There is no gay test for ineligiblity; nor is there a straight test for eligiblity. If you read such a test into the law, then, you would inject something that is not there.

It is constitutional for society to discriminate between marriage and non-marriage. SSM argumentation has failed to spell-out what differentiates the type of relationship that SSMers have in mind -- from the rest of the types of relationshps and the types of living arrangements that comprise the nonmarriage category.

Our form of government (lower case g) draws its legitimacy from the consentn of the governed. Marriage is a foundational social institution of civil society and is not the creature of the the Government (upper case G). The People have a government, not the other way around. The government issues marriage licenses on behalf of society. Society consents to the special status of marriage; that special status begins with special reason. SSM does not.

Marriage is not SSM. A merger of SSM and marriage -- even as described by SSM supporters -- would amount to nothing more than the Specious Substitution of Marriage. There is no principled basis to force society to discriminate between SSM and the rest of the nonmarriage category. SSM argumentation has conceded this. All that is left for SSMers is the demand that society -- or, as you put it Government -- discriminate in favor of gay identity politics. The assertion of the supremacy of identity politics was repudiated with the dismantling of the anti-miscegenation system. See the autonomous Loving decision, for a federal example of this.

The gist of your argument has been dirrectly address in its parts and on the whole.

If your research is as incomplete as your view of the constitution and of marriage, then, you have much homework to do yet.

Cheerio.

First, I am in favor of same sex marriage. My view is that it is a perversion of the bill of rights to amend the constitution so that gays may not be married. I believe this because people have a right, a: not to be discriminated against BY THE GOVERNMENT, and b: the only time when such a thing would be acceptable would be if including same-sex marriage in the legal definition of marriage were infringing upon another's rights. I know you believe that your rights are being discriminated against, and I have researched many of the reasons. I don't agree with any of those I have researched.

So, I if you agree with my view of the constitution and bill of rights, then clearly, and in your own terms, present to the group different ways that the SSM infringes upon YOUR rights as YOU see them. I stress want to stress that you respond to my ENTIRE argument because I notice that some people occasionally, and conveniently, leave out key points when counter arguing. I will then do my best to respond to that.

Probably out of an honest misunderstanding, you are comparing apples and oranges.

I do think that SSM supporters in those organizations have made such statements with the purpose of lending a scientific air to their political views.

Caution is advised -- for both marriage defenders and SSMers alike. Political statements by such organizations too often are short on science.

NOM has provided political support for the core meaning of marriage, based in part on the available social-scientific consensus on the value to children of intact unions of mom and dad i.e. marriages. Based also on the anthropological and historical record that illustrates the universal features of marriage.

The available evidence from these sources is highly significant but not decisive in the political sense. Basically, as NOM repeatedly explains, what we do with our inheritance is at issue. Marriage is not without a core meaning. We know this from social scientific evidence and from reason as well. Politically, NOM's view has won far and wide. All of that weighs in favor of the core and against the merger.

Science does not decide for us. SSMers who say otherwise are not being intellectually honest in their advocacy. Nor politically honest.

The US Constitution does not prohibit such a provision. Nor does it prohibit the amendment of state constitutions that currently don't have such a provision.

Anyway, direct votes are not unconstitutional and are not against the democratic republican form of government.

If you don't like it, don't participate by voting.

Related people may form nonsexual relationships. You, not I, have made the case for a government license for a nonsexual type of arrangement. By type it would be loving and consensual. This covers far more than the narrow subset of nonmarriage that you wish to grant special status.

The point is not that related people may not marry -- due to the public sexual aspect of marriage which is a two-sexed sexual basis -- but that you haven't made it clear what makes your definition exclusive of related people.

Indeed, you must know that related people can and do marry in this country. Some may not. Now, where does your definition draw the line? At those prohibited. Can you not see the circularity of your thinking?

If you can't justify SSM based on some sexual basis, then, you can't draw lines of ineligibility on a sexual basis. That's the problem you are dodging.

Group identity politics has zilch to do with it -- at least not in states that have reaffirmed marriage against the efforts of some people to merger marriage with nonmarriage. Where the localized merger has occured, against the popular will, against the core of marriage, and against the plain meaning of state constitutions, it is evident that the imposition is driven by gaycentric identity politics.

But such an assertion of identity politics was repudiated in the US Supreme Court's Loving case. SSMers have been invoking a kind-of-racialist argument in favor of the merger. But they haven't yet refuted the repudiation of identity politics.

SSMers, such as Kevin, flee from their own arguments all the time. They move goal posts. They rely are the arbitrary exercise of governmental power. They have no justification for what they demand. Their complaint is baseless: the man-woman criterion of marriage has never been a sexual orientation criterion.

* * *

Since the state should not be discriminating against couples because of their sexuality, Kevin's argument stands in favor of lifting the ineligibility of all couples who are related.

He noted that sexual incest is illegal. But he has not connected THAT with the his definition of SSM.

Afterall, our prison system does not overflow with people convicted of the crime of forming loving relationships with their relatives. Since consenting to form such relationships is lawful, Kevin's stance is in favor of issuing licenses for SSM to related couples. Indeed, his remarks would support threesomes and moresomes, if he was consistent.

He now says that his own reasoning is consistently inscrutable to himself. That's progress of a sort, I guess.

Now, if only he, or some more competent SSM supporter, would provide the justification for special status for SSM itself -- make it stand on its own two feet -- and, if possible, for the merger of SSM with marriage.

Note: the SSM merger means the Specious Substitution of Marraige (S.S.M.).

I’ve been consistent all along. You, however, change, with whatever wind is blowing. And come up with inscrutable justifications to maintain marriage discrimination. If nothing else, since the courts will ultimately decide whether marriage discrimination will stand or not, the arbitrary fretting of marriage equality foes will have been in vain.

I said sexuality should be irrelevant to obtaining a marriage license. The state should not be discriminating against couples because of their sexuality. Sexuality IS the crux of the complaint: 45 states are still discriminating against same-sex couples because of their sexuality.

“Kevin’s anemic definition of SSM: “the legal joining of two consenting adults not otherwise prohibited by law.”” It’s certainly no less wanting than the definition of marriage now enshrined in many state constitutions: “marriage is the union of one man and one woman.” How’s that for lacking?! Makes marriage sound very appealing, doesn’t it?!

I find it to be a rather robust definition of all states of marriage, not just same-sex marriage. It includes OSM.

“State constitutions provide for direct participation through direct votes on single issues”

Correction: SOME state constitutions provide for direct participation. Some don’t. And they can’t reach an outcome that violates that US Constitution, as time will show.

When it comes to fishing and hunting licenses, the government doesn’t arbitrarily discriminate against specific groups: gay can get a hunting license, blacks can get a drivers license, etc. That’s what’s so odd that the states have chosen to discriminate against gays in getting a marriage license. It’s an inconsistent position to take, which I’m sure will be pointed out in future court proceedings regarding marriage discrimination.

All this, just so little Susie won't have a Mommy of her own. Lovely.

If you don't like it, then, don't participate in it (to paraphrase the sentiment of a certain SSMer).

* * *

A little levity this morning:

A fishing license is for fishing. A hunting license is for hunting. A marriage license is for marrying. Some unsolicted advice to you Kevin: don't show up at the registrar's office expecting that a license to fish will serve as a license to marry that fish. And don't shoot a moose if you are armed with only a license to marry.

Oh, and the hunting and fishing regulations don't include seasons for marriage. It's always open season.

Society issues licenses, via our government, for all kinds of stuff. And we do distinguish one kind of stuff from other kinds of stuff. Fishing licensing, for example, reflects societal concerns about water safety, ecology, and recreation. Consent to fish is no trump card if you are out of season. Likewise with hunting licenses. But shooting fish from a duck blind is not covered by hunting licenses nor by fishing licenses no matter the season.

And no one (except maybe PETA) expects the participating moose and other prey to give consent. We usually like to just sneek up and surprise them.

---

Anyway, what happened to Michelle's list and its dependence on the last item? What is the premise that Michelle, Josh, and Jerome think gets the ball rolling in their complaint? Or is that list no longer really applicable?

Circular thinking. Arbitrary. And self-defeating on your part.

Kevin said: "I keep telling you what marriage is. You just don’t want to accept my definition."

For the sake of discussion, I have already accepted that as YOUR definition of SSM and you've been asked to justify it. Since you have not justified it, yet irrationally have irrationally clung to it, this goes to show that you neither accept that definition as viable nor stand by your own rules of argumentation.

In light of that, your definition does not merit acceptance as THE definition of SSM, much less of marriage, that you would hope to be imposed on all of society.

Let's walk through this in four easy steps. (Kevin, try not to trip over yourself.)

1.

Related people can and do consent to form and maintain their loving and committed relationships. Society has long been convinced that such relationships should not be illegal. And we did not need the judiciary to decide for us.

Hang on. Why would you appeal to society when you've insisted that society should be disconnected from the issuing of a license for SSM?

Ah, right, you keep changing the rules. That is another example of your arbitrariness.

* * *

2.

Maybe you meant sexual incest of some sort. If so, you are rather skittish about saying so. That is probably because you've already conceded that the government would not force people to engage in same-sex sexual behavior to get SSM'd. You said that sexuality is irrrelevant to SSM. So the SSM license would not be be restricted by sexual behavior, incestuous or otherwise.

* * *

3.

On the other hand, you have emphasized that sexual orientation is the crux of your complaint and your demand for SSM. Well, genetic sexual attraction is where closely related people are sexually attracted; and they can and do consent to form committed and loving relationships.

Either way -- emphasizing sexuality or deeming it irrelevant -- your own words indicate that you are convinced that the legal joining of related people should NOT be illegal.

* * *

4.

Besides, you have insisted that some related couples would be eligible to SSM while other related couples would be ineligible to SSM. Denying some couples is unconstitutional and it harms the children they'd raise together.

You said so.

But, as always, you said no, too.

I would like to accept your definition, as your definition, if only YOU did not so insistantly and continually disagree with YOURSELF.

In other words, it is time you admit that you do not know what you are talkikng about.

Are you saying that the Episcopal or Unitarian church is the proper place to resolve constitutional questions? I guess I don't know....