, 2013 at 10:07 pm | Permalink

    In previous comment I quoted David Blankenhorn from his book in 2009 and compared it with his New York Times op-ed piece of 2011.

    I think that MLK's beliefs make it clear that society is duty bound to draw our laws closer to the moral truth than to falsehoods.

    White identity politics was raised to the level of supremacy and that lowered societal regard for the most fundamental freedoms that are due the human being.

    Gay identity politics is now being raised to such a level. Sure, some, perhaps Blankenhorn, might now surrender because they imagine that gay identity politics, held supreme above marriage (our most pro-child social institution, according to Blankenhorn), would be more benign than white supremacy. However, its corruptive influence has touched so much, already, that the benign view would be very naive indeed.

    Either one supports the supremacy of gay identity politics or one is appalled and stands against it. There can be no middle ground. Read MLK on the supremacy of white identity politics and the analogy is very close.

    Blankenhorn understood the non-marriage use to which the SSM campaign would put the marriage law. I have always seen how the gay emphasis is corruptive in this regard, however, take the gay out of the SSM idea and ask yourself what is left.

    I ask SSMers, take the gay out of your SSM rhetoric and argumentation. What then would be left for you to say about marriage law?

  55. Chairm
    Posted January 22, 2013 at 10:43 pm | Permalink

    Barb Chamberlan, thanks.

    Good News,

    You asked:

    "How, or where, or would you, introduce into your arguments the concept that now (more than ever in human history) same-sex couples can produce, conceive their own children? And how does this play into the SSMer's arguments.
    The idea being that if opposite sex couples can by law use science and artificial means to produce their own babies (the correctness or not of this topic having never come up in our society), why would it not be just for same sex couples to do so?"

    Individuals, solo, can use artificial means, also, under the currently unregulated "fertility" industry.

    An individual is a one-sex-short scenario -- and in this sense no different from the one-sex short twosome, moresome, threesome, and so forth.

    Human fertility is two-sexed, not one-sexed.

    What this highlights is that the industry (and I say that advisedly because, yes, there is manufacture going on) is not really serving a fertility problem but rather they are producing widgets (human widgets) for customers.

    Now, this definitive characteristic of the industry has been smothered with a great deal of sentimentalism. That is, the negligence of letting these practices ripen was fueled in large part by compassion for married couples who exprienced infertility. But infertility is not the center of the industry.

    Most married people do not exprience infertility. Of those who do, most already have children. Of those who seek medical attention, most resolve their fertility troubles through behavioral changes. A small subset resort to these manufacturing processes at great cost -- in terms of ethics, morality, interpersonal relations within their family, and materially -- especially financial but also in lost opportunities to spend their family budgets on other things. And there are the costs in health -- especially of the wives.

    But there are also other deep costs for the other participants such as the "donors" of sperm, ova, or womb-use. I think that the technicians who serve the industry also pay an ethical and moral cost. But I also consider the material costs -- including the financial -- especially in terms of lost opportunity to expend on other things that actually save lives or cure illnesses directly related to human procreation.

    So, yes, we have fallen behind the industry and are currently "eating dust" and will eventually pay the societal costs beyond those that have already been accumulated.

    So, the industry's practices are not truly justified for anyone's use. One need only consider the tragic irony that the industry routinely aborts (or puts on ice) children conceived but unwanted by the customers who were motivated to create children in the first place. That ought to prick our public moral conscience and prompt us to take heed now.

    There is a liberal case against the industry. There is a conservative case. There is a libertarian case. There is a religious case and a secular case against the industry. But the case for the industry usually comes down to -- we can do it so it is okay to do it. The "it" is manufacture of human beings. Society needs to hear all the arguments against it because their full weight is decisive next to the superficial arguments in favor of 1) low or ineffective regulation, 2) letting the industry lead on the ethical issues, and 3) granting some such power over others.

    As for the implications with marriage, well, when SSMers point to these practices, they point outside of the marital relationship.

    This stuff is extramarital -- even when married people participate.

    The fact that one-sex scenarios might depend on such practices makes this clear: this stuff is extrinsic to the one-sexed scenario as per the need to import into the one-sexed scenario the basics of human procreation by manufacture.

    Consider the contrast with the marital presumption of paternity which is based on the nature of human procreation. Coital relations and impregnation are the default of this legal and cultural presumption of marriage.

    Going outside of the husband-wife relationship is extramarital procreation. Now, most married people who use IVF and ARTs (Artificial Reproduction Technologies) do not use other people's gametes. They use their own sperm and ova and bodies. They do hire labs to assist in some way or another, yes, but they do not import the basics. They do experience infertility and yet IVF and ARTs do not treat their infertility. There are other treatments for infertility that help most married couples in this regard. So it is important to keep track of these distinctions when discussing the conflict between the marriage idea and the SSM idea.

    Always, the one-sexed scenario goes outside of the relationship. That is definitive of how such a scenario might do what is extrinsic to it -- procreate.

    Any attempt to lock the one-sexed scenario to the married scenario would be an anti-marriage move.

    In short, the industry does not provide for responsible procreation when it facilitates extramarital procreation. The manufacture of human beings is not responsible procreation nor is it marital.

    SSM is not marital and no one-sexed relationship can provide for responsible procreation so any procreation that would take place would also be extramarital.

    But marital status does not transform third party procreation into the core meaning of marriage. No more than, say, open swinging (as the kids call it) would make adultery the core meaning of marriage.

  56. Chairm
    Posted January 22, 2013 at 10:43 pm | Permalink

    Good News, I have a substantive response to your query. It is in the que.

  57. Paul Conley
    Posted January 23, 2013 at 3:15 pm | Permalink

    I am filled every day with the hope and wonder that comes from knowing that ALL of NOM are going to burn in hell. It's because of all of you that gays are committing suicide right now. You have created a culture of fear, hate and violence against gays and their brothers and sisters. To you, being gay is shameful and wrong, but I submit to you this question: Which is the greater evil, living freely as equals to our straight brothers and sisters, or being shoved into some comfortable box so that YOU all can be happy? You are all worse than murderers and you should be ashamed of yourselves. Love is love is love is LOVE! It doesn't matter if it's between two men, two women or one man and one woman. Or three men and one woman. Or five women and one man. If there's love, it's love and it's sacred and it's powerful. It's bigger than you and your narrow-minded prejudice. To stand in the way of that is hateful, evil and wrong. So please, keep screaming your hate speak, but you're never going to win. There are too few of you and too many of us.

  58. leehawks
    Posted January 23, 2013 at 3:42 pm | Permalink

    Brian & Maggie:

    Please see the reference mentioned by Ash @ #44:

    "(A good place to start is Gage Riley's article: http://vjspl.org/PDF/Spring2012/_Gage.pdf)"

    and refer this to your defense team and those of the Prop 8 and DOMA SCOTUS cases. I think this Riley fellow is really on to something citing the presumption of paternity as a central purpose of marriage. This could help. Great find, ASH!

  59. Ash
    Posted January 23, 2013 at 10:53 pm | Permalink

    You're very welcome, Leehawks! I share that article as much as possible on these threads. The historical analysis is wonderful for anyone interested in the institution of marriage, and the legal analysis is icing on the cake.

    It's this simple: 1) the presumption of paternity has been a core feature of our marriage tradition; 2) the presumption is still in operation today, and offers distinct advantages to society in spite of the advent of DNA testing; 3) the presumption only makes sense when applied to opposite-sex couples; 4) since the presumption would become farcical as applied to same-sex couples, then reserving marriage to opposite-sex unions is rational--in fact, the presumption of paternity is a compelling reason for the state not to recognize same-sex couples as marriages.

    Contrary to Judge Walker's claim in the Prop 8 trial, marriage *does* have something to do with who becomes a parent and the inclusion of same-sex couples in the institution of marriage *would* affect the recording of parentage for heterosexuals.

    This has all been proven beyond any shadow of a doubt with the conflicting parentage presumptions that arose in the In re: M.C. case in CA that resulted in a temporary ruling of three parents--because of a same-sex marriage.

    Dr. Morse discusses the presumption of paternity in her writings and speeches, but this article is just extraordinary.

  60. Chairm
    Posted January 24, 2013 at 2:45 am | Permalink

    Marc Paul reminded us that "siblings are already related."

    So the fact that they were born that way is your basis for denying them the advantages that you demand for others. Noted.

    I think that negates the born-that-way rationale for SSM, but perhaps you would clarify your intended meaning.

    You are aware, I am sure, that some related people are eligible to SSM in those places where it has been imposed. It is evident that you'd propose that prioritization of familial relations must apply to SSM. But what is the justification?

    You can't just say, well, there is a legal requirement regarding relatedness and that is that. You do not accept the legal requirement for bride-plus-groom. You demand its justification and, being disatisfied with any justification offered, you demand its abolition. So fair is fair. You want to keep a ban on some people from SSM, then, you are obliged to justify it rather than merely assert it.

  61. Chairm
    Posted January 24, 2013 at 3:19 am | Permalink

    Marc Paul,

    You would deny siblings the legal advantages that you demand for others. That is the point. The siblings are banned from SSM. Their relationship would fall short of the legal status you claim for other all-male or all-female relationships.

    Some related people can SSM where SSM is entrenched in the law. So, unless you want to change that, then, you are okay with prioritization of familial relationships.

    Besides, there is nothing intrinsic to an all-male or an all-female scenario that would make unrelated people related. We could do blood tests and learn that there is no change in their DNA, for instance.

    Perhaps you meant metaphorical relatedness.

    So through a legal fiction, SSM law would do what the relationship cannot do without a change in legal status. That means it that creating relatedness is a function of the law to make up for a shortfall in reality.

    Well, people who are already related should not have that held against them if the endpoint is that those who are SSM'd are now related for the purpose of gaining legal advantages. They'd be similarly situated -- except for the legal advantages that you would deny them. That discrimination needs justification. Your comment merely highlighted the problem.

    Unless you'd flat-out rely on the arbitrary use of governmental power, you must justify banning people from SSM. Do you really think that a metaphor is a sound basis for such a ban?

    You cannot just point at a legal requirement and say that is that.Just a moment ago you complained about the bride-plus-groom requirement for marriage; you demanded its justification and, dissatisfied with any justification offered, you demanded its abolition. So fair is fair. You must justify the ban against some people who'd SSM.

    If you claim that siblings already enjoy all the legal advantages of those who'd SSM, then, why call it something different -- and what would you call it anyway? Separate but equal is something you rejected for the sake of gay identity politics. That demand has been based on the born-that-way mantra. So why hold it against siblings who are born that way?

  62. Chairm
    Posted January 24, 2013 at 3:36 am | Permalink

    Relatedness can be based on a legal fiction for good reasons. Identity politics is a very poor reason, however, and I think we can see that if we consider an analogy.

    Adoption changes the status of the adopters and the adoptees; it makes unrelated people legally related.

    We allow people to adopt children to whom they are already related. Indeed, in adoption practices and policies we also prioritize familial relationships. So neither of those considerations is really a problem in itself regarding family formation.

    Adoption is first and foremost for children in need; it is not above all for needy adults. Sure, some needy adults might manage to adopt children, however, that generally is not in the best interests of adoptees. We do not shape adoption for the sake of adult neediness. That is not the purpose of making unrelated people related. To the extent that adoption policy-making is distorted by adult neediness, we fall short of the child-centered purpose of adoption practices.

    Does adoption change the DNA of those involved? Nope. The law does what the adult-child relationship cannot do; the rest is up to the relationship.

    Now, SSMers might read this and think these are points in favor of their SSM idea. Well, maybe so, however, we must return to the question of banning some people from SSM and the lack of justification for that.

    The marriage idea and the SSM idea are very different. The line drawn based on relatedness demonstrates this quite readily.

  63. Chairm
    Posted January 24, 2013 at 3:56 am | Permalink

    Marc Paul said:

    "There is no categorical presumption of procreation."

    Oh, well, if you say so then I guess that is that.

    Not.

    The legal presumption of paternity is a default of marital status. Its sexual basis is the starting place for the presumption that the husband will father children born to he and his wife. This is what the bride and groom consent to when they say, I do, and when they gain marital status. Also see the two-sexed sexual basis for consummation, annulment, adultery and so forth. This is what makes the marital presumption of paternity a reasonable and vigorously enforced center piece of marriage law.

    It is based on reality, not fiction.

    No one-sexed scenario can provide the rationale for a sexual basis to presume that a person has impregnated or has been impregnated by another person of the same sex. Perhaps, if you like things to be categorical, you would like that obvious fact of life and fact of law.

    Hence, there is no sexual basis for a categorical presumption of co-equal parental status for those who'd SSM. And, your quip reinforces this point. There is nothing intrinsic to SSM that makes procreation a default legal presumption. We will agree on that obvious point, also.

  64. Chairm
    Posted January 24, 2013 at 4:01 am | Permalink

    Marc Paul said:

    "Integrative, segratative - rhetorical window dressing I'm afraid. They add nothing to the terms same sex or opposite sex."

    Actually, based on your own rhetoric and argumentation in favor of SSM, the type of relationship you have in mind is segregative based on 1) sex of the participants, 2) sexual attraction (male attraction or female attraction), and 3) group identity (gay identity politics as per your gay emphasis).

    These three segregative features are strongly desired by those who'd SSM, we are told, and this is the big reason to impose SSM on all of society.

    Your own words tell us this much. So if it is window dressing, then, you have dressed the window with some rather sour fruit baskets.

  65. Chairm
    Posted January 24, 2013 at 4:26 am | Permalink

    Good News asked:

    "How, or where, or would you, introduce into your arguments the concept that now (more than ever in human history) same-sex couples can produce, conceive their own children? And how does this play into the SSMer's arguments."

    No one-sexed scenario can conceive and procreate within that scenario. Being a gay relationship does not overcome this inability. Science has not changed this fact of life.

    SSMers will argue a false equivalence. They claim that the one-sex-short scenario is the moral equivalent, and the practical equivalent, of the infertile husband and wife. This is wrong on many levels.

    In terms of the nature of human procreation -- whether or not labs get involved in the manipulation of sperm and ova -- there is a huge distinction biologically and morally.

    The lack of the other sex is not infertility. Fertility is an ability. Infertility is a disability -- a disabling of the procreative powers of the man-woman duo. The all-male or the all-female scenario precludes fertility; it is non-fertile for the inability is intrinsic and the ability (fertility) is not disabled.

    The US Supreme Court precedent has agreed with this distinction.

    We are told, of course, that the lack of the other sex is highly desirable and is not experienced as a disability in itself. Why? Due to sexual attraction and/or gay identity. But that stuff does not transform the lack of the other sex into infertility nor into a disability. SSMers balk at calling same-sex sexual attraction a disability. So they comprehend the lack of moral equivalence even if they only vaguely are in touch with the falsehood of their offered practical equivalence.

    This is a very significant point. They do not really believe what they argue regarding fertility, infertility, and homosexual orientation.

    Jon Rauch famously claimed that a woman without a uterus is the same as a man. The absurdity of his argument manages to discredit the entire fertility strawman argument of SSMers.

    Sex difference is a fact of life and, according to SSMers, it is a big deal as far as those who'd SSM. That, too, is obvious, right? So how can a woman be the same as a man even by their lights. They object whenever it is pointed out that some people who have experienced same-sex sexual attraction have happily married (ie formed unions of husband and wife) and engaged in sexual consummation and procreated together. The SSMers dislike the reality that distinguishes marriaged from non-marriage just about as much as they disdain the difference between men and women even as they rely on such difference to justify the sex-segregative type of relationship they have in mind for SSM.

    Describing their twists and turns can get confusing; but that is the point of their rhetoric and argumentation -- to confuse rather than to enlighten.

    So we shed light. To repeat: the lack of the other sex is not infertility. Sex difference matters. Even those one-sexed scenarios that seek out gametes of the other sex (or even bodies for gestation) tell us this is a reality. Remember, a lone individual is nonfertile -- like a same-sex twosome or threesome or a parade of persons of the same sex. Within the one-sex-short scenario there is a lack of ability -- an inability -- that pretty much defines SSM even according to the SSMers who point outside of the SSM relationship to third party procreation and the reliance on labs.

    That too is a significant point: third party procreation is extramarital procreation even when married people partake of it. They go outside of the marital relationship.

    But most married people do not experience infertility. Of those who do, most resolve their problems through behavioral changes. And most already have children. And, of those who rely on fertility treatments, most will procreate together. Most do not resort to third party procreation: about 92% of the tiny subset of married people who use IVF or ARTs (Artificial Reproduction Technologies), use their own gametes and do not go outside of their marital relationship.

    So it comes down to a focus on the very tiny segment of the tiny subset that does partake of third party procreation. This practice is extramarital. Usually the labs are reluctant to impregnate the wife with third party sperm without the express agreement of the husband. See the marital presumption of paternity. There is legislation in some jurisdictions that shields the sperm "donor" from paternity; and that shields the husband from attacks on his paternity -- a paternity that he might try to rebut based on his not impregnating his wife but also a paternity that the sperm "donor" or someone else might challenge on that same sexual basis.

    Anyway, married couples who partake of these practices tend to experience great stress on their marital relationship. It is something that goes deeper than mere appearances would suggest.

    Of course, the infertility, the attempts to treat it, and the eventual desperate resort to novel methods and interventions -- as well as the relationship issues -- all points to tension between the marriage idea (as we know it and live it) and the deliberate efforts to disunite motherhood and fatherhood artificially.

    This stuff is extrinsic or foreign to the one-sex-short scenarios. The lone individual or the twosome or the moresome are the same as each other in the most basic ways but in those ways distinctly different precisely due to sex difference.

    As I said, sex difference is central to the very notion that one sex must segregate from the other in a type of relationship that the SSMers have in mind. The disunity of motherhood and fatherhood is thus barely worthy of shrug in the pursuit of manufacturing children for such customers.

  66. Chairm
    Posted January 27, 2013 at 1:09 pm | Permalink

    Readers: Please compare and contrast David Blankenhorn's discussion of the "interracial" marriage analogy -- first in his book released in 2009, and second in his pro-SSM switcharoo published in the New York Times in 2011.

    He has yet to offer the sound moral argument in favor of that switcheroo. The fact is that he brought into the discussion his own moral formation. He made this about a question of morality and moral reasoning.

    It may be that he thought he could pretend to be in favor of the pro-marriage position just long enough to lend him street cred for his pre-planned switcharoo. In his book he openly talked about trying to get ahead of the trend lines and in his New York Times op-ed he admitted that he was catching up with the so-called elites (in universities) who have influenced young people (in universities).

    His flimsy excuse, in that op-ed, was that he had spent about 3 years trying to convince those elites but felt like a failure on that score. So he chose to switch. It is not plausible. He says it is so but he has not explained what he thinks has changed and he has not said he was wrong on the merits in his book that advocated the pro-marriage position quite clearly. He said he has not recanted any of that.

    But there is his switcharoo. It does appear to be politically motivated. It does not look credible -- except to the audience to whom he now hopes to lead to a softer approach to imposition of the SSM idea. Readers do the compare and contrast and look into this more deeply with a questioning attitude.

    Blankenhorn owes the public discussion some real answers.