Dear Friends of Marriage,
Seven days from today it will be Christmas.
NOM will shut down, barring emergencies, between Christmas and New Year, so this will be my last chance in 2009 to share with you, my dear friends and comrades in this great battle.
Christmas is such a miracle: The Word became flesh. God became man. Infinite Love transformed into a small, helpless baby--and so transforming the whole world.
How can we ever be afraid again?
The dignity of the human body--that's one of the great gifts God gave us in giving us Christmas. Not flesh, not mere flesh, but a temple fit to house the holiest of spirits.
It's one of the reasons I entered this marriage fight, and my will to fight--always with love, with decency and civility as well as with courage and steadfastness--is intensified each time I look at my sleeping children in their innocence, and think about what so much of the world wants them to think about the meaning and purpose of the human body.
The great truths of Genesis we received from our Jewish elder brothers--"male and female he created them"--are also truths about our own incarnation. From clay--mere matter, flesh--the spirit of God Himself was blown into our hearts. Inscribed in this great act of creation are certain great and enduring truths that no human power can erase: Men and women were made for each other, made to give ourselves in love to each other. Our bodies were not made just for the personal satisfaction of a senseless appetite--no. Even our physical desires have spiritual meaning: They call us forth from the confines of our own bodies in an urgent imperative to give ourselves to each other and to the future, to the great calling of creating the next generation in love.
Children have a right to be born. Yes, but we owe them even more: Children have the right to be conceived and born in love, which is to say, in the context of the outward and inward union of the man and woman who have pledged to care for each other, and for any children they have together. Children have a right to the love and care of their mother and father in the only context which makes that joint love real and reliable: Children have a right to their parents' marriage.
This is what John Paul II called "the nuptial meaning of the human body."
Every child is a child of God, regardless of the marital status of his or her parents, and we owe each precious life our care and concern. But one of the things we owe them, each one of them, is the truth: Same-sex unions are not marriages; basing law on a lie about human nature is doomed to fail.
2009 has been a great and historic year in this ongoing marriage battle. Now is a good time to reflect on what we have done, together.
Make no mistake: gay marriage advocates had big plans for 2009. This was supposed to be the year the gay marriage debate was over, that gay marriage definitively won.
Here's what 2009 was supposed to look like, from their point of view:
"After the loss in California in November of 2008, gay marriage bills sailed through the legislatures in the Northeast: in Vermont, Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire, New York and New Jersey. In Iowa, opposition to gay marriage dissipated after a historic supreme court decision bringing gay marriage to the heartland. In Maine, voters affirmed their legislatures vote by approving a gay marriage bill at the ballot box for the first time in U.S. history.
"A handful of religious zealots objected, but even some Republicans joined with Democrats in recognizing that gay marriage is a civil right whose time has come. In Congress, Republicans conceded they lacked the votes to block a full or partial repeal of the federal Defense of Marriage Act. Activists in California, Oregon, Wisconsin and Michigan pledged to repeal state marriage amendments on the ballot. Legal experts said the gains at the ballot box and in state legislatures were likely to encourage the Supreme Court to overturn state marriage amendments in all 50 states and make gay marriage the law of the land."
That's what they hoped the year 2009 would mean: the year opposition to gay marriage crumbled.
What happened instead was very different, thanks to your prayers, your sacrifices, your letters, emails, calls, and financial support: 2009 was the year the politicians learned that they cannot ignore the people's voices and values. They cannot ignore truth, decency, common sense, or the will of the majority of Americans.
In Maine, a secular blue state with a history of approving pro-gay legislation, the people once again decisively rejected gay marriage--by an even bigger margin than in California. In New York, gay-marriage advocates were stunned when on the very day they announced they had the votes to pass gay marriage, the New York Senate instead lopsidedly rejected gay marriage by 38 no to 24 yes votes. In New Jersey, gay-marriage advocates had to pull a bill unexpectedly just days before the scheduled votes to avoid another lopsided loss. The defeat of Dede Scozzafava in New York's 23rd district demonstrated in a big, public, visible way at least one core political truth: It's a very bad idea for a Republican to vote for gay marriage. The defection of 8 Democratic senators under the brave leadership of State Sen. Ruben Diaz (D-Bronx) proved the rejection of gay marriage was a bipartisan endeavor.
In New Hampshire, voter outrage over the gay marriage bill damaged the governor badly, and has helped pave the way for a voter rebellion in 2010. Even in Connecticut, a people's rebellion forced the leadership to accept some substantial religious liberty protection they never wanted to even consider (why accommodate bigotry?).
NOM, of course, does not work alone. Key leadership by the Catholic bishops in Maine, New York and New Jersey, the tireless efforts of groups like the New Jersey Family Policy Council and New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms, and the sweat, blood and tears of many others went into these great victories.
2009 was the year we proved that together, with God's help, we can win this fight for marriage.
Thank you.
I'm grateful for all the many blessings God has given me, but especially the honor of your friendship.
Please keep me and my family in your prayers, as you are in mine.
A blessed and merry Christmas, and a very very happy New Year.
See you in 2010!
Faithfully,Brian S. Brown
Executive Director
National Organization for Marriage
20 Nassau Street, Suite 242
Princeton, NJ 08542
bbrown@nationformarriage.org
P.S. If your means permit a Christmas gift to NOM, please consider becoming one of our monthly donors for 2010. Just $5 a month, pledged on your credit card, will help us reach out to 100 of your fellow Americans each month (1200 over the course of the year!), swelling our army of marriage defenders, our chorus of Americans of all creeds and colors willing to speak truth to power for God's own vision of marriage. $50 a month means we can reach out to 1000 new marriage voters each month, or more than 10,000 new friends and comrades in a year. Our goal in 2010 is two million Americans willing to stand together for marriage. Please pray for our success, and if God has given you the means, help us reach more people with the truth about marriage.
NOM Featured Video
"D.C. Gay Marriage Bill Passes Council Vote"
CBN News
December 16, 2009
CBN News spoke with Brian Brown of the National Organization for Marriage for more on how D.C.'s gay marriage law could affect the rest of country. Click play for his comments following Paul Strand's report.
NOM in the News
"California Companies Fight Same-Sex Marriage Nationwide"
New York Times
December 12, 2009
Maggie Gallagher, the president of the National Organization for Marriage, a group opposed to same-sex marriage, hired Schubert Flint to develop radio advertisements in New Jersey and New York and put together an advertisement featuring Carrie Prejean, the former Miss California USA, who has voiced her opposition to same-sex marriage.
"D.C. Gay Marriage Bill Expected to Pass Council Vote"
National Public Radio
December 14, 2009
President Maggie Gallagher says the advocacy group is planning a battle against the legislation in Washington. It's a battle the group has already fought in other states this year.
"Anti-Gay Marriage Group Vows to Stay Involved in Maine Politics"
Maine Public Broadcasting Network
December 16, 2009
Reports filed with the state Ethics Commission show that the National Organization for Marriage provided the brunt of the financial muscle for the Stand for Marriage Maine campaign that successfully repealed the state's gay marriage law at the ballot box last month. Of the $3 million dollars raised, $1.7 million came directly from NOM.
"D.C. Mayor to Sign Same-Sex Marriage Bill"
CNN Political Ticker
December 18, 2009
The nation's capital city is expected to take a major step Friday towards legalizing same-sex marriage.
"Law School Discusses Gay Marriage"
Boston College Observer
December 17, 2009
Boston College students packed a lecture hall in the basement of the law school to hear Margaret Gallagher give a speech on why she disagrees with gay marriage. Gallagher was invited to speak at Boston College by the BC chapter of the Federalist Society, in keeping with the society's mission to promote a sense that the "judiciary should say what the law is, and not what it should be." Gallagher has previously testified before the United States Senate, written for The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times, and founded an organization to promote traditional marriage, the National Organization For Marriage.
"Sundance to Premiere Film Documenting Mormon Push to Defeat Gay Marriage"
Colorado Independent
December 11, 2009
The Mormon church poured money and effort into the campaign to pass Proposition 8 in California, the initiative that outlawed gay marriage there. Director Reed Cowan's documentary about the effort was accepted into the Sundance film festival and will make its debut in Park City next month.
"'Anti-Religious Bigotry in Nation's Capital"
OneNewsNow
December 12, 2009
During proceedings before the initial vote in favor of it, some members of the DC Council displayed "anti-religious bigotry" toward black clergy -- that's according to the National Organization for Marriage (NOM), which also described the treatment as shocking and appalling.
"D.C. Council Legalizes Gay Marriage"
Charisma
December 15, 2009
Maggie Gallagher, president of the National Organization for Marriage, said her group would join Stand4Marriage in seeking a referendum on the definition of marriage.
171 Comments
Amen! Thank you NOM for all the work you do to protect the sacred institution of the family.
That made up pro gay marriage message was spot on. They were clearly counting on the New England states to give them momentum in preparation for the Defense of Marriage to be overturned.
You are going to hell if you stop gays from getting married because god is love and NOM is hate and fear. NOM is the storm of hypocrits and biggots.
Kelly, your tolerance for the differing views and cultures of others is astonishing.
Kelly is entitled to her rants any time you see the word bigot, hate, hypocryte, its a good sign someone is just venting and usually its meant to get a reaction.
It is never acceptable to tolerate hate. To hate gay people so much that you accept making their innocent children second class citizens, and born and raised without benefit of having married parents, speaks volumes.
Hate gay people? No, I love many!
Still...
To hate the opposite sex so much that you make your innocent children second class citizens, born and raised without benefit of having married parents, speaks volumes.
I'd be curious to know who inter-sex (dual gender) people are supposed to "marry" in order to be morally "right" with God?
Another inter-sex individual?
A man?
A woman?
This naturally occurring physical variation occurs in about 1 inn 2000 people. Like the South African athlete (runner) that was in the news this past summer. Some don't have any of "this" but a little of "that" and just a tiny bit of another physically defining characteristic.
One might assume, that gender is not binary as some might think. Not from a science based perspective anyway.
Still....
Who should they "choose" in order not to raise children as second class citizens?
Jonathan,
Why skip the point with some hypothetical? Kids deserve a mom and a dad. It's pretty simple. If you can't provide that, then you're putting your own desires before those of your children. It's not that hard a concept.
Its not a hypothetical to inter-sex individuals... Do you know how many inter-sex there are in the US? So who is the "mom and dad" that children so deserve in the example provided?
Or, would you ban them from "marriage" too, because they don't fit your binary "mom and dad" model?
Lets see, who to include on the "NO MARRIAGE" list..
a) homosexuals
b) inter-sex individuals
c) gender variant individuals.
Am I missing anyone?
Are you trying to say Jonathan that because there are genetic mutations that children don't need a mom and a dad? I'm just trying to figure it out because what you're saying is not making a lot of sense.
"No Marriage" list.... if you were to make a list wouldn't it include close relatives, people underage, ............and pretty much that's about it. Everyone else can marry.
L. Marie, perhaps I would also expand the "no marriage list" to include molesters, abusers, convicted murderers.
You wouldn't?
---
I am proposing that, homosexuals, inter-sex and gender variant individuals can and do provide equal child parenting outcomes as a "mom or dad - model or male and female model.
Jonathan, marriage requirements aren't about orientation or sexuality. You can marry any woman of your choice, regardless of any character, physical or moral defect you may have. There is no litmus test for sexuality in marriage. No one is barred based on those conditions.
Ok, L. Marie, There seems to be a issue about marrying one of the same gender, be that as it may. Binary definitions of gender are not always binary.
Am I to understand correctly that you have no problem with molesters, abusers, beaters, murderers or others similarly situated in marriage because they can meet the "male/female mom and dad" child deserving requirement?
Every child deserves a mom and dad... full stop.
The bar to child molesters, murderers, abusers, etc. is not marriage law, it's in the wisdom of the spouse to be. Jail also has a deleterious effect on fathering children. Marriage law is actually quite simple. Anyone can participate, as long as they aren't closely related, underage etc. Marriage is two sexed, and the limit to the number of spouses you can bring into the arrangement is 1. Beyond that, it's up to the good judgment of those entering into the agreement to judge if it's a good idea or not.
Jail is not a bar to marriage.
Child molestation is not in the marriage law.
Abuse is not in the marriage law.
Its in the wisdom of the spouse to be.
But we want to target two sex individuals from marriage, to accomplish what objective exactly?
If it should be up to good judgement, then same gender, inter-sex and gender variant individuals produce equally if not better outcomes in some cases, that the man-woman requirement.
No brainer...
Two sexed only law is not good judgement.
May I suggest a look at what's happened in Massachussets?
Despite "gay" marriage and GLSEN (formerly GLSTN) "gay" lobbysists are after more money to fund "diversity" education in the schools because children are still being bullied.
Horrendous rise in homoseual domestic violence and increase in HIV infection are forcing the state to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars each year.
This isn't hate, Kelly, it's the love of a mother who doesn't want her children hurt. Toddlers may want to run into the street but a loving mother has the smarts to haul his or her little fanny out of the street.
Jonathan, what is the reason for the man/woman two sexed arrangement that has been in place since the beginning of humanity? In your argument you say that one sex can give everything to children that two sexes can. Can one sexed pairs give children life?
Men and women are different. Who are you to come along and say that kids don't need what nature has provided for them for millennia? Neither science nor history back you up on that.
"But we want to target two sex individuals from marriage, to accomplish what objective exactly?"
There is nothing in the law that bars people with SSA from marrying, Jonathan. Your point is moot.
If there is nothing in the law that bars homosexuals from marrying, what is the big fuss about? It is a moot point, We seem to have all spent a lot of money on a non-issue or a moot point. Why is that do you suppose?
Regarding the tradition argument... So the fact that the outcomes in child rearing by homosexuals, inter=sex and gender variant individuals is equal to the two sex arrangement means nothing? One sex pairs and opposite sex pairs can adopt children or other means.
So the man woman criteria is the trump card? Full stop....?
Good parents, in loving homes mean nothing as long because a snap shot in history trumps all? Concubines, slavery, polygamy and coverture traditions don't count?
Moreover, tradition trumps healthy child outcomes?
Your man/woman tradition does not outweigh healthy outcomes. Nor is tradition immune from constitutional review... (coverture, racism etc.).
We have always done it this way, so we must continue to do it the same way for time and eternity? Weak constitutional argument...
Healthy child outcomes out weighs and trumps tradition. Tradition cannot stand as a sufficient argument only by itself. Otherwise women would not be allowed to vote, there would be no mixed couples.. you need to show harm... a because I say so argument.. falls short.. and is really the moot point is it not?
D
Kevin if you don't understand the difference between medical infertility and intentional sterility, then there's little hope for you.
I don't understand the difference between medical infertility and intentional sterility as they relate to marriage. If marriage is about children, why should men with vasectomies be allowed to marry? Why should elderly couples be allowed to marry? Why is birth control and abortion legal for married people?
I've already answered this. Fairness. ALL people are allowed to marry, whether they can or intend to have children or not.
This doesnt change the fact that marriage is about family, and family is about procreation.
"Marriage is about family, and family is about procreation." - Full Stop?
Traditional child molestation is not a bar to marriage and procreation
Traditional Domestic Violence is not a bar to marriage and procreation.
Traditional Infidelity is not a bar to marriage and procreation.
But....
Same sex couples who are know to produce healthy child outcomes are barred in some states from Marriage.
The Opposite Sex Marriage law accomplishes what objective exactly?
Laws are supposed to have a rational basis that will likely accomplish a state interest/objective. An irrational law is one that would close a front door, while keeping the windows and back door open in order to protect and preserve traditional heat.
Prohibiting marriage equality is not a law that will likely accomplish a state interest or objective; reduce domestic violence, molestation, infidelity. Nor will it insure responsible procreation, or make marriage less "traditionally" meaningful.
Jonathan, for the record, hve you also commentd under the moniker "Beth"?
Jonathan said: "you need to show harm"
Not quite right. You seek to abolish the core meaning of marriage in the law and in the culture. So the burden is on you to justify the harm you seek to do to the foundational social institution of marriage.
On the other hand, if you seek a special status (on par with marital status) for some subset of the nonmarriage category of arrangements and relationships, then, it is up to you to provide the justification for that special status.
You need to proviee special reason for special status. That goes for marriage; that goes for SSM no less.
Your burden is made heavier because you seek to gain special status for SSM while also abolishing the special reason for special status of marriage.
Apparently SSM floats in the air while marriage is to be have its legs knocked out from under it.
Justify this harm to society before you start demanding people justify the reaffirmation of the core meaning of marriage.
The core meaning of marriage is not a tradition. The core of the social institution is comprimsed of universal features. Pointing at variable features that have changed, well, that does not negate the fact that some features have remained unchanged.
Responsible procreation, by the way, is not a standalone. It is combined with sex integration to form a coherent whole. The social institution is recognized, not own nor created, by governing authorities. Its core is what sets it apart from the many variations of arrangements that are possible for human beings to form. That core provides the justification for a special status.
SSM arugmentation emphasises the relatively modern tradition of romance. So, Jonathan, your remarks regarding tradition destroy that big emphasis of SSMers.
That emphasis is clearly mistaken, right?
Chairm,
Marriage has already been redefined by the state: a short-term arrangement based on mutual happiness, rather than a lifetime commitment, as has been the norm, or as people of faith are instructed to believe. It’s not very credible to suggest that revising “who can participate” has some material impact on “what marriage is,” in any event.
Gay couples are asking for the same status as straight couples, not special status. There’s no reason to offer special privileges for straight people, but not for gay people. The state makes no such distinction for other licenses it grants, which puts the burden on the state to explain itself for choosing to use sexuality in granting marriage licenses.
“Apparently SSM floats in the air while marriage is to be have its legs knocked out from under it.”
This sure sounds dramatic. Does it mean anything in the real world, especially in the real world of our courts and legal system, where the issue will be ultimately decided?
Chairm Whoa... Whoa... The concept you present or claim as fact to support your argument has not been proven to be so.
"You seek to abolish the core meaning of marriage in the law and in the culture."
How is "core marriage meaning" abolished in reformed judaism, for the episcopal, the buddhist, the quaker, the unitarian?
Abolished? Massachusetts has the lowest divorce rate in the US... One can hardly call that abolishment. The legs of marriage are not knocked out from beneath it. In fact, they are supported much better.
Chairm, there is just no evidence to support your claim the marriage will become less meaningful than it presently is.. In fact, there is evidence to show that marriage will strengthen gay and lesbian families. This is shown to be good for everyone.
You ask about a good reason for the status of marriage equality for gay and lesbian families? I can think of 1100 of state and federal reasons, not to mention societal benefits for gay and lesbian families.
Chairm,
If the core meaning of marriage is about family, and "responsible" procreation” your no same gender marriage means to accomplish that objective must succeed at doing so.
Your means needs to me much more inclusive to accomplish your proposed objective because:
Traditional child molestation is not a bar to marriage and procreation
Traditional Domestic Violence is not a bar to marriage and procreation.
Traditional Infidelity is not a bar to marriage and procreation.
Unless they divorce, a lawfully married man and woman will remain married for their rest of their lives.
'Straight' is not the special reason for the special status of marriage.
Besides, the marriage law is neutral on the identity politics of the man and woman who enter the social institution of marriage. Doesn't matter if he or she assign the label 'gay' to the other or to themselves.
Indeed, to be gay is to be happy and happy newlyweds are pretty much the norm. But even at that, happy is not the special reason for special status of the social institution.
If, for the sake of discussion, the sexual basis for marriage is out-of-bounds, then, the SSMer's own viewpoint is that the sexual basis for gayness could not justify special status for SSM. Something else is needed.
When a license is issued, the thing being licensed is distinguishable from other stuff that might be subject to a different license.
Fishing is distinguishable from driving and is distinguishable from marrying. One does not get a license to drive if the purpose is to fish; and likewise one does not get a license to marry if the purpose is to drive.
And so the regulation of licenses is subject to what the thing is that the license is for. This confuddles the SSMer above.
* * *
"Does it mean anything in the real world, especially in the real world ..."
Your blindness is self-induced.
Chairm, respectfully the opposite sex only restriction, does not objectively succeed at accomplishing your stated interests, let alone valid state interest.
a) Wrong tool
b) Wrong means
Using the same tool over and over again that consistently fails to accomplish a proposed state interest or objective.. makes no sense in marriage law.
Jonathan, your remarks amount to the claim that there is no core meaning. Right?
* * *
If a belief system rejects the core meaning of marriage, then, that core has been abolished from that belief system.
SSMers seek to abolish it for all of society.
If you wish to discuss the belief systems on your list, we could do so, but are you familiar with any of them to the extent that a theological discussion would be informed rather than politicized? SSMers tend toward the latter.
* * *
We could discuss divorce statistics. But you might back up and show that the SSM merger had the influence you have asserted. For example: X caused Y.
As SSMers are fond of repeatedly ad nauseam, correlation does not equal causation.
On the other hand, we could discuss participation rates in SSM since your remarks strongly suggest that such rates are relevant to the discussion. Or we could drop that stuff and focus on something directly relevant here.
* * *
If, as you claim, marriage is not made less meaningful, then, let's compare and contrast.
What is the core meaning of marriage, in your viewpoint?
I anticipate it would mean less than what it has meant for millennia.
* * *
You still haven't provided justification for special status for SSM. You did, however, repeated your emphasis on gay identity.
Pointing at government benefits does not do the trick. Benefits do not self-justify. Neither does special status. (You are citing 1100 as per talking points but those are not all benefits but rather mentions in laws and policies). Marital status is a special status; it is so for special reason. What is that reason, as far as your viewpoint?
On what principled basis would lines for eligibility and inelgibility drawn?
You need to do better than invoking the harm principle if you imagine this to be a private arrangement for which society has no special interest.
Jonathan, in a simple sense, the tool is the social institution (it is not government owned but recognized) and the means is special status (in the culture and in the law).
If you want to deny the sexual basis for the social institution, and in turn for special status, do so upfront.
But that would preclude you returning to claim a sexual basis for SSM, right?
Jonathan, I've tried but I can't make head or tails of your list of things you described as "traditional".
Jonathan, start with the essential(s) of SSM. Then justify a special status for that (those) essential(s). Now, draw lines of eligibility between SSM and the rest of the nonmarriage category of relationships and arrangements.
You are complaining about eligibility and tools and means. Okay. Let's examine your notion of SSM and the tools and means which you would test with your stated standards.
Chairm,
My argument is that non-believers, and various religions have different views on the core meaning of marriage.
Which 'core meaning marriage view' should prevail in civil marriage law? Civil marriage law is about laws and policies. There are 1100 good talking points to support this view. I'm not qualified to argue opposing theological views on marriage equality, but I do suggest either view should not be embedded in civil law.
I'm in agreement with you on the statical references. It is incorrect to say that there is a direct relationship to low Massachusetts divorce statistics because of marriage equality. Likewise, claims of declining European marriages are due to the marriage equality laws. Correlation does not equal cause and effect.
One can reasonably say however, that the legs of marriage have not be knocked out from under or core meaning abolished in the state of Massachusetts.
Society does as you point out, have a interest in civil marriage, and state laws must rationally accomplish the best interest of all citizens, not only the because I say so crowd on either side. Does OSM only marriage further any state interest? How does OSM only marriage law help or harm gay and lesbian families? There have been a number of legal determinations that say OSM only does not further a state interest or help gay and lesbian families.
--
The harm principle to the core meaning of marriage has been cited by some OSM only proponents. Harm has not been proven in anything other than sky will fall imagination.
---
You have not shown how OSM only marriage will accomplish a state interest or objective.
"You seek to abolish ......." is future tense, and further acknowledgement that it has not occurred. Lets talk about what is.. not sky will fall propositions.
Thank god i'm an athiest
Jonathan, the two-sexed basis of marriage is not a purely religious basis, contrary to your attempt to insist otherwise.
In states across the country where marriage has been affirmed as the union of man and woman, the sky has not fallen.
It is good to see that you now disavow your previous assertions about the influence of the SSM-merger on divorce in Massachusetts. Why did you make the assertions if you could not back that up?
You are mistaken, however, about examples of the adverse influence of the SSM-merger in Scandinavia and, in particular, Holland.
* * *
The rhetoric about 1100 government benefits is unconvincing.
As I said, try to justify the special status and the legal provisions (not all of them benefits) that might flow from whatever you imagine SSM to be.
State what SSM is before demanding special status for it.
As in Reform Judaism, for example, the question is not why not but why.
* * *
Before you, Jonathan, can assert that "the legs of marriage have not been knocked out from under or core meaning abolished in the state of Massachusetts" you need to do the basics that I have asked of you at least twice now.
* * *
The merger of marriage and SSM in Massachusetts did indeed abolish the core meaning of marriage. But if you say, not, then, what is the core meaning of marriage in Massachusetts under the merger with SSM?
You will find what I am saying is true if you'd read the Goodridge court opinion which (supposedly) imposed this merger.
If you insist that there is a state interest or objective in SSM, then, plainly state it. And then explain how that does not fit the rest of the nonmarriage category.
Don't flee from this, Jonathan, as you have now place it front and center in your own remarks.
* * *
You seek to abolish is present tense.
To repeat: Jonathan, I’ve tried but I can’t make head or tails of your list of things you described as “traditional”. Please explain your remarks.
Jonathan, I can assure you that a great number of people oppose homosexual "marriage" on basis other than religion, be it Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, etc. Of course homosexual radical activists insist on falsely calling this fight solely religious or Christian in order to gain support among anti-religious or anti-Christian people.
I do not consider myself a particularly religious person, yet I vehemently oppose homosexual "marriage". Homosexual "marriage" is a bold attempt to legitimize and promote homosexuality, and brand anybody who disagrees with the homosexual lifestyle a "bigot."
Additionally, homosexual "marriage" encourages dysfunctional families which always deprive children of mothers or fathers. To me, endorsement of homosexual "marriage" and homosexual "parenting" would be the triumph of narcissism and hedonism over reason and childrens' welfare.
That is why I oppose homosexual "marriage" and strongly support NOM (financially and otherwise) in its fight for marriage and for children, including mine.
Chairm You have not shown how OSM only marriage will accomplish a state interest or objective. Could you address this issue? I've asked you about several times. Why avoid this issue?
“Marriage is about family, and family is about procreation. Homosexuals, inter-sex, and gender variant individuals, under age and relatives should be excluded from marriage law."
Meanwhile..
Traditional child molestation is not a bar to marriage and procreation.
Traditional Domestic Violence is not a bar to marriage and procreation.
Traditional Infidelity is not a bar to marriage and procreation.
But….
Same sex couples, who are know to produce equally healthy child outcomes as opposite sex couples, are barred in some states from Marriage.
The Opposite Sex Marriage law accomplishes what 'state interest' exactly? I've asked this question several times.. but again no answer...
-------------
Chairm, Can you back up your "abolishment" assertion? "... the legs of marriage have been knocked out from it." in Massachusetts? Why bring it up if you can't back it up? Here is the assertion I made: "Abolished? Massachusetts has the lowest divorce rate in the US… One can hardly call that abolishment. The legs of marriage are not knocked out from beneath it. In fact, they are supported much better." I stand by that assertion, that marriage has a societal benefit for all families, not only opposite sex couples.
------
Laura... I support your right to make those assertions, but could you focus on the interest of the state in marriage law and insread address my questions above? Recognizing that there are others who have a different view... How is the state supposed to proceed in determining how and which view should be embedded in marriage law? This seems to befuddle the OSM' only posters in prior posts,.
I give to NOM to protect families and preserve traditional marriage. Its the way its always been and the way it should be. Its really as simple as that.
Jonathan, I oppose society's endorsement of homosexuality via homosexual "marriage" for very similar reasons I would oppose society's endorsement of drug use and alcoholism. These three activities are inherently unhealthy and destructive. Tragically, children of drug addicts, alcoholics or homosexuals are too often the overlooked victims.
It is your choice to be homosexual. But I will not let you force me to accept your lifestyle as healthy or natural. As a sufficiently educated person, I am very familiar with the extremely high social costs of homosexuality, particuarly in men. Similarly, I will not let you or your friends teach my children that homosexuality is just fine. Not surprisingly, homosexual "marriage" is designed to be a tool in such homosexual propaganda aimed at children.
Finally, I am outraged that children are being exploited by homosexuals to legimitimize their lifestyles. A second "dad" can never replace a mother. A second "mom" can never replace a father. Such heartless social experimentation on innocent children is simply criminal.
Whether you look at this as a religious question or public policy question, homosexual "marriage" is simply wrong. NOM understands what is at stake and why this fight is so important. That is why I support NOM.
Laura, again I respect your right to have that opinion.
But alas, can you address my question on how to determine which view should be embedded in civil marriage law as an interest of the state?
Laws through the voting process are not exempt from our judicial form of government.
Drug use and alcoholism are not a bar to marriage or procreation in civil law.
A law has to have a good chance of accomplishing a stated objective. A law is not supposed to be like swiss cheese in accomplishing an interest of the state. You cannot target one group with an irrational law that won't accomplish an legitimate state interest.. Like Beth said, closing the front door with the windows and back door open to preserve and protect traditional heat. The means you propose will not rationally succeed in doing what you "think" it will.
Again, give me the state interest here. Marriage law represents the interests of gay and lesbian families too. Your opinion is one of many that will be considered to determine if OSM only marriage law accomplishes a state interest.
Please address the interest of the state here.. Some homosexuals pay taxes, some contribute to society and some have children. The state will consider their interests too. Will you?
Laura, Can you support these claims during the process of judicial review with peer reviewed main stream science?
Can you address my question on how to determine which view should be embedded in civil marriage law as an interest of the state?
Laws through the voting process are not exempt from our judicial form of government.
Drug use and alcoholism are not a bar to marriage or procreation in civil law.
A law has to have a good chance of accomplishing a stated objective. A law is not supposed to be like swiss cheese in accomplishing an interest of the state. You cannot target one group with an irrational law that won't accomplish an legitimate state interest.. Like Beth said, closing the front door with the windows and back door open to preserve and protect traditional heat. The means you propose will not rationally succeed in doing what you "think" it will.
Again, give me the state interest here. Marriage law represents the interests of gay and lesbian families too. Your opinion is one of many that will be considered to determine if OSM only marriage law accomplishes a state interest.
Please address the interest of the state here.. Some homosexuals pay taxes, some contribute to society and some have children. The state will consider their interests too. Will you?
I LOVE THE GAYS! GAY people are amazing, wonderful creative, tallented, lovable creations of god, members of the family of humanity, You should love gays, you should have them shoved down your throats and you should welcome them with open arms, just as they love you, those who have babies and create, nobody is better than anyone else.
Jonathan, yes, I have addressed the societal significance of the social institution of marriage.
You said you are borrowing Beth's arugments, and so you might check my responses to those arguments. Please do not feign ignorance. Thanks.
I have not said that a religious view must be embedded in the law. You have been flogging a strawman.
Contary to your remarks, competency to consent to marriage can indeed be impaired by drug or alcohol use. State your point less cryptically, please.
The marriage law does not target an identity group, but it does target the social institution of marriage.
On the other hand, the imposition of the SSM-merger is openly targeted at the gay identity group and would abuse marriage for the assertion of supremacy via gaycentric identity politics. You have yet to justify special status based on gayness.
Your emphasis on gayness, on identity politics, and abolishing the core meaning of marriage do not pass your own test for a rational basis, state objective, or state purpose and you haven't even bothered to try to show that your nonmarriage goal cannot be achieved by some other means.
Wrong tool and wrong means, as per your own stated standards.
As for considering the interests of families in the nonmarriage category, that too has been adressed. If you have followed my exchagne with Beth, you'd know that.
Why do you try to runaway from your own stated standards?
Chairm again, I have to say whoa..
First lets determine the interest of the state in civil marriage law.
Will OSM only marriage law insure that every child has a mommy and daddy? If so, has OSM only marriage law ever achieved that objective? Will OSM only marriage law achieve this suggested state interest in the future? For example, are the (mom and dad less) children of single, inter-sex, gender variant and homosexual parents in Maine NOW in OSM households? Will they ever be as a result of the man woman marriage law now in effect? OSM only marriage law is not a rational means to accomplish this objective, I argue.
OSM only marriage law does not target and prohibit drug users, alcoholics, domestic violence, child molestation, philanders, or others similarly situated from civil marriage or procreation. OSM marriage only law does target homosexuals for the sole purpose of animus and moral disapproval. Animus and moral disapproval is not a state interest because OSM only marriage targets only one group. Traditional domestic violence, murder, rape, molestation, adultery have all been an unfortunate and unhealthy tradition protected by marriage law for centuries.
Which folks in Massachusetts are running around screaming that the core meaning of marriage is abolished? Again, I argue that most folks marriages are just fine, and if they are not, its not due to marriage equality laws. If children don't have mommies and daddies, OSM only marriage law won't fix that issue.
How does "abolishing the core meaning of marriage" fit into an interest of the state? Is this a solution for which there is no problem that you want to embed in civil marriage law? Where is the supremacy in marriage equality?
Laura, my "straight" "christian" father molested me when I was a young girl. I would have loved to have two mothers who loved me and caused me no harm. In your mind, homosexual people are in the same category as alcoholics and drug users. This is false. If your children happen to be gay you should love them for who they are, and if you can't you are the most un-christian person. If your children are gay they might turn to drugs, alcohol, or suicide becuase their own mother does not accept them. You are raising your children to be as hateful and small minded as you. In my eyes you are the sinner.
Definition of family - woman and woman, man and woman, woman and man. Why does baby equal family? I love people and I want equal rights for everyone. God wants equal rights for everyone. I am not shoving this down anyones throat, I'm not forcing you accept, or be accepting but why can't you just live your life and let gay people live theirs. I think people who believe in the sanctitiy of marriage need to just die because they do not believe in the sanctity of humanity, they can not possibly love people and yet oppose people who are just like them. Human.
Homosexual "marriage" quest has nothing to do with "equality" or imaginary "rights" . It is about symbolism. Homosexuals can fully protect their rights through civil unions and contractual laws.
They want "marriage" because of its symbolic value.
Homosexual activists arrogantly insist on the society's endorsement, a seal of approval for their narcissistic, hedonistic, and destructive lifestyle. Such an endorsement is supposed to open many doors for homosexual activists, including doors to elementary schools, where they intend to tout the "virtues" of homosexuality to 5 year olds.
Their "equality" argument is simply BS and homosexuals know it very well. Homosexuals have the same rights to get married. Jonathan can find a person of the opposite sex and right age and get married today. He chose to be homosexual and like everybody else he should live with the consequences of his poor decision, or change his lifestyle.
Contrary to the self-serving arguments of immutability, homosexuality is a choice, as clearly demonstrated by ex-homosexuals. Homosexuals are not victims, they are well-funded deviant aggressors.
We cannot allow a bunch of corruptible politicians and judges to redefine marriage to suit radical homosexual agenda. Please continue the fight, for the benefit of families and, most importantly, children.
James, love does not justify everything. As I said before, jails are full of people who love. Do you want "equal rights" for pedophiles too? Just like the overlapping group of homosexuals, pedophiles claim they cannot help whom they love. Why shouldn't we let men marry 14 year old boys? Perhaps, considering homosexuals record on pedophilia, that is not a fair question. How about two sisters or two brothers loving each other and wishing to get married? Where do we stop?
Your argument about the sanctity of marriage versus the sanctity of humanity is simply illogical. It is homosexuals who arrogantly assault the sanctity of humanity through their assault on marriage, which is the basis of everything. Indeed, if we do not stop homosexual extremism, one day there may be no humanity. Whatever pretty package you wish to put homosexulity in, homosexuality is the most anti-human and annihillistic force. It is as simple as that.
Kate, what a convenient anecdote. When arguments fail, heart-wrenching stories and insults are the modus operandi. Whether you story is true or not, I can assure you that a child needs both a mother and a father. Second "mom" will never replace a father.
Kate, your personal experiences as you put them forward are heart wrenching to be sure, however just because you had a bad experience it in no way negates the ample social science which supports the benefits of children being raised by their own parents. Again, I'm truly sorry for your sorrow, but who are you to judge the intentions of others?
I have to agree with the other sentiments expressed here Kate. Your experience is incredibly painful, no doubt, but your use of it to further your own political agenda tends to shift your objectivity and you come across as more than a little one sided. The bit about everyone who disagrees with you being "hateful and small minded" and "sinners" is indicative of your bias.
Loving children for who they are has nothing to do with encouraging them toward destructive sexual behaviors. Who are we? We're children of God. That's loving children for who they are--- giving them "fisting kits" is not teaching them who they are. In fact, it's just the opposite. Exploiting the human body for any reason is in direct opposition to respecting who children are.
Thank you NOM for standing for the God ordained institution of marriage between a man and a woman. We cannot stand idly by and let SSM proponents push their perversions into our lives. We will not accept it and we will not tolerate it! We will love them back to the truth but we will not accept their sin.
If sexual orientation is indeed a choice, perhaps something that can be changed as easy as the day of the week, we must ask another question.. Is religion not a choice? The freedom to choose one's religion is a protected constitutional right. The freedom to choose an sexual orientation accepting religion or one that believes you can change sexual orientation as easily as a pair of shoes.
So what is the issue again about sexual orientation being a choice? Why not change your religion like you do a pair of shoes?
Jonathan whoa yourself.
You are not accurately representing the actual disagreement. So to get you on the right track think through your own notion of SSM.
What is the state objective or interest in issuing licenses for SSM? Show that it cannot be achieved in any other way.
Then your own line of questioning can serve as the model for testing your notion.
* * *
You still have not explained the list of things to which you had previously attached the descriptor, traditional. Your repetition of that has now redoubled your debt to this discussion.
And you still have not explained your list of things that you say are "not targets" of the marriage law.
The marriage law does NOT target homosexual persons. Your remarks are far off-target.
The target of marriage law is marriage. Not nonmarriage. SSM is a subset of nonmarriage.
If you claim there is no difference between SSM and marriage, then, you still owe this discussion the essential(s) that make SSM different from the rest of the nonmarriage category.
Your heavy emphasis on gayness indicates that your target is gayness, not marriage. That is not a state interest. Yet you proceed as if it were.
* * *
You do not believe there is a core meaning of marriage, right? So whether or not it is abolished, you'd be blind to it. You'd shrug.
But for your remarks to amount to something more substantial, you'd need to do the following, at bare minimum.
A. Accurately state the core meaning of marriage, in the viewpoint I've described (and with which you would disagree). I will confirm, correct, or clarify your attempt to restate this core meaning.
B. Plainly state the core meaning of SSM (or SSM/Marriage), in your viewpoint. Silence will indicate that there is no core meaning in your viewpoint.
So far you have been misrepresentative of A and silentn on B. Your remarks amount to your drawing a meandering line between A and B.
You are not engaging the actual disagreement. Perhaps your ignorance is genuine and you are here to learn. If so, then, deal with A and B more forthrightly.
Thanks.
I will repeat the question I asked of Jonathan: why do you runaway from your own stated standards?
Please respond directly.
Chairm
My question still remains, what is the interest of state in civil marriage?
So then, I have to show that "it" can be achieved another way? I do? I have to accept your premise? Does the state have to accept your premise too? No, I don't think gays and lesbians should have assume any extra legal burden, paperwork and a different name for example, to achieve some of the same civil benefits other enjoy.
My focus is a fair and honest debate on the interest of the state. The state controls civil marriage. The state has the say so. That is the view that counts in the end. I mean we could debate what we think a core definition of marriage is all day long. But my view is meaningless and pointless. It is the interest of the state that matters. This is because your core meaning of marriage may be somewhat different than another's. A non-believer may have one belief about core or non-core marriage, a Quaker another, a Episcopal yet another. A Mormon yet another belief in a core less meaning of marriage. You may even have a definition that is different too.
What matters to me is satisfying the requirements of marriage and the meaning as defined by the interest of the state in civil marriage. What is their core or core less definition of marriage. That is where requirements of the law are equally applied to all citizens. Is their room in civil law to satisfy your definition of the core meaning of marriage with another's definition? How does civil government and law apply their principles to the meaning of marriage. Mine don't count much, when I want a marriage license.
What does marriage mean to you? What does it mean to another person? Does it all have to exactly agree in civil marriage law?
Do you see the problem I have with your premise?
Can we get back to the interest of the state in civil marriage law?
I strongly recommend the New York Times profile on Professor R. George, NOM's Chairman of the Board. Professor George's premise -- that there is an inherent logic in moral order -- brings people together despite religious differences or disagreements. Not surprisingly, his reason-based approach to morality also attracts non-religious individuals.
Laura, thanks for the New York Times article reference. I'm confused though as why seems to acknowledge support for polygamy as long as sexual acts are within the bounds of marriage. Why does he not come out strongly against polygamy? Strange no?
His infertile couple and and baseball team analogy does not convince me that gay and lesbian couples are not just as committed to each other with the ability to adopt or raise healthy children.
Jonathan, it is your explicit premise that there must be a state interest or objective that must be unique to the marriage law.
Own it.
You have misrepresented my answer -- or are feigning ignorance even though you claimed to be following up the discussion that Beth and I had earlier.
So since you reject or ignore my responses to both you and Beth, you can skip that and get to the gist of your own advocacy of SSM.
Answer your own question and then we can assess the merits and demerits of your previous remarks.
You asked: "What is the interest of state in civil marriage?"
Just now, you've inched closer to the questions I had asked you earlier. You should not ask me questions that you are not ready to answer yourself.
You: "What matters to me is satisfying the requirements of marriage and the meaning as defined by the interest of the state in civil marriage."
Okay, now, assume the merger of SSM and marriage. You will need to show that the ends you seek cannot be achieved in any other way.
You talked of tools and means. Live by your own words and stated standards and answer your own question. We will then test it against your previous remarks.
For now forget those who disagree with you. Focus instead on your own thinking, your own premise, your own stated standards. Draw the line between marriage and nonmarriage and justify the special status that would be accorded SSM/Marriage.
You have the floor. Don't runaway.
I have been patient with you, Jonathan, because your remarks have been very naive and strongly suggest that you are a novice when it comes to thinking about the marriage issue.
Well, it is time for you to pony up and hold up your end of the discussion here. I hope you will at least make the forthright attempt to do so. Thanks.
Polygamy? Okay, Jonathan, you have added that to your list of things to either stand for or stand against, based on your own answer to your own question about state interest and objective in marriage.
Chairm, thanks... I'll give it a try...
Chairm said: "Jonathan, it is your explicit premise that there must be a state interest or objective that must be unique to the marriage law."
Although I've asked you for your take on the interest of the state in marriage law. I'll try and lay a foundation for discussion from my perspective. I argue that civil marriage law - in the interest of the state must be rational. Civil marriage law must reasonably or most likely achieve an objective state interest or stated goal. Marriage law must equally apply to ALL identity groups. Marriage law cannot be solely a moral condemnation or hate law, with little chance of achieving an objective and rational interest of the state. Civil marriage law then, as with most laws, are subject to judicial review for due process and equal protection issues. Democracy (the voting process alone) is not exempt from judicial review. Laws must rationally accomplish an interest off the state and must apply fairly to all similarly situated. Not exactly situated, but similar. For the sake of my argument, I'm assuming there is no federal constitutional (marriage shall be only be between opposite sex couples) amendment.
Lets say a purported state interest is that every child shall have a mom and a dad, through marriage law (as opposed to loving parents). This objective then, must stand a rational chance of being achieved. An OSM civil marriage only law is not a rational law to accomplish this purported objective. OSM civil marriage only law does not rationally cause Inter-sex couples, gender variant couples, single parents, infertile and gay and lesbians to enter into opposite sex marriage in order achieve the mom and dad objective. OSM civil marriage only law is a hate and moral condemnation law, which has pretty much no effect on gay and lesbians giving up their children to opposite sex couples.
A rational law to accomplish the 'mom and dad' objective, might be to remove all children from inter-sex, gender variant, single parents, gay and lesbian families and prohibit them from ever having children.
Another interest of the state might be to insure that children have equally healthy outcomes to maximize their contribution to society. Civil marriage law then, in order to be rational, must apply to fairly to all citizens in order to achieve this purported objective.
Lets say objective scientific data showed that children of inter-sex, gender variant, and gay and lesbian couples produced equally healthy child outcomes as mom and dad couples. OSM civil marriage only law would not be a rational means to accomplish this purported stated interest because child molesters, alcoholics, rapists, felons and others are not prohibited from procreation or marriage law. So a rational marriage law, must not be under inclusive, in achieving a stated objective. All identity groups must be targeted that are shown to have impact on children and their healthy development.
So, if we wanted to call an interest in "responsible procreation" OSM only civil marriage law must rationally achieve that objective. Inter-sex couples, gender variant, gay and lesbians must prohibited from any form of procreation in order reasonably achieve the "man woman only requirement for example. Current OSM only law does nothing to stop, adoption or artificial means by gay and lesbians. Nor will OSM civil marriage only law make opposite sex couples procreate more than they currently are. The rational test fails.
If a state interest is to protect tradition, marriage law must have a greater interest than tradition alone. For example traditional racism is not immune from constitutional review. Further, protecting tradition in marriage law, must be rational and address traditional and historical practices of adultery, infidelity, domestic violence, child molestation, alcoholism etc. to be a law that has the best chance of accomplishing a purported interest in the state.
So then, some of the interests of the state in civil marriage from my point of view might be (not inclusive there are probably more):
- Survival of the species (heterosexuals can still continue to procreate)
- Healthy child outcomes for all families and their development
- Protection for minors
- Protection from disease
- Equal application of the law to all citizens
- Respect for all marriage views
Jonathan,
You have not answered your own question. You repeated your attacks on Straw Men.
But, in so doing, you reiterated the criteria by which we might assess the state objective or interest in SSM. Nothing much was added to your previous remarks.
You invoked identity politics twice: you'd entrench identity you'd entrench identity politics into the marriage law; politics into the rational basis of the law.
You invoked judicial review even as your emphasis on identity groups betrays a reliance on the abuse of judicial review.
I will put that stuff aside for now. You need not keep repeating the Straw Men, however, nor do you need to remind readers of your bias toward identity politics. In your latest comment you simply confirmed these things from your previous remarks.
* * *
You came a little closer to answering your own question at the very bottom of your comment you offered a list.
Let's take it that this is your very best list and the origin of your thinking on SSM. I mean, this list is not an afterthought, surely, since you have insisted that such a list is decisive to your own thinking on the matter.
If you missed a vital item please add it now or let the current list stand for the duration of this discussion.
Is your list the core meaning of marriage, as per your view of state objective and interest in marriage?
I am not asking if the list is exhaustive. I am asking you if this, your best list of state objective/interest, is the core meaning of marriage in the eyes of the state?
Please elaborate on your answer to this question. No more Straw Men, if you can help it, please.
Typo correction:
You explicitly invoked identity politics twice: you’d entrench identity politics into the marriage law; and you'd entrench identity politics into the rational basis standard of judicial review.
Chairm, I neglected to include closely related relatives or family members may not marry to the purposed list for health reasons. There are common law marriage requirements that I did not address. Nor did I list approximately 1100 federal or state benefits of marriage law. I'm not claiming the list is complete (polygamy etc.) but I think we have a good start here.
---
Man and woman only identity politics is already entrenched into marriage law through recent state constitutional amendments. The question becomes to determine if a valid interest of the state exists. That the law is not targeting an identity group based only on moral disapproval and animus.
All laws are subject to judicial review in our form of government. The rational basis standard of review is what a constitutional law review provides. A law or state amendment banning the convicted felon identity group from civil marriage and procreation would be subject to this same review. I'm not proposing that we remove the rational basis standard of review for same sex couples. The question to be decided is not if rational basis applies, it happens pretty much automatically. The real question is if a higher standard of review applies, intermediate or strict scrutiny.
Jonathan, your question -- the one you posed and are now endeavoring to answer -- was about state interests/objectives in SSM.
It was not about requirements. Nor was it about eligiblity. Nor was it about a laundry list of government bennies.
It was about listing the state interests/objectives. Requirements, eligiblity, and bennies would follow from that.
So take care not to put the cart before the horse.
The first paragraph in your latest comment adds nothing to the list you made earlier. Your original list stands for the rest of the discussion.
* * *
Judicial review is legitimate but the abuse of judicial review is illegitimate.
* * *
The real question in marriage cases is, what is marriage. Its core meaning differentiates marriage from other stuff that is not marriage. The special status of marriage exists for special reaons; it is not arbitrary.
Since you are listing state objectives/interests for SSM, the real question becomes, what is SSM. If it has a core meaning, that is what would differentiate it from the rest of the nonmarriage category. Imposing SSM can not be legitimate if it is merely to be an exercise in arbitrary governmental power.
* * *
I'll reply to the 5 items on your list when I've a few minutes during the holiday.
Chairm,
I've stated that my original list may not be complete, as far as the interest of the state in marriage law. It would require more research in various state laws. If an existing state interest is left out, I don't see why you would object to its inclusion.
------
I said what is the interest of the state in marriage. I did not single out SSM. Lets state what I said correctly.
----------
I AGREE with this principle... to the extent legal experts define how abuse is determined.
Judicial review is legitimate but the abuse of judicial review is illegitimate.
------------------
Chairm wrote: what is marriage. Its core meaning differentiates marriage from other stuff that is not marriage.
You are adding a term "core meaning"
Core meaning is not on my list, because I cannot find core meaning of marriage defined in law as a interest of the state. So core meaning is not valid for the rest of our discussion.
---
Chairm, This appears to be a red herring argument thrown into the discussion. From a state interest point of view in marriage.
"...what is SSM. If it has a core meaning, that is what would differentiate it from the rest of the nonmarriage category.."
Jonathan,
If you think the case for SSM is one and the same as the case for marriage, then, you ought not to object to answering your own question in terms of SSM alone -- or, if you prefer, in terms of merging, at law, SSM and marriage.
What is your objection, if any, to that?
Either way, would you not differentiate from nonmarriage? If your list applies outside of marriage, then, what is the point of your talk of interests/objectives?
Thank you for confirming that your list does not define the core meaning of SSM, at law.
I had asked earlier if you thought that the marriage law stems from a core meaning. Now you have answered, no.
* * *
Complete or not, this is your best list, for the sake of this discussion.
You have presented your list as providing the basis for your view of SSM. Supposedly you had given this considerable forethought which then produced your certitude.
You have insisted that your question is decisive. You have offered that list as your answer to your own question. We are applying your stated standards to your own assertions. You clearly have staked in that list the credibility of your own thinking on SSM.
Any item you'd add to your list now must be an afterthought. An extra. A minor addition. Your opinion was already been formed before you submitted the list, so you can't subsequently claim that some new item is a major building block that retroactively convinced you of your certainty.
We can proceed with this, your best list, as providing your decisive answer to your decisive question.
Discussion of the core meaning of marraige is valid, Jonathan, even if you dispute the societal significance of that core meaning.
You say it is not defined in the law. I say it certainly is. You say there is no core meaning for SSM (or SSM/marriage) in the law and I say it is there but you'd like to neutralize it.
For now we are discussing your list of interests/objectives and, since you say there is no core meaning in that list, we can proceed with that proviso as a given within your understanding of marriage and the law and SSM.
Typo correction:
You say it is not defined in the law. I say it certainly is. You say there is no core meaning for marriage in the law and I say it is there but you’d like to neutralize it.
I'll add that you are trying to press marriage into the SSM box but it just does not fit. So, sure, you can lop off stuff that does not fit and squeeaze the amputee into that box, but the dispute does not begin with surgery but rather the merit of performing surgery.
We don't cut now and ask questions later.
Here is Jonathan's list:
1 - Survival of the species (heterosexuals can still continue to procreate)
2 - Healthy child outcomes for all families and their development
3 - Protection for minors
4 - Protection from disease
5 - Equal application of the law to all citizens
6 - Respect for all marriage views
* * *
Let's dispose of the obviously flawed, first, and then move onto the items that, while not being a state interest in marriage, are of interest to this discussion and to Jonathan's reamrks on the subject of SSM.
Item #1 does not accurately represent the societal significance of responsible procreation. Instead it is an example of playing with Straw Men.
Items #2 and #3 are far too vague (all families?) and, as his remarks have revealed, these items depend on social policymaking rather than on judicial review. Besides, the social scientific evidence does not neatly fit Jonalthan's convenient 'what ifs'.
Item #4 is far too general and is not particular to marriage law. Besides, Jonathan lacks evidence that a license to SSM would protect against disease.
Item #5 is not a state interest in marriage itself. But it is of interest to this discussion for the following reasons.
For example, pro-SSM litigators readily agreed it would be okay if the state got out of marriage altogether because, according to their own oral argument before the CA Supreme Court, abolishing marital status would be a way to apply the law equally to all citizens. The pro-marriage lawyer deferred and no judge on that panel disagreed. SSMers in the news and in the blogosphere deffered that this would achieve equality, in their view.
Whether or not Jonathan would personally agree is irrelevant, he said so himself. The state could go either way so this item is an invalid entry on Jonathan's list.
Besides, the man-woman basis of marriage law already applies equally to all citizens. The marriage law flows from the core meaning of marriage which is neutral on identity politics. The proposed gay v. straight dichotomy is not germane.
Item # 6 is not a state interest in marriage itself, even according to Jonathan's remarks prior to this list.
But, like the previous item #5, this one is of interest to the discussion for the following reasons.
SSMers demand that the man-woman basis of marriage be replaced by a pro-SSM view of marriage enforced by the government. So that's at least one view that SSMers would suppress.
SSM argumentation declares, axiomatically, that there is no state interest in the view of marriage that is incompatable with SSM. In fact, the SSM campaign is intolerant of the man-woman basis that has long-existed in the marriage law and which was enacted neither as a hate law nor as a moral condemnation.
Rather, it is a law that affirms the societal significance of the core meaning of the social institution of marriage. In terms of the common good, it is loving, not hateful.
SSM argumentation insists on its own condemantions, as Jonathan's own remarks have illustrated.
Look no further than the axiomatic assertions of SSM argumentation and it is clear that Jonathan does not agree with item #6.
But what about the polygamous view of marriage? The polyamorous view? The incestuous view? The view that would lower, or raise, the age limitations (and the directly related exceptions)? Or the view held by the woman who married a dolphin, as odd as that might seem? Or the view that marriage be abolished (in fact see item #5)? Or the view that marriage should not have a special status? Or the view that favors arrange/forced marriage? Or the view that one can marry a deceased person? And on and on.
None of these examples sit well with Jonathan's claim that there is state interest in marriage that must accomodate all views.
The basics of good lawmaking destroy all six of Jonathan's items, but this item #5 is a nonstarter, even on Jonathan's own stated terms.
Without a core meaning from which lawmaking can be constructed, marriage law becomes arbitrary and unncecessarily incoherent.
* * *
On the other hand, government (on behalf of a pluralistic society) can and does "respect" other views of family formation outside of marriage.
But respect is not to be mistaken for folding every view into the marriage law.
Further, it is NOT respectful of marriage for government to disparage the core meaning as hateful and bigoted.
Wow Chairm....
I think you have defined another interest in marriage law and not the state. The reason is I can't find the views you purport to be state interests in my searching through various state codes and licensing requirements.
Regarding my Item 1, I think most states would agree that there is state interest in the survival of the species. Something that might stop this process, the state would very have an interest in. Economic interest for one.
3. Protection for minors. I believe couples have to be of legal age. I think that varies by state, but still an interest of the state as reflected through this specific requirement.
Let's take item 4, on my list. Couples are required to submit by law to a blood test before they can get a marriage license.
"Item #4 is far too general and is not particular to marriage law. Besides, Jonathan lacks evidence that a license to SSM would protect against disease."
Chairm claimed "Not particular to marriage law"
I reply, In my state, try to get married without a blood test. Your other comment is your own claim, not mine.
State has an interest in making sure its laws equally apply to all citizens. There have been several court cases where this has been confirmed, and rectified through the judicial process.
Regarding my Item 6, respect for all marriage views. The law to my understanding tries to accommodate non-believers and different religious views. I would add that I don't think the law should get try and make one view prevail over another as a interest of the state (codified in marriage law).
Chairm wrote:
"You say it is not defined in the law. I say it certainly is." If so, pick any state code that has this core meaning issue you mention specifically defined as a interest of the state, and I will stand corrected.
It is my understanding from the NY times article on the President of NOM, that he does not object to Polygamy, because of the man woman relationship and procreation. Polygamy has a history in a view of the core meaning of marriage for some folks. This core meaning of marriage view is not currently defined as a interest of the state, not even in Utah.
Incest and other forms of multiple partners inside or outside of marriage are beyond the scope of marriage equality for same sex couples. One reason is that these issues will stand by themselves during judicial review. Sky will fall arguments are usually not considered, in judicial review. Folks are sent to jail for crimes they actually have committed, not something that might happen.
Charm, your red herring arguments seek to neutralize the very core of a person's identity in marriage law, their sexual orientation. Your arguments of animus, and unequal treatment under the law seek to slam the marriage door shut to same sex couples .
Meanwhile your hollow and misguided arguments, open the welcome doors of marriage with love, acceptance and compassion and embrace opposite sex couple child molesters, opposite sex, couples who beat and abuse their family members, opposite sex couple, drug and alcohol abusers, opposite sex couple convicted felons and others similarly situated.
Your only requirement of marriage? Opposite sex couples. This soap box argument has no effect except in your minds view, that you could easily choose to change, unlike your own sexual orientation.
Your argument is little more than scorn and moral disapproval of inter-sex couples, gender variant couples, and homosexuals. These couples continue to contribute to society, pay their taxes, hold jobs, and have equally healthy outcomes of their opposite sex couple counter parts.
Heh.
Your remarks have exemplified the weakness of SSM argumentation.
Namecalling. Deliberate misrepresentations. And running away from your own question and your own stated standards.
The touchstone for the latter part of our exchange is your own question about the government's interests and objectives in marriage.
No one-sexed arrangement can further responsible procreation and so cannot further that societal. SSM argumentation explicitly insists on the negation of the state interest in responsible procreation precisely because the SSM concept (and practice where children are involved) stands against the solidarity of fatherhood and motherhood.
SSMers demonstrate this all the time, as have you, "Jonathan".
You latest comment concedes that not all views of marriage can be included in the marriage law; and so that is not a state interest in marriage.
The core meaning of marriage is found in our legal system: 1) the man-woman criterion stands for sex integration; 2) the marital presumption of paternity stands for responsible procreation; and 3) the government recognizes what it has not created -- the foundational social institution of civil society.
SSM argumentation stands against all three of these. Instead it stands for the assertion of the supremacy of gay identity politics -- that is supremacy over marriage, over the rule of law, and over our constitutional form of government. The SSM campaign is an absurdity which abuses marriage as a vehicle for identity politics; it abuses the marriage law to deconstruct marriage; and it relies, utterly, on the abuse of judicial review.
When challenged, the SSMer is more likely to plead ignorance of marriage than knowledge of SSM. He will say what marriage is not rather than say what SSM actually is.
This is a firmly established pattern in SSM argumentation that is amplified by the circular thinking exemplified by the assertion that marriage is SSM -- which essentially means that marriage is nonmarriage.
In Massachusetts -- home of the most celebrated pro-SSM court opinion -- the blood test requirement was quickly dropped.
So it is not a state interest in SSM.
No blood test prevents disease.
Note that Jonathan has not explicitly stated the kind of disease he has in mind. Surely, it cannot be a sexual disease for no place that has imposed SSM has made same-sex sexual behavior compulsory for those who'd SSM.
Jonathan misrepresented NOM on polygamy -- in the same peculiar way that Ross et al have. Many of those who show up in the comment sections here at NOM to make pro-SSM comments appear to speak with one voice under multiple monikers.
SSM argumentation cannot justify the lines drawn against polygamy, polyamory, and incestuous marriage. The pro-SSM concept is hampered in this regard because it seeks to abolish the core meaning of marriage around which such lines are drawn.
It is false of Jonathan to claim that the only requirement my comments have discussed is "opposite sex couples". Indeed, the core meaning of marriage places many types of two-sexed arrangements outside the boundaries precisely because of they are comprised of both sexes. It should not take much pondering to figure out that much.
But SSM has no public sexual aspect by which to draw lines of eligibility based on sexuality. It only has identity politics -- the politics of the group identity -- and so SSM argumentation mistakes "straight" as the counterpart of "gay". The marriage law is neutral and neither draws eligiblity with a "straight" criterion nor draws ineligibility with a "gay" criterion. The law applies equally across the board.
This is affirmation of marriage qua marriage. It is not an expression of animus nor does it close the door to marriage based on identity politics. SSM argumentation uses that to close the door.
But if SSM has merit, then, it ought to stand on its own two feet. If it is chiefly about same-sex sexual behavior, or same-sex sexual romance, or same-sex sexual attraction, then, make those legally compulsory for those who'd show up to SSM at law.
But first justify such an emphasis. If you can't, then, drop the emphasis and plainly state the state interest in whatever SSM actually is.
As a subset of marriage -- a subset that SSMers insist is "gay" and which they concede is sex-segregative and cannot provide for responsible procreation -- it would be necessary to differentiate SSM from the rest of the nonmarriage category by some criteria that are of societal significance. Write that significance into the SSM law or stop insisting that SSM needs so much attention today.
I'd support laws that impaired convicted child molestors and child abusers from attaining marriage licenses.
That an activist court would likely abuse judicial review to strike down such legal impediments is more the problem of SSMers than of myself -- for the SSM campaign has distinctly depended on the abuse of judicial review to impose the SSM-merger.
Drug use and alcohol use can, and do, impair competence to marry. I'd support making such addictions grounds for annulment and grounds for divorce too. In most places they once were; in some places they still are.
I would justify such impediments by the core meaning of marriage rather than some peculiar identity politics.
It should be noted that the SSM campaign does NOT propose to impair eligiblity to SSM based on Jonathan's proffered list of bad things: child molestation, child abuse, drug and alcohol abuse, and criminal records.
Indeed, the so-called "marriage equality" assertions stand against the very notion of such impediments which cannot be justified based on SSM argumentation.
Of course, that is also so for incestuous adults who pay taxes and for polygamous families who hold jobs and raise children.
Jonathan mixes categories all the time. "Opposite sex couples" are not all in sexual relationships. And "inter-sex couples" are not all in sexual relationships. So he must mean some kind of nonsexual friendship that would be more inclusive and not so narrowly defined by the irrelevancy of sexual orientation.
His own words undo his own emphasis on identity politics.
Please note that Jonathan denies that the core meaning of marriage can be discerned in the marriage law.
But when he insisted on his question about state interest/objective in marriage, he clearly said that what suppoedly matters to him is "the meaning of marriage as defined by the interest of the state in marriage."
However, he quickly shifted away from that big concern and instead said: "Core meaning is not on my list, because I cannot find core meaning of marriage defined in law as an interest of the state."
Having pointed him to the man-woman criterion, which he deems hateful, and having pointed him to the marital presumption of paternity, which he deems moral condemnation, I expect that Jonathan will continue to flee from his own question and his own stated standards.
The goal of the SSM campaign is outlaw as hateful the core meaning of the social institution of marriage. That they would transform into a state interest. Further, the SSM campaign seeks to abuse the marriage law -- to use marriage for an expressly nonmarriage purpose -- as a means to innoculate oppositon and dissent to their assertion of supremacy of gay identity politics. They'd do this through moral condemnation imposed by government.
And all of that stands in sharp contrast to Jonathan's remarks about the marriage law being "a hate law" and "moral condemnation".
Rread the last paragraph in his latest comment (regarding the "scorn" he'd attribute to my arguments). His words serve to shine even more unflattering light on his own "view of marriage". That contrast is thus made even more stark.
Typo corrections:
The goal of the SSM campaign is outlaw as hateful the core meaning of the social institution of marriage. This goal they would transform into a state interest. Further, the SSM campaign seeks to abuse the marriage law — to use marriage for an expressly nonmarriage purpose — as a means to innoculate their assertion of supremacy of gay identity politics against legitimate opposition and dissent. They’d do this through moral condemnation imposed by government. This, too, they would transform into a state objective of SSM.
I'll add that it is fair to forthrightly discuss the SSM campaign's own emphasis on gayness and on sexual orientation. They bring that to the discussion at every opportunity because the goal of the SSM campaign is to change the marriage debate into a debate over homosexuality. So if marriage defenders answer that invitation, the SSMer should not complain so much. But homoexuality is a side issue and is not central to the importance of reaffirming the core meaning of marriage in our civilization.
The first and more important task is the defense of the social institution of marriage itself. SSM argumentation attacks marriage and so it is legitimate 1) to defang that venomous attack and 2) to assert the merits of the core meaning of marriage for all of society. These are two different things. They are brought together when attention is focussed on the law and on social policy.
Yet we should also remember that marriage is a nongovernmental institution. Society delegates to the governing authorities the job of regulating the parameters of marriage -- and that cannot mean abolishing the core of marriage within those parameters. No government has been delegated the power destroy marriage, but it is sadly possible for government to damage the social institution -- whether purposefully or inadvertently. I doubt very much that elected representatives would admit that their view of marriage is anti-marriage -- and that goes to show that they would not support anti-marriage measures as such.
The fact that government is involved with marriage is not a blank check for governing authorities to harm marriage. The question then becomes: what is marriage and how can government support -- or at least do the least harm -- to our most pro-child social institution?
SSM argumenation usually starts by denying what marriage is and by denying that children and marriage are inextricably connected. Indeed, SSM argumentation begins with the assumption that government has created and owns marriage itself. This leads to all kinds of absurdities, the proposed SSM merger being but one.
Chairm, you do not seem to be able to answer where your 'core meaning of marriage' view is codified into any state law (as an interest of the state)? We could simply cut to the chase and say its not in any state law. Who is really imposing their identity politics on to whom?
Does the Episcopal, Unitarian, Quaker, Buddhists and Reformed Jews share your exact view of this "core meaning of marriage"? Is there room in your core meaning or civil marriage law to share their own meaning of marriage? Most likely not...
You completely ignore your own brand of identity politics (red herring arguments) that you want to impose on other religions, let alone same sex couples, inter-sex couples and the gender variant in civil marriage law.
I'm amazed at your judicial review analysis, if same sex couples challenge this 'core meaning of marriage view' you want to impose on others, its abuse of the judicial process. Not only are inter-sex couples not entitled to marriage in your core view, they are not entitled to the legal right to a judicial review.
Why? Because your core meaning of marriage argument won't pass even the first test of the rational basis standard in judicial review.
Folks have different views of marriage, some include children and some do not. There are a myriad of reasons people choose marriage and not always to biologically have children.
I'll be comfortable with the outcome of Federal Judicial Review.. Will you?
It looks like the Prop 8 challenge with be web cast. I encourage you to listen in... Even call in to the lawyers to have them argue your view in the proceedings.. Sure like to hear what the court might say about 'em. Good luck...
The marital presumption of paternity, for one glaring example, is codified in marriage law. You can choose to negate it, if you wish, but you fool no one by choosing to ignore it.
The man-woman criterion is embedded in the marriage law in ways you might wish to abolish, but, again, your hope to abolish it is not one and the same as the hope to ignore it.
Marriage law recognizes a foundational social institution of civil society. This, too, you can wish away but to ignore it is to elide the actual disagreement.
When the man-woman basis of marriage is made explicit -- as per the legislative background given for DOMA -- SSMers attack that basis.
But in doing that you hope to deconstruct what you cannot ignore; and so you do not actually build SSM as something of merit. The tragic irony, even from the pro-SSM perspective, is that you attack that to which you'd hope to attach your favored subset of nonmarriage. Attacking the special reason for the special status of marriage is stuck on stupid because you leave your reliance on gay identity politics naked as the only reason you have for demanding special status for SSM -- or for a merger of SSM with marriage.
Stuck on stupid is a really poor rational basis for a government imposed merger of nonmarriage and marriage. It does not pass your own stated standard, as your weak answr to your own question has illustrated.
You flog a Straw Man of your own making each time you claim that there is an inter-religious problem with the core meaning of marriage.
That core is not purely religious. It exists in athiestic societies, for instance. You offered examples which actually contradict your claim about this core meaning. The theology of Reformed Judaism has not moved away from the two-sexed basis of marriage. Neither has Episcoalism. Buddhists are split on whether or not Buddhism is a religion, but those who take it as a religion overwhelming adhere to the two-sexed basis as well. I doubt you are up to a theological discussion, anyway, as you have already conceded, so you wouldn't be on firm ground regarding Utarianism nor Quakerism.
The core meaning of marriage is a unversal across the historical and anthroopological record. It cuts across religious lines, as well.
You can hope to negate that, and I am quite sure you hope to hide behind religion when it suites you, but you cannot deny that the two-sexed basis of marriage, as I've described it, exists in the marriage law and in the long tradition of pluralism in American society. All you can continue to do, Jonathan, is argue against the core of marriage.
You might as well stop hiding behind your Straw Man and take your lumps.
I would readily agree that the question becomes, do we want the future of marriage to exclude this core meaning for all of society? Do we really want to label it as hateful and bigoted? If so, then, what would you replace it with, if anything?
I hazard to guess you have nothing to replace it with but SSM which is specious anyway. You have yet to plainly say what the state interest/objective is in SSM (or in the SSM-merger-with-marriage) that would differntiate it from nonmarriage.
I will ask you again, based on your own stated standard, do you oppose special status for SSM/Marriage?
If not, please say the special reason that justifies special status. Your list has not provided differentation nor even a feint justification. That is a fatal flaw in your complaint against the marriage law.
For the record, Jonathan, you have not defended your view of marriage with a rational basis analysis.
Your remarks about judges illustrated your desire for the judiciary to act as policymaker. That would be an abuse of the judicial role.
No, if the judiciary abuses judicial review I will not be satisfied. You might be, but not I, and I recommend that no one in our constitutional republic ought to bow to such abuse of our system of governance.
There are principled supporters of SSM who oppose the sort of abuse of judicial review that occured in Massachusetts and Iowa and California -- for a few of the more prominent examples. When the principled basis for the judicial role is abandoned, a lot more is lost than the particulair case at hand.
And, for the record, Jonathan, it was you who openly conceded that your view of marriage depends on identity politics.
Meanwhile you failed to show how the core meaning of marriage is in anyway based on identity politics or is -- as you alleged -- "a hate law". Your failure is complete.
“I recommend that no one in our constitutional republic ought to bow to such abuse of our system of governance.”
Finally, we’re making progress! Now once you consider the intent of the Constitution’s Equal Protection guarantee, it’s a done deal! Marriage equality for all citizens! It never ceases to amaze me how easily supporters of marriage discrimination throw the US Constitution under the bus!
Chairm, I argue that civil marriage law - in the interest of the state must be rational. Civil marriage law must reasonably or most likely achieve an objective state interest or stated goal. Marriage law must equally apply to ALL identity groups. Marriage law cannot be solely a moral condemnation law, with little chance of achieving an objective and rational interest of the state. Civil marriage law then, as with most laws, are subject to judicial review for due process and equal protection issues. Democracy (the voting process alone) is not exempt from judicial review. Laws must rationally accomplish an interest off the state and must apply fairly to all similarly situated. Not exactly situated, but similar. Lets say a purported state interest is that every child shall have a mom and a dad, through marriage law (as opposed to loving parents). This objective then, must stand a rational chance of being achieved. An OSM civil marriage only law is not a rational law to accomplish this purported objective. OSM civil marriage only law does not rationally cause Inter-sex couples, gender variant couples, single parents, infertile and gay and lesbians to enter into opposite sex marriage in order achieve the mom and dad objective. OSM civil marriage only law is a hate and moral condemnation law, which has pretty much no effect on gay and lesbians giving up their children to opposite sex couples.
A rational law to accomplish the ‘mom and dad’ objective, might be to remove all children from inter-sex, gender variant, single parents, gay and lesbian families and prohibit them from ever having children.
Another interest of the state might be to insure that children have equally healthy outcomes to maximize their contribution to society. Civil marriage law then, in order to be rational, must apply to fairly to all citizens in order to achieve this purported objective.
Lets say objective scientific data showed that children of inter-sex, gender variant, and gay and lesbian couples produced equally healthy child outcomes as mom and dad couples. OSM civil marriage only law would not be a rational means to accomplish this purported stated interest because child molesters, alcoholics, rapists, felons and others are not prohibited from procreation or marriage law. So a rational marriage law, must not be under inclusive, in achieving a stated objective. All identity groups must be targeted that are shown to have impact on children and their healthy development.
So, if we wanted to call an interest in “responsible procreation” OSM only civil marriage law must rationally achieve that objective. Inter-sex couples, gender variant, gay and lesbians must prohibited from any form of procreation in order reasonably achieve the “man woman only requirement for example. Current OSM only law does nothing to stop, adoption or artificial means by gay and lesbians. Nor will OSM civil marriage only law make opposite sex couples procreate more than they currently are. The rational test fails.
If a state interest is to protect tradition, marriage law must have a greater interest than tradition alone. For example traditional racism is not immune from constitutional review. Further, protecting tradition in marriage law, must be rational and address traditional and historical practices of adultery, infidelity, domestic violence, child molestation, alcoholism etc. to be a law that has the best chance of accomplishing a purported interest in the state.
You still have not answered your own question about state interest/ objective for SSM.
Please get to the substance of the question you posed yourself.
You have not differentiated SSM from nonmarriage. Beginning there ought to make your rational basis for SSM more clearly stated.
I also asked if you oppose special status for the social institution of marriage. Please respond to that.
Kevin, your remark strongly suggests that you are easily amazed with your own shadow.
Chairm wrote:
"The theology of Reformed Judaism has not moved away from the two-sexed basis of marriage. Neither has Episcoalism. Buddhists are split on whether or not Buddhism is a religion, but those who take it as a religion overwhelming adhere to the two-sexed basis as well. I doubt you are up to a theological discussion, anyway, as you have already conceded, so you wouldn’t be on firm ground regarding Utarianism nor Quakerism."
--------
Sounds like your bringing up the man woman or (multiple woman) tradition argument, which we both know is not immune from constitutional review.
Chairm you ignore or that they either honor or if not, perform same gender unions today. Instead, tradition appears to be your trump card, certainly not freedom to practice religion. Or, is it freedom to practice their own brand off identity politics? Free from the dictates of the state or another's view of tradition?
----
So you don't like their same gender marriage practices? You want civil law and the power of the state to be your trump card because of "tradition" mixed in with some sky will fall slippery slope unproven claims and fear tactics?
--
Can I vote on your marriage?
Chairm "You have not differentiated SSM from nonmarriage. Beginning there ought to make your rational basis for SSM more clearly stated."
This does not appear to be a civil marriage law or a constitutional law question. A better question is if there is a rational basis to discriminate against same sex couples in a opposite sex requirement only civil marriage law. Does the OSM only restriction rationally and objectively accomplish an interest of the state?
Another issue the courts will look at is if homosexuals are discriminated against from a historical perspective. Also, if homosexuals lack sufficient political power to consistently secure equal rights. If the answer is YES to both questions, then a heightened level of analysis or scrutiny will be used to determine that a specific interest of the state is accomplished by OSM only civil marriage law.
Chairm; your arguments have a very high hurdle to overcome when applied to the rational review standard of constitutional law. You have stated that these standards are an abuse of judicial review. Have you entertained a thought although fleeting, that perhaps your arguments are on the wrong side of constitutional law, due process and the 14th amendment?
"Can I vote on your marriage?"
That question is ridiculous. When we vote on societal policies and laws, they affect ALL of us. Not just you. You would have redefined marriage for everyone, and you don't see that as "voting on" other people's marriages? Marriage is between a man and a woman. It's interesting that you are blind to your own actions. Neutering the marriage institution affects everyone.
Jonathan, we agreed earlier that we are not having a theological discussion. My previous point is two-pronged.
First, in Reformed Judaism, for example, the theology of marriage is in accord with the two-sexed basis of the social institution of marriage. The core meaning of that social institution is not a purely religious thing, contrary to your mistaken misrepresentations.
Second, the secular basis for marriage law is a core meaning that is codified in marriage law. That core meaning does not depend on theology, contary to your misrepresentations. It exists in exrpressly athiestic societies; it exists and has existed in pluralistic societies; it exists and has existed in panreligious societies.
And, besides, it is false of you to say that there is a state interest in folding all views of marriage into the marriage law. I already demonstrated that your own argumentation stands against the predominant view and does not accomodate all views.
SSM has no such deep roots in our civilization nor in the American legal system such that there can be a legitimate claim to fundamental right for a special status for SSM. That's the problem with your attempt to presuppose a merger of SSM with marriage. This is the context for the argument from tradition in constitutional jurisprudence.
And, for rational basis analysis, this has great persuasive force for guiding the judicial role to show deference to the longstanding man-woman criterion of marriage law. This is so even if you wish to negate it and to depend on the abuse of judicial review to inject a false presupposition.
As for tradition in more general terms, the SSM argumentation presented by SSM litigators, and regurgitated by pro-SSM judges, has emphasized the relatively recent tradition of romantic love. So by your own stated standards, this can not suffice to differentiate SSM from nonmarriage. This removes the keystone reason for using the gay-straight dichotomy. You cannot presuppose that the one-sexed arrangement is romance-based nor that the law is romance-based.
When you vote for elected representatives, you can vote on marriage. When you vote on a marriage measure or amendment, you can vote on marriage.
So, sure, you can vote on my marriage. You don't need special permission from me.
As I said earlier, the pro-SSM lawyers argued before the CA supreme court that the government could get out of the marriage biz and that would deliver equal treatment before the law for everybody. They did not say that I was entitted to vote on that -- just judges. SSMers generally want to deny me the opportunity to vote on such things -- including on my marriage. They'd deny you that opportunity, as well.
So take up your complaint with them instead.
Actually, Jonathan, to be fair and reasonable, you ought to answer your own questions. You have been elusive.
Let's now add the questions in your latest comment:
A. Is there a rational basis to discriminate between marriage and nonmarriage?
B. Is there a rational basis to discriminate between SSM and nonmarriage?
C. Would an SSM law rationally and objectively accomplish an interest of the state?
If you could simply state the essential feature(s) that differentiate the one-sexed arrangement from the rest of the nonmarriage category, you might proceed with a firm basis for answering those two questions which arise from your own thought process.
But you might give it an intellectually honest shot without that basis.
However, as your list of 5 items shows, you have failed so far even with a scatteredshot approach.
Jonathan, you haven't been following our discussion very faithfully.
I have not said that the standards of rational basis analysis constitute an abuse of judicial review.
Instead I have taken your question(s) at face value and applied them to your own view of SSM. Yet you have not held your view to your own stated standards.
Suppose the SSM-merger is imposed. Now, apply your standards to that merger, by answering the questions above.
And answer this additional question:
Have you entertained a thought although fleeting, that perhaps your arguments are on the wrong side of constitutional law, due process and the 14th amendment?
I'll also add that all indications are that you seek to make SSM a big exception to the very standards you have been citing.
In sum: the core of marriage easily withstands the scrutiny of rational basis analysis while you have not even bothered to hold your view of SSM up to this most basic level of scrutiny.
Answer the questions and show that you understand the principles and SSM. I don't think that your repeating your attempted deconstruction of marriage will put you in good stead for constructing an SSM law.
Chairm, I've never claimed the following..
", it is false of you to say that there is a state interest in folding all views of marriage into the marriage law."
I have claimed that Episcopal, Reformed Judaism, Unitarian, Quaker and Buddhist honor or perform same gender marriage as a matter of religious practice. The relevance here is separation of church and state, and that no religious view should prevail in civil marriage law.
I disagree with your following claim. "by pro-SSM judges, has emphasized the relatively recent tradition of romantic love." The basis of findings of fact is on due process, equal application of the law for same sex couples. Moreover, is there a rational basis and sufficient constitutional justification for denying marriage to same sex couples?
Chairm the following questions are not issues of law to determine if same sex couples are entitled to due process and equal protection for access to civil marriage. They appear to be comprised of your own ideology. However, Item C comes a bit closer to equal protection and application of civil law for same sex couples and their families. This is indeed an interest and most likely an obligation of the state.
A. Is there a rational basis to discriminate between marriage and nonmarriage?
B. Is there a rational basis to discriminate between SSM and nonmarriage?
C. Would an SSM law rationally and objectively accomplish an interest of the state?
Let me help you out with "your" side of the state interest issue in state and federal court. Your side claims a state interest in protecting and preserving traditional marriage. There are others, but variations of the same theme. I've already addressed this claim of "tradition" issue. I can also give you case law references too that your side will use, if that will help you address the specific constitutional questions at issue.
This is a great question below:
Have you entertained a thought although fleeting, that perhaps your arguments are on the wrong side of constitutional law, due process and the 14th amendment?
Yes, a fleeting thought or two, the Iowa supreme court and California decisions show that due process, equal protection also apply to homosexuals as a suspect class for access to civil marriage as a matter of law. The ninth circuit will consider the same constitutional issues the federal level. Abuse of judicial review? I think not..
Jonathan, you made a list of state interests that included "Respect for all marriage views".
Also, you are mistaken to say that Reform Judaism, for example, performs SSM as a religious practice; on the contrary, marriage is two-sexed.
If there is a religious practice of SSM someplace, it does not follow that it must be imposed on secular law. My point is simply that the core meaning of marriage is not a purely religious thing, contrary to your repeated misrepresentations.
You are not helping any one out by refusing to answer the questions that arise from your own remarks. Not even yourself.
Neither of those pro-SSM court opinions could point to a gay criterion for ineligibility in the marriage law. Nor for a straight criteriion for eligibility. You have not done so either.
Yet both relied on a non-existing requirement that would make same-sex sexual attraction, same-sex sexual romance, or same-sex sexual behavior mandatory for those who'd show up to SSM.
The obvious contrast is appalling evidence of the abuse of judicial review.
You do not understand those court opinions if you think that it is irrelevant that society legitimately discriminates between marriage and nonmarriage.
But those opinions do teach SSMers how to runaway from their own stated standards.
* * *
Imagine that tomorrow the SSM merger with marriage is accomplished throughout the country.
Now, answer the question that jumps out of your own remarks: what is the rational basis and sufficient constitutional justification for discriminating between marriage and nonmarriage?
Your previous list of supposed state interests failed to differentiate between marriage and nonmarriage and failed to justify the special status of marriage.
You can keep running away but you can't hide from that.
Chairm, I think i said honor or perform same sex marriages. Some religions honor same sex unions as part of their pastoral care. Others perform them.
Reformed Judaism accepts same gender unions.
So you want my sources on Episcopal same gender unions. Yes they also honor two sexed unions.
Why do you want to ignore their support of same gender unions?
Where have I said that your core meaning of marriage is purely a religious thing?
Where did I say religious practices of SSM need to be imposed on secular law. In fact I stated that NO religious practice should be imposed in civil law.
In fact here is a direct quote:
"The relevance here is separation of church and state, and that no religious view should prevail in civil marriage law."
How much clearer can I make it?
Yes Unitarians, Quakers, Episcopal, Reformed Jews, and Buddhists, either honor or perform same sex unions as a matter of pastoral care. I take it your religion does not? NO religious view should be embedded in civil law, which should remain neutral.
---
Are you saying your own brand of core meaning of marriage ideology or identity politics, should be imposed in secular law? I say "no" here too. Civil law should be neutral.
Jonathan you said: "is there a rational basis and sufficient constitutional justification for denying marriage to same sex couples?"
The marriage law does not deny marriage to them.
They deny marriage themselves.
What society legitimately rejects is the merger of nonmarriage with marriage. SSM is a subset of nonmarriage. Your own remarks have not differentiated SSM from nonmarriage.
However, you'd presuppose a false equivalence:
SSM = Marriage
And you'd use that as proxy for:
Gay = Straight
You rely on gay identity politics, just as the pro-SSM court opinions you cited, to pluck out a subset of nonmarriage for special treatment. This is blatant pro-gay bigotry.
It is a trivialization of the actual disagreement -- in a policymaking context -- and an abuse of judicial review in terms of the judicial role which is not a policymaking role.
You cannot deny that there are two-sexed scenarios that are ineligible under the man-woman criterion.
Please acknowledge that fact.
This arises from the core meaning of marriage which you would negate.
Without that core, the basis for ineligibility lines are also negated. You owe this discussion the rational basis for discriminating between marriage and nonmarriage in the aftermath of an SSM merger with marriage.
You cannot point to concerns about procreation, nor concerns about sex integration, nor concerns about the social institution's core meaning. You cannot even point to sexuality. You cannot point to the tradition of romance. You cannot point to moral condemantion, either. All of this you remarks would negate.
What is left that would differentiate marriage from the broad range of arrangements and relationship types that are not marriage? This is the meaning of state interest in marriage. What is the societal significance that merits the special status (marital status is a special status)?
If you answer nothing else, you ought to show the courage of your convictoins by plainly saying the special reason, if any, for special status for SSM/Marriage. You can start by clairifying if you oppose special status for SSM/Marriage.
Your silence would speak loudly. As would the sound of your fleeing footsteps. Stick around and live-up to your own stated standards.
Reformed Judaism and Episcopism honor religious marriage as the union of man and woman.
How other types of friendships are honored within religious practice is a different matter.
The marriage law does not deny such practices, anway. So you're off target.
When you made your list you said all views of marriage. Then you tried to hedge that as all religious views of marriage. Now you hedge further and say all religious views of one-sexed relationships (implying gaycentric views). In any case, that item on your list is not a state interest or objective in the marriage law. It is not secular, in the first place, and it does not possess the societal significance of stygmatizing the core meaning of marriage for all of society. Your remarks on this score are so off in left field as to be on the other side of the foul line and far out of the ballpark.
The secular law recognizes the core meaning of marriage. It is not my invention. It exists across the anthropological and historical records. It cuts across religious lines. Its roots are very deep in civilizations across the board. It is neutral on identity politics.
SSM, not so much.
SSM is an oxymoron since marriage is two-sexed. SSM is a very recent political invention from gaycentric identity politics. It is not foundational to civilization. It is not foundational to the gay culture and population. It lacks coherency. It is antithetical to the core meaning of the social institution of marriage. And participation rates are very, very, very low and declining.
Besides, what could be the core meaning of SSM? You haven't said, because (I suspect) there is no such core meaning. Until shown otherwise, SSM is indistinguishable from nonmarriage.
Equating it with marriage amounts to demanding the obliteration of the difference between marriage and nonmarriage.
Yes, I understand that SSMers want to negate the special reason for special status of marraige. But that only leads to rejection of sharing that special status with SSM. You can't reasonably expect to share a special status if you tear apart the reason for that special status.
Chairm respectfully, civil marriage must be judged under our constitutional standards of equal protection and not under religious doctrines or other ideology, religious views or identity politics of individuals.
Chairm, you been unable to identify remote constitutionally adequate or sufficient justification for excluding same sex couples from the institution of civil marriage. Any non-marriage distinction based on sexual orientation is suspect and cannot squared with fundamental principles of equal protection and due process embodied in our constitution.
As Varnum vs. Brien so clearly illustrates; the only legitimate inquiry then is whether OSM only laws from the democratic voting process or through legislation are constitutional. If it is not, its virtues cannot save it; if it is, its faults cannot be invoked to accomplish its destruction. If the provisions of the Constitution be not upheld when they pinch as well as when they comfort, they may as well be
abandoned.
Many religions recognize same-sex marriage, such as Buddhists, Quakers, Unitarians, and Reform and Reconstructionist Jews. (Schuman, 96 Geo. L.J. at 2108). Amicus curiae Iowa and National Faith Leaders, Communities, and Scholars point out the
United Church of Christ encourages, but does not require, its local congregations to adopt wedding policies that do not discriminate between heterosexual, gay, and lesbian couples, while the Episcopal Church permits priests to perform liturgies and blessings at same-sex weddings as a matter of pastoral care. Additionally, many groups and clergy within various religions are working to achieve inclusion of same-sex marriage.
A religious denomination can still define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, and a marriage ceremony performed by a minister, priest, rabbi, or other person ordained or designated as a leader of the person’s religious faith does not lose its meaning as a sacrament or other religious institution.
The sanctity of all religious marriages celebrated have the same meaning as those celebrated in the past. The only difference is civil marriage will now take on a new meaning that reflects a more complete understanding of equal protection of the law. This result is what our constitution requires.
If gay and lesbian people must submit to different treatment without an exceedingly persuasive
justification, they are deprived of the benefits of the principle of equal protection upon which our very rule of law is founded.
Chairm, Gay and lesbian families deserve and need the social and practical benefits of the institution of marriage that your family enjoys and may take for granted.
Evidence presented in Mass. California, Iowa and now the US federal district court convincingly and overwhelmingly show that sexual orientation and gender have no effect on children raised by same-sex couples, and same-sex couples can raise children as well as opposite-sex couples. Most scientific research has repudiated the commonly assumed notion that children need opposite-sex parents or biological parents to grow into well-adjusted adults. Many leading organizations, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the National Association of Social Workers, and the Child Welfare League of America, weighed the available research and supported the conclusion that gay and lesbian parents are as effective as heterosexual parents in raising children.
The official policy of the American Psychological Association states: “There is no scientific evidence that parenting effectiveness is related to parental sexual orientation: Lesbian and gay parents are as likely as heterosexual parents to provide supportive and healthy environments for children.” Almost every professional group that has studied the issue indicates children are not harmed when raised by same-sex couples, but to the contrary, benefit from them. Government agencies that license foster parents have found same-sex couples to be good and acceptable parents.
Jonathan, I did not say that the marriage law is "under religious doctrines".
You did. You said that there is a state interest in all views of marriage being respected in the marriage law. You stressed a few purported religious views, not I.
You have insisted that gay identity politics is essential to the pro-SSM complaint. But it is you, not the marriage law, nor I, who'd inject your peculiar sectarianism into this.
Varnum relied on same-sex sexual attraction and same-sex sexual romance. You objected to that before but now you quote Varnum. Shifting standards, Jonathan, are what your remarks reveal.
No, not "many religions", Jonathan. Also, you are confusing marriage with something else when you cite religions. And you are also showing that you want religious views you prefer to be pressed into the secular law. Yet you posed as if against such sectarianism.
If you want a theological argument we can have one but that was taken off the table some time ago -- by yourself. There are other blogsites dedicated to such discussions.
You show that you do not understand the principles of rational basis analysis if you think that the hurdle is an "exceedingly persuasive justification". Besides, I gave you the justification for the special status of marriage. While you continue to runaway from giving the special reason for special status for SSM/Marriage. That's because you don't have one for SSM and so you act like marriage must be made as meaningless.
* * *
Jonathan, you said following which is a blantant falsehood: "Evidence presented in Mass. California, Iowa and now the US federal district court convincingly and overwhelmingly show that sexual orientation and gender have no effect on children raised by same-sex couples".
You overstate the meaning of the evidence, such as it is, and you do so to deride the societal significance of the unity of fatherhood and motherhood. Thus you stand AGAINST responsible procreation. The social scientific evidence does not compel lsuch a hostile stand against the core meaning of marriage. Such over-reaching is not appropriate in a judicial capacity. Your rhetoric is political.
You said those things (that entire parragraph) in light of judicial review. Once again you concede that you rely on a policymaking role rather than a judicial role: you depend on the abuse of judicial review.
* * *
The wide and deep social scientific consensus is that marriage is the standard by which all other parenting models are compared and come up short.
The low conflict intact union of mom and dad provides the best outcomes, on average, for children. Encouraging more parenting of this kind benefits the children, their parents, and society. Hence, society accords marriage a special status that you have been attacking as "hateful" and as "unconstitutional".
But you should not pound so hard on your politicized message about children unless you want to make it legally compulsory that those who show up to SSM show up with children in tow. That's the pro-SSM standard -- it must be complulsory or it is irrelevant to the marriage law.
* * *
Jonathan just say that you oppose the special status of marriage.
Or say the state interest that justifies the special status of marriage.
Then show how that differentiates marriage from nonmarriage.
You can do it, right? You wouldn't be running scared from the actual disagreement, would you?
Jonathan, your list of state interests/objectives doesn't help your cause very well. It actually was undermined by that anemic list.
So you can try another list. Make it new and improved.
For example, if you want to insist that the state objective is to press this or that particular pro-gay theological view into the marriage law, go ahead. That is what you have been strongly suggesting anyway.
If you did something like that you'd at least stop flogging Straw Men of your own making.
Until shown otherwise, SSM is undifferentiated from nonmarriage.
There are far more families living outside of marriage with children -- tens of millions more -- than there are same-sex households (with or without children). A very large portion of the nonmarriage families are 1) one-sexed 2) BUT not gay.
So gay identity politics doesn't do the trick, Jonathan. Nor does pointing at children in families outside of marriage. Society may legitimately discriminate between marriage and nonmarriage. Gayness is not the differentiator you think it is, Jonathan.
Chairm
The answer to your question regarding the "special status for SSM/Marriage. That’s because you don’t have one for SSM and so you act like marriage must be made as meaningless."
-
My answer, Its the same interests status that inter-sex, gender variant, homosexual and heterosexual couples seek in civil marriage. Chairn, If your marriage is now meaningless, this is your issue (own it) and not the responsibility inter-sex, gender variant, homosexuals and heterosexual couples.
Chairm said "You show that you do not understand the principles of rational basis analysis if you think that the hurdle is an “exceedingly persuasive justification”. Besides, I gave you the justification for the special status of marriage. "
I quoted from constitutional law, if you want to debate the text and meaning, we can do that.
It was I that asked you (I count 9 times) to provide a state interest in OSM only law. Instead, you avoided the question by asking me to define a state interest. NOW its your turn. Your brand of identity politics or "justification for this special status" of marriage is not a state interest, let alone a constitutional reason for denying same sex couples from civil marriage (exceedingly persuasive justification).
What is your constitutional justification and state interest in denying same sex couples from civil marriage? Rhetoric and derived strongly held views about core marriage meanings and responsible procreation, is not documented in constitutional law, due process or equal protection. Further, not a state interest that I can find in a Lexis-Nexis search.
Chairm, you have NOT claimed that gender variant, inter-sex and homosexual individuals should be denied due process and equal protection under the law and constitution of the United States. This is the controlling governing interest in our discussion of civil marriage law. Your arguments must satisfy a rational basis review and even heightened scrutiny.
This is where the rubber meets the road as they say.
Chairm stated "Gayness is not the differentiator you think it is, Jonathan." OK then, make a persuading constitutional argument to support your position and you win!
I'm waiting.... Jonathan taps foot...
For the sake of discussion, let's proceed on your understanding that the state interests in SSM/Marriage are "the same interests status [sic] that inter-sex, gender variant, homosexual and heterosexual couples seek in civil marriage."
Please see footnote.
1. What are those interests?
2. Explain how those interests differentiate the nonmarriage category of relationships and arrangement from the subsets that you listed.
3. Please be clear: do you oppose or support special status for SSM/Marriage? If oppose, please say why. If support, please say the special reason for special status.
If you choose not to answer these three questions, which arise from your own remarks, then, please give your reasoning for that choice.
FOOTNOTE
Please clarify what you mean by your phrase, "same interests status". Perhaps that was a typo and you might kindly retype your sentence for clarity's sake. Thanks.
Jonathan said: "you avoided the question by asking me to define a state interest."
To the contrary. I gave you my answer waaaay upthread. I recapped. I did so very recently.
Before I requested that you answer your own question about the state interests/objectives in marriage, I said the following:
Me: "You have misrepresented my answer — or are feigning ignorance even though you claimed to be following up the discussion that Beth and I had earlier. So since you reject or ignore my responses to both you and Beth, you can skip that and get to the gist of your own advocacy of SSM." [December 24, 2009 at 4:19 am]
You agreed: "Chairm, thanks… I’ll give it a try…" [December 24, 2009 at 6:10 am]
* * *
To update, you have insisted that the key question is: “What is the interest of state in civil marriage?”
In your latest remark you chose to answer a different question.
You switched from state interests to a new question about private or personal interests of "couples".
You quoted a comment in which I had asked you to give "the special reason for special status for SSM/Marriage."
As per my previous remarks, this question was about state interests which would differentiate from the nonmarriage and which would justify special status.
You looked to personal or private interests and replied: "My answer, Its the same interests status that inter-sex, gender variant, homosexual and heterosexual couples seek in civil marriage."
I did not ask about about that.
I asked about the special status and about the state interests that have been the subject of our discussion -- a subject you insisted was key.
* * *
It is notable that you have added a new list, this time a list of subsets of SSM/Marriage: "inter-sex, gender variant, homosexual and heterosexual couples".
This list does not in itself differentiate from nonmarriage.
Tell me this: do you assume some sexual meaning in the word "couples"? Why? Would that meaning not also fit "singles" and "triples" and so forth? Please explain.
When I said: "“Gayness is not the differentiator you think it is, Jonathan.”
Jonathan said: "OK then, make a persuading constitutional argument to support your position and you win!"
The marriage law is neutral regarding gayness. This is so for the man-woman criterion. This is so for the marital presumption of paternity. There are plenty of gay-identified people who have married under this law; and plenty whose parental status is established and protected by this law.
The core meaning of marriage does not fit the one-sexed arrangement, regardless of gayness, regardless of sexual orientation, regardless of your false assumptions about the marriage law.
For example: two men show up for a marriage license but are ineligible. I bet you assumed that the men are gay. But they are not. They are quite fond of having sex with women. So by your standards, the marraige law is anti-straight and on that basis is hateful.
Besides, there is no legal requirement for SSM -- none where SSM has been imposed and none proposed by the SSM campaign -- which would make same-sex sexual attraction mandatory. Nor same-sex sexual behavior. Nor same-sex sexual romance. Nor gay identity. None of that fits the law for SSM, anyway.
If you want the law to equate nonmarriage with marraige, as per your own remarks, then, you need a better tool than the assertion of identity politics.
Such an assertion was repudiated with the dismantling of the anti-miscegenation system that criminalized 'inter-racial' marriage. Your remarks emphasize a racialist-kind of identity politics which you want the government to use as a trump card.
So your supposed neutrality is actually pro-gay favoritism.
Chairm,
So far I have not seen persuasive constitutional argumentation as to why same sex couples should be excluded from civil marriage. Nor can I find in prior posts which describe your specific view of state interests in civil marriage. I've got a new set of glasses too.
However, what I can find is:
"Provide state interests which would differentiate from the non-marriage and which would justify special status." - How does this answer my question about what are the state interests in civil marriage law?
Chairm, two child molesting - pedophile opposite sex procreating couples (not attracted to each other) could show up for a marriage license and obtain one.
-So what is your point? You want to target inter-sex, gender variant and homosexuals with a law that makes same-sex sexual attraction mandatory or same-sex sexual behavior or same-sex sexual romance or gay identity? Why not the same for opposite sex couples? It appears, that you only want gay and lesbian marriage civl law to have more clarity and granularity. If so, to be fair this should apply to opposite sex couples as well.
Further, where is your "non-marriage" brand of argumentation located in civil marriage law, the constitution, due process or equal protection amendments? I can't find this anywhere as an interest of the state and its certainly not constitutional justification for excluding same sex couples from civil marriage.
It fact, your equating non-marriage with marriage argumentation is not in any of the legal briefs filed in Mass. Iowa, California State and now the federal district court. Why do you suppose? I purport the reason Chairm, is because this is not an interest of the state or persuasive constitutional justification for denying gay and lesbian couples equal protection and due process under the law.
Based on legal briefs I've reviewed, your argumentation is not applicable to the current same sex couple due process and equal protection claims in state and now federal court. They are not there. Why? They really have no relevance and are not legal arguments.
If I want the law to equate non-marriage with marriage.. is so off base. Your entitled to that view of course, but this does not even come close to a rational basis standard in constitutional jurisprudence.
Can you modify your argumentation to fit a constitutional law template?
Chairm, perhaps your quote below is what you were referring to describe the state interest in civil marriage law. I dunno.
"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.”
This describes the problem with your argumentation and not the outcome. If they were criteria in the constitution we would not be having this discussion. What you fail to mention is that there is a fundamental right to due process and equal protection under the law for all Americans. This is the issue the courts provide redress. Your argumentation is flawed from the get-go.
Jonathan, this is basic lawmaking. It is common sense. But your confusion may explain your desire that the judicial role be made into a policymaking role -- at least for SSM, if for nothing else.
Okay, for the sake of discussion, let's assume that marriage is undifferentiated from other stuff. In fact, we'll go with your stance that there is not even a state interest in what makes marriage different from other types of relationships and other types of arrangements.
Why then would you insist that the key inquiry is about state interests in marriage, if you think marriage is a blank slate?
* * *
Is it your view that there is no state interest in marriage that could justify its special status?
Or is it your view that marital status is not special status?
IS it your view that there is no difference between SSM and marriage? And also that there is no difference between SSM and nonmarriage?
If you have sound reasoning for your certitude, these questions should be soft ball pitches. You ought to have ready-made answers upon which you have erected your analysis.
The boundaries -- eligibility criteria -- are the limitations within which the marriage law governs. You want to change the boundaries. So you need to do some hard thinking about the core, its societal significance, and its essentials -- otherwise you have no rational basis for demanding a change in the boundaries around what marriage actually is.
Marriage is of societal significance because [fill-in the blank]. This [fill-in the blank] is what makes marriage different from other stuff. Coincidentally, this [fill-in the blank] is what makes SSM different from other stuff and the same as marriage.
Basic lawmaking. Common Sense. Intellectual honesty. No tricks and nothing up the sleeves.
Marriage is two-sexed as per the deeply rooted right to marry in the traditions, laws, and history of America.
The CA marriage amendment merely reaffirmed what has always been so in CA and across the country. That state's highest court has officially decided that the marriage amendment is constitutional in that state.
The CA constitution agrees with the federal DOMA. There is no conflict between CA constitution and federal law. On this matter there is no conflict between CA law and federal precedents.
* * *
On the other hand, both federal and state precedents have repudiated the assertion of supremacy via identity politics. See Loving and see Perez.
Gay identity politics is not decisive.
Lacking something else to differentiate SSM from nonmarriage, there is no basis for reviving the assertion of supremacy via identity politics and making it a constitutional mandate that a subset of nonmarriage be merged with marriage. Congress may lawfully discriminate between marriage and nonmarriage.
SSM is a subset of nonmarriage as per the CA constitution and previous treatment of the subject by US Supreme Court. Marriage precedents of the US Supreme Court do not confuse SSM with marriage.
The fundamental right to marry is not one and the same as the liberty to choose to form a nonmarital arrangement -- one-sexed or two-sexed. Two different things may legitimately be governed by different laws and different legal paradigms.
Anyway, a proposed merger of SSM with marriage -- or some other treatment of same-sex arrangements (gay or not) -- remains a question of policymaking, not judicial interpretation. The courts are not competent to remake policy on this matter. This is governed by basic principles of republican governance embedded in the framework of the US Constitution, including the seperation of powers.
Jonathan said: "If [homosexuality and heterosexuality] were criteria in the constitution we would not be having this discussion."
Huh?
I referred to the marriage law. Those are not criteria in the marriage law.
Even if they were somehow pressed into the constitution, the marriage law does not use homosexuality as a criterion for ineligiblity nor doe sit use heterosexuality as a criterion for eligiblity.
The SSM campaign doesn't really care about making homosexuality the chief feature of SSM. There is no proposal to make it mandatory for those who'd show-up to SSM.
When it comes to marriage, heterosexual orientation is not compulsory so someone who identifies himself as homosexual is not ineligible by that self-identification.
Plenty of such people have married under current marriage law. Goes to prove the basic point.
Chairm wrote: "But your confusion may explain your desire that the judicial role be made into a policymaking role."
Sometimes this happens with our form of government with the legislative, executive and judicial branch form of government. The judicial branch provides checks and balances (and yes policy corrections) on laws passed by the democratic voting process and through state or federal legislation. Civil laws must serve a legitimate government interest. Otherwise, women would not have the right to vote, folks would be still using separate drinking fountains, women could not practice law, child support scoff law violators would still not have their right to marriage in one state. Some laws that seem rational to a majority interest group, may fail judicial review. This is the way our government works and has so for some time.
Chairm you claim "The courts are not competent to remake policy on this matter. This is governed by basic principles of republican governance embedded in the framework of the US Constitution, including the seperation of powers."
On the contrary courts have the responsibility to uphold the constitution of the United States. This includes the fundamental right to due process and equal protection judicial review. Sometimes laws enacted through the legislature and democratic voting process violate the United States constitution. In our form of government, the courts provide review and redress if necessary.
In our form of government, Americans are provided the opportunity to exercise their right to judicial equal protection and due process claims of these initiatives. The interest of the state is easily protected and the law stands, if the law can be shown to be a rational in accomplishing an interest of the state.
We are off to a bad start because the following is not my stance "we’ll go with your stance that there is not even a state interest in what makes marriage different from other types of relationships and other types of arrangements."
What I'm still waiting for, is your the state interest in civil marriage and a persuasive constitutional argument to support your position.
Chairm you stated "The CA marriage amendment merely reaffirmed what has always been so in CA and across the country. That state’s highest court has officially decided that the marriage amendment is constitutional in California."
First, Tradition (the way its always been) is not nor ever has been immune from United States constitutional judicial review or attack. "Tradition" cannot stand by itself. Tradition is subject to a rational basis analysis and in some cases of a suspect class, a heightened level of scrutiny.
Second, the California Supreme court affirmed California voters right to amend their state constitution. In so doing, the court made it very clear that their decision did not affect plaintiffs rights afforded by the United States constitution. Nor their rights to seek redress in federal court under due process and equal protection.
The federal court will determine (gay identity politics, special status of marriage, OSM only politics, religious views, core marriage and procreation meanings, SSM marriage or non merger views, societal significance, or not), whether same sex couples are entitled to due process and equal protection in civil marriage law. Nothing more, nothing less.
Jonathan if you believe, as you say, that "Civil laws must serve a legitimate government interest," then you need to do better in explaining the government interest in marriage.
Earlier you strongly suggested that there was no state interest in differentiating marriage from nonmarriage.
Now you say that is not your stance. Please reconcile your previous remarks.
* * *
So far you haven't provided state interest in SSM to pass the test of rational basis analysis for special status for SSM.
If you want to attach SSM to the special status of marriage, then, you need to provide enough for the SSM-merger to pass.
1. Enough for the special status of marriage.
2. Enough for the special status of SSM.
3. Enough for the special status of SSM/marriage (i.e. the merger).
Take you pick. Then we can assess the application of the law to your view.
* * *
It is legitimate for society to discrimnate between marriage and nonmarriage. If you agree, give the justification for that discrimination.
* * *
Constitutional rights are individual rights, not group rights. Marriage is about people entering a social institution that is two-sexed, not sex-neutral.
Marriage law does restrict the exercise of the individual right to marital status. The qualification process is simple and arises from societal concerns regarding the core meaning -- the thing that marriage is -- rather than identity politics.
Equal protection and due process kick-in when applying the law. The application of marriage law provides for equal treatment regardless of gay identity.
In contrast, your stated position is that identity groups, rather than individuals, must be treated the same. You would use SSM and marriage as proxies for such a goal, which you assume is a state interest.
You haven't even addressed the correct questions which are NOT about identity groups but rather about the comparison of marriage, SSM, and nonmarriage.
* * *
You need not wait for my argument about the state interests in the social institution of marriage.
I've explained this core meaning; I've shown the legal requirements that express this core meaning; and I've pointed out that the CA constitution and the DOMA and the federal precedents are not in conflict.
You can keep ignoring this or you can deal with it forthrightly. Feigning ignorance is not going to advance your opposition to the marriage law one iota, here.
* * *
We've already covered 'tradition' in the constitutional context. You can keep whining about it but the fact is that a fundamental right is one deeply rooted. And SSM is not deeply rooted -- not in the constitutional jurisprudence, not in the text of the state and US constitutions, not in the marriage laws, not in the history and customs of our society. Not deeply rooted means it is not a fundamental right as per the constitutional argument regarding tradition.
You might hope to use some other criteria by which to claim a new fundamental right -- newly discovered -- for treating SSM as marriage. You have not offered anything that would accomplish such a thing, except for your emphasis on gayness and identity politics.
* * *
Based on our judicial precedents, state courts may treat rights more expansively than the federal judiciary. You want to turn that upside down. So your still stuck with the agreement that exists between the CA constitution, federal law, US Supreme Court precedents, and the longstanding affirmation of the opposite-sexed sexual basis of the social institution of marriage. That is a lot more to overcome than you imagine. Hence your dependance on trying to corrupt the judicial role into a policy-making role.
You have just confirmed that is your hope and goal.
* * *
The SSM issue is about the assertion of supremacy via gay identity politics, nothing more.
Chairm wrote: "Earlier you strongly suggested that there was no state interest in differentiating marriage from non-marriage." I said no such thing. I do suggest that the state has a interest in civil marriage, one reason is the civil contractual law perspective.
your red herring arguments seek to neutralize the very core of a person’s identity in marriage law, their sexual orientation. Your arguments of animus, and unequal treatment under the law seek to slam the marriage door shut to same sex couples .
Meanwhile your hollow and misguided arguments, open the welcome doors of marriage with love, acceptance and compassion and embrace opposite sex couple child molesters, opposite sex, couples who beat and abuse their family members, opposite sex couple, drug and alcohol abusers, opposite sex couple convicted felons and others similarly situated.
Your only requirement of marriage? Opposite sex couples. A brand of identity politics that you purport to be the trump card for denying same sex couples access to cvil marriage.
Your tradition because its always been this way argumentation will not stand a constitutional review, unless coupled with a legitimate state interest. Traditional racism is just one example that did not pass a rational basis review, as a valid interest of the state.
Now you have provided the following as a state interest in civil marriage law:
"I’ve explained this core meaning; I’ve shown the legal requirements that express this core meaning; and I’ve pointed out that the CA constitution and the DOMA and the federal precedents are not in conflict." DOMA and CA constitutional arguments are your most recent additions.
Your stongly held 'core meaning marriage view' is in direct conflict with other marriage views. Both secular and directly opposing views exist among the religions. It is NOT a state interest to select one view over another. If responsible procreation were a state interest, then the law must mostl likely accomplish this stated objective. Your man-woman only restriction will not stop inter-sex, homosexuals, gender variant, opposite sex child molesters felons, drug users, alcoholics, from obtaining a license to marry. Chairm, you must come up with a more inclusive law, that "might" actually accomplish your responsible procreation objective. The rational basis test in federal and state court have failed this argument time and again and will most likely do so as this progresses in the federal court system.
I've tried to explain the difference between California's constitutional amendment and legislation like DOMA. In California, all man-woman only laws failed state due process and equal protection judicial reviews, as with the other states with marriage equality. DOMA is not an amendment. DOMA has yet to face an equal protection and due process challenge in federal court. The time may be coming very soon. The supreme court in California went out of their way to show that the plaintiffs federal due process and equal protection rights were available redress.
------
"The SSM issue is about the assertion of supremacy via gay identity politics, nothing more."
-If this is your definition of marriage equality, this is fine, but will it stand judicial review on due process and equal protection grounds? I suggest that it will strongly fail at that.
--------------
Civil marriage opposite sex couple only law cannot be solely a moral condemnation law, with little chance of achieving an objective and rational interest of the state. Civil marriage law then, as with most laws, are subject to judicial review for due process and equal protection issues. Democracy (the voting process alone) is not exempt from judicial review. Laws must rationally accomplish an interest off the state and must apply fairly to all similarly situated. Not exactly situated, but similar. For the sake of my argument, I’m assuming there is no federal constitutional (marriage shall be only be between opposite sex couples) amendment.
Lets say a purported state interest is that every child shall have a mom and a dad, through marriage law (as opposed to loving parents). This objective then, must stand a rational chance of being achieved. An OSM civil marriage only law is not a rational law to accomplish this purported objective. OSM civil marriage only law does not rationally cause Inter-sex couples, gender variant couples, single parents, infertile and gay and lesbians to enter into opposite sex marriage in order achieve the mom and dad objective. OSM civil marriage only law is a hate and moral condemnation law, which has pretty much no effect on gay and lesbians giving up their children to opposite sex couples.
A rational law to accomplish the ‘mom and dad’ objective, might be to remove all children from inter-sex, gender variant, single parents, gay and lesbian families and prohibit them from ever having children.
Another interest of the state might be to insure that children have equally healthy outcomes to maximize their contribution to society. Civil marriage law then, in order to be rational, must apply to fairly to all citizens in order to achieve this purported objective.
Lets say objective scientific data showed that children of inter-sex, gender variant, and gay and lesbian couples produced equally healthy child outcomes as mom and dad couples. OSM civil marriage only law would not be a rational means to accomplish this purported stated interest because child molesters, alcoholics, rapists, felons and others are not prohibited from procreation or marriage law. So a rational marriage law, must not be under inclusive, in achieving a stated objective. All identity groups must be targeted that are shown to have impact on children and their healthy development.
So, if we wanted to call an interest in “responsible procreation” OSM only civil marriage law must rationally achieve that objective. Inter-sex couples, gender variant, gay and lesbians must prohibited from any form of procreation in order reasonably achieve the “man woman only requirement for example. Current OSM only law does nothing to stop, adoption or artificial means by gay and lesbians. Nor will OSM civil marriage only law make opposite sex couples procreate more than they currently are. The rational test fails.
If a state interest is to protect tradition, marriage law must have a greater interest than tradition alone. For example traditional racism is not immune from constitutional review. Further, protecting tradition in marriage law, must be rational and address traditional and historical practices of adultery, infidelity, domestic violence, child molestation, alcoholism etc. to be a law that has the best chance of accomplishing a purported interest in the state.
Chairm, I suggest a civics lesson in the judicial process of fact finding is in order. There is a good chance the Prop H8 challenge will be webcast starting 11 January 2010. I'm looking forward to being a fly on the court room wall. I do hope you want to listen in as well.
--
Jonathan, upthread you said that you could not find in the law a state interest in the difference between marriage and nonmarriage.
You said: "Further, where is your “non-marriage” brand of argumentation located in civil marriage law, the constitution, due process or equal protection amendments? I can’t find this [basic differentiation of marriage] anywhere as an interest of the state..."
What did you mean to say, if you did not mean that you think there is no state interest in what makes marriage different from other types of relationships and other types of arrangements"?
* * *
It is basic lawmaking. The existence of marriage law presupposes the existence of marriage. And the fact that the law recognizes marriage is evidence that there is a state interest in whatever essentials that makes marriage different. These essentials pre-exist the law's recognition of them.
If the state has an interest in something, that something is necessarily different from other stuff. Otherwise that something would not be singled out for special treatment.
There is an intrinsic state interest in recognizing the difference(s) between marriage and all the other types of relationships and kinds of arrangements.
Maybe you disagree?
This goes directly to your own insistence on listing state interests that can be justified. If the law is to recognize, license, and accord a special status, then, discrimination between marriage and all the other stuff is fundamental. And that means recognizes the differences; it means justifying special status based on those differences.
Basic stuff, really.
You insisted on state interests. But you have dodged the most basic state interest: recognition of the differnces between marriage and nonmarriage.
The law itself does not create these differences; but it can certainly highlight and even add extra emphasis to the societal significance of these differences.
You seem all too ready to runaway from your own stated standards. I now think that you are not willing to carry the responsiblity that comes with your own argumentation. And that, Jonathan, would be intellectually dishonest of you.
To be more charitable, I think the profound flaws in your remarks stem from your naive notions not merely of marriage, but of the Law, the Constitution, and our system of government. The SSM campaign teaches bad lessons about those very things.
Gay identity politics leds the appearance of coherency to these errant lessons that work to make marriage mean less and less; to make the principles of lawmaking mean less and less; and to undermine the Constitution and its framework for self-government.
All of this is at stake in the marriage issue.
Jonathan said: "If a state interest is to protect tradition, marriage law must have a greater interest than tradition alone."
The core meaning of marriage is not a tradition. It is that core that is being recognized, affirmed, and accorded special status. If you gut marraige of its core meaning, then, you remove the justification for its special status.
The marriage law is not merely about "protecting tradition," as you so inaccurately put it, but it is about protecting marriage and affirming what makes it different from all the rest.
Marriage law has no greater interest than marriage itself.
And that stands light years above your goal of making it a state interest to use gay identity politics a trump card over marriage, over the law, over the Constitution, and over our form of self-government.
You are thus returned to the task you set before yourself: list the state interests that would differentiate SSM from nonmarriage -- or, in your view, that would differentiate the merger of SSM and marriage from all other types of relationship and types of arrangements that would be considered outside the bounds of SSM/marriage.
You haven't made a dent in that task.
Chairm you stated: "The SSM issue is about the assertion of supremacy via gay identity politics, nothing more."
I suggest 18,000 married gay and lesbian couples in California and the other 5 marriage equality states might differ slightly in their view. For example gay identity politics provides no supremacy in access to your spouses company provided health insurance, nor a trump card for access to hospital visitation of your dying partner, or their body for funeral arrangements. Nor is gay identity politics particularly meaningful or helpful to claim spousal inheritance, pension or social security rights. Must be something more to the supremacy of gay identity politics in marriage law I presume. Perhaps this is one part of an answer to your question about what distinguishes marriage from non-marriage. Who gets to define 'core meaning' for ones own individual marriage then?
Yet another issue is the due process and equal protection issue for gay and lesbian couples who want the status of marriage. There was a traditional practice in our history of exclusion too, when women were the property of their husbands, could not be parties to a contract, could not practice law and could not vote. Was this also a valid traditional interest of the state? Perhaps this too, was just another example of gender identity politics seeking supremacy in the law? I think not. I think not for gay and lesbian couples today seeking due process and equal protection under the law as a fundamental right provided by the constitution for all Americans.
Chairm, your argumentation below does not seem to be a due process and equal protection issue. This is what I meant when I could not find a statute (law) or legal opinion. If you can make a due process and/or equal protection argument out of this, I'll take a look to see what's there.
You are thus returned to the task you set before yourself: list the state interests that would differentiate SSM from nonmarriage — or, in your view, that would differentiate the merger of SSM and marriage from all other types of relationship and types of arrangements that would be considered outside the bounds of SSM/marriage.
"The worst form of inequality is to make unequal things equal." - Aristotle
Great Aristotle quote, but does who decides what or who is unequal?
I like this quote: "Is an orange still or orange if you take out the center and fill in with an apple? Perhaps not, but its still an orange if the apple is allowed to sit side by side on the same table."
Another thought...
Homosexuality has been a factor in the constitution since its formation, the issue how to count homosexual slaves for determination for representation, taxation, and migration. The 13th amendment freed the homosexual slaves, the 14th amendment granted them citizenship, and the 15th gave them the right to vote.
Perhaps now the federal court will grant them the right to marry.
They already have the right to marry, same as anyone else. You insist on separating what is already equal.
This is indeed true, they do have the right to marry someone for which their is no physical attraction. Just like opposite sex couples who have no physical attraction to each other.
In a judicial review for a due process and equal protection challenge (also a right for all Americans).
The courts, peel back the layer of the logic onion a bit further. They apply a rational basis standard of review or benchmark to the issue before the court. If they pass the rational basis test, the law stands.
For example, they might ask, "Is opposite only marriage a rational option, where there is no physical attraction?" Especially since the law grants opposite sex pedophile child molesting couples the right too marriage.
This restriction might fail the 'rational basis test' and the law determined to be unconstitutional.
A civics lesson review on due process and equal protection showing how the rational basis process works will be the You Tube Videos Judge Vaughn Walker provides the day after each Prop 8 hearing starting 12 January.
Is physical attracton the elusive state interest in SSM?
Nope.
Not if we go by our own stated standards. Same-sex sexual attraction is not mandatory for those who'd show up for SSM -- not anyplace it has been imposed and there is no proposal for such a requirement.
* * *
Meanwhile there is great societal significance for a body of law that recognizes the social institution of marriage. Its opposite-sexed sexual basis is embedded in the marriage law -- see consummation, annulment, adultery-divorce, and marital presumption of paternity. These show state interest in the core meaning of marriage: sex integration, responsible procreation, and these combined as a coherent whole. These lawful provisions are constitutional. As are the eligiblity lines drawn around societal concerns for that core meaning.
* * *
Jonathan, your silence concedes that you cannot differentiate SSM from the stuff that is not marriage. That speaks volumes.
You have studiously avoided saying if you are opposed or in favor of the special status of marriage.
This amounts to a rather large concession on your part. Simply put, you have failed to find a state interest in SSM such that it would survive your own stated standards.
In effect, you have failed to give even one state interest for even having a marriage law in the first place. So it is no surprise you cannot muster up an authentic state interest in a merger of SSM and marriage.
You've done about as much as you seem capable of doing. And that just does not pass your own test for a rational basis analysis.
Chairm,
There is [indeed] great societal significance for a body of law that recognizes the social institution of marriage. One difference that I make is the contractual law aspect of civil marriage as opposed to non-marriage.
My modifications in [ ] below....
As a matter of historical record, Its opposite-sexed sexual [and at one time racial] basis [was presumed] in marriage law — see consummation, [see polygamy practices] annulment, adultery-divorce, and marital presumption of paternity. These show [historical state interest and practice] in [a] core meaning of marriage: sex integration, responsible procreation [5 states offer civil marriage and legal contractual protections for same sex couples and their families] and these combined as a coherent whole. These lawful provisions are constitutional. As are the eligiblity lines drawn around [historical] societal concerns for that core meaning.
Chairm, you have articulately described the concept of the Orange, its core intact with all traditional meaning and "special status" sitting atop the strong foundation of civil marriage. Now, we arrive to today, where the question before the court is if this meaningful core of the orange will be altered or modified in any way if the Apple is allowed (eligibility) to sit side by side as equals on the same solid foundation or "special status" as the Orange.
This is the question before the court, where the due process and equal protection rational basis test will begin. Will the Orange lose its color? Will the core of the Orange disappear? Will the Orange lose its flavor just because of who is sitting next to it?
Also, same sex couples in a non-marriage status who seek the special status and civil benefits of marriage, are prohibited in some states because of opposite sex (man-woman) only laws that:
Violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Violates the Due Process Clause by impinging on fundamental liberties.
Singles out gays and lesbians for a disfavored legal status, thereby creating a category of “second-class citizens.”
Discriminates on the basis of gender.
Discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation.
Jonathan,
Are two oranges equal to two apples? Are two oranges or two apples equal to an apple and an orange?
No. Only an apple and an orange are equal to an apple and an orange.
Why? Simple. Separate is never equal.
State interest in legalizing same-sex marriage:
1. Reducing the divorce rate: fewer mixed orientation marriages ending in divorce
2. Honoring the US Constitution’s guarantee of Equal Protection and Due Process for all citizens
3. Greater security for children: the children of most same-sex couples are being raised out of wedlock, disadvantageous according to NOM’s Maggie Gallagher
4. Better health and wealth for same-sex couples, per research from Maggie Gallagher
5. Enhancing religious freedom by permitting faith groups that want to bless same-sex unions the legal right to do so.
State interest in prohibiting same-sex marriage:
????????
L Marie
“They already have the right to marry, same as anyone else.”
Another way to look at the issue is, do gay men and women have the same opportunity, as a class, to marry. Even if you genuinely believe that one man/one woman only marriage isn’t discriminatory, it is unfairly burdensome to the gay man or woman, who is faced with finding an opposite-sex partner willing to marry a homosexual, with all the short-comings (for both partners) that would entail.
Worse, it hurts the institution of marriage by forcing sexually incompatible couples together. Marriages composed of mixed sexuality couples are more likely to end in divorce. In fact, there’s a national organization for the straight spouses of mixed sexuality marriages that ended in divorce due to sexual incompatibility. This organization is strongly in favor of same-sex marriage, to avoid mixed sexuality marriages in the first place!
If organizations like NOM, which purport to defend marriage, were sincere, they would adamantly insist that same-sex marriage be legal. There would be far fewer mixed sexuality marriages ending in divorce if gay men and women had the opportunity to marry a same-sex partner.
Marty wote: Are two oranges equal to two apples? Are two oranges or two apples equal to an apple and an orange?
No. Only an apple and an orange are equal to an apple and an orange.
Why? Simple. Separate is never equal.
-------
Precisely, in the special status of marriage the separate (non-marriage) status of civil unions are never equal to apples or oranges.
Jonathan
Are two women equal to two men?
Marty,
Is a man equal to a woman?
LOL Kevin you are always fun!
"Another way to look at the issue is, do ugly men and women have the same opportunity, as a class, to marry. Even if you genuinely believe that one man/one woman only marriage isn’t discriminatory, it is unfairly burdensome to the ugly man or woman, who is faced with finding an opposite-sex partner willing to marry an ugly partner, with all the short-comings (for both partners) that would entail. "
Kevin, no, a man is not equal to a woman. Not physically, emotionally, or legally.
Marty,
As I man I object to your assertion that I'm not the equal of a woman. I am every bit the equal of a woman. If you feel you as less than a woman, that's a personal issue. So speak for yourself.
Sorry Kevin -- women have more constitutional rights than you or I do.
Besides, if men and women were truly "equal", then gay people wouldn't have any excuse for not being able to love a member of the opposite sex.
Men and women are NOT equal. That's the whole point here!
Then, complicating matters further, there is this pesky little issue of due process and the 14th constitutional amendment that says all americans are equal under application of law.
Are homosexuals equal under the law, when it comes to civil marriage law in order to choose to marry the partner matching their sexual orientation? Is sexual orientation fundamental to a persons identity, be they heterosexual or homosexual? Can heterosexuals easily change their sexual orientation as easily as they can change their religions views of animus? Or is it unreasonable to expect anyone to change their sexual orientation in order to be eligible for civil marriage law?
These questions will be part of the the rational basis test applied under due process and equal protection analysis in federal court.
Good questions... I still have a hard time distinguishing "sexual orientation" from plain old gender bias...
At least with religion, there is the First Amendment... which is first, for a reason I suspect. And as for gender, well, there is at least a test -- we don't just have to take your word on the matter.
Sorry Jonathan -- if you tell me you cannot love a woman BECAUSE she's a "girl" and girls are icky... you sound like a common bigot to me.
No, you wont get any sympathy at all.
Awesome!
My wife went to Wal-Mart to buy some boots for my daughter. The boots she bought were perfect -- the right size, the right price, and exactly equal in every way. Which is exactly the problem.
Two "left" boots does not equal a pair of boots.
I know, I've used that metaphor before but my wife actually did it! Honest! Sorry though, no child has 2 left feet, and no child has 2 moms and no dad, or 2 dads and no mom. Same sex "families" are as utterly ridiculous as wearing two left boots.
Jonathan, and the justification for treating marriage different from nonmarriage is ... ?
Orange you the least embarrassed for not having a ready answer?
Heh.
Jonathan regurgitated another list [Posted January 7, 2010 at 10:42] that has been debunked here before.
Your list, Jonathan, depends, utterly, on the last item. And since that is demonstrably false, that list collapses into an incoherent mess.
Likewise Kevin's list [posted January 7, 2010 at 2:42 pm] has collapsed under basic scrutiny.
Stick a fork in the lists.
Marty, had the same problem with a gloves for my wife. When thrown into a pile they look alike. When she tried them on, the fit proved the two right-handed gloves were not a pair of gloves. The Wal-Mart folks recognized the difference and we made an exchange for the real thing.
Marty, if you tell me your NOT attracted to members of your own sex, along with everyone of the opposite sex, this sounds like common bigotry to me, but I will gladly offer you compassion and understanding. No gender bias intended.
-----
Chairm wrote: and the justification for treating marriage different from nonmarriage is … ?"
Chairm, this is a good question for same sex couples. in order to provide an answer, vs. an opinion that you can actually count on as a rule of law, requires a rational basis review, findings of fact and conclusion of law. Due process and equal protection, and application of law will govern this specific issue.
However, I could throw out a premise and opinion or two that have NOT yet passed the judicial rational basis test: Like two men or two women cannot a not a marriage make. Or that discrimination based on sexual orientation will not be part of the rational basis judicial review. I'll wait for the findings of fact and conclusion of law.
In the meantime I'm off to Walmart to buy some popcorn while I watch the you tube Prop 8 videos. Anxiously awaiting for the OSM only folks to show an OJ glove that doesn't fit, but I don't have my hopes up,.
Chairm wrote:
"Jonathan regurgitated another list [Posted January 7, 2010 at 10:42] that has been debunked here before." On the contrary, what you call identity politics embedded in marriage law, is actually equal application of the law. One reason is that pesky little rational basis test again. It is not rational to expect anyone to change their sexual orientation in order to marry. It is more rational to expect someone to change their view and deal. Since folks are permitted the freedom to change religious views anytime and anywhere they want, the rational test for this type of argumentation soundly fails. Sexual identity has been determined to be a core meaning in both heterosexual and homosexual identity. Efforts to change, may and have caused serious harm. Again, rational basis test fails.
------------
Ever danced with someone who had two left feet when they danced? When I offered to buy them two left shoes, they could not say, "Oh, how dare you suggest that, its against the opposite shoe law!"
Jonathan, you haven't provided a state interest in marriage such that the special status of marriage would pass even your own version of rational basis analysis.
You haven't shown how SSM is different from the other stuff that exists on the nonmarriage side of the boundary line.
If the law is to recognize an actual pre-law difference, rather than manufacture a difference, you will need to provide substantively more than your irrational plea for the arbitrary exercise of judicial authority to remake marriage policy.
What is the special reason for the special status of marriage?
Your long-played silent shrug means either that you are opposed to that special status or that you are dumbstruck by your lack of an extraordinary reason to abolish the special reason for the special status of marriage.
Okay, there may be another possiblity: gay identity politics is the special reason for a new special status for SSM, but you are fearful of appearing to be anything but indiscriminate in your anti-marriage rhetoric.
So be it. You've clearly run out of things to say in defense of your flawed thinking.
Chairm, it was you that provided the following flawed analysis as state interest in civil marriage law:
“I’ve explained this core meaning; I’ve shown the legal requirements that express this core meaning; and I’ve pointed out that the CA constitution and the DOMA and the federal precedents are not in conflict.”
This is it? This is what you have to offer to pass the rational basis test for due process and equal protection and application of civil law for gay and lesbian couples who want the right to marry? Two sentences to describe flawed persuasive constitutional justification in a state interest to deny same sex couples access to the special status of civil marriage?
I suggest the You Tube civics lesson on due process and equal protectional rational basis analysis to clear your muddied thinking starting Tuesday.. Then lets talk.
Chairm, your stongly held ‘core meaning marriage view’ is in direct conflict with other marriage views. Both secular and directly opposing views exist among the religions. It is NOT a state interest to select one view over another. If responsible procreation were a state interest, then the law must mostl likely accomplish this stated objective. Your man-woman only restriction will not stop inter-sex, homosexuals, gender variant, opposite sex child molesters felons, drug users, alcoholics, from obtaining a license to marry. Chairm, you must come up with a more inclusive law, that “might” actually accomplish your responsible procreation objective. The rational basis test in federal and state court have failed this argument time and again and will most likely do so as this progresses in the federal court system.
I’ve tried to explain the difference between California’s constitutional amendment and legislation like DOMA. In California, all man-woman only laws failed state due process and equal protection judicial reviews, as with the other states with marriage equality. DOMA is not an amendment. DOMA has yet to face an equal protection and due process challenge in federal court. The time may be coming very soon. The supreme court in California went out of their way to show that the plaintiffs federal due process and equal protection rights were available redress.
——
“The SSM issue is about the assertion of supremacy via gay identity politics, nothing more.”
-If this is your definition of marriage equality, this is fine, but will it stand judicial review on due process and equal protection grounds? I suggest that it will strongly fail at that.
————–
Civil marriage opposite sex couple only law cannot be solely a moral condemnation law, with little chance of achieving an objective and rational interest of the state. Civil marriage law then, as with most laws, are subject to judicial review for due process and equal protection issues. Democracy (the voting process alone) is not exempt from judicial review. Laws must rationally accomplish an interest off the state and must apply fairly to all similarly situated. Not exactly situated, but similar. For the sake of my argument, I’m assuming there is no federal constitutional (marriage shall be only be between opposite sex couples) amendment.
Lets say a purported state interest is that every child shall have a mom and a dad, through marriage law (as opposed to loving parents). This objective then, must stand a rational chance of being achieved. An OSM civil marriage only law is not a rational law to accomplish this purported objective. OSM civil marriage only law does not rationally cause Inter-sex couples, gender variant couples, single parents, infertile and gay and lesbians to enter into opposite sex marriage in order achieve the mom and dad objective. OSM civil marriage only law is a hate and moral condemnation law, which has pretty much no effect on gay and lesbians giving up their children to opposite sex couples.
A rational law to accomplish the ‘mom and dad’ objective, might be to remove all children from inter-sex, gender variant, single parents, gay and lesbian families and prohibit them from ever having children.
Another interest of the state might be to insure that children have equally healthy outcomes to maximize their contribution to society. Civil marriage law then, in order to be rational, must apply to fairly to all citizens in order to achieve this purported objective.
Lets say objective scientific data showed that children of inter-sex, gender variant, and gay and lesbian couples produced equally healthy child outcomes as mom and dad couples. OSM civil marriage only law would not be a rational means to accomplish this purported stated interest because child molesters, alcoholics, rapists, felons and others are not prohibited from procreation or marriage law. So a rational marriage law, must not be under inclusive, in achieving a stated objective. All identity groups must be targeted that are shown to have impact on children and their healthy development.
So, if we wanted to call an interest in “responsible procreation” OSM only civil marriage law must rationally achieve that objective. Inter-sex couples, gender variant, gay and lesbians must prohibited from any form of procreation in order reasonably achieve the “man woman only requirement for example. Current OSM only law does nothing to stop, adoption or artificial means by gay and lesbians. Nor will OSM civil marriage only law make opposite sex couples procreate more than they currently are. The rational test fails.
If a state interest is to protect tradition, marriage law must have a greater interest than tradition alone. For example traditional racism or sexism is not immune from constitutional review. Further, protecting tradition in marriage law, must be rational and address traditional and historical practices of adultery, infidelity, domestic violence, child molestation, alcoholism etc. to be a law that has the best chance of accomplishing a purported interest in the state.