Dear Friends of Marriage,
In just two days, the New Jersey Senate will decide the future of marriage in New Jersey. Please make time in your schedule to join us at the State House for the debate and vote on Thursday!
After more than 7 hours of hearing, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted 7-6 late yesterday in favor of advancing the same-sex marriage bill to the full Senate for a vote expected Thursday.
Thanks to your strong presence, plus calls and emails, we were very nearly able to stop the bill in committee. Two Democratic Senators (Committee Chairman Paul Sarlo and Vice Chairman John Girgenti) voted against the bill. That would have been enough to kill it, except for the betrayal by Republican Senator Bill Baroni, who introduced a religious liberty fig leaf amendment in order to justify his vote for the bill, giving the last vote needed to push the bill through committee by the slimmest of margins.
But that was just the precursor. On Thursday, the stakes are even higher. If you've never taken action before, please do it now!
We have two days in which to stop same-sex marriage in New Jersey for four years. Incoming Governor Christie has promised to veto any SSM bill that reaches his desk. If the bill passes the Senate, gay marriage advocates are confident they can push it through the Assembly, too. This is the end of the line. We must hold it here.
Gay marriage advocates accepted the Baroni amendment that pretends to protect the liberties of religious groups -- but only if they "serve a particular faith or denomination." As the Becket Fund for Religious Liberties wrote today, such a limitation makes the protection virtually meaningless. For example, if a Lutheran church were to rent a banquet hall to a Presbyterian couple for a wedding reception, it would instantly lose all protections under this sham amendment.
It is imperative that New Jersey Senators hear from as many of their constituents as possible over the next two days. Tell them you won't stand for this deceptive religious liberty amendment.
If you live in New Jersey:
(1) Click here to look up the phone number for your state senators. Call and tell your senator that the new religious liberty language is a sham and does nothing to provide real protections for people of faith. Same-sex marriage is a disaster for religious believers and institutions, and the new language offers nothing to protect them.
(2) Click here to send an email to your state senators and assembly members.
(3) Come to the State House Thursday morning at 9am. (Click here for directions.) Take off work, or do whatever you possibly can to come to the State House on Thursday. Please come early and prepare to stay for a long day. The loudest message we can send NJ Senators at this point is the overwhelming physical presence of thousands of New Jerseyans who support marriage. Gay marriage advocates will be out in force, and we're aiming to fill the State House with New Jerseyans who are willing to sacrifice their time -- and even a day's pay if necessary -- so that they can help protect marriage. This is an historic moment. So come early and stay as long as you can. If you can't stay for the whole day, please come for whatever time you're able. Your presence sends a powerful message to our legislators.
If you live outside New Jersey:
(1) Please forward this message to everyone you know who lives in New Jersey. The need is urgent. Do it right now.
We saw in New York just last week how many legislators can be swayed by an outpouring of calls and emails from their constituents. It's time to make it happen in New Jersey. Even if you've called and emailed repeatedly in the past months, do it again today!
Pray. Call. Email. And then bring your friends to Trenton on Thursday.
Faithfully,Brian S. Brown
Executive Director
National Organization for Marriage
20 Nassau Street, Suite 242
Princeton, NJ 08542
bbrown@nationformarriage.org
72 Comments
Do they have the votes in the senate to pass this?? So nervous!!
We'll find out Thursday! I wouldn't leave it up to speculation. Pick up the phone and keep the lines hot! Let those Senators know how you feel about the issue. Now is the time to stand for families in NJ. We won't get this chance again.
One of the reasons that voters tend to vote against homosexual marriage may be that they feel homosexual marriage is an assault on men's masculinity and also possibly women’s feminism. In more liberal states like New Jersey, the K-12 educational system works hard to counter that as a perceived bias, but it’s still an important issue with older voters. Also a study of financial traders in London, a major international financial center, found that men’s masculinity was one key to their success as traders.
Janet's got the right attitude in this. It is important that NJ voters take of some time from their schedule to contact their Senators.
The votes could come with some back door promises going on. I've read about the connection gay senate connection to the govenor and thats where the votes could come from.
Ben\Janet, sadly, this is how the NJ State Senators will vote on 12-10-2009 on S. 1967 (Marriage Equality Bill):
No Votes = 22
Yes Votes = 14
Undecided = 3
Non-Vote or Abstain (NV) = 1
S. 1967 will not pass by at least 7 votes.
Senators voting "No":
Redd, Haines, Kean, Rice, Bateman, Beck, Bucco, Cardinale, Ciesla, Connors, Doherty, Gergenti, Kean, Kyrillos, Madden, O'Toole, Pennacchio, Sarlo, Singer, Turner, Van Drew, Vitale.
Senators voting "Yes":
Gordon, Whelan, Baroni, Buono, Cunningham, Gill, Lesniak, Oroho, Ruiz, Scutari, Smith, Stack, Sweeney, Weinberg.
Still Undecided: Beach, Codey, Sacco.
Non-Vote: Senator Allen is ill and will not be voting.
We conservatives need to start fighting on this issue as intelligently as liberals. There's an idiot in CA who is trying to put an amendment on the ballot in 2010 to 'ban divorce' in order to mock our side.
But guess what? SOMEBODY on our side needs to start a bill for 'Marriage Equality".....for polygamists!!!
Trust me, folks, if a marriage equality bill for polygamists ever came to a vote, it would be soundly rejected, and the momentum would shift back in our direction.
Latest I know is that the vote is delayed. Gays believe they may build momentum if its passed in assembly first.
That means the SSMers don't have the votes in the Senate. Good news, but keep the pressure up!
The real test is not what happens in New Jersey, but in Judge Walkers court room on January 11, 2010. This could make all of our state efforts moot. Are our legal arguments sufficient? There have been far to many "I don't know" if SSM will harm children answers in preliminary hearings. We need to do a better job of paying attention to the back door and not just the front door of counting votes. What say you?
Walker just got slapped by the Ninth Circuit. I'd say that case is going well.
Robert how so? I couldn't find anything other than Prop 8 challengers attacking our expert witnesses on Hinduism and biology experts
Found it, Prop 8 supporters don't have to reveal campaign documents and emails. This is indeed a major victory. Even looks like Walker will dismiss the case on January 11.
I love when Judge Walker asked how same-sex marriage harms opposite-sex couples and the lawyer answered, "I don't know"! I think that about sums it up LOL.
That question is irrelevant.
Participation rates are very low for SSM. More than 90% of the openly homosexual adult population does NOT reside in same-sex households (which is inclusive of civil union, registered partnership, domestic partnership, and SSM). It is a subset of nonmarriage, anyway.
Millions of people -- who are not members of the gay identity group -- also live outside of marriage. Most of their arrangements are NOT sexualized and are NOT defined by the gaycentric emphasis of SSMers. Most are not eligible to marry.
So, what is the harm in treating all of these nonmarital relationships and families the same, regardless of gay identity politics?
SSMers can't say because they depend on gay identity politics to trump all questions and concerns.
What is the good of favoring gaycentrism? Again, they can't talk about justice, only "just us".
How myopic and boorish to punctuate such nonsense with an LOL.
From the Prop 8 legal filing.. interesting read about the arguments for forcing SSM upon good Christian peoples..
--------------------------
"Experts will testify that the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage does not lead to increased stability in opposite-sex marriage, and permitting same-sex couples to marry does not destabilize opposite-sex marriage.
b. "Responsible Procreation." Proponents contend that Prop. 8 promotes socalled "responsible procreation" by "channel[ing] opposite-sex relationships into the lasting, stable unions that are best for raising children of the union." There simply is no factual basis for the claim that allowing same-sex marriages undermines the stability of or otherwise harms opposite sex-marriages. At trial, Plaintiffs will present evidence dismantling the unfounded notion that same-sex couples are worse parents than opposite-sex parents. That evidence will show that children of same-sex parents are as likely to be healthy and well adjusted as children raised in opposite-sex households. It also will show that children raised in same-sex households are not any more likely to be gay or lesbian than other children. Plaintiffs' experts will testify that there is
no credible evidence suggesting any difference in the quality of the child-rearing environment in households led by same-sex couples than in households led by opposite-sex couples, and that the best interests of a child are equally served by being raised by same-sex parents. Proponents also cannot demonstrate that excluding same-sex couples from civil marriage would undermine the relationship parents have with their biological children. To the contrary, promoting marriage of same-sex couples will promote the best interests of the children of those couples, ensuring that they are raised in stable, married households. And California law already recognizes the equal parenting ability of same-sex couples by allowing such couples to adopt and foster parent and by applying parentage rules to samesex
partners as they are applied to opposite-sex partners.
Tradition. As a legal matter, tradition alone cannot justify a State's infringement of the constitutional right to marry. "[N]either the antiquity of a practice nor the fact of steadfast legislative and judicial adherence to it through the centuries insulates it from constitutional attack." And as the Supreme Court recognized in Lawrence, "times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress."
Moreover, the evidence at trial also will show that there is no such thing as "traditional marriage," at least as Proponents use that phrase, because marriage historically has not been a static institution. Rather, the legal rules defining marriage have evolved over time. Plaintiffs' experts will testify that marriage has changed over time to reflect the changing needs, values, and understanding of our evolving society. They also will testify that race- and gender-based reforms in civil marriage law did not deprive marriage of its vitality and importance as a social institution.
Proponents have failed to identify any harm to opposite-sex marriage as a result of permitting gay and lesbians individuals to marry. In the hearing on October 14, 2009, when asked "how it would harm opposite-sex marriages," counsel for Proponents responded, "I don't know."
While Proponents will try to present expert testimony to fill this fatal gap and create the specter that allowing gay and lesbian individuals to marry the person they love would somehow destroy marriage for everyone else, their "sky is falling" predictions are not credible, logical, or supported. Plaintiffs experts will testify that excluding same-sex couples from marriage does not increase the stability of opposite-sex marriage and, conversely, permitting same-sex couples to marry does not destabilize opposite-sex marriage. "[G]ays and lesbians will not be encouraged to enter into marriages with members of the opposite sex by the government's denial of benefits to same-sex spouses, . . . so, the denial cannot be said to 'nurture' or 'defend' the institution of heterosexual marriage."
What is the harm in continuing to treat SSM as a subset of nonmarriage?
There is no harm.
And, no, whining about percieved harm is insufficient.
Anyway, the plaintiff's lawyers are proposing in their legal brief that the judiciary make social policy rather than interpret the constitution and the law. And that means injecting the subjective view of the judgs; and that would make any such intervention by the judiciary an arbitary exercise of governmental authority and NOT an exercise of judicial review.
Abolishing the core of marriage from the law -- with the goal of abolishing it from the culture as well -- would remove the special reason for the special status of the social institution in our legal system, social policy, and throughout civil society.
Indeed, the SSMers who attack marriage in the courts do so with the express intent of transforming the preferential status of the core meaning of marriage into a barely tolerative status -- one banished to the margins of society.
That's the goal of the SSM campaign. Believe them because they do mean it.
It is an unjust goal no matter which branch of government would undertake it. The fact that such a goal arises directly from the desire to assert the supremacy of gay identity politics only compounds the injustice.
The filing goes on to purport the following harms to gays and lesbians in a non-marriage subset category:
-----------------------------------
"According of disadvantaged status to the members of one group relative to another is the crux of stigma, and the distinction between same-sex and different-sex couples is stigmatizing even when
same-sex couples are granted most of the legal benefits and obligations conferred by marriage through domestic partnerships. Irrespective of
such benefits, the “differentness” of domestic partnerships, compared to marriage, is evident.
Stigma has a serious impact on the health of gay and lesbian individuals in the United States by causing stress and disease. This has been recognized by public health authorities including Healthy People which sets health priorities for the United States. Healthy People identified the “gay and lesbian population” as one of the groups targeted for reducing health disparities in the United States. Exposure to minority stressors increases the risk for mental disorders in
gay and lesbian individuals as compared with heterosexual individuals.
The exclusion of gay and lesbian individuals from the institution of civil marriage inflicts on them and their children humiliation, emotional distress, pain, suffering, psychological harm, and stigma.
Economic Harm to Gay and Lesbian Individuals from Denial of Marriage to Same-Sex Couples. In addition to social and psychological harms, Prop. 8 imposes substantial economic harms on same-sex couples residing in California and their children.
Denying same-sex couples the right to marry and permitting them to only register as domestic partners imposes a substantial economic cost
on gay and lesbian individuals. Similarly, permitting same-sex couples to marry would lead to a substantial economic gain for individuals in
same-sex couples.
There are no governmental interests that would justify stripping gay and lesbian individuals of the right to marry."
Fallen societies whose traditional practices had a different meanings.
For example, in Indian society, a group known as the Hijras had a tradition of same-sex marriage for at least two centuries. Similarly, Native American tribes had a tradition of same-sex marriages among those known as the berdache. And lesbian marriages have been documented in West Africa and in China among silk workers in the nineteenth century. In addition, same-sex marriages were documented among Roman emperors.
Beth, you are mistaken to characerize as marriages the three examples you gave.
The marriage law does not discriminate on the basis of group identity. So the plaintiff's complaint is flawed at the getgo.
The 'differentness' of domestic partnership is irrelevant for laying a complaint against the marriage law. Society may legitimately discriminate between marriage and non-marriage.
"Same-sex" is not the same as gay or lesbian. The same-sex category is not defined by group identity nor by sexual orientation. There are no such criteria for eligibility for domestic partnership; and no such criteria for ineligibility for marriage.
The mental stress and health issues of an identity group cannot be blamed on the marriage law. Nor on the domestic partnership law. That part of the complaint is frivolous.
Likewise the economic part.
The SSMers need to plainly state the societal interest in showing favoritism for a particular identity group. First, how are members recognized -- is there a membership card or a legal requirement that makes same-sex sexual behavior or same-sex sexual attraction mandatory for all who'd demand this favoritism?
The marriage law does NOT disfavor based on identity group. Nor does it favor based on that. It is only through the assertion of gay identity politics that this nonsense is injected into a reading of the law and into the constitutional jurispurdence the judiciary is supposed to interpret with objective criteria.
Gay identity is not an objective criteria.
Not my term, but that of the references -" Hijras form relationships with men and even marry."
"The berdache often remained
single, but in some tribes his marriage to a
person of the same sex was accepted just as
a heterosexual marriage was, and their
homosexual behavior was not stigmatized."
Silk workers joined in lesbian marriages. ... In China under Mao Zedong's revolutionary government....
Same-sex marriages in ancient Rome and Greece, and even in medieval Europe. Same-sex marriages have also been recorded among Native Americans and Africans.
In China, especially in the southern province of Fujian where male love was especially cultivated, men would marry each other in elaborate ceremonies.
re: "The marriage law does not discriminate on the basis of group identity. So the plaintiff’s complaint is flawed at the getgo."
No one defending Prop 8 has made that specific argument in the Prop 8 case, or noted by Judge Walker to date...
"Same sex marriage advocates will demonstrate
that Prop. 8 infringes their fundamental right to marry, impermissibly classifies them on the basis of
their sexual orientation and sex, and fails to satisfy any level of scrutiny. As California's chief law
enforcement officer has conceded, Prop. 8 therefore violates Plaintiffs' rights to due process and equal protection. Specifically, homosexual are denied the fundamental right to marry, and that domestic partnerships are an unequal and unconstitutional substitute for the "expression[] of emotional support and public commitment" associated only with marriage. Prop 8 is a suspect classification that discriminates against
them on the basis of their status, including their sexual orientation and their sex. Marriage law defenders of Prop 8. Proponents cannot meet their burden to demonstrate that this serves a single compelling, important, or even legitimate state interest. Prop. 8 repealed the constitutional protection against "discrimination
based on sexual orientation," and put gay and lesbian individuals "in a solitary class" with respect to marriage. Prop. 8 is therefore an irrational measure that targeted only gay and lesbian
Californians and purposeful stripped them—and only them—of their fundamental state constitutional
right to marry, in violation of equal protection."
Beth whatever the references, those scenarios were not considered actual marriages. What are your sources?
Regarding the marriage law in California, homosexuality is not a criterion for ineligibility; nor is hetrosexuality a criterion for eligiblity. Likewise with the federal law.
There is no fundamental right to SSM.
Chairm I googled the information and quickly posted what I came up with. Do you have any sources to support your claim that they were not considered the same as marriages?
"Regarding the marriage law in California, homosexuality is not a criterion for ineligibility; nor is hetrosexuality a criterion for eligiblity. Likewise with the federal law. There is no fundamental right to SSM."
There appears to be a fundamental right to marry and equal protection under the law. For some reason homosexuals claim they can't marry each other, that Prop 8 targets them unfairly and now prevents from marriage, while 18,000 other same sex couples enjoy the social and legal benefits of marriage recognition. They look at other married California same sex couples who are legally married, and say why does the law not treat our relationship in the same way. They argue that limiting their eligibility to a date is unfair and serves no compelling or state interest.
One issue with our legal system, is that generally our courts base their decisions on present realities. What has factually occurred and can be shown in a court of law. We don't convict someone based on what someone else will do or they might do 20 years down the road. The "sky will fall" argument is not a legal argument. Nor is more wait and see (justice delayed is justice denied).
I posted this in on the wrong thread for references. Chairm what sources do you have that state this is factually incorrect?
According to the “Diversity in American Indian Culture, Boston: Beacon Press, 1986. Walter L. Williams” The berdache often remained single, but in some tribes his marriage to a person of the same sex was accepted just as a heterosexual marriage was, and their homosexual behavior was not stigmatized.”
From Google search “Though perhaps not the originator of the practice, the emperor Nero appears to have been the first Roman emperor to marry a male.”
Beth, those who pedal anomalous accounts have the burden of proving the assertion that these arrangements, such as they might have been, were in fact treated as actual marriages. You will find that such accounts rest on speculation and on a pro-gay political bias, rather than an intellectually honest approach to anthropology and to history.
Those assertions are not presumed proven until disproven. Quite the contrary, given the preponderance of evidence across the anthropological and hisotrical record.
* * *
If you wish to persue that topic, consider reading and commenting under the following blogposts where the topic has been discussed extensively:
http://opine-editorials.blogspot.com/2008/11/historical-evidence-for-same-sex.html
http://opine-editorials.blogspot.com/2008/04/dr-chapman-modern-heterosexual.html?showComment=1207550460000#c8890561569905920250
http://goodsensepolitics.blogspot.com/2009/11/proposition-1-passes-in-maine-gay.html?showComment=1257728486041#c6308177743832699886
Cheerio,
Chairm
Beth, the legal arguments in favor of merging SSM with marriage depend, utterly, on injecting into the law what is not actually there. To wit: gay identity politics.
Also, each pro-SSM court opinion (whether in the majority -- in the rare instances of imposing the merger -- or in the minority) of a judge depends on a subjective approach of a policymaker, rather than the objective approach of the role governed by judicial review. SSMers depend on the abuse of judicial review for these types of opinions. And, frankly, that is not a matter of rule of law but rule of men.
As has been illustrated by the words of SSMers over and over again, that they cheat against their own rules of argumentation. They do so no less in the blogosphere than in courtrooms.
Thus, the SSM campaign has presented an attack on the social institution of marriage, yes, but also on our form of self governance and on the principled basis for the rule of law. Today. Not twenty years hence.
Chairm, contrary to the blog posts, with obvious anti-SSM bias there does not seem to be any pro-gay bias in the following reference:
“Diversity in American Indian Culture, Boston: Beacon Press, 1986. Walter L. Williams”
Nor does anyone seem to dispute Emperor Nero's marrying another male.
If you have several college level anthropology text book references v. blog post opinion that state otherwise, I'd like to research those sources.
-----
I must be really confused. There are 18,000 gay and lesbian couples legally married in California. Are this an equal application of the law constitutional issue as to why other gay and lesbian California residents are prevented from marriage because of Prop 8. What compelling state interest other than the OSM mantra that the sky will fall 20 years hence, if one more homosexual is married in California? Gay Identity politics? What is different between one set of legally married California homosexuals and another if I may ask? Its certainly not identity politics... It's unequal treatment, period.
Nero did not marry; he aquired a slave and had him castrated. The account that was cited included the point that Nero had done other absurd things. Nero was a law unto himself; what he did with that slave was not in accord with the Roman law of marriage.
The discussions at the links I provided do demonstrate that the book you cited by Williams provides speculation -- itself based on a speculative account -- that is mistaken.
* * *
The last paragraph in your comment points to the problem that comes from the abuse of judicial review.
The CA high court issued a profoundly flawed anti-marriage decision. It then refused to stay that decision until after the upcoming marriage amendment vote. That was their second mistake. Then, they had to concede that the amendment is valid -- even though they did so reluctantly after searching for some excuse not to accept that a constitutonal amendment was constitutional. But, against their own concession, they chose a political compromise where those who SSM'd were deemed to be "married" anyway. Error number three.
There is no basis in the US Constitution for the federal judiciary to compound the errors of the CA high court.
The justices of the CA court might find all manner of excuses for themselves, but that too is abuse of the judicial role.
Keep in mind, Beth, that the central theme of the SSM campaign is that the marriage law is supposedly arbitrary.
Yet the CA court's reasoning (i.e. its opinion) is arbitrary. The pressing of gay identity politics into constitutional jurisprudence is arbitrary. Pressing it as a trump card over marriage law is also arbitrary.
Even the CA judiciary's precedent regarding inter-racial marriage was a repudiation of the assertion of supremacy via identity politics. Likewise the US high court's Loving decision. Identity politics is not a trump card over the core meaning of marriage.
And, since there is no gayness criterion for ineligiblity to marry in CA, and no straightness criterion for eligiblity, the pro-SSM complaint is not based on the marriage law but rather on what the hockers of identity politics would inject into the law.
The SSM cammpaign pushes very hard to confuse people -- not just about marriage but also about constitutional law and the framework of self-governance. It is simply wrong to insist, as SSM argumentation does all the time, that the end justifies the means.
The end is not justified anyway. The means are not justified by an unjust end.
I've asked SSMers far and wide to justify treating SSM -- whatever it is they are very reluctant to plainly say -- differently from the restof the nonmarriage category of relationships and arrangements. They offer none.
None, except for an emphasis on gayness. And, supposedly, their complaint is that gayness should not be in the law. The contradiction is blatant.
By the by, Beth, the complaint that those 18,000 SSMs manifest unequal treatment of other one-sexed arrangements, serves to show the error of the CA court. Equal treatment would require those 18,000 to be treated as civil unions, not as marriages, under current CA law. The justices made a big exception but making an explicit exception does not transform the marriage amendment into an unconstitutional amendment to the CA constitution.
The pro-SSM plaintiffs are inadvertently making the case against those 18,000 SSMs being treated as "marriages".
And, what about the rest of the nonmarriage category? How come the gaycentric subset is given a special status -- whether it be SSM or civil union? The equality argument blows up in the face of the SSM campaign. In fact, during oral arguments before the CA high court, the pro-SSM side conceded that it would be a-okay with abolishing marital status for all Californians. In the name of equality, no less. Well, that is the logical conclusion of SSM argumentation.
Yes, like Nero in his arbitariness, SSMers have done many absurd things.
Chairm
The proponents of upholding Prop H8 have qualified their response to the assertion that in some cultures there have been same sex marriages, from a historical perspective by stating "no where in the English language." Apparently they feel this is the only way they can defend the assertion that marriage has always been between a man and one (or more women) not as equal through slavery (more recently) not able to vote or practice law). Their english only view/position seems to me to be more correct.
-----
Using Gay Identity politics, if we have 15 gay and lesbian California couples in a room. Some with civil unions, others who are legally married and those that are not. Can you use any form of identity politics to accurately determine which couple meet each criterion (marriage, civil union or other non-marriage subset)? Or would the process of selection be arbitrary, unjust and unfair? How do you determine as a matter of law which is which?
------
If we
Chairm, in my view the court will address/play the hand they are dealt, the current situation front of them, not deal with "slippery slope, might or could happens" 20 years hence. The how we got to where we are serves only as a point of historical reference, like prior differing cultural same sex marriages arguments, is water under the bridge so to speak.
Wait, Beth....
You brought up all these "examples" of what you represented as a long historical record of same-sex marriage, and now fronted with the truth on the issue, you back off and say it doesn't matter? I think you just got bested on that one, friend. The gay activist rhetoric played you falsely.
No, Beth, it is stated that way because it is clear that within the American legal system there is no history of SSM that could possibly make it a fundamental right to be licensed by government. This legal system has deep roots in the English system. So the lawyers are just stating the obvious truth about marriage law in terms of what is and is not a fundamental right in our constitutional jurisprudence. There is no automatic -- SSM is a fundamental right -- within our legal heritage.
It is fair for them to narrow their response to that context. There is no need to speculate further afield.
* * *
Could you restate your question about the room of people? I really can't answer since I do not understand what you are asking there.
* * *
I already said that they are not dealing with twenty years hence. See my comment @ December 12, 2009 at 2:43 pm.
You are presenting the role of the judiciary as one of policymaker. The judiciary is not situated nor is it competent to make such decisions. Its role is restricted to judicial review.
Again, see the comment @ December 12, 2009 at 2:43 pm.
* * *
Beth, let's back up the truck. What was your purpose in referring to the speculation that there are precedents for SSM in ancient times and so forth? You introduced that into this comment section ... for what reason?
"I’ve asked SSMers far and wide to justify treating SSM — whatever it is they are very reluctant to plainly say — differently from the rest of the nonmarriage category of relationships and arrangements. They offer none. None, except for an emphasis on gayness. And, supposedly, their complaint is that gayness should not be in the law. The contradiction is blatant."
Chairm, this is a good observation. I believe I have made the same one, but you have articulated it better.
And, what about the rest of the nonmarriage category? How come the gaycentric subset is given a special status — whether it be SSM or domestic partnership?
What is the societal significance of identity politics such that society must be forced to issue a license and a special status for it?
I am not kidding here. SSMers flip back and forth between heavy doses of sentimentalism and great wallops of demands that only stuff that is mandatory count as essential to the license and the special status. Their protest is quite schizophrenic.
Chairm, The prop 8 case, will enter testimony about historical reference of same sex marriage practices of the Hijras, Berdache, West Africa and in China among silk workers in the nineteenth century. and Roman emperors. Supporters of Prop 8 legal filings do NOT contest the historical claims described above in their response. An amateur internet search on the internet supports these claims in my opinion. Its out there for anyone to read and make their own determination. But yes, I personally don't think it matters. Not what happened in the past or what might happen (slippery slope) in the future. What is happening now in the present time is where perhaps the focus needs to be.
Which leads me back to my example of the 15 gay and lesbian California couples, some legally married some not and some with civil unions. Identity politics can not be used to determine or identify which couple should be married and which ones should have civil unions. Identity politics cannot be the tool used to force a license and equal status. The tool actually used was a date in time. I don't think a date in time is sufficient constitutional justification for picking which couple gets to be married and the remaining balance is relegated the status of civil union. My point is that identity politics is not the standard used to determine who can get married and who cannot.
I don't think one will find the Prop 8 ruling will use identity politics as the standard to make that determination. Just my guess...
Factors as opposed to identity politics, used to determine the constitutionality of Prop 8 might be:
Compelling state interests (e.g., tradition, parenting, procreation). If Prop 8 is way over or under reaching as a broad instrument or narrowly defined in its accomplishing a proposed objective. Under inclusive might be that convicted felons, and serial philanders were not also included. Does Prop 8 have more holes than Swiss cheese as the tool to accomplish a objective state interest? The needs and support for all California families and how civil law accomplishes those objectives. Equal application of the law, and due process may be the deciding considerations. Not equal application and due process of identity politics as the final deciding determination.
Identity politics may come into play to determine the level of political power gay and lesbians have to secure equal treatment. Political power will be used to determine the level of scrutiny, rational basis, intermediate or the point of being a suspect class. It may be effectively argued that homosexuals have some political power, but not enough to broadly and consistently effect their own equality. Much like other identity groups in the past, that had varying degrees of political power. History of discrimination may be a factor. While another may be sexual orientation, is heterosexual and homosexual orientation something the state should force people to change (as opposed to a personal religious view) in order to be married? Or is heterosexual and homosexual orientation fundamental to ones personal identity?
"An amateur internet search on the internet supports these claims in my opinion. "
because everyone knows that everything you read on the internet is true. Al Gore told me so....
"Because everyone knows that everything you read on the internet is true. Al Gore told me so…."
Does not mean everything is "not" true either.... that is why I said to make up your own mind. For example your side is not directly contesting these purported "facts" in federal district court for Prop 8...
Beth said: "Its out there for anyone to read and make their own determination."
I think "determination" is a bit strong a way of putting it.
Form an opinion based solely on secondary and tertiary sources which, themselves, are based on speculative accounts? Sure.
A thorough study of the anthropological and historical record has produced rigorous determinations. But one can choose convenient speculation over valid determinations, sure.
The SSM side has tried to make much hay from that kind of thing.
Beth, the room of people analogy and your use of it just doesn't work in favor of the pro-SSM side.
In California, marriage is two-sexed, not one-sexed. So a roomful of people of the same sex, or of one-sexed arrangements -- call them whatever you wish -- are not marriages.
You do point to the problem created by the CA high court when it imposed a subjective view and merged nonmarriage with marriage. As I said, after the marriage amendment, which only confirmed what the law had always been in CA, the judges made an explicit exception. So if there is a problem of equality, it was created by the CA high court's errors. Why treat one set of one-sexed arrangements differently from others?
Gayness was the reason the CA high court decided, against the marriage law, to merge SSM with marriage in that state. And gayness is the reason that they discriminated against other oe-sexed arrangements - some of which were licensed as domestic partnerships.
The problem is not a fault of the US Constitution and the federal law on marriage. The CA constitution and the DOMA, for example, are in agreement -- marriage is two-sexed.
No need to guess on that.
Beth, the pro-SSM argument is one that presses identity politics into the marriage law. The gay-straight dichotomy is false. The gay identity group is not bookedned by a straight identity group. The marriage law is neutral on that stuff, anyway. Only by peering through a gay identity filter can it be seen otherwise. You have to filter OUT the core of marriage and filter IN the gaycentricism of SSM argumentation.
Look, the assertion of supremacy via white identity politics, in the past, was repudiated. Now SSMers wish to revive identity politics to do what white supremicists had done with the anti-miscegenation system.
To wit: selectively segregating the sexes via an identity filter; and marginalizing responsible procreation; all under the auspices of marriage law. SSMers might claim that their nonmarriage use of marriage is more benign than that of the white supremicists, however, their complaint and their proposed remedy suffer from the same profound flaws.
I'd like for an SSMer to try to refute the repudiation of identity politics as per the CA court's own precedents and the US Supreme Court's own precedents. Identity groups don't justly get special rights -- whether by force of the police power or by force of overheated rhetoric.
The lack of justification for pressing identity politics into the marriage law, into social policy, and into constitutional jurisprudence -- well that lack of justification shows that the SSMers are not about justice but about "just us". That's not enough.
Beth, the speculative examples you offered as precedents of SSM being marriage, well, these are not facts. That's the point. They are speculative and need not be disputed further than that. As I said, American law and its rootsin English law are the context, anyway, not some possible apparent exception outside of the marriage law.
Fundamental right to SSM might be conjured up out of the queer studies department on a university campus, however, the fundamental right to marry is fundamental for reasons that SSM cannot even touch upon. Again, the precedents of the CA judiciary and the US Supreme Court really don't favor the rhetorical excesses that you found in the pro-SSM filings in the CA marriage amendment case.
"So a roomful of people of the same sex, or of one-sexed arrangements — call them whatever you wish — are not marriages."
They are not marriages? I need to double check my facts to see what the CA supreme court calls 18,000 of them.
Further, you make the following claim about the evidence and discovery Prop 8 filings produced so far as rhetorical excesses. I have not seen either side make that specific claim in any current filings.
Assuming your correct, what do you think the probability is that Judge Walker will come to the same determination?
You seem to imply that SSM will marginalize responsible procreation of heterosexual married couples. This claim will be examined through discovery, and testimony starting 11 January. So lets hold off for a month, because both sides have yet to present their testimony.
I'm not sure a queer studies department at a university is the proper venue to determine who gains access to "the most important relation in life"—marriage. Again, lets see what our federal and supreme court system says. Perhaps they will agree with you that marriage equality exists only within the frame work of a university queer studies department. Respectfully, however this argument does not appear in any of the current prop 8 filings of either side to be heard on 11 January 2010.
"the judges made an explicit exception. So if there is a problem of equality, it was created by the CA high court’s errors." An error? This is not been determined to be an error to my knowledge. Prop 8 supporters have yet to make a claim that the 18000 current same sex marriages are in error.
Heterosexuals have a right to use or not use contraception. So perhaps marriage is not fundamentally concerned with only procreation.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court, overturned the state law requiring payment of outstanding child support before marriage, the Court was concerned ONLY with an individual's right to marry; not with children. If the right to marry is about 'survival of the race,' then a child support restriction could be shown to be unobjectionable.
Promoting procreation may not serve as a legitimate basis for denying individuals their
constitutionally protected right to marry. If so, is it constitutionally permissible for the state to preclude an individual who is incapable of bearing children from entering into marriage?
Even Proponents of Prop 8 have never suggested that a State could constitutionally deny heterosexuals the right to marry one another simply because one or both of them is infertile and they are incapable of procreating together.
California provides the right of incarcerated inmates to marry. if procreation could serve as a
legitimate state interest, Prop. 8 is an underinclusive means of promoting procreation because it allows individuals of the opposite sex who are biologically unable to have children, or who simply do not desire children, to marry.
Prop 8 supporters have yet to show that barring homosexuals from marrying promotes heterosexual procreation.
The blunt force of Prop. 8 simply does not encourage homosexuals to marry persons of the opposite sex, nor increases the number of marriages between heterosexual couples.
"So perhaps marriage is not fundamentally concerned with only procreation."
Beth, who says marriage is only procreation?? or that prop 8 has to do with encouraging procreation? or increasing statistical numbers of marriages? You are way out on a rhetorical limb here.
These procreation arguments seem a bit hollow to me. When you considered contraception, inmate rights, infertility, and those that simply don't want children.
The logic is like making a law to keep the heat in a home, by mandating that the front door be kept closed.
While the back door and all the windows are wide open. Makes zero sense here as well as the procreation claim.
So James, are you in agreement that we can take the claim that "SSM marginalizes procreation" out the factors in play in the marriage equality debate?
Beth, if you want to debate, do so honestly. Chairm has not said that SSM marginalizes procreation, he said it "marginaliz(es) responsible procreation;" Why would you leave out that little detail? Because that is the crux of the argument. I'm sure Chairm and others will take you to task on that as well, but first let's talk about responsible procreation. What IS responsible procreation?
Yes, what is responsible procreation? What factors specifically deem a singular act of procreation responsible or, conversely, irresponsible? And, furthermore, who determines the definition of "responsible" in respect to procreation. What is this person's, or body's, criterion in determining said responsibility? L. Marie and/or Beth?
Beth, you can try to predict, but the meanderings of the abuse of judicial review tend to confound even the advocates of such abuse. So many SSMers predicted that the CA high court would rule that the marriage amendment was unconstitutional. Even the pro-SSM activists on the court had great difficulty finding an excuse to justify such a ruling.
I think they should be embarrassed to have made their series of errors. They meddled in the politics of the marriage amendment campaign and they have meddled, too, with these 18,000 SSMs which -- according to the valid marriage amendment are NOT marriages.
The CA high court fashioned an exception to the marriage amendment regarding these SSMs. It was an unprincipled exception based on a series of errors by the CA high court.
No one who entered an SSM during the interim period before the marriage amendment was approved can claim that they truly understood the SSM=marriage equation had been settled. Pro-SSM lawyers publicly advised caution on this point. If you rushed to SSM, you did so with eyes wide open.
Besides, it could be only a localized merger of SSM and marriage, anyway. Turns out even that was on shaky ground. Domestic partnership, less so. Roll the dice if you want but don't complain now.
The result of this judicial mischief-making is the fabrication of a conflict where none had existed. It put those who rushed to SSM in a spot created by the CA court. The marriage statute was valid and the pro-SSM opinon the court issued was really weak and ill-reaoned; the marriage amendment is valid and the pro-SSM arguments to the contrary were horribly anti-constitutional; and as it has always been, marriage in CA remains two-sexed, not one-sexed.
If those 18,000 SSMs are unequally treated vis-a-vis people who would like to SSM today, well, that is due to yet another error of the CA high court in manufacturing an unprincipled exception to the marriage amendment.
The CA court would have to fix its own mess. It hasn't. So we have this challenge to the DOMA. But the DOMA and the CA marriage amendment are in agreement. If a localized merger of SSM and marriage exists anyplace in the country, it does not force the government via the judiciary to nationalize the merger. There is no basis for such a demand, in fact, in the US Constitution.
Beth, you haven't read my comments very well, if I judge by your inaccurate representation of what I said.
Gay identity filter. Look through it to filter out the core of marriage. Look through it to filter in gaycentrism. That's what you get in queer studies but NOT in the US Constitution.
The speculative accounts of SSM in ancient times, for example, are not relevant to the DOMA case and if the filings depend on such stuff, then, it is only as a rhetorical bluff. Sorry, Beth, but Nero does not figure into the US Constitution. If you imagine that the judges might believe otherwise, then, you are a naive victim of the rhetorical excess of SSMers. You wouldn't be the first. Nor the last, alas.
A fundamental right is deeply rooted in the history and traditions of our society. Unlike marriage, SSM has no such claim neither as a merger with marriage nor as a standalone. You can't seriously claim that the few months of SSM in CA make it deeply rooted. I know, SSMers start somewhere else -- with SSM being a type of marriage that has existed as long as marriage itself. But that's just rhetorical excess, as I pointed out earlier.
Beth, to put it directly: the marriage amendment is valid and so SSM as a rule is not merged with marriage in CA. However, the court carved out a 'compassionate' exception for those who had SSM'd during the interim. Now, if you say the complaint is that this exception has created unequality for those who would like to SSM today, well, I think the complaint illustrates that the exception is an error. Indeed, an intolerable error, according to your own account of the pro-SSM filing.
How can you get around that? Oh, well, the amendment is the error, right? Based on what? The claim that SSM is a fundamental right? Heh. It is really very superficial stuff that the pro-SSM side has put forth.
The judge might favor such stuff, I dunno. But no matter what he chooses to do, the case will be appealed -- by one side or the other -- up to the Supreme Court. That's probably the safest prediction.
Responsible procreation is not a standalone. It is combined with sex integration to make a coherent whole: a foundational social institution.
Sure, there are lots of secondary aspects of marriage and lots of variable features, too. But the core remains constant and it is the special reason for special status. The societal preference for marriage arises from the two-sexed nature of humankind, the opposite-sexed nature of human procreation, and the both-sexed nature of human community. The family, founded on marriage, is the most basic human community. Hence the integration of the sexes is central to the social institution and is not divisible from responsible procreation.
Responsible procreation is a set of principles and practices that begins before conception and continues long after birth -- in fact long after the children have matured and left home to marry themselves.
Now, sure, SSMers would slice all of this into bits and pieces and render responsible procreation an incohrent heap of options. But that's the way to deconstruct marriage rather than construct SSM. And that's a profound flaw in SSM argumentation's anti-procreation theme.
Responsible procreation. Not procreation of all and any kind. 'Responsible procreation' is a term rather than two seperated words. The first principle of responsible procreation is that each of us, as part of a procreative duo, is responsible for the children we bring into this world, barring dire circumstances or tragedy.
This is at the core of marriage. Our legal system includes the vigorously enforced marital presumption of paternity. The sexual basis is opposite-sexed, not sex-neutral. And that's extrinsic to all one-sexed arrangements, sexualized or not.
The marital presumption of paternity can be rebutted, in a court of law, but the criteria begin with the sexual basis of procreation. The husband is presumed the lawful father of the children born to his wife during their marriage. If there was no opportunity to impregnate her, then, the presumption can be challenged but courts are very reluctant to entertain such a challenge where the marriage is intact. The Government does not intrude unilaterally; the husband or the wife might formally challenge paternity by going to court but usually no outsider may do so. Of course, how our legal system navigates this presumption will vary from state the state but the basic principle applies: the husband is the father, the wife the mother, and together they are responsible for their children.
The idea has been expressed by David Blankenhorn as a father AND a mother for every child. Marriage is the most pro-child social institution we have. When people enter it, they say I do to the marital presumption of paternity -- and not just in a purely legal sense. Marriage makes normative the solidarity of fatherhood and motherhood.
To hear some SSMers, society is supposed to take a very different default position. The marital presumption of paternity is deemed to be antiquated, by SSMers, to the extent that DNA testing should replace it. But that would mean the law, and the culture, would presume that each married mother has not been sexually faithful with her husband; that she is presumed to be carrying almost any man's child rather than the man with whom she is in a conjugal relationship. Until proven otherwise, the husband is not the father, by such a default position.
Now, that would fit SSM very well. But it doesn't fit marriage much at all.
Even where the presumption of paternity has been challenge din courts, and that is relatively rare anyway, the presumption has proven to be highly accurate -- about 90% of all challenges.
Outside of marriage some states have enacted statutes for unwed presumption of paternity. This mimics marriage, immperfectly, and has a much lower level of accuracy -- about 70%. But it shares with marriage the sexual basis for presuming the man is the father of his mate's child. That cannot apply to one-sexed arrangements -- gay or otherwise.
Sure, you might concoct some other presumption, at law, but it would not be based on whatever an all-male or an all-female arrangement might do sexually.
The sexual basis for the marital presumption of paternity is also the sexual basis for consummation, annulment, and adultery-divorce, and so forth. It is in our legal system. It is not a side show.
SSM argumentation would have society treat all unions of husband and wife as if they lacked either husbands or wives. That could not serve procreative justice. It would be anti-thetical to the core meaning of marriage.
As for the infertility slamdunk that SSMers keep claiming, well, that's been discussed, at length, here in the comment sections at the NOM blog. Do a quick search before assuming you've got a winner.
For SSMers who might wish to play 'capture the flag', what is your version of responsible procreation?
If you think that third party procreation fits, then, you'd point to the use of 'donated' sperm and ova. And that points outside of marriage, not at its core. It is extramarital procreation even when married people use it. It would be necessary for one-sexed arrangements to go outside of the arrangement for either sperm or ova. So if that's central to the sort of procreation that would fit your idea of responsible procreation, you'd still point outside of the relationship.
If you think that intentionality decides the matter, then, you'd need to be very careful in setting forth the criteria for what would become normative for all of society -- not just for one-sexed arrangements. You are, afterall, demanding that such arrangements be treated no differently than unions of husband and wife.
The marital presumption of paternity certainly entails intentionality -- see the consent to marry. This consent is not conditional. You don't get a little bit married just as a mother is not a little bit pregnant.
What the intentional aspect of the presumption does NOT entail is a government mandate to force married people to procreate. That should be obvious. And it does not contradict the core meaning of marriage. The private side of the sexual basis for the union of husband and wife is protected within the presumption of paternity. But that presumption is central to the public side of marriage. Indeed, this is the public-sexual aspect that does not fit any one-sexed arrangement.
So if intentionality and third party procreation are the basics of what you'd call responsible procreation, then, you'd not provide a sexual basis for treating SSM as a public-sexual type of relationship. You'd need some other feature of SSM to make its sexual side more than a mere private concern. Afterall, no SSM law would make it compulsory for those who'd SSM to engage in same-sex sexual behavior; nor to use third party procreation; nor to intend to do either of those things.
Marriage's core meaning does provide for the societally significant contingency for responsible procreation. That's not a marginal thing.
Children are marginal to SSM - virtually an afterthought -- because SSM is adultcentric and cannot provide for responsible procreation qua marriage. It might do other stuff; whatever its merits, and demerits, SSM needs to stand on its own two feet with an independent claim for special status.
The best that SSMers have done, especially where children might be involved, is to make a plea for protections. There is no basis on offer for according SSM a preferential status on par with marital status. Nothing, certainly, that is childcentric.
Chairm from a hetero centric view of families, you have a good argument.
"There is no basis on offer for according SSM a preferential status on par with marital status. Nothing, certainly, that is child centric."
The issue then becomes what about gay and lesbian families with children. Should civil marriage law provide any form of support for these children? If your hetero-centric model is the one we should use, can an argument be made for mass removal of these children from same sex arrangements? Or would a more realistic solution be to provide same sex couples with the social status and benefits civil marriages affords?
Lets assume that preventing homosexuals from civil marriage will somehow increase heterosexual "responsible" procreation. So, now we have a method here that "may" rationally accomplish a government objective. Could one argue that preventing child support avoiders, murderers, rapists, child molesters, drug abusers, and others similarly situated would ALSO facilitate this responsible procreation objective? The question I have is which means is the most effective? Why go after the one method that may have the least if any and yet to be proven impact on this "responsible" procreation government objective? If my argument is sound, this is unconstitutional (under inclusive) to target only one group. Shouldn't one have a reasonable chance of accomplishing close to 100% of the stated objective with the desired means? Or is limited benefit if any justification to pick and chose the methods and means used?
"Lets assume that preventing homosexuals from civil marriage will somehow increase heterosexual “responsible” procreation."
Why?
Amy, that kind of my point Homosexual civil marriage has no effect (that will increase, protect or promote) heterosexual responsible procreation that I am aware of. On the other hand, I can see no cause and effect relationship on homosexuals electing to marry heterosexuals in order to engage in heterosexual responsible procreation.
Homosexual civil marriage then, has no effect in order promote, preserve or prevent heterosexual responsible procreation.
Beth the following is a false dichotomy:
"If your hetero-centric model is the one we should use, can an argument be made for mass removal of these children from same sex arrangements? Or would a more realistic solution be to provide same sex couples with the social status and benefits civil marriages affords?"
Besides, my argument is not hetero-centric but childcentric. And, no, I haven't argued that the government is empowered to take children from their homes. You still haven't explained why a gaycentric version of nonmarriage merits a special status on par with marital status.
You wouldn't want to write sexual orientation into the laws governing families -- especially those with children -- which exist outside of marriage, right? Well, neither do I.
Beth, the sexual basis for the marital presumption of paternity applies to husband and wife unions regardless of the sexual orientation of the husband or the wife. It is not sex-neutral, of course, but neither is an all-male nor an all-female arrangement.
The point here is that you haven't provided a homosexual version of responsible procreation. I don't think there is one that can provide the sexual basis for your emphasis on sexual orientation.
So let's be fair and drop the heterosexual qualifier from your use of "responsible procreation".
The question is, how would the SSM merger further responsible procreation? I don't see how it could, since it would actually sideline responsible procreation, but maybe you can show otherwise.
In this context, the question about the SSM-merger, in other words, is not "why not" but rather "why"?
Why treat all unions of husband and wife as if they lacked either husbands or wives? Sidelining responsible procreation does not further it.
Chairm I don't disagree that their is a sexual basis for the presumption of paternity that applies both inside and outside of marriage.
I don't see how marriage equality treats heterosexual unions any differently or "sidelines" their version of "responsible procreation." Perhaps its the other way around, treating homosexual unions differently in a way that denies them about 1100 federal and state benefits so that they can responsibly care for their families.
Sociologist Claude Levi-Strauss observed that marriage historically was not about the regulation of procreation but rather, it was about "the creation of alliances among different kinship groups."
Even the idea that parenting must be undertaken by both a mother and a father is a relatively new argument because the history of the family includes a wide variety of structures, most often including extended families and polygamous families.
The idea that men and women will no longer rear, care for, or support their children without OSM marriage, is a fallacy purported by the "responsible procreation" camp. The historical references of kinship group alliances support this claim.
From what I've seen homosexual same sex parents seem to be doing an equal if not better job of taking care of their children. The commitment to families and marriage is apparently inspiring heterosexual couples in Mass. to make a lasting commitment to marriage. Mass has the lowest divorce rate in the US.
If one were to agree with the argument that marriage equality will "sideline responsible procreation.". Prohibiting homosexual marriage must rationally accomplish this proposed "interest of the state" to a significant degree.
Like trying to preserve and not side line home heat by making it a law that the front door must be kept closed while also leaving the windows and back door open, the interest of the state in "preserving or not side lining" home heat is not achieved by this method.
The objective of responsible procreation will not be achieved unless the anti-same sex marriage law also takes away the rights of criminals, molesters, philanders, abusers, beaters, and others similarly situated. Targeting one group is unconstitutional because the proposed "responsible procreation" state interest and objective is unlikely to be achieved.
This looks like a violation of first amendment protections that insure religious freedoms. If the catholic church can longer offer services to the poor then their 1st amendment rights are being violated.
The sexual basis for the marital presumption of paternity is embedded in the special status accorded the social institution of marriage.
That sexual basis is extrinsic to all one-sexed arrangements, sexualized or not.
The unwed presumption of paternity is related to the marital presumption of paternity; the sexual basis is the same. But the unwed presumption is not embedded in the nonmarriage category of relationshps and arrangements -- most of which are not sexualized anyway.
SSM is a clearly and naturally a subset of the nonmarriage category. Besides, there is no sexual basis, at law, for SSM wherever it has been imposed or enacted. So why the emphasis on gayness, Beth?
You have not explained your favoritism on that point.
* * *
Regarding families, the universal basic element has been the union of husband and wife -- of father and mother -- in extended families and in polygamous families. Are there some odd variations that have existed outside of the social institution of marriage? Sure, but so what?
The nonmarital trends disprove your assertion, Beth, that "The idea that men and women will no longer rear, care for, or support their children without OSM marriage, is a fallacy..."
Indeed, your assertion is contradicted even by your own sociological reference to kinship and alliances.
Your remarks are really odd, by the way, from a sociological and anthropological viewpoint. You are not making much sense in that regard.
The SSM merger in Massachusetts has not had the influence on the divorce rate you imagine, Beth.
You now appear to be regurgitating the talking points of the SSM campaign and not thinking for yourself.
* * *
The affirmation of the core of marriage via marriage amendments and measures do NOT take rights of a 'target' group. The marriage law targets marriage, not nonmarriage.
Child molesters? Criminals? What are you really talking about, Beth? Please be more specific.