http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNiqfRyoAyA

A) A California doctor who must choose between her faith and her job
http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/Story?id=4941377&page=1

Let’s disregard for a moment that this really has nothing to do with gays marrying, and everything to do with anti-gay-marriage activists wanting to play the victim.

This invokes a case that began in 1999, in a San Diego womens’ clinic. Guadalupe Benitez, a lesbian, went through surgeries and hormone treatments in preparation to be artificially inseminated. When it came time for the procedure, the doctors refused to perform it on her.

Two reasons have been offered by the doctors for refusing to provide Benitez with services like any other patient: 1) They disagree with homosexuality on a religious basis; and 2) Benitez, though in a committed, stable relationship with another woman, is technically “single” in a legal sense–unmarried (at this time, I’m unsure whether same-sex couples could wed in California, but I don’t think they could). The second is just an excuse and a distraction, obviously.

The doctors claim they have a constitutional right to refuse treatment to Benitez because they disagree with homosexuality on a religious basis.

The thing is, there’s a non-discrimination law in California. “Though doctors can decline to perform abortion and pharmacists can refuse to sell birth control under ‘conscience clauses,’ [i.e. religious reasons] Lambda argues that the doctors at North Coast discriminated against ‘people, not procedures.’” (ABC)

See the difference?

Also, insurance companies in California are not required to pay for in-vitro fertilization. Benitez’s insurance had an exclusive contract with this particular medical clinic. Because these doctors refused, Benitez ended up having to go to another clinic and pay out of her own pocket.

To be fair, I should note that the doctor’s lawyer claims that “[the doctor] found a competent specialist for the couple at another clinic and even offered to pay the cost difference.” If this is true, however, I’m not sure why it’s not discussed at more length within the court proceedings. Also, even if it’s true, it still would leave Benitez at the mercy of this doctor–which brings up a whole host of new problems.

B) A member of New Jersey church group which is punished by the state because they can’t support same-sex marriage
http://www.oceangroveunited.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_Grove,_New_Jersey

This refers to the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association (OGCMA), which isn’t exactly a church group–though it is affiliated.

The OGCMA owned and operated a beachfront pavilion in Ocean Grove, New Jersey. It was open to the public, so long as the interested parties reserved it in advance. However, when a lesbian couple wanted to use it for their commitment/civil union ceremony, they were refused because the affiliated church disagrees with homosexuality.

The couple filed a civil rights complaint, and investigation revealed that the OGCMA had filed an application to the “state’s Green Acres Program, which encourages the use of private property for public recreation and provides a $500,000 annual property tax exemption. In their application for these funds, the Camp Meeting Association reportedly stated that the disputed areas were open to the public.” (Wiki)

Also, “the boardwalk and beachfront were held in a 1908 ruling to be exempt from property tax because they ‘had been dedicated years ago by the association as a public highway’.” (Wiki)

So basically, the OGCMA wanted to take public money (collected from taxpayers, including gays and lesbians) to maintain their pavilion — but only serve a portion of the public. When you step into the public realm and take public money, you cannot discriminate.

C) A Massachusetts parent who stands by helpless while the state teaches her son that gay marriage is okay
http://www.lexingtoncares.org/EstabrookFactSheet.html

This refers to David Parker, whose child started kindergarten at Estabrook Elementary school in Lexington, MA.

Estabrook sent home “Diversity Book Bags,” which contained, among other books, King and King by Linda De Haan and Stern Nijland. This children’s story focuses on a prince whose mother the Queen insists he marry. She introduces him to a great number of princesses, but the prince eventually falls in love with another prince. They get married and live happily ever after. (It’s actually a really cute book and there’s nothing remotely ‘adult’ about it.)

Parker became angry that his child was exposed to this book, and demands his child be pulled out of any class which may mention homosexuality. In an email to the Estabrook principal, Parker writes: “You are not permitted to infringe upon our religious beliefs and parental rights…to exclude our son from material that would expose him to beliefs contrary to the Word of God in our Christian faith.”

Estabrook is a public school. Public schools serve everyone and as such cannot cater to a specific portion of the population. Teaching about diversity must be inclusive and cannot specifically exclude gays or lesbians. If Mr. Parker didn’t want his child learning the public school’s curriculum, he would need to either send his child to a private school, or move to another school system. If something was truly objectionable, he would need to take it up with the Department of Education.

This is not what Mr. Parker did. He harrassed the school’s principal and stormed into the school, refusing to leave until his demands were met. The school’s officials tried to convince him to leave on his own. Even when the police were called, everyone tried to get him to leave on his own. Lexingtoncares.org says, “About 6:30 PM, when the police inform Mr. Parker that the building has to be secured for the night; he replies, ‘If I’m not under arrest, I’m not leaving.’” So he was eventually arrested.

Some debate might still be open — should parents be allowed to pull their children out of classes that teach something that is against their religion (or discuss things they find objectionable for religious/moral reasons)? For example, should parents be able to keep teachers from teaching students about evolution because it contradicts some Christians’ view of the earth’s creation? What about anatomy courses that discuss sex organs? Literature courses that examine Greek and Roman myths and legends? History classes that note unflattering actions taken by the medieval Catholic church?

One thing’s for certain: no public schools are going to be “promoting” homosexuality or trying to change your child’s religious beliefs. Schools are for teaching WHAT exists; it’s a parent’s job to teach WHY something exists and HOW one should go about reacting and thinking about it.

The truth is that there are many, many happy gay and lesbian couples who live normal lives. This is a fact that shouldn’t threaten you — unless you’re teaching your children to hate and revile everything homosexual, in which case I think we’ve got some additional issues to discuss.

NO doctor should EVER be forced to end
a human life . It violates not only, in this
case, one's deeply held religious beliefs,
but the Hippocratic Oath as well . The woman
was NOT his patient. He did not agree to
treat her - instead graciously referred her
to other doctors . He was not rude - he was
cordial and helpful . SHE was vindictive intolerant
and cruel. Rather than
respect his beliefs and his convictions ( as
we should as Americans ) and move on
- she chose to try to
destroy his livelihood .

My Government AP teacher did a lesson on the civil rights movement a few days ago. He showed us a video clip of a minister trying to use the Bible and God as a legitimate reason to discriminate against black people. The aforementioned preacher sounded amazingly stupid while doing so, and I imagine several years down the road from today, discrimination against homosexuals will look equally as foolish.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/19/opinion/19Rich.html?_r=2&scp=3&sq=frank%20rich,%20gay%20marriage&st=cse

The merit to an idealized version of a type of same-sex sexualized relationship, then, this can be discussed reasonably without the namecalling and the petty insults.

The marriage idea is aspirational but people are imperfect and the law is not destroyed for also being imperfect. The Government is not some sort of absolute tyranny with its big hairy fingers into every nook and cranny of the marital relationship.

And I'd hope the same would be so for the nonmarital type of relationship that SSMers seem to have in mind.

If the essentials of it could be plainly stated such that it is dinstinguishable from other nonmarital arrangements, then, we'd have some healthy progress.

Contary to what Dan has said, I have accepted at face value his private definition of "gay marriage". But he has not gone the next step and offered a public meaning. Indeed SSMers generally have difficulty doing so.

So much so that it is only reasonable to question the premise of an asserted relationship type that is not definitively sexual.

How can it be argued that sexual orientation is the key when it is not a legal requirement? I mean, in light of the pro-SSM rules that are used against the centrality of responsible procreation?

Any SSMer could think about that and offer an answer here. It should be rather easy given the degree of certitude with which people hold the pro-SSM opinion. Yet it seems not to be so easy. That would raise a red flag where any other kind of legal reform was being asserted. And so it does here as well.

Related people can and do marry. What is it about the one-sexed arrangement, in the law, that justifies drawing the line at two or at relatives?

You have invoked a rule of SSM argumentation.

You said: "Single people can raise children legally in this country"

The rule: If (fill-in the blank) can occur outside of marriage, it is not essentail to marriage.

Now, please apply this rule to the relationship type you just described.

Also, contrary to your skipping back and forth between the particular and the general, marriage is a type of relationship.

But you invoke another rule:

If (fill-in the blank) does not occur in each and every particular marriage, then, it is not an essential feature of the social institution.

Now, please apply that rule to the relationship type you have in mind.

You have said, again, that there is no legal "requirement to procreate" -- that is the government does not force people to procreate.

Thus you have repeatedly invoked the following rule:

If (fill-in the blank) is not a legal requirement, enforced absolutely, then, it is not essential to marriage.

Please apply that rule as a test of the relationship type you have in mind.

It doesn't mean they get to pick and choose their rentals based on religious values, a prerogative they give up so long as they're participating in the program.

Chew on that NOM, you arrogant discriminatory bigots.

Correction:

Rather than my assuming what you meant to say, could you please explain precisely your meaning when you referred to the husband and wife duo who “don’t want children”?

Also, what did you mean when you referrred to the husband and wife duo “incapable of having children”?

Please be precise.

SSMers say that provision for responsible procreation is not at the core of marriage.

I did no refer to "heterosexual marriages". But you have even though there is no heterosexual requirement in the law.

The core meaning comnbines sex integration with provision for responsible procreation. This combination does not invalidate marriages.

Rather than my assusming what you meant to say, could you please explain precisely your meaning when you referred the husband and wife duo who'd "don’t want children"?

Also, what did you mean when you referrred to the husband and wife duo which "is incapable of having children"?

Please be precise.

* * *

In your viewpoint, what specifically is it about marriage that merits legal rights such as legal transfer of property?

I suspect your answer will fit the wide range of nonmarital arrangements.

* * *

Namecalling does not advance your argument one iota.

The core meaning of "gay marriage" has not been addressed. There is no core meaning on offer. That admission on the part of SSMers strongly suggests that "gay marriage' has no core meaning.

It is not a foundational social institution. It is sex-segregative. It cannot provide for responsible procreation -- or any procreation -- within it.

So what is it? You ought to have a ready answer to justify your repeated expression of certitude.

Roger you referred to " deep, emotional bonds" but you have cited no legal requirement for that. And, even if you would enact some such requirement, it would not be the basis for excluding the wide range of nonmarital arrangements in our society. This does not distinguish "gay marriage" from nonmarriage.

* * *

Roger repeats the mantra: "how does two men or two women forming a lifetime commitment that is recognized by the state and thus, held on equal legal footing as the lifetime commitment formed by a man and a woman threaten or destroy the commitment formed by a man and a woman?"

That still does not distinguish "gay marriage" from the rest of the range of nonmarital arrangements and types of relationships.

I have very happy lifetime commitments to my adult children and to my close friends and to my siblings and to others.

As a husband to my wife, I also have a marriage that integrates man and woman, provides for responsible procreation, and is a combination of these public and sexual aspects -- as a coherent whole -- because my wife and I entered a social institution that is accorded a special status for its core meaning.

That type of commitment -- the conjugal -- is distinguishable from the rest. Those other commitments are imbued with love, respect, mutual caretaking, obligations, emotional bonds.

But those commitments do not destroy the marital commitment.

Now, why are you so intent on presenting "gay marriage" for what it is not rather than for what it actually is?

Again, I am not filling-in the blank for you. I leave the blank for you to fill-in since you know what type of relationship or what kind of living arrangement that you have in mind when you say "marriage" and "gay marriage".

I would ask you to explain why your question referred to the limit of two?

Are you discriminating against threesomes and moresomes because you believe them incapable of commitment? Of emotional bonds?

If such is the case, then what of the issues of transfer of property and the other thousand or so legal rights that accompany marriage?

Others have ALREADY addressed your nonsense arguments about the "core meaning"--however, you dolt, people get married for more reasons than to have children (again, read the book "Marriage: A History"). Can you even address the political advantages for marriage (hello, read some history)? Can you address the deep, emotional bonds that lead to people wanting to form lifetime commitments?

I'll put it to you once more and spell it out for you so that a five year old can understand: how does two men or two women forming a lifetime commitment that is recognized by the state and thus, held on equal legal footing as the lifetime commitment formed by a man and a woman threaten or destroy the commitment formed by a man and a woman?

For most people, the "thing" that makes them want to get married is a feeling. Two people fall in love. They adore each other. They see themselves as completed by the other. They want, more than anything, to be partners in all of life and to share together their wealth and their joy, their sorrows and burdens, and in doing so to make life sweeter, and more bearable. These two people feel so sure, and so strong in their commitment to each other that they want to make the commitment public, and are willing to be legally bound to this union. My question for you, Chairm, is, do you believe that gay people have these feelings the same way straight people do? Do gay people fall hopelessly in love the way straight people do and want to marry for the same reasons, or for different reasons?

Roger said: "you assert arguments that haven’t even been presented by those who advocate for the legal recognition of same-sex relationships ... "

Responsible procreation is central to the social institution that society (through Government) accords the special status of marital status.

Now, how do SSMers respond to that?

By saying there is no legal rquirement that forces married peope to procreate. That procreation occurs outside of marriage. And so on.

You can't seriously claim that these are not arguments put forward by SSMers far and wide, Roger.

These invoke special rules.

If (fill-in the blank) is not a legal requirement, it is not essential to marriage.

If (fill-in the blank) occurs outside of marriage, it is not essential to marriage.

Use those rules and apply them to the assertions of SSM advocates who want to define marriage in this way or that. See if their definition sustains their own challenges based on their own line of thinking.

You'll see that SSM argumentation is self-defeating.

Or take the example of the SSM attack on tradition. Yet SSMers rely on the tradition of romance in their claims. See the Iowa Court opinon.

SSMers keep emphasizing sexual orientation but there is no such requirement in gay union law; none in the marriage law; and they don't propose enacting such a requirement -- not for gayness nor for sexual attraction nor for same-sex sexual behavior.

So the gay part of gay union does not stand up to SSM arugmentation's own rules and supposed path of thinking on the subject.

Now, Roger, you demand an answer to your question.

But as a prerequisite, I need you to plainly state the meaning of "gay marriage" so that its merits and demerits can be fairly assessed. Then a comparison with marriage can be fairly evaluated. That is the reasonable approach you seem very reluctant to udnertake.

Is that because "gay marriage" has no core meaning and is thus a hollow thing?

If so, Roger, and your determined silence on this stands as a concession, then, the harm of merging the thing you have in mind with the thing that is marriage, well, it would be to gut marriage of its meaning.

Are you so against sex integration? Are you so against responsible procreation? Are you so against the unity of fatherhood and motherhood? So much so that you would abolish the meaning of marriage in our laws, social policies, and our culture?

I'd hope not, but your inability to address the basics indicates otherwise.

Now answer the question I put to you.

It makes me very angry that the gay community is trying to corrupt my faith, and silence my right to free speech, and the free speech of others, in order to further their agenda.

The gay community is also trying to take away my Constitutional right to Freedom of Religion by trying to forbid me from speaking my faith beliefs.

I don't care what anyone says, homosexuality is not normal, and it is not right for same-sex couples to bring up children. To do so is going against Biblical principles of morality.

God established a natural order to our world, and He does not condone gay marriage and homosexual acts.

Then please cite the legal requirements for gayness anyplace where it has been imposed or enacted.

Just explain how "gay marriage" is different from the rest of the nonmarriage category of living arrangements and types of relationships. If you can't identify its distinctive features, then, why keep demanding that the rest of society treat it as special?

I've explained to you what distinguishes marriage and its core meaning is in our laws. Marital status is a special social and legal status.

You could follow suite and do the same for "gay marriage" -- which according to you and other SSMers is a rejection of the core meaning of marriage as I've explained it.

Keep up your side of the discussion, Roger, because that is necessary for assessing your question on the merits, and the demerits, of "gay marriage".

So let's get that bit of dross out of the way; you know full well what gay marriage is--your attempts at sidestepping aren't going to get you diddly from me. I put the question to you AGAIN:

What is the substantive harm that gay marriage poses to heterosexual marriage?

You must have been the champion at dodge ball in your High School the way you dodge the questions here.

Here is another question that you can dodge if you like.

How "meaningful" is marriage when it can be annulled in 5 minutes? How meaningful is marriage when it is easier for you to get divorced than it is for for two people who have lived together and loved each other exclusively for 30 years to get married? Seems to me that your marriage is more meaningless than one between two same sex people because you did not have to fight for yours. It is given to you for free so you assign no real value to it, just look at the divorce rates.

In case you are wondering, I was married for 8 years and have 2 children. My wife divorced me in a matter of 5 minutes and was married to her boyfriend the next morning. For the last 10 years, I have had a wonderful relationship with a man who cares about me, loves me unconditionally, and is faithful. It would not matter what sex my partner is because the most important qualities are there.

To assess the issue on its merits and demerits, please try to plainly state the core meaning of "gay marriage".

Thusfar it has been presented as something that lacks a core meaning.

Merging the meaningful status of marriage with the meaneless thing you have in mind would obviously negate the meaning of marriage. That is harm enough for a start.

Since there is no public sexual aspect to "gay marriage", you can drop the gay part and stop pretending that this is about sexual orientation.

Marriage is a public sexual relationship. The marital presumption of paternity makes it so. There is nothing comparable in the gay union laws -- nor in your pro-SSM arugments.

What is gay union, Roger, such that it cane be assessed based on its merits and demerits?

You say it is the same as marriage. Well, okay, what is the core meaning of marriage, in your view?

Now you dodge the question. You mistake the government benefits of marriage (i.e. the by-product) with the meaning of marriage that merits those government benefits.

So, calm down, stop fuming, cut back on your propagandic rhetoric, and then try to focus on providing an answer that is substantively on point.

Thusfar you sound like the middle sister on the old tv show, The Brady Bunch: "Marcia, Marcia, Marcia!"

* * *

You keept talking about the examples in the ads as if sexual orientation was the decisive factor, but you have failed utterly to demonstrate that.

What those examples show is that identity politics of the gaycentric kind is at the heart of the propagandic push for merging gay union (a form of nonmarriage) with marital status. You are promoting something that is akin to the racist identity politics that was formerly pressed into marriage law and into social policy up and down the range of issues.

It's a simple question, one that I think you should be able to answer. So I put it to you again--this time, answer without dissembling: what is the substantive harm that gay marriage poses to heterosexual marriage?

SSMers do this in courts, in legislators, and in other public venues such as the blogosphere.

the Iowa Supreme Court's pro-SSM opinion is almost entirely on that topic.

Marriage is the union of a man and woman. But its core meaning justifies boundaries.

You haven't justified boundaries whatsoever. That's because you have not plainly stated the core meaning of gay union -- nor have you cited the legal requirements that define that core meaning.

It is a hollow thing, as revealed through your own silence.

Yes, your thinking is simplistic and dodges the actual disagreement.

* * *

I've noticed that you keep repeating the exact same comment in multiple threads on this blogsite. Once is enough.

To say that gay marriage will destroy traditional marriage and the family without giving any reasons why is the fallacy of appealing to fear. Indeed, once you get past the emotion, it is quite an unfounded claim. How could the union of two committed and loving people negatively affect my marriage? I believe that quite the contrary is true; namely, legalizing gay marriage reinforces the importance of committed relationships and would strengthen the institution of marriage.

Ultimately, any appeal to religious authority to create law is misplaced. Our Founding Fathers were inspired by their study of history to separate constitutional authority from religious belief, recognizing as they did the potential for tyranny in unchecked religious influence. In our pluralistic democracy, attempting to restrict an individual's rights and privileges based upon a religious claim is a dangerous rejection of our Founding Fathers' wise insight, and it should be unacceptable to all Americans.

Minus a public sexual aspect, what is the reason for this insistent emphasis on sexual orientation? You have not distinguished gay union from the rest of the nonmarriage category.

What is it about homosexuality that you think society should esteem so highly that it merits a relationship status on par with marital status? (We don't want nor need your opinion or society's opinion, only equal treatment, that's all....)

Is it the sexual behavior? If not, then, why do you emphasize sexual orienation so insistently? (it seems YOU, Chairm are emphasizing sexual orientation, not us. And, why does this titillate you so much? You seem fascinated. Is there something you're not telling us...?)

My comment: This is a point that the California took care of nicely when I was married to my same sex partner in October. The marriage license had NO gender written on it, it was simply "Party A" and Party B." If you object to the term "gay" marriage, then why not refer to same sex couples simply as "married couples?" This is exactly what we want, just equality with heterosexual couples with no special or different treatment. You seem hung up on analyzing the differences between heterosexual and homosexual relationships. There is NO reason to do this, is there?As far as I'm concerned (and the state of California is concerned) I'm married to my same sex partner (we even filed taxes as a married couple for 2008, and this is what we were told to do by the State Tax Board). You see how simple it is? All this analysis and comparison between your "ideal" heterosexual relationships and homosexual relationships (which you clearly cannot comprehend) is moot. And, it takes nothing away from heterosexual couples. We are all equal, as it should be... So simple...

* * *

Roger, have you no better response to the substantive disagreement?

How does marriage threaten homosexual people?

What the proponents of "same-sex marriage" (an oxymoron) demand is not a legal relationship status that is based on a public sexual aspect.

There is no legal requirement for same-sex sexual attraction nor for same-sex sexual behavior in anyplace that SSM has been imposed.

Minus a public sexual aspect, what is the reason for this insistent emphasis on sexual orientation?

Your question is based on a false dichotomy since there is no sexual orientation requirement in SSM laws nor even in marriage laws.

Maybe you can restate your question: what is the problem with merging nonmarriage with marriage?

Even in this dour economic climate, we're still a land of plenty. Being a land of plenty comes with all of the trappings of a decadent society: basically, we have more resources and commodities than we need to support our population, and that population is not dwindling.

What I'm getting at is that we are not a nation of subsistence farmers. In a society that's just struggling to hold onto its own existence, exclusive homosexuality is problematic: fewer couples reproducing means fewer children, which means less labor to help harvest yams or shoot deer.

What we are is a nation that manages to get by while a large swath of the population (and not just gays) doesn't reproduce at all. Since so much of our economy is based in the service and information sectors, our citizens are afforded ample opportunity to contribute to society even if they don't procreate. If anything, mitigating our population growth is a pretty responsible thing to do right now.

Which brings me to my point: sure, same-sex marriage is probably a big departure from what the world has known for hundeds or thousands of years. But so is everything else about the way we live.

Rather than merely a means of survival for our species--or for political or economic expedience--marriage in our society has indisputably become about romantic love between two people. In recognition of the social stability that flows from having a population in committed, happy relationships, the government (state or federal) grants rights that allow such relationships to survive practical (but less romantic) matters such as tax and property concerns.

It seems pretty clear that when a child's parents are in such a relationship, they'll generally do better in life as well. However, marriage is--in this country and in this age--emphatically not just about children.

What we need to do is to stop denying reality. Couples who want to be together are going to be together, regardless of what laws are on the books. But since those laws are there, doesn't it seem rational to apply them equally to everyone?

The choice is not between "traditional marriage" and same-sex marriage. *That* is the false dichotomy. Legally recognizing same-sex couples can only grant rights. It can not take them away.

"What is it about homosexuality that you think society should esteem so highly that it merits a relationship status on par with marital status?"
- The answer: LOVE! And commitment.
That's what puts a same sex relationship on par with marriage. And if nothing else, it's about equality and civil rights. If you think it's gross or unnatural, then you don't have to have to marry someone of the same sex.

No one wants to impose anything on you or your Church. It's people like you who are trying to interfere with other citizens' lives. There was no "legal definition" of marriage beyond a contract between two people to spend their lives together, until gay people expressed the desire to have the same rights and privileges.

Any marriage is not about sex or procreation, because there are plenty of straight couples who adopt or never have children (and Lord knows there are those couples who never have sex anymore), but about love and the desire and commitment to spend one's life with another person. There is no way that anyone can logically convince me that allowing that to happen is ever going to hurt me or the "sanctity" of my relationship.

You return to the false dichotomy of homo- vs hetero-sexual people.

The marriage law's man-woman criterion does NOT bar a person based on sexual orientation.

Where gay union has been imposed, the law does not bar a person based on sexual orientation.

You haven't shown that gay union has a legal requirement for homosexuality nor that it is, in the law, a public sexual relationshp or a public sexual living arrangement.

You have not distinguished gay union from the rest of the nonmarriage category.

What is it about homosexuality that you think society should esteem so highly that it merits a relationship status on par with marital status?

Is it the sexual behavior? If not, then, why do you emphasize sexual orienation so insistently?

Vast, landless peasants got married. People without property got married before the 1500s. Poor people, too. Orphans without extended families also got married.

We'd agree that marriage is not solely about biology.

It arises from the two-sexed nature of humankind, the opposite-sexed nature of human genereativity, and the both-sexed nature of human community.

Marriage is a foundational social institution of civil society. It unites the sexes. It provides for responsible procreation.

Gay union is not foundational. It is sex-segregative. It disunites fatherhood and motherhood, where there are children involved.

Whatever its merits (and demerits) it is outside the core of marriage.

We don't need to speculate about its orgins. It has only recently been introduced as an innovation that is entirely dependant upon Government.

Now, what do you think moves the big hairy hand of Government to impose a relationship status for a type of relationship that its promoters have yet to distinguish from the wide range of nonmarital living arrangements and types of relationships?

Why use arbitrary power to discriminate on the basis of gayness when it comes to the nonmarriage category?

Indeed, why use such power to merge nonmarriage with marriage? Is it really in society's intersts to denigrated, to demote, the core meaning of marriage?

I realize that SSMers seek a cultural change through legal reform -- or through an legal imposition on all of society -- but what is the purpose?

It is not a marriage purpose. It appears to be a purupose closely analogous with the purpose of racist identity politics that was at the root of the anti-miscegenation system.

There is one human race and the subjective criteria of racist identity politics do not justify subdividing humankind into subspecies.

On the other hand, men and women are not different species nor different subspecies of humankind.

Now, yes, Vast, racisim is real. And, yes, efforts to mitigate racism are often merited by recognizing the harm of subdividing humankind by these racist criteria.

While racism is real, race is unreal.

For instance, on what basis would you (or anyone else) identify this or that marriage as "inter-racial"? By ancestory, by blood heritance, by skin color, and so forth? These criteria may differentiate people but do not designate subspecies of humankind.

The biological and physiological facts of human procreation make both points for me: the nature of humankind is two-sexed and there is one human race.

Race does not just mean species. Race, is a term used to describe significant variations within a species.

If you don't like the amending process in CA, seek a revision of it -- which requires a direct vote by the way.

As it stands, even in Iowa the People have the last say on each and every jot of their state constitution.

That because the People have a government, not the other way around.

* * *

Prop 8 is not "gay bashing" since the marriage statute's text, now constitutionalized, makes no mention of "gay" and there is no "gay" requirement in the law one way or the other. The amendment affirms marriage.

Meanwhile the SSM argumentation bashes marriage and the SSM campaign bashes those who disagree with SSM.

If you don't like the amending process, seek to change it. As it stands, even in Iowa the People have the last say on changes to their state constitution.

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

* * *

Prop 8 is not "gay bashing" since the marriage statute, now constitutionalized, makes no mention of "gay" and there is no "gay" requirement in the law one way or the other.

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

Your analogy thus backfires. Racist identity politics was unjust when pressed into marriage law; it would be no less unjust to press gay identity politics into the marriage law.

It might even worse, actually, since SSMers are using Perez and Loving as shields when identity politics was rightly rejected as the basis for using marriage for a nonmarriage purpose.

It is the SSM campaign that would reintroduce, under the auspices of marital status, the selective-segregation of the sexes and the undermining of responsible procreation that was perniciously present in the anti-miscegenation system.

When unmarried man-woman couples use IVF, the woman almost always uses the man's sperm.

When a single person uses IVF or ARTs (including surrogacy) always that person uses gametes from the other sex.

In both instances, that's nonmarital procreation.

If against this doctor's beliefs, the users -- consumers really -- should seek the IVF service elsewhere, as the doctor and the clinic advised.

The women who suied did not seek a medically necessary treatment for an illness nor for a disability. They sought nonmarital procreation to be facilitated by someone else.

And that person's freedom conscience also drew the line at segregating motherhood from fatherhood.

Religious or not, that principled position is not justly trumped by identity politics just because the woman is involved sexually with another woman.

Your right straight and gay is not a religious belief, it's biological, which can be discriminated against jsut the same.

Not everyone using IVF is a married couple, so your argument falls apart. The Octomom is an example of that.

Religious liberty does not give a person license to discriminate.

Regardless of whether you agree with her beliefs, do you think she should be free to deny that couple IVF services?

In either case, if the answer is yes, then, the sectarianism is conceded explicitly.

Straight is not a religion nor is it proposed as an analogy.

This is not about gay versus straight. That your question proposes that it ought to be is a signal that you do not recognize religious liberty for what it is.

On the othe rhand, you favor the elevation of gay identity politics for what it is not.

Almost all married people who use IVF do not use "donors". So for the most part, the service provided is not to create a fatherless or a motherless child and is not extramarital procreation.

You need to narrow your question and apply the apt framework.

Where married people use "donors" the practice is extramarital procreation.

Where the practice is used to deliberately segregate fatherhood from motherhood, it appears to run against the beliefs of this doctor in this case.

As I said, homosexual orientation is not infertility -- nor is the lack of the other sex.

And the use of "donor" sperm, for example, does not treat nor cure infertility. IVF might help overcome infertility but it also is not a cure.

There is a patient other than the woman who hopes to be impregnated. The human beings in embryonic form are also patients of the doctor.

Freedom of consience and religious liberty are not left at the threshold of this doctor's clinic.

IVF is not an "essential service". It saves no lives. It cures no illness.

It is not a medical treatment for the lack of the other sex.

That lack is not infertility.

Do you claim that homosexuality is a medical or physiological disability? I'd hope not.

The religious belief at issue in this instance was about the use of infertility treatments and IVF to enable of nonmarital childbearing whereby fatherhood and motherhood would be explicitly segregated.

So, no, it is not closely analogous with saving or protecting lives that is the duty of policemen, firemen, and doctors in emergency wards. Far from it.

Also, the tax exemption was based on the program for recreation and conservation and civil union ceremonies are neither.

The over-stretching of the reach of government in this instance is not justified on the basis of sexual orientation. There is NO same-sex sexual aspect required in the civil union statute.

The rest of the kerfuffle is nothing more than gay identity politics.

And to impose that against the government's duty to secure the religious liberty and the freedom of conscience of its citizens -- well, it is to impose a peculair sectarianism in contradiction to the pluralistic society in which we live. It turns the role and duty of government upside down.

http://www.nj.gov/lps/dcr/accom.html

"The New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD) prohibits an owner, manager, or employee of any place that offers goods, services and facilities to the general public, such as a restaurant, hotel, doctor's office, camp, or theater, from directly or indirectly denying or withholding any accommodation, service, benefit, or privilege to an individual because of that individual's race, creed, color, national origin, nationality, ancestry, marital status, domestic partnership status, sex, affectional or sexual orientation, or disability. Further, individuals accompanied by a guide or service dog are entitled to full and equal access to all places of public accommodation. "

New Mexico also has a public accommodations law, and the New Mexico photographer's case hinges on it as well.

When you open your doors to the public, and that pavilion was open to the public, and the photographer in New Mexico also hung out her shingle and advertised her business, you take on all comers. White, black, blind, sighted, gay, straight, married or single. The law makes some exceptions but it seems everyone on the anti-gay side has real trouble accepting these laws. Gay marriage won't change them one way or the other, they're already on the books. A restaurant can't refuse to serve someone because they're black - or religious. These laws protect you - and they obligate you to play by the same rules as everyone else.

The dissemination of fear.

I have yet to hear a fact-based, rational argument as to how same-sex marriage threatens me, you, or anyone in our nation. Massachusetts, for example, has not descended into a modern-day Sodom & Gomorrah since extending the joy of a committed. monogamous relationship to its gay citizens. Where is the danger in accepting that we are all God's children, regardless of sexual orientation?

There is no "gathering storm" here - other than the message of intolerance and ignorance being perpetuated in the name of "Christian" values by groups such as yours. As another poster pointed out, it was not so long ago that the marital union which produced our current President was actually illegal in most states, and decried by similarly backward religious leaders as threatening the sanctity of matrimony.

Your ad campaign is misleading, divisive, manipulative, and simply shameful. I can only hope that it fails miserably.

These legal issues that have arisen need to be taken seriously, they only show the tip of the iceberg of what could be leveled against people of faith.

Thank you again for standing for the majority of Americans!

The "peculiar form of sectarianism" that Nathan espouses is non-sectarianism.

This ad isn't about lies as HRC misrepresented. What both sides need to do is to ignore the shrapnel from these pointless sensationalism bombs and pay attention to what the gay marriage debate actually means. Ultimately, this is a separation from church and state issue. All arguments that I consistently hear against gay marriage boils down to a religious opinion. Everything else is purely semantics--call it what you will, but the real issue is a religious one. All of these examples outlined by NOM in the ad are designed to spread fear about the deterioration of religious freedoms (which by the way has nothing to do with same sex marriage--a point that HRC didn't bother to make). What amazes me is that when reading the details of these stories which are supposed to be poster examples of their argument, it became clear how self-contradictory it was. These "professionals" who apparently were the victims in the story all represented text-book discrimination cases. Ironically, their blatant discriminatory actions were used as ammunition for being discriminated against themselves. Apparently nobody seems to understand the principles outlined in the constitution about the protection of religious freedoms. This was designed to protect the ability to practice, teach, observe and worship under any religion freely without discrimination. Tell me WHERE does discriminating against another because of their own religious beliefs fall under this protection? Quite the opposite. Even George W. Bush signed an executive order expanding the rights of faith-based community organizations (Establishment of White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives) that specifically outlined the importance of nondiscrimination:

"This delivery of social services must be results oriented and should value the bedrock principles of pluralism, nondiscrimination, evenhandedness, and neutrality."

What we are trying to preserve in this country are basic, fundamental human rights. The practice of protecting personal freedoms will always, whether it is relevant to your religion or sexual orientation be preserved. Practicing discrimination will never, in any shape or form be impervious to this protection. Though it may be difficult to deal with things that we don't agree with or understand, we must uphold this practice at all costs. So please, let us stop winding ourselves in semantic knots and change the tone of the debate. Let us rip the carpet from under our feet and see things for what they are, and hopefully, we can once again remind ourselves the value of the protection of personal liberty.

Take, for instance, the Pavillion Rental issue. The motion to prevent the rental for the civil union ceremony was denied because the site in question could not provide sufficient evidence to the board in how the rental of the Pavillion would interfere with their expressed religious usage (http://media.npr.org/documents/2008/jun/pavilion.pdf). Ocean Grove could not show that the hosting of a non-public civil union ceremony was an expressed activity that directly infringed upon the expressed religious activity of the location. Compound that with the fact that the committee found issue with whether Ocean Grove met the definition of a religious organization based on state regulations, something that needed further investigation. Ocean Grove complained that its First Amendment rights were being violated but did not being sufficient evidence to prove that claim.

To simplify this decision as one that was decided against the group despite their rights is too broad a summary. Part of the decision stated that the way the organization was functioning combined with the non-public nature of requested ceremony combined with the insufficient proof offered on how this was an infringement on their rights suggested that the rights were not being infringed.

To ask an organization to "refute" things that happen doesn't get to the heart of the matter. It's the complex reasons behind things that are at issue. It's inconvenient, because it doesn't make the best sound bites and blurbs, but it's necessary to have these discussion. One can't criticize the other side for oversimplification and then do it yourself.

The regulation at issue is about discrimination, which granted has started to be viewed in different ways. However, both Ocean Grove and the couple in question had their day in court to prove why they were being discriminated against. Ocean Grove lost because they couldn't prove that the rental would violate their rights, not because the law is being enforced differently. It is an issue of evidence, not necessarily bias.

You asked what changed in your response to Nathan, and then implied it was gay politics. The briefing released by New Jersey suggests that maybe what changed was the way that Ocean Grove was operating and how it was seeking government funding compared to when it was founded 30 years ago.

Now, I could be oversimplifying myself, so I invite your comments. Only through dialog do we get anywhere.

This ad isn't about lies as HRC misrepresented. What both sides need to do is to ignore the shrapnel from these pointless sensationalism bombs and pay attention to what the gay marriage debate actually means. Ultimately, this is a separation from church and state issue. All arguments that I consistently hear against gay marriage boils down to a religious opinion. Everything else is purely semantics--call it what you will, but the real issue is a religious one. All of these examples outlined by NOM in the ad are designed to spread fear about the deterioration of religious freedoms (which by the way has nothing to do with same sex marriage--a point that HRC didn't bother to make). What amazes me is that when reading the details of these stories which are supposed to be poster examples of their argument, it became clear how self-contradictory it was. These "professionals" who apparently were the victims in the story all represented text-book discrimination cases. Ironically, their blatant discriminatory actions were used as ammunition for being discriminated against themselves. Apparently nobody seems to understand the principles outlined in the constitution about the protection of religious freedoms. This was designed to protect the ability to practice, teach, observe and worship under any religion freely without discrimination. Tell me WHERE does discriminating against another because of their own religious beliefs fall under this protection? Quite the opposite. Even George W. Bush signed an executive order expanding the rights of faith-based community organizations (Establishment of White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives) that specifically outlined the importance of nondiscrimination:

"This delivery of social services must be results oriented and should value the bedrock principles of pluralism, nondiscrimination, evenhandedness, and neutrality."

What we are trying to preserve in this country are basic, fundamental human rights. The practice of protecting personal freedoms will always, whether it is relevant to your religion or sexual orientation be preserved. Practicing discrimination will never, in any shape or form be impervious to this protection. Though it may be difficult to deal with things that we don't agree with or understand, we must uphold this practice at all costs. So please, let us stop winding ourselves in semantic knots and change the tone of the debate. Let us rip the carpet from under our feet and see things for what they are, and hopefully, we can once again remind ourselves the value of the protection of personal liberty.

All those professionals had the right to go into fields that actually allow discrimination, whatever those might be. US law frowns upon discrimination in the public sphere. Parents have the right to homeschool their children or deal with the consequences of the public school curriculum. Schools teach to the social mores of our times. Religious institutions have the right to discriminate all they like as long as they don't ask for public funding or tax exemptions. (That's better than I get -- I don't have the right to dictate that my tax dollars help institutions I don't agree with stay tax exempt. See the irony?)

The fact is that my marriage remains strong, churches aren't closing willy-nilly, and kids are learning about the individuals they may encounter in their adult lives. Where's the controversy?

Why don't you advertise the fact that your group is very, very clearly opposed to basic Christian tenets?

Just one of many issues with your "gathering storm" ad

Well, what you appear to favor is a peculiar sectarianism.

You said: "based on the principle that the wedding location would be OPEN TO THE PUBLIC"

The beachfront tax exemption is based on a project whereby government cooperates with property owners for recreation uses and environmental conservation.

A ceremony of the sort that was denied is not such a use. That fact remains undisputed.

Also, the state supreme court has already ruled that the man-woman basis of marriage is constitutional.

And, according to the state's civil union statute, civil union is one-sexed.

Wedding ceremonies are not civil union ceremonies. Not according to the law in New Jersey and not according to the religious code of the property owners in this case.

The Methodist organization does treat people equally.

At issue was a regulation of a state agency -- the one that governs the program that exists for recreational and conservation purposes -- and a b'crats arbitrary change in implementation of that regulation.

There was no change in the program that could justify the change in implementation.

There was no change in the Methodist organization's policies on property usage, that could justify the denial of the previously uncontested tax exemption.

So what did change, Nathan?

The imposition of gay identity politics, that's what.

However, if you read the article in the Washington Post, the Post did not “verify” any of these incidents at all. They simply restated the arguments made by religious groups.

This should be clear if you read the preface to the list of the incidents that were cited, “They point to what they say are ominous recent examples: ”

“They” are clearly identified in the previous sentence as “religious groups”…not the Washington Post.

So, to be clear, the Washington Post did not verify the claims today, at least not in this article, they simply repeated the claims made by religious groups.

With the California Doctor, yes, from that case, the doctor was apparently forced to do something that he did not feel was in line with his religious principles. However, we all have to do things at our jobs that we do not wish to do. When you become a doctor, you take an oath and there is an expectation that you will properly care for your patients. As the doctor, it is not your job to judge your patients. Would you be having this same conversation if the doctor had been forced to treat someone who was black and he thought that was against his religious convictions as a member of the KKK? Or if the person was an unwed mother and he refused to treat her? I suspect this would not be a cause you would champion.

The New Jersey church group was not punished for not supporting same sex marriage. They received a TAX EXEMPTION based on the principle that the wedding location would be OPEN TO THE PUBLIC. If they wish to make it a non-public space and not receive the tax exemption, they are perfectly welcome to do that. No one will force them to marry gay people or really any two people inside their own building as long as they do not declare that it is a public space and get tax benefits for that. As long as they do, they must treat everyone equally.

It does not hurt a child to learn something. That is the goal of education. They learn about other viewpoints all the time: Other religions, other views on how the world was created, other political philosophies, other governments. The parent's job is to help the child understand those things and they can direct them in their own views on the matter if they wish. Or they can take the child to a private school. The incidence of children going to school, learning about Buddhism, then suddenly leaving their christian faith to go to Buddhism is extremely low. Same goes for communism - schools teach about China and Russia, but we don't see an entire generation of children going to China and becoming communists. We can learn about things in a mature way in this country, without actually forcing beliefs on someone.

Regarding whether gay marriage will affect religious liberties, I suppose it depends on your point of view. Remember that it was not long ago that religious people were arguing very hard against inter-racial marriage, and not long before that, they were arguing against civil rights for African Americans. In fact, you'll recall that a major reason the Southern Baptist Convention was formed is because of slavery - I think we'll agree that outlawing that definitely infringed on the religious liberties of those who thought slavery was ok, but that it was the right thing to do. As a nation, we've decided both of these are fair and appropriate. Do you feel that it infringes on religious liberties to allow inter-racial marriage? Can you outline how that differs from gay marriage?

We are not a theocracy. One religion's viewpoints do not get to determine everyone else's laws. I doubt that most of you (Christians) would be very happy to have Islamic law forced upon you. Why do you feel that its necessary to force your religious viewpoints on others?