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.

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.

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.

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.

"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.

Homosexual civil marriage then, has no effect in order promote, preserve or prevent heterosexual responsible procreation.

Why?

"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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.