In response to the President's claim in his inaugural address that gay people are not equally protected under the law, Archbishop Cordileone, chairman of the Subcommittee for the Promotion and Defense of Marriage, said:
I honor the President’s concern for the equal dignity of every human being, including those that experience same-sex attraction, who like everyone else, must be protected against any and all violence and hatred.
But the marriage debate is not about equality under the law, but rather the very meaning of marriage. Marriage is the only institution that unites children with their mothers and fathers.
Protecting this understanding of marriage is not discrimination nor is it some kind of pronouncement on how adults live out their intimate relationships; it is standing for the common good.
... the equal right of all children to grow up knowing and being loved by their mother and father. I pray for the president and for all our nation’s leaders that they will grow to understand and support this enduring truth. (Marriage Unique for a Reason blog)
54 Comments
The drunk archbishop has spoken.
And my bishops are in favor of marriage equality. What's the point of this post? Bishops don't make law.
God bless Archbishop Cordileone.
I'm glad Archbishop Cordileone understands that the public interest in marriage is uniting children with their mother and father. Pseudo-marriage is the vehicle that severs this link.
@Clark, instead of using the misleading phrase "marriage equality," please use the accurate term "marriage frivolity."
And marriage "frivolity" is less misleading? Friggin imbeciles.
Sorry, Theocracy or whatever. I'll just stick with marriage once it equally applies to gay couples. And you can get a new hobby. I'm thinking you've got about one, maybe two years to find one.
if you SS'mers want a war, then you've got one.
correction - if you gay people & supporters of gay marriage want a war on marriage, then you've got one.
Is that a threat, Quinn? How about you explain exactly what you mean? I'm sure Brian and Maggie would love to hear your ideas!
The rights of couples is just as misleading as "marriage equality." It is based on the false premise that there is such a thing as couples rights, or group rights, which are often used to promote political ideologies. But this nation had been founded on the concept of individual rights, the only type of rights that can be applied consistently. And on an individual level, marriage laws apply equally to every single person.
SoA: it's about the "equal dignity of homosexual love." Look it up. Your one-time favorite witness Blankenhorn's phrase.
@Clark - YOUR side started this war on traditional marriage & OUR side intends to fight it.
No, Clark. It is about the supremacy of gay identity politics. Why else would marriage be redefined only for homosexual relationships while all other relationships like polyamory and incest continue to be discriminated against? Why else is homosexuality the only sexual preference that one can favor and defend without being a bigot or a pariah?
Marriage is defined based on biology, not sexual desire and is for the benefit of our children, not adults.
I always thought that biology was what united children with their parents. Marriage is nothing more than a commitment between two people. It's the strength of that commitment that determines how long it will last. If the commitment isn't strong enough, children aren't going to make it stronger.
You keep harping on studies showing how bad it is to be raised by a same-sex couple. But the truth is, those studies never take into consideration couples that are constantly at war with each other and the effect that has on children. I know from personal experience how devastating that is.
The bottom line is, children get born every day to people who aren't married and aren't prepared for the responsibility of a child. No matter what you want the world to be, it's not black and white and nothing is simple. And all your protests and marches aren't going to end this issue, no matter how much you all think they will.
Peter, posted like a typical lefty! This is a serious site for serious conservatives. Move on to Moveon!
Clark, we all think you are the on ein need of a new hobby, like learning to think outside that lefty box you inhabit.
Marriage as a "union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony", Murphy v. Ramsey, 114 U.S. 15 at 45 (1885), applies equally to homosexuals and heterosexuals, Mormons and Protestants.
Clark said: "it's about the 'equal dignity of homosexual love.' Look it up. Your one-time favorite witness Blankenhorn's phrase."
Blankenhorn also said that the SSM idea is a conceptual mess, that it effaces the marriage idea, and that he has not recanted any of his pro-marriage views.
On the other hand, he still owes a credible explanation for his switch to the pro-SSM side. If he meant that "homosexual love" trumps the marriage idea, then, he has succumbed to the assertion of the supremacy of gay identity politics.
And that would be closely analogous with the white supremacy that was asserted over marriage law in the form of segregating based on a racist filter.
Meanwhile, the good Bishop has made substantive remarks in favor of the marriage idea. If he took off his collar and spoke these words, would that make the SSMers any less liable to object to his words?
Probably not. They too often just find it convenient to attack the person rather than the actual argument. They might do better than that.
It's true that children get born without marriage. In fact, that is the reason why marriage was established in the first place, in order to provide a family environment for children to be raised in with a mother and a father. When you pervert the definition of marriage so that it is only about the wants and needs of adults, children become an irrelevant byproduct to the institution. And illegitimacy rises as more and more kids are forced to be raised in broken homes. Just look at the situation in Scandinavia and the Netherlands who have had SS"M" the longest, not to mention the US states in which the culture of family values have been degrading for decades.
When SS"m" was forced on the people of Europe, marriage rate declined and continue to decline because couples no longer value an institution that now represents the homosexual agenda.
M jones. Please come and testify before the Supreme Court and bring all the NOMies with you. You guys are such a wealth of knowledge and iinformation.
Mr. Ejercito, several courts (all the way up to the Supreme Court; see Pace v. Alabama) also ruled that anti-miscegenation laws applied equally to to all people of all races. So what's your point?
M. jones makes the critical error of "post hoc ergo propter hoc". in his logic.
@John B.
Those courts - as it relates to anti-miscegenation laws - were correct at that time. It took a constitutional amendment to overturn their decision due to the fact that no fault could be prescribed to said courts findings within existing law of the day.
Comparing what you do with who you are is a sign of the A-typical elitist mentality. The U.S. Constitution was written to protect "We the People..." from people like you.
Chris, you made the error of citing Blankenhorn who has said that he has not recanted his view that SSM effaces the marriage idea and that the SSM idea is a conceptual mess.
Now, what is the relevance, do you think of "homosexual love" to the law governing marriage. Indeed, where it has been imposed, is "homosexual love" a legal requirement for those who'd SSM.
It is not, of course, but how can it then be a legitimate basis for lawmaking on eligiblity to marry? It cannot, according to SSM argumentation that insists that the lack of a legal requirement is decisive.
This morning there was a charmingly little story on the Today show about a newlywed couple: the bride was 97 and the groom 86.
If marriage is truly about "uniting children with their mothers and father," as NOM so tirelessly claims, then it is a ridiculous waste of time for the state of Delaware to issue this couple a marriage license.
But if marriage is instead about love and commitment, as equality advocates argue, then the recognition bestowed on this union is deeply moving and beautiful. You decide.
Andrew,
Marriage does unite motherhood and fatherhood. See the marital presumption of paternity.
Marriage does integrate the sexes. See the bride-plus-groom requirement.
Can you explain to readers how your SSM idea is superior to the marriage idea against which you object so emotionally?
Exceptions do not invalidate the rule, Andrew. Besides, even when a man and a woman do not produce children they are still visual examples of the virtues of putting men and women together as opposed to setting them apart.
Son of Adam: it is true that exceptions do not necessarily invalidate a rule. It is equally true that exceptions can seriously undermine an argument.
Chairm: if the rationale for foreclosing same-sex marriage is that marriage "unites children to their mothers and fathers," then you have still not explained how the elderly couple in Delaware fits within that model. If the unique feature of marriage, the feature that needs preserving, is this Uniting -- then it is folly at best for Delaware to give civil recognition to this particular union.
Son of Adam, marriage equality sets noone apart. The ones involved in a same sex marriage Never intended to unite with the opposite sex regqrdless. Valid argument please.
We should all listen to Abp. CorDUIeone.
Not all married couples procreate.
Therefore, marriage has nothing to do with children.
So goes the willfully ignorant argument of the opposition.
The truth is that marriage is the only coupling that is capable of producing children. The only public interest in marriage is to provide those children with legal protection and social recognition. Marriage also provides children with a history through lineage.
Indeed, pseudo-marriage severs all these links. Children are manufactured with the premeditated intention of making parentage anonymous. Most pseudo-marriage advocates have a known mother and father. It's surprising that they view this as having no importance.
Barb Chamberlan writes: "The only public interest in marriage is to provide those children with legal protection and social recognition."
Is that true? Is that really the ONLY public interest in marriage?? You may want to rethink that statement. Our tax laws, property laws, probate laws, immigration laws, privacy laws (and on and on) find many other ways in which marriage is in the public interest.
Moreover, you make a logical fallacy when you seek to poke holes in the argument in favor of marriage equality. No one has claimed in court or will ever claim in court that "marriage has nothing to do with children." But procreative potential is the rationale advanced by NOM, so yes, the reality that not all married couples choose to procreate or can procreate does indeed point to the fact that the stated rationale is unsound.
Andrew,
The argument in favor of the core meaning of marriage and against the SSM idea is not undermined by the bride and groom you cited as an example of an exception.
They are only apparent exceptions and not actual exceptions to the core meaning of marriage. Your pro-SSM view obscures from your view that core meaning and so you think these newlyweds are somehow exceptions to the strawman you have manufactured out of your mistakes.
You said:
"Chairm: "If the unique feature of marriage, the feature that needs preserving, is this Uniting -- then it is folly at best for Delaware to give civil recognition to this particular union."
Well, then, you stand against marital status in the first place, surely.
The marital relationship is a type of relationship that is procreative in kind. Note that this does not mean that each and every marriage is procreative in outcome. If your rely on the latter then you depend on a misrepresentation.
Marriage unites the sexes. These newlyweds are not exceptions.
The unity arises from the two-sexed nature of humankind, the two-sexed nature of human procreation, and the two-sexed nature of human community.
Now, at base, you are arguing that age is a just basis for disqualifying the elderly couple. However, you make this argument or assertion in the immediate context of the procreation argument which you have misconstrued.
But we can approach it the way you suggested. Their infertility is due to natural maturation whereby their procreative powers have become disabled. The ability is fertility; the disability is fertility.
Surely you would not equate homosexuality with a disability. The lack of the other sex is not infertility; but intrinsically that lack precludes the ability -- precludes fertility -- and so is not a disability but rather an inability.
No one-sexed scenario -- gay or otherwise, sexualized or not -- can unite the sexes nor can it be procreative in kind.
Andrew,
The argument in favor of the core meaning of marriage and against the SSM idea is not undermined by the bride and groom you cited as an example of an exception.
They are only apparent exceptions and not actual exceptions to the core meaning of marriage. Your pro-SSM view obscures from your view that core meaning and so you think these newlyweds are somehow exceptions to the strawman you have manufactured out of your mistakes.
more ...
Andrew, you can find exceptions to just about every rule there is. None of them have an invalidating effect because in an imperfect world, there are no absolutes.
For instance, the voting age is 18 because it is accepted that adults have keener political insight than children do. And yet there are adults with down syndrome and brain damage who are allowed to vote even though their minds are no more sophisticated than a 10 year old. Does that make the voting age arbitrary and unconstitutional? There are also people who obtain a fishing license and then never go fishing. Does that mean that the purpose of a fishing license has nothing to do with fishing?
Just like the motivation for fishing licenses are for people to go fishing and the motivation for voting ages are for people with keen political insights to go vote, the motivation for marriage licenses are for men and women to have children and raise them as a mother and father, regardless of whatever exceptions you can find.
Making it only about adults renders the needs and upbringing of children irrelevant and that is harmful to kids!
Andrew said:
"If the unique feature of marriage, the feature that needs preserving, is this Uniting -- then it is folly at best for Delaware to give civil recognition to this particular union."
It is not a standalone feature. It is combined, coherently with integration of the sexes. The coherent whole is greater than the parts.
Marriage unites the sexes. Elderly newlyweds are not exceptions. To the contrary.
The unique unity of the marital type of relationship arises from the two-sexed nature of humankind, the two-sexed nature of human procreation, and the two-sexed nature of human community.
The marital relationship is a type of relationship that is procreative in kind. Note that this does not mean that each and every marriage is procreative in outcome. If your rely on the latter then you depend on a misrepresentation.
Now, in your recent comments, you argue that age would be a just basis for disqualifying the elderly couple. However, you said this in the immediate context of the procreation argument which you have misconstrued.
But we can approach it the way you suggested.
more...
Andrew,
The infertility of the elderly newlyweds is due to natural maturation whereby their procreative powers have become disabled. The ability is fertility; the disability is fertility. Age is proxy for this, in your remarks.
Surely you would not equate homosexuality with a disability. The lack of the other sex is not infertility; but intrinsically that lack precludes the ability -- precludes fertility -- and so is not a disability but rather an inability.
That lack also precludes formation of a type of relationship that is procreative in kind both in terms of bodily union and in terms of fertility.
No one-sexed scenario -- gay or otherwise, sexualized or not -- is marital. If your thinking is followed consistently, then, you would try to recruit the elderly to the non-marital category based on a false equivalence (inability supposedly equals disability) and a based on dismantling the coherent whole that is the marriage idea.
Your approach exemplifies the SSM idea and its argumentation.
Andrew the following from you is a misrepresentation:
" But procreative potential is the rationale advanced by NOM".
First, marriage is a type of relationship. As such it has a core meaning -- essentials -- without which it would not be that type of relationship.
Do you disagree?
I mean, you argue for a type of relationship that is one-sexed. Is that the defining feature -- the essential -- of SSM? Please explain how the type of relationship you have in mind (before the law enters the picture) is distinguishable from all the other types of relationships and living arrangements. SSMers in courts have emphasized gay identity and same-sex sexual attraction. But the SSM proponents do not propose making that stuff mandatory for those who'd SSM.
Do you acknowledge the problem in your argumentation, now? You apply a double-standard.
Please note that the distinction between apparent and actual exceptions is significant: the former might test the general rule but the latter is an exemption from the general rule.
Some related people can marry and some cannot marry. Are those who can marry really "exceptions"? No.
The related criterion might test but does not overturn the general rule that relatedness is a legitimate consideration for eligibility to marry.
First there is the difference in kind -- the prototypical sibling friendship, for instance, is not sexual and does not entail a bodily union. But maybe this or that particular sibling friendship is sexual; sexualization of that type of relationship would stand against the good of sibling friendship. Some may dismiss this point and so they would remove the basis for using relatedness as a legitimate test of eligibility to marry. Sexual attraction would be a trump card.
Second, there is the difference in degree -- the first concern becomes more pronounced the more closely the man and woman are related to each other. Society regards the types of relationships -- beginning with the marital type -- and decides. But if the distinction between marriage and other types of relationships is disregarded, then, a difference in degree would appear irrelevant.
Yet degree of relatedness is at the core of marriage as a type of relationship. The unrelated (or distantly related) bride and groom marry and become more closely related than either is to relatives to whom they are too closely related to marry. Being so closely related, their sexual relations test the notion that relatedness bars incestuous sexual behavior. However, that is a test easily resolved if the core meaning of marriage is kept in steady regard. This again points back to a difference in kind -- not just in degree.
We certainly are discussing types of relationships and so difference in kind -- (such as procreative in kind versus nonprocreative in kind, such as ability-disability-inability in kind, such as integrative versus segregfativel in kind) -- is unavoidable.
It's like the SSm trolls argue the same point under every post
I appreciate the patience NOM supporters show in answering each misrepresentation of the debate. I learn a lot from reading those responses to misguided, self-serving arguments from the trolls. Each troll has an invalid argument which they use to comment on, over and over. They are not out to learn - they are out to insult.
I would ask the moderator to remove ad hominem comments from under the posts. But, wait!... then there would be very few comments shown pro SSm.
And notice the trolls don't argue for SSm. They ALWAYS argue for 'gay marriage', a bizarre construct named 'marriage' which is only possible through confused legislatures, for it has no rational basis except 'I want it so' and i have 1 vote. That's fine. Logic tends to win, sooner or later.
@Little Man #40
Andrew in #29 talks about same-sex marriage, not hay marriage (because bisexuals should have a right to marry a partner of the same sex as well). Please read before making sweeping judgments.
Unnatural homosexual marriage is not a civil rights issue.
Defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman does not deny homosexuals the basic civil rights accorded other citizens. Nowhere in the Bill of Rights or in any legislation proceeding from it are homosexuals excluded from the rights enjoyed by all citizens--including the right to marry. However, no citizen has the unrestricted right to marry whomever they want. A person cannot marry a child, a close blood relative, two or more spouses, or the husband or wife of another person. Such restrictions are based upon the accumulated wisdom not only of Western civilization but also of societies and cultures around the world for millennia.
Many homosexuals and their sex partners may sincerely believe they can be good parents. But children are not guinea pigs for grand social experiments in perverting marriage, and should not be placed in settings that are unsuitable for raising children.
Transient relationships: While a high percentage of married couples remain married for up to 20 years or longer, with many remaining wedded for life, the vast majority of homosexual relationships are short-lived and transitory. This has nothing to do with alleged "societal oppression." A study in the Netherlands , a gay-tolerant nation that has legalized homosexual marriage, found the average duration of a homosexual relationship to be one and a half years.
Serial promiscuity: Studies indicate that while three-quarters or more of married couples remain faithful to each other, homosexual couples typically engage in a shocking degree of promiscuity. The same Dutch study found that "committed" homosexual couples have an average of eight sexual partners (outside of the relationship) per year. Children should not be placed in unstable households with revolving bedroom doors.
Wow! Given the voluminous response left here while I was in class, I seem to have hit a nerve. I'll take that as a sure sign that I am on the right track
It may be worth noting that making your argument longer does not make your argument sharper or stronger.
And one quibble, Chairm: the "Uniting" to which I referred was self-evidently the one which NOM consistently raises in their rationale for understanding marriage as a unique institution only between one man and one woman: the "unit[ing] of children to their mothers and fathers."
At no time did I use that word with reference to the two adult partners; therefore, much of your rebuttal is off-point.
Apparently we are "trolls" if we disagree with NOM's supporters here, provide factual information, offer a different opinion, and occasionally ask questions. Or perhaps we are "trolls" simply because we oppose NOM's attempts to strip us of our marriage rights. And of course we "trolls" must be the ones making ad hominem attacks simply by doing so.
Amy: I do 'read before making sweeping judgments'... So what is 'hay' marriage? No, i don't think you are 'right' about bisexuals having that 'right'. Just because you say it? Ok. Can i now make a sweeping judgement about your ability to communicate in writing?
John B. - Who is 'we'?
I wrote a nice reply, but the Powers That Be must have thought that reasoned arguments are unfit for publication.
Here was my post in a nutshell:
Given the voluminous response left here while I was in class, I seem to have hit a nerve. I'll take that as a sure sign that I am on the right track!
It may be worth noting that making your argument longer does not make your argument sharper or stronger.
And one quibble, Chairm: the "Uniting" to which I referred was self-evidently the one which NOM consistently raises in their rationale for understanding marriage as a unique institution only between one man and one woman: the "unit[ing] of children to their mothers and fathers."
At no time did I use that word with reference to the two adult partners; therefore, much of your rebuttal is off-point.
Here's what I wrote, in a nutshell:
Given the voluminous response left here while I was in class, I seem to have hit a nerve. I'll take that as a sure sign that I am on the right track
It may be worth noting that making your argument longer does not make your argument sharper or stronger.
One quibble, Chairm: the "Uniting" to which I referred was self-evidently the one which NOM consistently raises in their rationale for understanding marriage as a unique institution only between one man and one woman: the "unit[ing] of children to their mothers and fathers."
At no time did I use that word with reference to the two adult partners; therefore, much of your rebuttal is off-point.
Andrew, that uniting is part of the coherent whole.
As you well know, NOM does not say that procreation is mandatory nor that potential for procreation is mandatory nor that the uniting of motherhood and fatherhood is seperate from integration of the sexes as per the bride-and-groom requirement.
I do think you need to recalibrate based on the actual disagreement and the conflict between the SSM idea and the marriage idea.
Andrew, for what it is worth, you did not touch a nerve. Odd for you to say that in the manner and speediness of another SSMer who has commented under multiple monikers.
Marriage is integrative of the sexes. SSM is segregative of the sexes. Marriage integrates by sexual attraction (male sexual attraction and female sexual attraction. SSM segregates by sexual attraction (male-only or female-only sexual attraction). Marriage integrates regardless of group identities. SSM segregates by gay identity politics.
The marital relationships is a combination of unitive and procreative aspects. This forms a coherent whole. The sexual basis for the marital presumption of paternity is two-sexed; it is a bodily union --because it is a comprehensive union. Thus the union of husband and wife is unitive in kind and procreative in kind.
No one-sexed scenario is a bodily union -- no such scenario is unitive in kind -- ever. No one-sexed scenario is procreative in outcome, ever, because it is not procreative in kind -- ever.
It is segregative and non-marital -- in outcome and in kind.
If gay is a race-like identity, then, the advocate of imposing SSM for the sake of gay identity politics is the racist analogue who supported the supremacy of white identity politics over marriage itself.