Dear Friends of Marriage,
The people of New Hampshire have spoken! As the Eagle Tribune headline put it, "New Hampshire Voters Want a Say on Gay Marriage"!
This is news you haven't heard, not even on conservative talk radio, where the relative news blackout on developments in the movement for marriage continues.
Here's the true story:
Last year the Democratic leaders in Concord, influenced by the Gill money flowing into their coffers, decided to push a gay marriage bill on the people of New Hampshire. Gov. Lynch, who had said he opposed gay marriage when he was running for election, flinched under pressure from left-wing activists and wealthy donors and signed it into law anyway. Tuesday was the first chance the people have had to fight back, and they flowed into town meeting halls and voted by large majorities for a resolution calling on Concord to put the future of marriage to a vote.
Overwhelmingly the people of New Hampshire voted to take back the power to define marriage--to get this power away from the courts, away from the politicians, and into the hands of the ordinary citizens. Votes are still being tabulated but early returns shows that of 42 towns, just seven wanted to keep gay marriage without a vote.
As the Union Leader put it (see below), "Granite State voters on Tuesday signaled a desire to vote on same-sex marriage, according to results of town meetings from across the state. ...In communities ranging from Pittsburg to Bedford, the resolution drew strong support. It passed by 100 percent in Stark." In New Hampshire the issue is not just marriage--it's the honesty and responsiveness of politicians.
Along with a streak of GOP victories in special elections since the gay marriage vote (seven out of eight victories), Tuesday's votes make it clear that the gay marriage issue will not just die in New Hampshire. Left-wing politicians who voted for gay marriage were radically out of touch with the people of New Hampshire. Rep. David Bates predicts that bills to either repeal same-sex marriage or enact a constitutional amendment defining marriage will be introduced this fall.
Let me make a prediction of my own: Gov. Lynch and other pro-gay-marriage pols in New Hampshire will pay a price this November if they continue to impose their own personal values on the people of New Hampshire when it comes to marriage.
Congratulations to Rep. Bates, and to Kevin Smith from Cornerstone Policy Research for fighting this good fight.
This Tuesday was the first Tuesday the people of New Hampshire had a chance to make their views, voices, and values heard. But let me promise you something: It won't be the last Tuesday! The people's voices will not be silenced.
This week also marks, sadly, the beginning of gay marriage in Washington, D.C. The media is treating this like a done deal, but do not believe it. Here's the main thing you need to know: It's not over in D.C. Our case is still pending in the lower courts, still waiting to get to the Supreme Court, where we believe we will win because the facts are so clear. The people of D.C. have a right, granted by Congress in their charter, to vote to overturn legislation passed by elected officials, just as people in many states (like Maine) have that right. Meanwhile here's another truth: It's not over, because Congress always has the final say over D.C., which is federally-controlled territory. We will fight in the courts and in Congress to give back to the people D.C. their core civil right, guaranteed in their charter, to vote for marriage.
If you want some more good news check out the doings over at the Ruth Institute, a NOM project which does outreach to college students on behalf of lifelong and life-giving marriage. Several students from Brigham Young University had attended the Ruth Institute's conference last summer in San Diego, and so they decided to put together their own conference at BYU. Ruth Institute President Dr Jennifer Roback Morse and Executive Director Jamie Gruber helped. The results were astounding! The student-led Stand for the Family Symposium had over 700 people registered. The Ruth Institute sponsored a student essay contest, arranged for the judging of the papers, and awarded cash prizes. We had over 150 students submit papers and projects on protecting marriage and family life! The winning essays are already posted on the Ruth Institute's Marriage Library website.
At the National Organization for Marriage we understand the power of many: Amazing things can happen when ordinary Americans come together to make sure our voices and values are heard. And we also understand something else: That the power of many begins with the power of one. Just one person, refusing to be afraid, unwilling to buy in to the lies and the hatred, standing up in love for what's right. Standing up for the truth about marriage.
One person, then another, and the chorus of truth and love swells. Each of us has a widow's mite to join to this great battle. Thank you for all you do, for all you've made possible, whether it's your prayers, your time in picking up the phone and calling your legislator, passing this email on to just one friend today and inviting them to join our growing Nation for Marriage, or sacrificing your treasure to get this precious message out. I pledge to you we will steward each mighty mite carefully because we know it is God's money, not ours, to be used for His great purposes.
Thank you for speaking up kindly when someone implies that advocates for marriage are haters, bigots or discriminators. Thank you for saying, "I believe that marriage is the union of a husband with a wife, and no power on Earth has the right to redefine that. Not you, not me, not anyone."
The power of many begins with the power of one. One person standing up, finding another person. And another. And then truly amazing things happen.
God bless you and keep you and protect you always,
Brian S. BrownExecutive Director
National Organization for Marriage
20 Nassau Street, Suite 242
Princeton, NJ 08542
bbrown@nationformarriage.org
PS: Help us amplify your voice, and stand up for marriage! Consider what you can give today--whether you can give $10, $50, or $150, or even a monthly donation of just $5, NOM will make every dollar work to defend your beliefs.
NOM Featured Article
"NH Voters Speak on Gay Marriage"
Union-Leader
March 11, 2010
Granite State voters on Tuesday signaled a desire to vote on same-sex marriage, according to results of town meetings from across the state.
NOM in the News
"As Gay Marriage Begins in Washington, Opponents Vow to Fight"
Christian Science Monitor
March 9, 2010
"It's not over in D.C. by any means," wrote Brian Brown, executive director of the National Organization for Marriage, on the group's blog. "The people of D.C. have a right, granted by Congress in their charter, to vote to overturn legislation passed by elected officials, just as people in many states (like Maine) have that right."
"Same-Sex Couples Begin Saying 'I Do' in Washington"
FOXNews.com
Brian Brown, executive director for the National Organization for Marriage (NOM), is pushing for a vote on same-sex marriage.
"New Hampshire Votes Against Gay Marriage"
Maggie Gallagher
National Review Online--The Corner
March 10, 2010
New Hampshire town meetings yesterday gave voters the chance to vote for a nonbinding resolution favoring putting a marriage amendment on the ballot. Bishop John McCormack of the Diocese of Manchester encouraged a yes vote in an op-ed that ran in the Union-Leader Tuesday.
"For Better and for Worse: Good Families Deserve the Support of Good Laws"
Sally Kalson
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
March 7, 2010
One example: The fourth annual Southern Evangelical Seminary Veritas Lecture on April 1 will feature a presentation on "Marriage: Why It Can and Must Be Saved -- The Case Against Same-Sex Marriage," with speakers Maggie Gallagher and Robert George. Seminary students can look forward to hearing that the marriage tent will collapse if just anybody is allowed inside. If memory serves, restricted clubs used to have the same philosophy -- until their membership declined. Suddenly, all those "undesirables" started looking pretty good, as long as they could pay the freight.
"Symposium Battles Trends that Damage Traditional Family"
Deseret News
March 6, 2010
After attending a several-day seminar in Southern California last summer at an interfaith organization, the Ruth Institute, BYU law student Alisa Rogers rallied support for a conference on strengthening the family.
"IOWA: Clergy Let Lawmakers Know Their Support of Same-Gender Marriage"
Episcopal Life Online
March 4, 2010
Last August, the National Organization for Marriage, a faith-based association working to ban same-gender marriage nationwide, launched a campaign to "Reclaim Iowa" aiming to pass a state constitutional amendment reversing the unanimous court ruling and to work to elect legislators sympathetic to their cause.
"Pride Network in Full Force"
Hofstra Chronicle
March 11, 2010
"The Pride Network is not a GLBT organization; it is an organization that works to educate people on GLBT issues, so part of our mission is to educate people who don't identify as GLBT." The marriage debate, which took place last year, was a large part of the education effort put forward by the Pride Network. "We had a speaker from the National Organization for Marriage, which is anti-same sex marriage, and the President of Marriage Equality of New York, which is pro same-sex marriage."
"Bachmann Contributes Chapter to New Conservative Book"
Minnesota Independent
March 9, 2010
Rep. Michele Bachmann is a contributing author to a new book being published by the Heritage Foundation. "Indivisible: Social and Economic Foundations of American Liberty" also contains chapters by religious right leaders Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, the National Organization for Marriage's Jennifer Roback Morse and Bishop Harry R. Jackson, Jr., as well as politicians such as Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan and Ohio's former Secretary of State Ken Blackwell.
37 Comments
This is more good news... Be it N.H., Washington D.C. or Iowa.... these represent a tremedous opportunity.
By that I mean that overturning an existing same-sex "marriage" stautue; very much like in California & Maine is a bigger moral victory then getting a consitutional amendment in a State where same-sex "marriage" has not been forced on the people yet.
By repealing these laws we counter the narative that says gay "marriage" is inevitable and its nation-wide enactment only a matter of time.
P.S.
Brian (writes)
"This is news you haven't heard, not even on conservative talk radio, where the relative news blackout on developments in the movement for marriage continues."
Why is this? Does anyone know why this issue gets so littlle coverage much less serious discussion even in conservative outlets?
I am very interested in this fact & what we can do to counter it...please, any and all speculation or knowledge and opinion would be appreciated.
Probably they don't want to deal with the gays rebuttals. Look what happened after prop 8? Also look anytime a newspaper or any article says something negative about same sex marriage. They get blasted. They want to be politically correct so to speak.
By repealing laws that have enumerated marriage equality to same sex couples, what is inevitable is simply delayed. Think about it- these referenda against SSM are creating 3 classes of marriage:
Those who can marry
Those who cannot marry
Those who are married until they move to the incorrect state
This is exactly the condition that was present before Loving v. Virginia. It is fundamentally incorrect to grant one group all rights and privileges and deny some in another group the same privileges just because of the state that they live in. This would be like having 3 children who other than one particular characteristic (let's say gender) are equal. For example, Child A is given a treat and will continue to get it because she is a girl. Child B is a boy. Even though in this scenario boys are not supposed to have treats, Child B gets a treat and will continue to get it because a special was being run in which boys became eligible for treats. Now both A and B are happy but the parent of these children just can't get over the idea that what makes Child A happy also makes Child B happy. Then there's Child C, a boy who didn't take advantage of the special when it was around. So now the parent wants to make sure that C never has what is brother and sister have, for no other reason than thinking that B should not have had a treat in the first place. This is the state of affairs in California and what could be the stateof affairs in New Hampshire. In fact, this is the state of affairs now nationally since SSM is allowed in some states and not in anothers. Are we willing to divide our children and alienate some of them because just because? Are we willing to divide and alienate our fellow citizens just because we don't want others to have what we have? I mean come on, do you think that people choose to be gay just so that they can be treated adversly?
Now we keep hearing that sexuality is not the same as race and that's why the voters should decide who gets to marry who. Race is in fact not sexuality. However, race is an immutable characteristic and so is gender. Denying individuals the right to enter a marriage union because of the race of the applicants is no different than denying the applicants because of the applicants' gender. The voters cannot simply decide what race combinations should be in the marriage or what gender combinations should be in a marriage. It took a brave couple (one of its participants showed public support for SSM) to take its case to the U.S. Supreme Court to show that the fundamental right to marriage cannot be slighted by others' personal convictions and biases.Convictions and biases can vary from state to state and married couples can move from state to state as it occured in the case of the Lovings. This is why it is inevitable that it is only a matter of time in which SSM will be addressed and enacted at the federal level.
With regard to conservative talk shows, I would imagine that what is stated above is starting to resonate.
You got it all wrong, Woody. You are not comparing gender to race, you are comparing sexual preference to race. Big difference. This is comparing apples to oranges and is the height of the same sophistry that referendum after referendum has rejected in 31 out of 31 states. Can you tell me what having dark skin complexion has in common with two guys having sex with each other?
Geneticists have determined that the DNA strand of every human being alive is 99.9% identical. So every human is actually a member of the same race that is two sexed, not one sexed. It is clear that men and women are made for each other by evolution and nature and that the union of man and woman is essential to the survival and propogation of the human species. That is what marriage is all about regardless of whatever politically correct gay-centric ideology the government attempts to force down on us.
Note this quick rebuke of same-sex “marriage” offered by the plurality in Hernandez v. New York, Justice Smith, when confronting the idea that marriage as historically defined was analogous to Race
“[T]he traditional definition of marriage is not merely a byproduct of historical injustice. Its history is of a different kind .”
"The use of the term kind is telling. Not a matter of degree, mind you. Rather a different of qualitative substance…a difference of kind.
As dismissals of the Loving v Virginia case goes, this is rather mild. However – I like it for precisely that reason. It dismisses casually an analogy that doesn’t hold up precisely because it is not the same kind of thing being compared
.
As the Washington dicesion illustrates
"We vigorously reject any attempt to link the discriminatory Anti miscegenation laws in Loving with this State’s DOMA. The Washington Court of Appeals in Singer correctly noted:the Loving and Perez courts [Perez v. Sharp, 32 Cal. 2d 711, 198 P.2d 17 (1948)] did not change the basic definition of marriage as the legal union of one man and one woman; rather, they merely held that the race of the man or woman desiring to enter that relationship could not be considered by the state in granting a marriage license. 11 Wn. App. at 255 n.8. Numerous other courts have all rejected the claim that the decision in Loving somehow challenged state laws reaffirming marriage as the union of one man and one woman.25 Careful review of the historical context of Loving further undermines the
dissents’ disturbing attempt to link constitutionally void, racist laws with a historical definition of marriage as between a man and woman. Anti miscegenation laws were anathema to the “color-blind” constitution articulated in Justice John Marshall Harlan’s dissent in Plessy v. Ferguson.26 Anti miscegenation laws infringed upon the union of one man and one woman by injecting racial status as a qualification. Such laws contradicted the fact that a man and a woman of any race have the natural right to marry and have children. This right is protected by the United States and Washington State Constitutions. Racially discriminatory anti miscegenation laws also violate the right to marriage between a man and a woman. Here, in contrast, the State’s DOMA simply confirms the common law understanding of marriage as a union of a man and woman. It is the dissent that would abrogate the common law understanding through judicial fiat."
Woody,
1) Treats can be taken away. Ex post facto exclusions do NOT apply to administrative law.
2) The law treats Gender and Race differently - granting Strict Scrutiny protections to Race, and Intermediate Scrutiny to laws on Gender. To pass Intermediate Scrutiny a law needs to be substantially realted to an important government interest. Marriage is substantially related to protecting children. The Department of Health and Human services comprehensive National Incidence Study IV (NIS-4) shows children in intact biological families are substantially less likely to be abused.
Fundie,
Marriage is not just about having children. Denying same sex couples the right to marry based on "protecting children" does nothing but hurt th campaign that opposes SSM. There are plenty of heterosexual couples who choose to marry but for whatever reason (infertility, menopause, age or just do not desire to have children) don't have or plan to have children. Therefore procreation cannot be a criterion to enter or be barred from marriage. However, I agree that children that are in stable families are less likely to be abused. However, biology in itself is not what makes one family more stabloe than another.
Also, I agree that treats can be revoked. However, if the parent wants to be viewed as someone with credibility and as fair minded, he or she does not take away treats from some of his or her children and give to others just because of differences in some type of immutable characteristic such as gender, hair color or skin tone.
Your "treat" analogy is a false one, Wood. This is not a case of one child getting candy and another being denied candy because of racial or gender differences. This is a case in which both children getting the same candy. It is just that the 1st child likes candy and the 2nd one doesn't. The 2nd one prefers cigarettes and likes them just as much as the 1st one likes candy. So by your reasoning, that makes cigarettes exactly the same as candy just because the 2nd child likes cigarattes just as much as the 1st child likes candy.
The differences between the 2 children is based on preference, not race or gender.
ConservativeNY,
I didn't say that the treat in my analogy was different among the children. The "candy" in my analogy is similar to the treat of "marriage". Same sex couples are not petitioning for any treat that is different than what their opposite sex couple counterparts receive. A marriage license is a marriage license no matter which parties apply for them.
You have decided that Child A, B and C in my example cannot possibly enjoy and be entitled to the same treat because of differences in their gender. You assume that the children have dfferent taste buds just because of their gender. Child B, just like Child A is enjoying his treat. It would be irrational to revoke Child B's treat just because you don't realize he has similar taste buds as A. It would be even more ludicrous to deny C the same treat as A and B when you you see that niether A or B are willing to give up the treat.
You are clearly comparing opposite sex marriages to candy and same sex marriages to cigarettes. The only real difference is who the applicants choose to enter the marriage union with, not the intrinsic nature of the institution itself.
Fitz, if you accept that one's race is an immutable characteristic, then you must also accept that one's gender (male or female) is also an immutable characteristic. Do we agree on this?
In Loving v. Virginia, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that one's race is an immutable characterstic and that a marriage between 2 people of different races could not be denied because of such an immutable characteristic. Do we agree on this?
Now prior to the Supreme Court's ruling on Loving v. Virginia, some states barred interracial couples from marrying by defining marriage as "a union between 2 people of the same race". Perhaps it sounds ridiculous to most people now, but in reality it is no different than defining marriage as "a union between a man and a woman". This is because like "race", "gender" is also an immutable characteristic. The Supreme Court ruling was very clear in that all marriage laws have to be neutral with respect to race. Having laws that limit marriage unions based on the immutable characteristic of gender insults and violates the principles of the ruling in Loving v Virginia.
Race, like gender(sex) is not just some arbitrary characteristic that the Court decided to review. Race, sex and religion also happen to be protected classes of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Just like it is someone's Constitutional right to marry someone of any race, it is also someone's right to marry someone of any sex, even if like race offends someone. Voters do not have a Constitutional "right" to vote away someone else's Constitutional rights.
It is also erroneous to fail to uphold U.S. Constitutional principles because someone wants to control someone else's behavior. Some SSM opponents argue that same sex couples should not have the right to marry because "sexuality is a choice and a behavior". Even if this is true, what does this have to do with the right to marry? Some would argue that practicing a certain religion or faith is a choice and a behavior. People choose to convert to different religions sometimes. However, we don't dare go rushing to the polls to define marriage as "being between 2 people of the same religion" in an attempt to control their behavior. To do so would be a violation of their Constitutional rights. In fact we'd be denying everyone's Constitutional rights by violating our Constitution.
SSM offends some but just like interracial marriage, it does not violate anyone's rights. No one has the right to violate someone else's rights just because they feel offended. An alternative would be to not marry someone of the same sex.
The theory of Evolution and propagation of the species has little to do with the rights to marry. ConservativeNY,your discussion on DNA and race was well articulated. However, marriage is more of a convenience since it is not necessary to have marriage in order to keep the species intact. If marriage sometimes results in procreation and sometimes it doesn't, why single out one particular group and deny them all the benefits that come with marriage? Why does one's spouse need to be female or male to take advantage of a health insurance benefit? When an employee chooses to marry, he is not required to show how his spouse is worthy of being married to him or getting a benefit. There are no suitability requirements for someone to choose a spouse. Choosing a spouse is a personal choice, so who are we to deny that choice because we are not "comfortable" with that choice?
"A marriage license is a marriage license no matter which parties apply for them."
And a sophmoric analogy is a sophmoric analogy. What if the party is a brother and sister, or an adult and a child, or a mother and a son, or a man and three women, etc. Are they all the same if each of those partys recieve a marriage licence? No more than a same-sex couple and an opposite couple is the same if they recieve a marriage licence. In fact they are as different as candy and cigaretts. A piece of paper doesn't change that.
"However, marriage is more of a convenience since it is not necessary to have marriage in order to keep the species intact."
Perhaps, but marriage is necessary in order to keep society intact. Redifining marriage leads to increased illegitimacy and social costs. It also downgrades the importance of marriage in our culture in that marriage will be seen as only about coupling rather than procreation. Children will be considered an irrelevant byproduct of the institution. This is the case in Scandinavian countries where illegitimacy is exploding because people no longer connect marriage to childbearing. This leads to increased crime and social welfare costs not to mention the harm to children who are denied a mother and a father.
Considering the health risks involved with homosexual behavior, the government endorsement and blessing of it will lead to a rise in such behavior and inevitably lead to higher medical and helath insurance costs.
So you see, opposition to SSM is based on the differences in behavior, not in race or gender.
Can you show some where in the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution where brothers and sisters, mothers and sons, adults and children and multiple partners are a protected class?
Of course there are no such protected classes but we know that sex is a protected class. Therefore where there is no claim barring mothers and sons is UnConstitutional, barring individuals from marriage based on sex is. Just because you don't find the idea palatable, doesn't mean that others don't.
It's funny that no one seemed to care about procreation until same sex couples started getting married. What, are we having some kind of population shortage crisis? People get married for a variety of reasons and childbearing is not always at front and center of these reasons. Why do you care what the reason is? As long as the children that are products of these unions are well cared for and provided for, the reasons for the marriages are really none of your concern. If childbearing is the reason for your marriage, then good for you. Just because it isn't the reason for others doesn't mean we have a marriage crisis.
This begs the question of why so much emphasis on same sex marriage health issues. The # 1 health issue in America is heart disease,not STDs as some would like to use as a justification to ban SSM. So if heart disease is the #1 health issue, why not ban people from marrying others who could potentially make them or keep them overweight? Obesity and heart disease, not homosexuality, has the highest insurance and medical costs. It's great that you are concerned about everyone's health but your efforts could be channeled where they will have a greater impact in eradicating the overall health problems.
"Can you show some where in the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution where brothers and sisters, mothers and sons, adults and children and multiple partners are a protected class?"
Just as soon as you show me where in the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution where homosexuality is a protected class. If relationships can be compared to race, and all races should be treated equally, why can't all relationships be treated equally too? And that amendment makes no mention of "sex" or "race", only "persons." Aren't brothers and sisters, mothers and sons, adults and children and multiple partners persons?
People have always cared about procreation. It just wasn't until now that it has become so trivialized and belittled. Marriage is the glue that holds a stable society together. Every civilization in history that has liberalized its laws concerning sexual relationships has entered a decline and went extinct from the Romans to the Sumerians. Is it so wrong that I don't want the same thing to happen to this country?
Obesity and heart disease cannot be transmitted sexually, so I fail to see the analogy here. Besides, just because STDs are not considered the #1 health risk in the country is no reason to allow it to get worse.
Race and sexual orientation are both irrelevant to the institution of marriage -- license applications aren't even allowed to ask.
Woody – you are confusing legal arguments with legislative arguments. Legally – gender exclusions are subject to Intermediate Scrutiny. Marriage need only be substantially related to an important State function, not narrowly tailored to meet a compelling State interest Given Intermediate Scrutiny, The Court will have to say either 1) a 70% reduction in Child Abuse is NOT substantial (based on NIS-4) or 2) Gay Families (not broken out in the NIS-4) are substantially BETTER than Hetero families of the same form.
The fact that Childless couples exist is also not a reason to invalidate 1man/1women definition of marriage. Marriage is recognized by the state for the important function of protecting children. You start with the fact of Children, and their need for protection – not with adults and their desire for validation and treats from the state. Validation and treats are not state interests. Protecting innocents is. And the undeniable scientific fact is every innocent child that has ever been born has exactly 1 mother and 1 father. This is called a necessary condition. It is not a sufficient condition – but that is not the legal or logical standard for casuality. Every child is caused by something – and that something is necessarily 1egg from a women and 1 sperm from a man. The parents may have never been intimate, or stayed around to raise their child, but that does not erase the fact that 1 man and 1 women were the progenitors of the child. It is not a coincidence that marriage is 1 man/1women, but a result of biological facts.
Conservative, I am happy to debate your literal translation of the 14th Amendment. You are absolutely correct in that the 14th Amendment does not literally and specifically mention that "race"and "homosexuality" are protected classes. It does not mention that relatives and multiple partners are protected classes. This is just the point that I'm making. The 14th Amendment does not specifically define "heterosexuality" as a protected class niether, so what would give heterosexuals the right to marry and homosexuals not, if niether is afforded a Constitutional protection?
What we have here is an attempt to define who has rights and who doesn't based on majority mob rule. The argument that SSM will lead to marriages between blood relatives and among multiple spouses is just a smoke screen designed to distract from the issue of marriage inequality. Unlike blood relatives, same sex couples do not have legal relationships and the benefits that go along with them. Blood relatives can legally claim each other as dependents. If SSM opponents would look at the big picture then they would see that marriage is not just about sex but rights, benefits and finacial leverage between 2 people who are committed to one another. In fact, some same sex couples don't have have sex, just like some opposite sex`couples don't. From your posts, I can see how focused you are on the`sexual aspect of marriages, example "obesity and heart disease cannot be transmitted sexually, so I fail to see the analogy here". What I was trying to convey here was that someone is more likely to get sick by marrying someone who makes them fat than from same sex couples marrying.
Fundie,
The biology lesson is well appreciated. The issue here is not about the origin of life. No one is debating whether or not conception requires the infusion of an egg with a sperm cell. If we're going to use infusion of eggs with sperm cells as a basis to make decisions, then everything we do warrants such a discussion because we all came from the infusion of an egg with a sperm cell.
"The 14th Amendment does not specifically define "heterosexuality" as a protected class niether, so what would give heterosexuals the right to marry and homosexuals not, if niether is afforded a Constitutional protection?"
How about hundreds of millions of years of evolution that has formed the function of one man and one woman being the sole catalyst for procreation? Or how about the thousands of years of human experience in which shows that natural marriage provide the bedrock of civilized society?
Woody
RE: (March 17, 2010 at 12:05 )
Concerning the Loving analogy as you have employed it. I would draw your attention to the
argument that was forewarded by nothing less than the deep blue very liberal and very influential New York Supreme Court in it's recent decision
Hernadez v Robles.
"Thus, because Perez and Loving refused to allow the marriage institution to be appropriated for nonmarriage ends, to use those two cases to advance just such an appropriative project is to betray them. In other words, the Perez/Loving argument advances a superficial analogy that masks a deep disanalogy. That disanalogy is between the intention of Perez and Loving to protect marriage from appropriation for nonmarriage purposes and the intention of the present marriage project to make such an appropriation. Thus, those who deploy the Perez/Loving argument, whether advocates or judges, are misleading people, including perhaps themselves."
Hernandez, 805 N.Y.S.2d at 379–81, 381 n.3, 382
Here the court is saying that proponets of same-sex "marriage" are like the racists who crafted the anti-miscegenation laws that were the basis of Loving & Perez. Like the racists of old, same-sex "marriage" supporters are attempting to use the foundational constiutional right to marriage to advance gay identity politics. Just as the anti-miscegenationists were intrested more in promoting segregation than in the instiution of marriage, they sought to use marriage as a vehicle for that end. Likewise gay marriage supporters seek to use marriage law to advance their interersts to an end that is not marriage. Marriage is seen primarily as a vehicle to advance gay "rights" and concern for the foundational constitional; right of marriage as but so much grist for the mill.
Now that type of language used by a State Supreme Court is so powerfull and blunt that (If people knew anything of the law) Its very existance in such a prominent and indeed direct case on the merits for same-sex "marriage" would (or should) give even the most ardent same-sex "marriage" enthusiast real cause for concern. The fact is that it shows the ideological nature of such claims for re-difineing marriage.
Conservative,
If you think that the traditional marriage should apply in the modern world, then you must support the following:
Only the wealthy are entitled to marriage.
Women are the property of their husbands.
13 year old girls can marry men 4X their age.
Women have an obligation to have sex with their husbands.
A man committing sexual assault against his wife cannot be charged with rape
People can only marry others of the same race, faith and nationalit.y
A man is allowed to beat his wife because she is his property.
People who commit adultery are stoned to death.
Fortunately, we do not have traditional marriage and marriage has been re-defined several times in the interest of human rights. The bottom line is that like slavery, some traditions are just not in our best interests.
The argument that only a man and a woman can procreate is a losing argument for the anti SSM campaign. Procreation is not a requisite for marriage and therefore there is no justification for denying the sterile or any couple who cannot breed the right to marry. A man and woman who cannot breed are procreationally equivalent to a same sex couple. Why doesn't the anti SSM work to establish referenda that denies all couples who are procreationally inept the right to marry? At least that way gays will know that you're not singling them out and that you stand behind your principles.
Oh, I forgot. Some couples are exempt because because because.
Woody,
No dictionary at any time has ever defined marriage as being:
only for the wealthy,
designated women as property,
specifically listed children being eligible for marriage,
only allowed within the same race, faith, or nationality,
labeled women as property,
included stoning,
etc.
Such concepts existed independently from marriage and/or were added as a part of marriage by the law. But none of them are part of the basic concept of marriage that had been established since before recorded history: the union of man and woman.
This is just a desperate attempt to make traditional marriage look like a civil and human rights violation so that those who respect the basic family unit can be ostrasized as bigots.
Also, Woody, men and women are made for each other, whether by nature and evolution or by God. A man and woman who cannot breed are not procreationally equivalent to a same sex couple because a man and a woman are still designed to procreate. If they cannot, it is because there is something wrong with the plumbing, not because they are not designed to procreate in the first place.
"...established since before recorded history: the union of man and woman."
So now that SSM opponents are trying to write into law a "marriage is a union between one man and one woman", it is SSM opponents who are trying to redefine marriage.
Would you agree that the Lovings presented their case to the U.S. Supreme Court as a violation of civil and human rights? Would you also agree that those who wished to deny them the right of marriage were also acting out of bigotry? Let's call things what they are.
Procreationally equivalent means that the potential to create is the same regardless of the cause. Once again, no one is attempting to deny that sperms fertilize eggs. You and others in this forum argue that marriage is all about procreation and that same sex couples should be denied the right to marry because their unions will not result in procreation. It is insidious to argue that infertile opposite sex couples should not be subject to the same standard if the whole purpose for marriage is procreation. Where is it asked on a marriage license application if the couple is able to or plans to procreate? In many cases, there is nothing wrong with the plumbing such as when fertile opposite sex couples simply choose to be childfree. Do childfree marriages hold a society together? Answer carefully because my next question is the following:
If marriage is all about procreation, where is the referenda to ban opposite sex couples from marrying who have no plumbing problems?
Procreation is an important part of marriage, and only putting men and women together can do this. Those man-woman marriages that cannot or will not procreate are the exception, not the rule. Society recognizes natural marriage because marriage in general procreates and provides the most stable and nurturing environment for children. No homosexual couple can do this. There are no exceptions.
Also, there is a HUGE difference between racism and family values, Woody. Is there not a difference between skin color and sexual behavior? We should not classify people according to what they desire to do sexually. Otherwise, why not give people with all types of sexual desires marriage rights? On what grounds can you claim that SSM is OK but not marriage involving polygamy, incest, etc?
Is it not bigoted of you to make a special case for homosexuality but not for those other behaviors?
So your reference to Loving vs. Virginia is a false analogy. 70% of all black people in the US get it. Why can't you?
Woody,
Legally – Procreation is an easy winner. 1 man/1women is a Necessary condition. It also provides a logical basis to exclude polygamy. You are demanding the logical standard be changed from a necessary condition, to a Necessary and Sufficient Condition. That is – IF and Only IF a marriage produces children is that marriage valid. Maybe. But limiting marriage to couples with children would be a political fight, not a legal one, and due to the unpredictability of reproduction I doubt it would be a winner at the ballot box or in a legislature.
What I find so hypocritical on the part of Same Sex Marriage advocates is that they demand a very restrictive logic for Marriage, while failing to provide ANY rational basis for same sex marriage. Zero. This is a point hammerd home again, again, and again, with out reply. To promote love? To hand out treats?? Sorry. But those are illegitimate state interests.
Woody, for the record, have you commented at the NOM blogsite under any other moniker? If yes, please list all of these. Thanks.
Chairm, no I have not posted on this blogsite under any other moniker. I would like to ask why you are asking.
Conservative, I have not argued that procreation is not part of some people's marriages. In fact, for many it is a very important part of their marriages. The time that spouses can spend together can be impacted by procreation. Some do get married with procreation as a priority. I do not begrudge anyone nor should anyone begrudge those who marry for procreation. If that is someone's cup of tea then I want them to drink up and enjoy it.
The argument that I and many others have presented is that procreation is not the basis for everyone's marriage and procreation is not a requisite for marriage. To argue that it is is to deny that marriage license applications do not ask for it and offends couples who either do not have the capability to procreate and/or who marry for other reasons. Sure there are those who marry because they're concerned about the human species becoming extinct. However, the anti SSM campaign should not begrudge those who do not have this as a priority. I do not begrudge those who marry because they're concerned about underpopulation but I see no reason to cast a ballot for such an initiative when when there is no underpopulation crisis. I find it very interesting the anti SSM campaign continues to insist that infertile and heterosexual couples who simply do not want to procreate get an exemption from the marriage procreation mandate oh, because there is a man and woman involved. If the purpose for marriage is procreation, then it should offend you that these people are getting a free ride. Imagine, while others are getting with the program, they're getting all the benefits of marriage because they pulled out the gender card. The truth is that more and more are starting to see that the anti SSM campaign is not just about who should marry who but also about dictating how marriages should be run. This is why we're starting to see shifts in these state referenda to define marriage.
With regard to comparing skin color and sexual behavior, these are 2 separate issues. However, they are both similar in that niether are requisites for a marriage license. You are confusing gender with sexual behavior and they are 2 distinct concepts. Marriage license applications do not ask applicants to declare their skin color or sexual behavior. The law does not does does not make sexual behavior a criterion for marriage eligibility but the anti SSM group is. It's interesting that you raise the issue about 70% of African American voters supporting the anti SSM ballot initiative. I would venture to say that if they didn't understand the ballot, they either support gender discrimination or they didn't understand that anti SSM referenda are a form of gender discrimination. I am sure that if their vote would have far reaching implications, they would have voted otherwise. If a male A is denied the right to marry male B just because A is a male and female C is allowed to marry B just because she is a female, then that is a classic example of gender based discrimination. Whether or not I care for A's sexual behavior, it is still gender discrimination. Many lawmakers and judges get it. People who see that voting away personal liberties has much greater implications really get it.
As far as other "sexual behaviors" are concerned, sexual behavior is still irrelevant on the marriage license application. People with polygamous behavior marry all the time. Now if they wish to be allowed to have co-existing multiple marriage unions, then it is their right to pursue such a campaign. The same thing can be said for people with incestous behavior, etc... It is not a bigoted view to support a Constitutionally protected class such as gender just like it is not bigoted to support the Constitutionally protected class of race.
Fundie, 1 man /1 woman is a neccesity for procreation but 1 man/1 woman is not a necessity for marriage. This is because marriage is not a biological phenomenon but a man made institution. Procreation is a losing argument for anti SSMers because plenty of opposite sex couples without procreation have great and sometimes better marriages.
There is nothing hypocritical about pointing out hypocrisy. Anti SSMers were the ones who want to restrict marriage to procreative potential, so no one should be suprised when they're asked why they're not following their own logic. And by the way, no one should have to justify the rationale of their marriage. Looking at my sister's marriage, I thought it to be quite irrational. However, she is grown and has the right to make her own decisions. From a legal stand point, same sex couples do not have to present rationale for their marriages, it's up to you to show why they are irrational. The procreation argument won't work.
Woody, the question isn't why some people enter into marriage. The question is, why is society interested in marriage, out of all the myriad of wonderful societies, clubs, groups etc. that are fun and rewarding to participate in, why does society provide incentives for people to marry and stay married? That question strikes at the very heart of what marriage is, and why it is vital to society. Then, you have to ask the question, what does homosexuality provide for society? Why should society promote that relationship over say, a polygamous or polyamorous one. The view is obviously not simply because there is companionship, or love to be had. There are many types of human relationships that fill those requirements but are not considered marriage.
Procreation is unique. Children and families are vital to the stability of society. Let's not get lost in the forest because of all the trees. Just because you don't find value in procreation, marriage, children and families, doesn't mean society doesn't, and it does not provide a case for why society would promote your particular flavor of behavior or relationship over all others.
TC, your are very presumptive about my "particular flavor of behavior or relationship". You know nothing about my procreative status or marital status. You know nothing about my connection to children and families. Don't be presumptive. Almost 50% of voters support SSM and you can be assured that thery are not all gay.
You do know that I do not support the anti SSM campaign. I do support marriage, I just don't support discriminatory practices in marital law. If marriage is so unique and special that even inmates on death row are entitled to it, it would seem that adults who have committed no crime should have that right. Tell me, if same sex couples are compelled to show how their relationships benefit society, how does the sudden marriage of someone on death row benefit society? How did Britney Spears' 55 hour marriage benefit society?
We all know why society promotes marriage. People who are happily married tend to be healthier and live longer. Sometimes 2 heads are better than one. Society also helps those who choose to procreate or adopt. However, procreation and adoption are 2 of the many reasons why society promotes marriage. Couples who do not procreate also benefit from the companionship and financial benefits that marriage offers. In general, married childfree couples (same or opposite sex) pay more taxes than married couples with children and single parents. Parents get child tax credits from those who pay into the tax system. Therefore both same sex and opposite sex couples provide valuable financial benefits for children. Since marriage in general promotes health and longetivity, same sex married couples will also benefit society by living longer and staying healthy longer to pay more taxes.
Same sex marriages provide a valuable service for children who are unwanted by their heterosexual and sometimes homosexual parents. It would seem that advocates for children and families would be pleased that responsible people want to step up to the plate and be good parents.
If I understand it correctly, society promotes marriage, not sexuality. After all sexuality occurs with or without marriage. So now my question to you is why should society promote a heterosexual relationship over a polygamous or polyamorous relationship?
I ask Woody because your comments are almost word-for-word replicas of comments that were posted here under various monikers.
Your denial is on the record. Thanks.
There is no "marriage procreation mandate" and marriage defenders do not say there is such a mandate in the marriage law.
So you can stop flogging that tired old strawman argument.
The license is merely an agreement to form the conjugal relationship and to enter the social institution that the law recognizes and protects and accords special status. That social institution is not sex-neutral nor is it sex-exclusive.
The argument that marriage law unjustly discriminates on the basis of sex has been discarded by even pro-SSM court opinions and has largely been abandoned by the SSM campaign. So its weakness has been established even among SSMers.
If you want to argue, instead, that the marriage law discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation, then, you are obviously wrong, given your own stated standard: there is no sexual orientation criterion for eligibility nor for ineligiblity in any licensing process in the country.
And the SSM campaign does not propose that there be such ceriteria under a law that installs the SSM idea.
Your own argument has destroy itself.
The hypocrisy is blatant, Woody, when you say that you rely on the sex-discrimination lense while taking sexuality out of the picture.
And that hypocrisy is compounded when you pretend to abandon the centrality of the homosexual aspect of the SSM idea while still favoring the gay subset of nonmarriage.
It is further compounded by your posing as someone keen on a constitutional right which excludes others such as you explicitly mentioned: "polygamous" and "incestuous" people are excluded until they pursue their own campaign.
If you don't draw the boundaries of marriage based on the opposite-sexed sexual basis of the union of husband and wife, then, you'd redraw the boundaries for all who are excluded -- whether or not you like the idea of doing so.
But let's go with your charge of sex discrimination: explain the justification for limiting SSM to just one registered partnership at-a-time; and for limiting SSM based on relatedness. Don't refer to sex, sexual attraction, nor sexual behavior. And, of course, no returning to the core of marriage that you have rjected -- that is, responsible procreation and sex integration. None of that fits your SSM idea so you need to come up with something else that automatically draws the boundaries the way you assume the SSM idea would redraw the boundaries.
No, you can't rely on the arbitrary exercise of governmental authority. That's the main theme of the SSM campaign's complaint against current marriage law.
No arbitrariness. Justification. No SSMer has managed to succeed at showing that the essentials of the SSM idea are not applicable to the rest of nonmarriage. Maybe you will surprise.
Woody, no assumption has been made about your sexual behavior, only your particular persuasion as it pertains to this debate. You show a preference for homosexuality that you admit you do not have for polygamous or polyamorous relationships. You have yet to explain why that is. Why are you biased in favor of one and not all?
On parenting, are you supposing that any random group of individuals can really replace a mom and a dad? Where did you get your information? I would like to see the scientific study that shows this.