The American Spectator

Dan| 4.14.09 @ 6:41AM

This article doesn't make much sense. I agree that Church Law including Sharia Law and Civil Law should be separate. Exactly for this reason the denial of a civil marriage for same-sex partners violates the constitutional principle of equality before the law as well as the rule of law. Church law and civil law are and should remain separate.
We are not in Iran. Religious law (Sharia Law) is dangerous for democracy as we know it. It is essential to protect the rule of (civil) law.

Rocco| 4.14.09 @ 6:45AM

Yes, there's that pesky law of unintendended consequences. With all of this "tolerance" going on, Shariah law, once given an inch here, will take the mile in a heartbeat, and gay marriage won't last for too long. Having worked with Arab Muslims (good hospitable people, by the way) in the Middle East in the past, I can safely say that it would be the mission of all good Believers to exterminate every last one of them in the name of Allah (and their leftist enablers for good measure).

Rocco| 4.14.09 @ 6:45AM

Yes, there's that pesky law of unintendended consequences. With all of this "tolerance" going on, Shariah law, once given an inch here, will take the mile in a heartbeat, and gay marriage won't last for too long. Having worked with Arab Muslims (good hospitable people, by the way) in the Middle East in the past, I can safely say that it would be the mission of all good Believers to exterminate every last one of them in the name of Allah (and their leftist enablers for good measure).

Rocco| 4.14.09 @ 6:46AM

Apologize for the double posting - browser problems this morning.

Aaron| 4.14.09 @ 6:51AM

I agree whole-heartedly that Conservatives should be on the offense, but that is not the conservative way. I wish it were, this argument opens the door for some lively discussion.

It never ceases to amaze me how liberals can pick and choose small parts of a bigger battle while casually disregarding the whole picture such as the one Mr. Lord paints here.

Paul Crowley| 4.14.09 @ 7:33AM

=>“Should conservatives push for polygamy and Sharia to halt gay marriage?”

Now here’s an interestingly phrased question.

Melvin| 4.14.09 @ 8:21AM

A movement of unintended consequences. When the smoke clears of this whole homosexual marriage, and Sharia Law thing clears we could very well be down the road of societal breakdown.
We make accommodations for gay marriage, we make accommodations for Islam, but all the while ignoring Christianity, we make accommodations for the North American Man Boy Love Association to marry the next door neighbor's kid in junior high, we make accommodations for men to marry and have sex with farm animals.
You see where this is going people?
The above groups that I have mentioned above are part of the extreme far left wing of the gay movement minus Sharia Law.
The homosexual movement has kept these extremely deviant far left sub-groups under control and under wraps to advance the whole gay rights agenda, but these extremely deviant far left wing sub-groups will eventually demand their comeuppance and get more radical as does their demands.
The whole point of this post is, where does this accommodating stop before the whole societal breakdown happens and we end up having a society with humans necking in the moonlight with Bessie the cow, and Muslims raping their wives because the Imam says it is perfectly acceptable.
In a civilized society it is perfectly OK to say "no". Homosexuals cannot claim the mantle of marriage but can have civil unions, Homo sapiens must stay and mate within their own species, and it is not acceptable to have multiple wives and be allowed to rape or behead them.
If we as a functioning and flourishing society don't get a grip on this, "Hey if it feels good, just do it," we're going to do an about face and walk straight back into the primordial ooze.

Gill O'Teen| 4.14.09 @ 8:39AM

Sometimes it takes me awhile to connect the dots. Let me try and sort out some of the rules for the age of hope and change. If I do not want to ring-up a sausage pizza at my cash register because I would offend Allah, I don't have to, but if I do not want to abort a baby because it is offensive to God, I have to?

Sam| 4.14.09 @ 9:43AM

First poster (Dan) hit the nail on the head. Perfect!

I will add that that the line-drawing exercise strictly vis-a-vis marriage laws involves a number of questions, which should each be taken separately. Number and gender restrictions are completely separate issues, and anyone who blunders forth wrangling a poorly-thought-through categorical imperative argument, acting as if the number/gender questions aren't different aren't ignorant - they're just plain stupid.

Oh, and you want to talk about "extremely deviant" people with troublesome agendas, Melvin? Read the OP again. The sheer number of unconnected dots (oh, yeah, like Shariah will ever permeate the US as in Europe without nearly the same migrant populations...) are astounding, funny, even, bursting with pomp and sanctimony.

Gay marriage is about the civil right for ALL individuals to be free to pursue happiness by the laws of the State (to whom ALL contribute by taxation). As for the institution, marriage means love and commitment. There's absolutely no reason allowing gays to enter contracts would change that perception.

Steve| 4.14.09 @ 9:52AM

To upend the table or not? When you discover the poker game is rigged do you:

a. Walk away from your losses, humiliated
b. Play on, hoping for a miracle
c. Figure out a way to cheat the other players
d. Upend the table and commence brawling

These are the choices confronting conservatives in the age of Obama/ACORN/liberalism. It is a bad set of choices because the other side consists of disingenuous swindlers.

I believe Mr. Lord to be exactly right in this instance, and generally. If we're going to destroy marriage as it has existed, go for broke.

Going further, if we are going to destroy the idea of free and fair elections via ACORN and illegal immigrants, go for broke there as well. Blow up the whole electoral process once it becomes (now that it has become?) fraudulent.

Leftists count on their ability to cheat the system and rearrange it to their advantage. Screw that. If it comes to letting that happen or destroying the system, destroy the system. Rebuild later.

Melvin| 4.14.09 @ 9:54AM

Civil Right is an overly used phraseology.

Jeffrey Lord| 4.14.09 @ 9:59AM

Sam..

"Gay marriage is about the civil right for ALL individuals to be free to pursue happiness by the laws of the State (to whom ALL contribute by taxation). As for the institution, marriage means love and commitment. There's absolutely no reason allowing gays to enter contracts would change that perception."

One can easily substitute the word "polygamous" or "polyamorous" for "gay" and say exactly the same thing. "ALL individuals" means exactly that...all individuals. You are making the point of the article exactly.

"acting as if the number/gender questions aren't different aren't ignorant - they're just plain stupid"

This is the argument once - and still - applied by some supporters of man-woman marriage to those who believe in same-gender marriage. ie - anyone who doesn't understand the difference in gender is stupid. Ad hominems won't work with the law.

Power 13| 4.14.09 @ 10:01AM

"If they do not act now, they will wake up one day to find their own marriage worthless in the eyes of the law. With little or no chance of going back."

Bravo and spot-on! Great article.

I have for years argued that they way to smash the left (and I do this all the time myself) is to take their point to its logical end.

With a lot of what they belive, suicide (for them)is really the logical conclusion. Global Warming, the hideous evil of the white race, persecution of Plaestinians, etc, etc...

Anthony| 4.14.09 @ 10:04AM

I've always found it amusing how gay activists and proponents of gay marriage will immediately go into full battle mode to disavow polygamy as a logical extension to gay marriage. They dismiss the notion with such fervor, you know they have a huge P.R. problem they can't rationalize easily. After all, we know polygamy has centuries old roots in both the Judeo-Christian and Islamic traditions, whereas no such religious tradition exists for gay marriage, thus, the Pandora's Box dilemma.
But here is where Justices like Ginsburg and Breyer earn their leftist keep. To avoid the unpleasant consequences to the logical extensions to gay marriage, they will find foreign law to disavow polygamy, while gay marriage will stand under the rubric of equal rights. And if no foreign law exists, they'll just create a firewall out of thin air and tell us the issue is decided.
It should provide us with some humerous moments. Is Ginsburg too old to engage in legal gymnastics?

Bob| 4.14.09 @ 10:34AM

Jeffrey, you know the argument concerning polygamy is weak as from a biblical standpoint, it was certainly allowed. Remember that marriage originally was not a sacrament, it was an arrangement to define heirship and property disbursement. It wasn't a sacrament until the 15th century.

The change to monogamy was done primarily to simplify and control familial relationships and legal heirships. Once you understand the basis of monogamy, using that as an argument for restricting gay marriage is weak. Furthermore, for the same reasons most modern societies have rejected polygamy, there is a strong reason to limit marriage relationships to two individuals.

But then again, you are posting to social conservatives who don't really want to understand the intellectual underpinnings of society.

Regarding Minnesota, I seem to remember a Senator and an airport bathroom... Hmmm....

By the way, if we want to give religious Christians to deny service based upon their beliefs -- for example a pharmacist who won't dispense the day after pill -- then you really can't complain about a Muslim taxi driver, can you? Religious beliefs should not be allowed to discriminate regarding civil behavior -- whether it be for Muslims or Christians.

Gary| 4.14.09 @ 11:05AM

Absolutely, Bob. And the consequences of refusing to dispense contraception to a pharmacy customer are so much more, well, consequential than not ringing up that pepperoni pizza (though both actions by an employee are unacceptable).

Ray| 4.14.09 @ 11:40AM

"Once you understand the basis of monogamy"

The basis of monogamy is FAR more biological than social in nature. This is why monogamy is FAR more prevalent amongst humans than polygamy.

When it comes to Human evolution and biology, polygamy is the exception, not the rule. There's a simple reason for this: It's far easier for a monogamist family to raise and support children on limited resources, as history has shown time and time again. Since the children of monogamist families are far more likely to survive, the social and biological tendency for monogamy will most likely be "passed along" by those surviving children to their own progeny. This will invariably lead to monogamy becoming becoming socially, even biologically, necessary, while polygamy will be considered socially abhorrent, as it tends to waste valuable, limited resources.

This biological prevalence of monogamy is still evident today. In "third world" countries today, areas that experience massive poverty and the restrictions on access to necessary resources this poverty invokes, the monogamist family is by far the most prevalent form of family structure. Polygamy, in contrast, is extremely rare as requires far more resources to support the larger families this type of relationship naturally produces. Due to the limitations of polygamy, this type of family structure only occurs amongst those who can actually support large families.

Since most of our history has been one of poverty, polygamy is actually a relatively new phenomena that occurs in modern (well, relatively modern, as in the last 5 thousand years or so) prosperous families.

Bob| 4.14.09 @ 11:49AM

Actually, Ray, I don't know where you get your facts -- or for that matter, logic. According to the Ethnographic Atlas Codebook, of the 1231 societies noted, 186 were monogamous. 453 had occasional polygyny, 588 had more frequent polygyny, and 4 had polyandry.

In addition, the biological argument calls for polygamy far more than monogamy given the natural biological nature of men versus women. That's why in the earliest of times, polygamy was common. Obviously, the rich were more polygamous than the poor due to the need to feed the brood. So monogamy was more of an economic argument than a biological one.

If you are going to make dumb statements, Ray, at least show some data supporting those arguments.

Ray| 4.14.09 @ 11:58AM

Bob, that's called deductive reasoning, and it's VERY logical. How else would you explain the fact that monogamy is FAR more prevalent than polygamy in EVERY human society? Do you really think that the "restrictions" on polygamy just social? No, it's actually biological in nature. If it wasn't, societies would change and polygamy would be far more prevent today. But don't let your own eyes deceive you. If you need to, feel free to believe that BILLIONS of people chose monogamy over polygamy because it's socially imposed upon them.

Ray| 4.14.09 @ 12:00PM

"In addition, the biological argument calls for polygamy far more than monogamy given the natural biological nature of men versus women."

And where is YOUR facts to prove this? Or is this just speculation on your part?

Ray| 4.14.09 @ 12:15PM

Come on, Bob, explain to us all why monogamy is far more prevalent than polygamy, even in societies that allows polygamy (like the ones you cite) if monogamy isn't biological in nature.

Matthew| 4.14.09 @ 12:15PM

This is such a tired argument. Actually I kind of hope that conservatives would push this issue just so we could be done with the straw man in this debate.

Sam definitely hinted at how poorly comparing the two is, but let's expand a little. From a purely legal perspective, how do you distribute the wealth should the head of a polygamous marriage die and there is no will, especially when the spouses have been in the marriage for different lengths of time? How will the rights of the spouse be upheld when the patriarchal or matriarchal head of household decides to take a new spouse? How would you deal with an estate conflict where there are multiple plaintiffs, basically all suing each other and causing a very strange issue of having parties be both plaintiff and defendent? Will that incur substantially increased court costs at the expense of single and monagamously coupled citizens? And those are just the ones off the top of my head that I would expect legal scholars to pose.

Most importantly though, gay marriage didn't come about SIMPLY by judicial or legislative fiat. Mr. Lord completely disregards the journey that the gay and lesbian community had to make to even get to this point. It started with the Stonewall riots and has continued to what I feel is the MAJOR turning point: the Lawrence v. Texas case and the SCOTUS decision decriminalizing sodomy. It took quite a long time for the gay and lesbian community to get to that decision and it was on the backs of many brave men and women who publically announced their sexuality depsite the social, financial and sometimes physical risks involved. They had to get their foot in the door and start gaining sympathizers before they could start making any real political progress.

With polygamy, I just haven't seen the same thing. I would expect most Americans really don't know what goes on in a polygamous marriage, but the media stories give us at least an anecdotal idea. It would appear that most polygamous marriages significantly errode the rights of women and leave underage girls unprotected. Is this really true? I don't think most of us could really say, but polygamy supporters haven't really done a whole lot to change that opinion.

The slippery slope arguments get so old. I say go right ahead, put the issue before the courts, especially in Vermont, Iowa, Massachusettes and Connecticut. When it is struck down in spectacular fashion, there will be one less false slippery slope argument that equality opponents would have under their belt.

Bob| 4.14.09 @ 12:21PM

Ray -- Your reasoning is not "deductive". The fact is that polygamy was not only legal in early societies, but was common. That's why I gave you the fact the more societies supported polygamy than monogamy. You are just making up "facts". Furthermore, the biological argument is based upon the biological fact that women must bear the children historically were the ones that fed and took care of the children. Therefore, they are thus less available for polygamy. You do understand the historical role of a "mother" and the biology of gestation, don't you?

Ray, you need a class in reasoning and critical thinking. But thank you for participating and continuing to prove my point about social conservatives.

Tony in Central PA| 4.14.09 @ 12:24PM

The truth of modern / postmodern liberalism is that it will accept that same things in the name of Islam that it rejects in the name of Christianity. And always without complaint. A Muslim cabbie might refuse to pick up a smooching gay couple, or perhaps a Muslim restaraunt owner will refuse to host a lesbian wedding reception. Don't expect to hear much of anything about it. If a Christian did the same thing, it would be an outrage of national proportions.
I think Islam ( especially sharia - based ) and modern liberalism share a common antipathy for the concept of free will found in Christianity. Like sharia, liberalism demands acceptance without deviation from its tenets. Unlike sharia, liberalism's tenets are constantly shifting. Is it possible that over time, that liberalism will morph into something promoting sharia ? Many people would argue that has already begun.

Bob| 4.14.09 @ 12:51PM

Tony, your statement that modern liberalism accepts Islam and rejects Christianity is indeed well founded. But you must also accept the converse -- that modern conservatism denigrates Islam, and in fact most other religions. This is a problem with all fundamentalism in society. In fact, the sharia law example that you promote as implemented in the U.S., would be the acceptance of Christian law as the law of the country. You'd like that, wouldn't you?

Personally, I think both extremes are wrong -- civil society should be secular in nature and not discriminate against any religion. That doesn't mean we should all be atheists as religion does help us define morality in a secular environment.

Pete| 4.14.09 @ 1:16PM

Well said, Bob. Again, religious conservatives, pay attention. In the US, one does not have to have sanction from any church for a marriage to be legal under civic law. I'm Catholic, but because my wife wouldn't convert, the Catholic Church won't officially sanction our marriage. Does that mean we aren't legally married? Because an Episcopalian Church agreed to marry us without any preconditions, does this mean that somehow the Catholic Church's "freedoms" have been infringed upon? Of course not.

To paraphrase Frank Zappa, Iran has a religious government, good for them?

Tony in Central PA| 4.14.09 @ 1:31PM

Bob, I do not think relativism is the answer. I recognize its a tough situation when you have a variety of ethnicities and religions in a society, but vague pleas for tolerance simply aren't going to work.
It was noteworthy that the author brought up the spectre of sharia. This is going to be making increasing news in Europe. Does " tolerance " mean accomodating something that wants to impose its own concept of justice that excludes anything else ? We'll soon see.
Not all religions are the same, and some religions will not tolerate other religions. As offensive as it might be to some people, the thought - world of our founders was anchored in Christianity. It is largely responsible for the conceptualization of our freedoms and laws ( or at least, it was ). It is significant that there are now murmurings on the left about the need for a transnationally - based system of laws and justice to supercede the Constititution. The war isn't with religion in general, its with Christianity in particular.
I don't believe our society can or should attempt to accomodate any and all beliefs. America should have a coherent culture and identity that many good people find attractive and desire. When this is the case, I think you have people coming here and buying into the values that already exist. As a result, the nation grows better and stronger. This doesn't mean every American must be a Christian, but it also means America is not for everyone.

JJ| 4.14.09 @ 1:37PM

Comments from the liberal left above show them to be more naive, blind if you will, to the insane realities of the world we have come to live in, than a midget in basketball shoes.

Justin| 4.14.09 @ 1:42PM

The arguments you people are making against gay marriage are completely ignorant and f*cked up. In some Native American tribes, homosexuality was actually embraced. In Ancient Rome, gender didn't matter when it came to marriage. There was simply the penetrator the penetrated which were different legal classes. Some of the first Roman & Catholic marriages were same-sex. There was nothing speaking out against homosexuality in the bible until about 1670AD, when the King James Version was released. If you're going to bring up Leviticus, the part that speaks about how homosexuals won't inherit the kingdom of god, you should look at the versions of the bible that existed around 1000AD or earlier. Sodom did not consist of homosexuals, it consisted of rapists. And, as marriage started off as a legal agreement and not a religious announcement of love for one another, there is no such thing as sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman. I like how conservatives listen to the biased opinions of their church or political leaders, and do no research for themselves. That's why democrats are now the larger political power. Look up the demographics on who votes for who. Generally the uneducated people vote for Republicans, and the more educated people vote for Democrats. It's no coincidence. Also, about the Muslims in Minneapolis (where I live), let's think about it. They are perhaps the most hated demographic in America. They have some different beliefs than Christians. Catholics believe in no meat on Fridays during lent, and all sorts of restaurants have specials on fish during those times. Christians who don't believe in birth control don't have to fill prescriptions for it. Don't ever condemn Muslims for not serving pork or offering rides to people with booze. It's against their religion and believe it or not, it's against Christianity as well. I find Christians are a bit more pick-and-choose types though.
If you would like me to verify any facts for you, complete with references, please drop me a line at justin.johnson90@gmail.com. I will be happy to prove that you are just a bunch of ignorant, hypocritical bigots.

Peace.

Steve| 4.14.09 @ 1:49PM

Hello Bob!!

A serious question for you:

Should America sanction marriage between three consenting adults of whatever (trans)gender and if not, why not?

I'm genuinely curious (well, not in THAT way).

Power 13| 4.14.09 @ 2:46PM

"...I will be happy to prove that you are just a bunch of ignorant, hypocritical bigots.

Peace. "...

Priceless!

Bob| 4.14.09 @ 2:51PM

Tony, I'm not talking about either tolerance or relativism here. Evangelicals use "relativism" as a curse word and it is highly charged. I don't believe there should be moral relativism. You have a set of beliefs and I have a set of beliefs. They are probably different. You can, and should, believe as you wish in a free country. However, when that belief restricts me, and I have done no physical harm to another, in my book, it has no place in a society based upon religious freedoms. Most people believe that they should have the choice of an abortion. Most people believe that abortions in the third trimester are fundamentally wrong. That's where we currently reside as a society and that is fine with me. However, when you restrict my right to a day after pill when the fetus is only comprised of a few cells, you are making a religious argument -- not a biological one. If you are straight, a gay couple getting married does not affect your marriage. That is not moral relativism, that is fact.

What you are asking for is a Christian country just like Iran is a Muslim country. Restricting freedoms in that way is more dangerous to our culture than anything else I could submit. Furthermore, it validates fundamental Islam in a way that makes it difficult for us to argue against.

Steve, the argument against polygamy was originally based on defining heirship. It is much easier when the lines of heirship are simple and clean. Therefore, it is a societal norm and must be applied equally to all people. In addition, polygamy requires greater individual financial resources for a larger family. These non-religious reasons make some sense. Once you go down the route of polygamy, how do you define the maximum number involved in a marriage? Could we have a marriage of 100,000 people who all live in a city? Therefore, logically, you either define a "marriage" between 2 people, or many people. Could you imagine what would be required if the head of a family of 100,000 people died and the heirs fought it out?

That is the secular logic here -- that a marriage of 2 people benefits society.

By the way, we do have a form of polygamy in the U.S., it is called divorce and remarriage. As for me, thinking about marrying another man makes my skin crawl. However, I see no reason that should prevent someone from marrying their same sex if they can have a loving relationship.

Fr Bill| 4.14.09 @ 2:54PM

The idea that church law should be separate from civil law is NOT a good idea, and was not a part of the thinking of our founders. Ignoring church law is the reason we have successful legal challenges to marriage and other Christian traditions. The truth is that we must decide WHICH religious tradition we will follow in civil law. We used to follow Christian tradition. Ignoring it we have come to a choosing time -- or if you will -- a crisis.

Bob| 4.14.09 @ 3:05PM

Fr Bill -- let's take the logical extension of your argument. We should then outlaw the practice of any religion except Christianity, right? Let's close the synagogues, mosques, temples, etc. Then we would be just like Iran. You do realize that is a form of fascism....

Yes, it was primarily Christians that formed this country and our jurisprudence is based upon their beliefs. But they also had a severe problem with state mandated religion and attempted to achieve a balance. There is a separation of church and state in the Constitution and that is a good thing. Since most of the people in this country define themselves as "Christians", there is little chance that anyone, including the courts, could change our fundamental structure. If you believe they could, you lack a sense of reality.

JP| 4.14.09 @ 3:19PM

Bob,
More explicitly, there lies a protection of churches from Congress. Many people mistakenly view the 1st Amendment as a shield of the individual from churches; this of course is patent nonsense, as the Framers allowed for official religions in 3 states. The constitutional protections were for the churches and not the electorate. This understanding was perverted beginning with the Warren Court.

Jeffrey Lord| 4.14.09 @ 3:46PM

Bob..

"Jeffrey, you know the argument concerning polygamy is weak as from a biblical standpoint, it was certainly allowed."

This isn't my point. What I'm saying is that legally I have no idea how you stop any other arrangement from being defined as a legal "marriage" once gay marriage is so defined. There will always be someone somewhere who cries discrimination, and a judge only too eager to agree. The head of the North American Man-Boy Love Association (now deceased) was made the Grand Marshall of a huge civic parade in San Francisco a few years back, with no less than Nancy Pelosi riding behind him as if he were just another civic hero. He advocated the rights of men to sleep with boys. Boys well under 18. If someone like that is hailed as a hero, enacting his beliefs in a marriage statute would not be hard. After all, what's the big deal? My point here is that the hard-and-fast definition we have protects the larger society. Lots of people agree to civil unions, domestic partnerships, the need for hospital visitation rights, health insurance etc for gays. The problem is the "M" word. With, I think, reason. The point of the article is to get to the end game now. If gays oppose polygamy and all these other combinations get out there and campaign against them. But I don't see this because I think they know it will stop gay marriage.

Louis Jenkins| 4.14.09 @ 4:00PM

As a descendant of Mormons I demand my cultural and civil rights to a polygamist way of life! Now, if I could just get my wife to agree to it. However, considering the flip side, any male who subscribes to that belief had just as well have a hole in his head. Besides, polygamy is unlawful. One spouse at a time is enough. Let’s line out polygamy real quick!

Bob| 4.14.09 @ 4:14PM

Jeffrey, if you limit the right of marriage to the social construct of pairing, rather than multiple arrangements, do you still have the problem with gay marriage? The point of my argument is that pairing is a social construct, not a religious construct. It was meant to make the civil administration of marriage more defined as well as have a solid construct for heirship. At least, that is the history of pairing without religious interference. For the sake of society, and the fact that once you go beyond pairing there is no more argument for any size group to get married, I believe there is a civil reason to restrict it to two people. Can you imagine the difficulty with divorce when you have more than a pair?

I don't know why gays wouldn't agree that polygamy is not good for our society, but they should. It would certainly help their cause. Perhaps they do support pairing, but I haven't seen it specifically supported.

With regard to "marriage" versus "civil unions", from a secular/civil standpoint I just don't see the difference. I suppose the reason gays want to use the word "marriage" is that it connotes something beyond a legal partnership -- it says things like love and commitment. I don't know, and I don't particularly care. Furthermore, we have no problems setting age limitations for driving, drinking, serving in the military, etc. I thought we already have age limitations for marriage in most states. That should get rid of the NAMBLA argument, right?

Tony in Central PA| 4.14.09 @ 4:14PM

Bob, it is noteworthy that you brought up abortion in reference to religious rights. Your idea that we are free to believe as we choose as long as it does no physical harm to another runs into a major problem when it comes to how people define personhood. The oft used abortion question, " When does life begin ? " has different answers depending upon what a person believes. Perhaps the better question would be, " When does human life hold value ? ". Our President famously answered the earlier question with all moral unseriousness, " Its above my pay grade ". Logically, he would not be able to make any claim against it being murder if he does not know the answer to the question.
As far as gay marriage, I can't say exactly how much damage it could do to the institution. Heterosexuals have done a fine job there. The bigger question insofar as gay marriage may be one of religious freedoms, some that we may not want. Secularists can only offer ideological arguments against polygamy if they succeed in defining marriage as having nothing to do with the sex of the principals. They can't offer any historical arguments because they've ditched them. Marriage will become everything and in becoming everything will become nothing. Law expert Jeff Toobin pretty much said that there will be no legal argument against polygamy after this redefinition of marriage. The idea that churches would be allowed to refuse marriage ceremonies to same - sex congregants will likely be challenged early in the courts. The reality that pastors would be prohibited from publicly speaking against same - sex marriage has already occurred in Canada.
There are also differences by design that fundamentally distinguish same - sex unions from opposite - sex unions that are too numerous and obvious to mention. Like I've said before, you can't glue feathers on a cat and say its a duck.

Bob| 4.14.09 @ 4:23PM

Tony, if you ask the question of when human life holds value, you'll get even more dispersion than when does life begin. There is also the societal cost issue of viability. I could make the value argument so strict that it would include a prohibition against masturbation and sex for pleasure. And, this is NOT above my pay grade.

Regarding pairing, as I've said to Jeffrey, there is a strong historical reference to pairing -- in fact it is stronger historically than religiously. Pairing benefits society tremendously. I have made that argument. The slippery slope argument is very weak.

Regarding the feathers on a cat reference, that actually backs up the opposite point since homosexuals will say there were born that way -- and there is some evidence that it is true. Making them submit to heterosexual marriage would be akin to gluing feathers on that cat of yours. Be careful about the arguments you make as they may support a different conclusion.

friedfish2718| 4.14.09 @ 4:33PM

Same-sex marriage (SSM) proponents say that homosexuality is not equivalent to bestiality (zoophilia) since one party cannot give consent. Wrong. Pet owners already show a degree of zoophilia. A cat purrs? Said cat consents (purring is a voluntary act). A cat scratches you? Said cat does not consent. Recently an asian man was stomped to death by a cow he was trying to copulate. Was the cow expressing something?

SSM proponents say since homosexuality occurs among other species it should be considered normal; well, interspecies sex occurs also.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/03/070314-hybrids.html

Bestiality should than be considered equal to homosexuality. Shouldn't humans participate as fully as possible with the Evolution process?

SSM proponents say that homosexuality is not a choice. Well, bestiality is not a choice. SSM proponents look to Europe for inspiration on social and political matters: Austrian lawyer Eberhart Theuer went to court to get a particular chimpanzee declared a person. Mr Theuer lost the case. But there will be more of these lawsuits.

The US has their own advocate for zoophilia: Peter Singer of Princeton University.

Jeffrey Lord| 4.14.09 @ 4:36PM

Bob...

For an issue that I never really focused on I find that I have wound up spending a considerable amount of time with it because my religious denomination - the United Church of Christ - has, at the national level, endorsed gay marriage. As all UCC'ers know (Obama is one) local churches speak for themselves and mine went through the process. It divided between those who felt strongly that this was a civil rights issue, those who felt very strongly it was a moral/biblical issue (and hence strongly opposed) and me, hung up on the legality problem. The more discussion that was had I found that no one - no one - could answer why this would not be "discriminatory" to those further down the line who desired legal recognition of other relationships. The more I researched the more troubling this issue became. Our church wound up taking a pass on the whole issue. This is a hard discussion for someone with beloved relatives, friends who are gay. But other than getting angry, they couldn't answer me either.

One of the things that operates with me is that I have seen so many liberal ideas -having nothing to do with gay marriage - not turn out as promised. More liberal in my youth, there is a trail of assurances that if we just withdrew from Vietnam there would be peace and no more bloodshed (wildly wrong), the Soviets could be trusted (wrong again-ask Jimmy Carter) bussing was the solution to urban race problems (crazily wrong), drug use was hip and no big deal (heaven only knows how many ruined lives later we are for that one) and so on and on right up to the emotional frenzy over global warming, Iraq, etc. There is this constant appraisal of things with gobs of emotion and no common sense, leaving the rest of us to pick up the pieces when the whole thing crashes and the advocates just shrug and move on to the next issue. I just think we have to be extremely careful before we put one of the major societal building blocks of our society at risk, as I feel it would be.

I'm not running for office, but I have to say I really do think gay marriage is linked to the relationships beyond...so saying "yes" to gay marriage to me, at least, is not doable because I feel certain there would be more to come. And it won't be good.

Bob| 4.14.09 @ 4:53PM

Jeffrey...

If you are honest, you've seen BOTH liberal and conservative ideas not turn out as promised. This is a function of the ebb and flow of our political system. It is easy to argue for lower taxes, but almost impossible to achieve the spending cuts to go along with it. Reagan couldn't do it. Bush couldn't do it. And there are structural reasons that is true. The end result was significantly worse because it didn't stimulate more than normal growth of the GDP and only had the result of increasing debt. That is worse than not doing the cuts at all.

The reason I'm a Republican (even though most of you want to push me out of the party) is that there needs to be constant pressure on government to control spending. Increasing spending is easy because the Fed can print money. The liberals don't have that orientation.

I've spent my entire adult life in business. The great thing about our form of capitalism is that if you have an idea, you can to out and see if it works. You can't be fearful of trying something or our country would not be the best country in the world. There is little evidence that gay marriage will hurt our society. It is a fear that you have. When our society goes too far, we retrench. When we have too much regulation, we will cut it back. If we don't have enough we will increase it.

In Massachusetts, they started out the first year with 6,000 gay marriages. Now it has dropped to 1,000 per year. Are you really afraid that this is a big deal? The evidence says no. Is anyone mainstream trying to sell polygamy in MA? It is not logical that you would be afraid of the future if you have evidence like this.

We should not operate out of fear, but look at the information available to us and decide objectively. I believe the chances that gay marriage will go beyond pairing, because of the historical outlook of the state, is somewhere between slim and none. Furthermore, given that heterosexual marriage is so much more fun (in my opinion), I don't really see any big risk.

Bill| 4.14.09 @ 4:54PM

It's official, and has been for some time. America is over.

Alan Brooks| 4.14.09 @ 5:01PM

child molesting is on the rise, too.

do you know what "nudist" sites are?:
Ukrainian child porn with adults added to make it look legit. DVDs for $9.99, full color, HD...

ThinkTank| 4.14.09 @ 5:36PM

Ha ha! That is PRICELESS!
Rocco calls for the extermination of an entire people, and then apologizes for double-posting!
Such a gentleman...

Nick| 4.14.09 @ 5:53PM

Bob,

"Most people believe that they should have the choice of an abortion. Most people believe that abortions in the third trimester are fundamentally wrong. That's where we currently reside as a society and that is fine with me."

WRONG! This is not where society currently resides.
You have not educated yourself on abortion law yet, Bob? I've told you before Doe v. Bolton, the companion case to Roe v, Wade, allowed baby killing up until birth to "save the life or HEALTH of the mother". We have abortion on demand in this country, God forgive us.

"However, when you restrict my right to a day after pill when the fetus is only comprised of a few cells, you are making a religious argument -- not a biological one."

And again, the argument that life begins at conception is a scientific one, not religious. An argument you've lost in the past. But then again, it was you who thought "ensoulment" was a biological concept, not a theological one. Fetus is Latin for "unborn baby", by the way.

Bob, stick to that voodoo, that you do, so well: economics.

frankg| 4.14.09 @ 6:08PM

Bob I'm with Jeffrey Lord's comment on 4.14.09. The difference between liberal changes and conservative efforts is the former is likely to be imposed with the force and permanency of government and the outrage, intimidation, and targeting of media, leftist culture and leftist big money, constantly eroding the spirit of laws with various activists, political groups, and "groundbreaking" cases.
Its a continual progressive creep on so many fronts.
Like the google maps that displayed addresses of minor contributors to Prop 8. Even supporters of open policy of donations said this wasn't original intention of that policy.
As a conservative I'm not the one trying to push you out of the party, I just see people who wind up not defending the standards of freedom we are left with for now. Wether it was dole, bush or mccain, all I got from my friends and associates, for years was "is this all we got?" as in who to vote for.
Liberals are always, constantly PUSHING, CHANGING laws and there seems to be an undercurrent that you have to AGREE with their political agenda or YOU ARE A BIGOT, end of discussion.
Liberals have learned to just demand twice as much from "moderates" in the republican party, and next year come back for double again. AND MODERATES FUSS BUT COMPROMISE AGAIN and AGAIN. And the liberals come back again and again...

Jeffrey Lord| 4.14.09 @ 6:10PM

Bob...

"The reason I'm a Republican (even though most of you want to push me out of the party) is that there needs to be constant pressure on government to control spending. Increasing spending is easy because the Fed can print money. The liberals don't have that orientation."

Other than the bit of wanting to push you out of the party...we're infinitely more tolerant on our side....

Bob and Jeff agree! Stop the presses!!!!!!!!!!

Bob...go out and pick up a copy of Mark Levin's book. # 1 on the NYT Bestseller List this Sunday.
I'd be curious as to your take. I loved it.

Jeffrey Lord| 4.14.09 @ 6:13PM

frankg...

To adopt your cap style...YOU would LOVE Levin's book...

You've got the point exactly.

Nick| 4.14.09 @ 6:39PM

Mr. Lord,

I fear your political ju jitsu strategy is too clever by half.

I think homosexual activists will just form another coalition with polygamists and Moslems. The enemy of my enemy, is my friend.

Alan Brooks| 4.14.09 @ 6:43PM

I should not be so hard on muslims; if the guys want to be polygamists, or marry some underage... and or have concubines (some perhaps of both genders under the age of 16) what RIGHT do I have to judge?
We must be tolerant of others.

Big Leo| 4.14.09 @ 7:08PM

As a person with both a Masters and Doctorate in theology, everything Justin says about scriptures and church history is inaccurate. His ideas are not drawn from real scholarship, but from partisan speculation by people who have an active dislike of religion and apparently of plain objective truth.

Johnny B| 4.14.09 @ 7:46PM

Will someone show me one state where a homosexual man can't marry the gay or straight woman of his choosing? Or any state where a lesbian can't marry the gay or straight man of her choosing? The issue isn't that gays don't have the right to marry, it's that they are trying to redefine the meaning of marriage. Marriage has existed as an institution since before recorded history, and is one of the few cultural norms all human cultures share (war and religion being the others). Polygamy is more "normal" than gay marriage.

As far as this articles proposition--at some point, as our "culture" becomes even more unrecognizable, I begin to find the allure of Islam more attractive than its secular alternative. I’ll be more than willing to bow towards Mecca with false piety 5 times a day if that is what it takes to destroy the secular left that is destroying America. Lets here it for the future Yale and Harvard Madrassas….

frankg| 4.15.09 @ 12:50AM

Apologies for the all caps.
Yeah, I want Levin's book.
And his source material.
(Founding Fathers).

mike| 4.15.09 @ 1:37AM

clap..clap..clap. rousing good Mr. Lord. i'm not sure whether this a joke, or a radical new political move suggested fotr conservatives, but it's refreshing to read an article that does not enforce DOMA as a way to end gay marriage advocacy. still if your plan were sincere, you run into some problems. first of all, sharia law is essentially a bid to increase tolerence toward the islamic faith. don't wanna sell salami or give a ride to someone transporting liquor, fine. the only problem is, one act of tolerence only lasts so much in private institutions, and use of islamic tolerence bids to justivy aggression to wards gays is not private, remember seperation of church and state. furthermore, many of your own allies against gay marriage support the ability of a buissness owner to not give say wedding photos at a gay wedding, because it violates their beliefs, something that has already been argued in favor for Christian benefit. also, polyagamy and polyamory are not the same thing, and it is polyagamy that should be repelled, or endorsement of more than two people per marriage. i also highly doubt that even if polyagamy was legalized, that someone could ,marry another without their partner's permission. continuing on, very few believe polyagamy, is connected to gay marriage, as most are opposed to gay marriage by itself, the aforementioned is just a useful party line- it says nothing as to the actual defiencies of a same sex marriage. polyagamy is not allowed based on laws and attitudes that clearly show how dangerous polyagamy is- and is concerning that relationship structure alone. furthermore if i may- the belief that a mother father parenting set is the best is based on what exactly, personal belief? it's an opinion at best and an absolute falsehood at worst, based on no substantial efforts. in addition i do not care what polyagamy advocates say about gay marriage influencing them to come forward- it's a legal tactic, one that will and should fail. overall allowing liberal tolerence to destroy itself may seem like a good idea, but is flawed as the policies are especially designes to be non unconflicting, given that they apply to seperate aspects of life, sharia law provisions founded in accomadating reasonable religious beliefs and same sex marriage intended to allow rights to a certain amount of persons. note the difference.

frankg| 4.15.09 @ 4:20AM

Mike at 4.15.09
You make some interesting points, I would just suggest that my thoughts on the importance of one man and one woman as marriage is children growing up will have the best opportunity to learn what it is to be a male, female, mother, father, husband, wife by growing up under the (hopefully) example of their parents.
When they grow to adulthood they can choose what they want to be.
I believe gender will become such a vague notion in the future that children will not even know or understand what they are missing in their formative years. And hence not be able to truly choose or judge what they want to be later in life.

Anna Mac| 4.15.09 @ 5:30PM

It was interesting to see the liberals resort immediately to name calling and belittlement in the course of their comments.
I am not Christian but certainly believe that civil arrangements are the logical answer to formalize gay relationships. After living in SF for 20 years and interacting with a large social circle including many gays and continuing that trend in the Plains, I see gay friends in multiple-person arrangements that definitely give me pause. One relationship even includes an illegal alien which would go unremarked except there are the three of them including he. Probably because straight caucasion men are walking targets but maybe not, I don't run into similar arrangements among straight people. Think about where I live, the gay triumvirate lives in Nebraska. It is indeed a slippery slope friends.

James| 4.15.09 @ 7:06PM

The only factual and unemotional statement in this essay is this quote:

...I have no idea what's going on inside his marriage. Nor do I care. It's his business, not mine.

D1| 4.16.09 @ 7:18AM

Every premise in the arguments used to rationalize "gay marriage" legitimizes any and all forms of marriage, regardless of number, sex, and relationship. The overarching claim--it is a right to wed who one loves--applies among the incestuous (no? Where did the "unless" come from? You've already disposed of the "unlesses."), the polyamorous, the polygamous, and simply two sisters who decide to wed in order to share state-granted privileges or to force an employer of the one of the sisters he employs to pay for the health insurance of the other sister--and their brother, and his son, if they decide to make the wedding arrangements that way. The idea that "marriage" is redefinable such that it will encompass monogamous heterosexuals and homosexuals and ONLY those two, when the premises of extension to homosexuals do not in any way apply only to homosexuals, doesn't withstand the slightest touch. Those premises immediately brings with them the de-definition of marriage: It becomes not finite, but infinite, since any combination of loves and reasons of any kind for wedding is possible. Is it a slippery slope? No. It is a cliff. Marriage is based on the diadic, complementarity of the sexes and the fact of sexual reproduction. It is not simply the joining of any two or more entities (however Webster's libertine lexicographical editors decide to recraft their definition in order to be au courant).

Tim| 4.16.09 @ 4:15PM

I thought the article was very entertaining, especially the part where Mr. Lord helped us to imagine extreme liberal tolerance embracing the anti-homosexual inference of sharia.

To Nick, (who called the solution too clever by half), the enemy of my enemy is your friend UNLESS that enemy is an anti-homosexual Muslim. You see, the solution posed in the article in infallible on that merit alone.

Also to Justin -- who addressed all the ignorant bigots here and claimed homosexuality was not mentioned in "original" scripture -- we would love to know how you, of all people, managed to sort through all the versions of the bible and discover the ACTUAL interpretation and original meaning of the bible that so perfectly coincides with you blatant ideology... Really, I'm sure most of us here would be interested in the infallible new interpretations of your superior biblical library.

Jim Thunder| 4.18.09 @ 11:31AM

The two short and quick ways to achieve Mr. Lord's goals: (1) amend the criminal law on bigamy to allow the consent of one's spouse to be a complete defense; (2) repeal consanguinity (kinship) provisions regarding marriage.

zena| 4.20.09 @ 11:52PM

Gays want to legalize marriage so that they
can legally enter the schools by simply informing
children of what legal. At an early age they
will want to begin teaching our kids about gays
and gay marriage and they will be able to do it
because they will be stating laws.- Why?- to indoctriate more gays.
Why? More power, power , power. Look how they bully and try to make normal people be on the defensive. These are scary people.STOP them
people- wake up!

Wholesale Lingerie| 9.6.09 @ 9:03PM

sexy lingerie lingerie

Wedding Dresses| 9.10.09 @ 2:49AM

I have read through this article, Wedding Dresses
Designer Wedding Gowns
I do not understand what it meant ah

groupshoes| 10.24.09 @ 2:28AM

Nice airtical, i would like to tell all of my friends about it. By the way, i would like to introduce everyone of you a very nice website, it offers cheap air max trainers for men and women. Such as Air max 1, air max 2, air max 90, nike air max 2009+, air max 2010 new, nike air max TN, nike air ltd trainers, air max 95. Dunk SB shoes, nike shox shoes. You can find almost all the nike series there, in huge collection and varies colorways. They have Latest style and classic style. Though their price are low, don't worry about it's quality. They are realll ones!!! I have bought from them for so many times, and very satisfied with the their goods and service. Come on, you'll love it.