-
‘The Old Man’s Tree’ and ‘The Boy’s Tree’
April 22, 2013 | 4 comments
-
Helen Keller, Anne Sullivan, and Assisted Suicide
January 17, 2013 | 19 comments
-
D-E-F-E-N-S-E
January 3, 2013 | 30 comments
-
The ‘Max Tax’ Amendment to the Constitution
December 21, 2012 | 68 comments
-
Obama as a Faded Poster
September 5, 2012 | 75 comments
Another Perspective
Tailoring Marriage Law to Satisfy Equal Protection and Due Process
A thought experiment in the wake of the challenge to Proposition 8.
We have presumed that, if traditional marriage laws are unconstitutional, the remedy is to make marriage eligibility less restrictive and allow same-sex couples to marry. What if, instead, we chose an alternative method to meet constitutional requirements, namely, revising our marriage laws to make them more restrictive?
The Ninth Circuit is currently considering an appeal from a federal trial court which found California’s Proposition 8, an amendment to the California state constitution reserving marriage to same-sex couples, unconstitutional under two provisions of the United States Constitution, the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses. The case is called Perry v. Schwarzenegger. All of the legal briefs are accessible to the public.
When our courts consider allegations that a law is unconstitutional under either of these Clauses, one of their first steps is to determine how much of a burden the defenders have. For example, if a claim based on racial discrimination is alleged or if a claim that the law violates a fundamental right is alleged, the defenders must bear the burden of showing that the law meets the high standard of “strict scrutiny.” (The lesser standard is merely that the law has a “rational basis” and the trial judge found that traditional marriage’s exclusion of same-sex couples did not have a rational basis.) In this case, the plaintiffs make both types of allegations. They allege that Prop 8 discriminated on the basis of gender (or more specifically, sexual orientation) and also violated a fundamental right, the right to marry. Under either claim, Prop 8 would have to meet the standard of “strict scrutiny” to be ruled constitutional. The plaintiffs allege that Prop 8 meets neither “strict scrutiny” nor even “rational basis.” For their part, the defenders argue that Prop 8 does not discriminate on the basis of gender and does not implicate the right to marry — neither of which is the subject of this essay. The defenders further argue that Prop 8 meets either standard — the subject of this essay.
The plaintiffs claim that the justification asserted by defenders of Prop 8 for traditional, opposite-sex, marriage, namely, responsible procreation, is both overinclusive and underinclusive. It is overinclusive because couples, who do not intend to have children or, on account of age or infertility, cannot have children, may marry. And it is underinclusive because couples who care for each other — same-sex couples, close-kin couples, and underage couples, cannot marry. This page authored my essay on the underinclusive argument. I turn to the overinclusive argument.
If a court finds the eligibility requirements for traditional marriage unconstitutionally overinclusive, it has two alternatives: It can order the expansion of the requirements to encompass same-sex couples or it can order a narrowing of the requirements so that eligibility for traditional marriage is better tailored to fit the justification for traditional marriage. The briefs of the parties in the California case have little to say on this alternative. What would such a law look like? It involves identifying and barring infertile couples (at any one time, about one in six or seven couples in the United States).
The first step would be to look at what the parties mean by “responsible procreation.” Because intercourse can result (often unintentionally) in a child, society has an interest in ensuring that procreation occurs within marriage. Why? Because marriage facilitates the identification of the father of a child born to a woman. Because marriage ensures that the child can look — long term — to both biological father and mother for rearing. Because, while alternative arrangements of single parent or non-biological (adoptive) parents may be suitable, they are not as optimal for the child.
The second step would be to revise current law to promote “responsible procreation.” This would consist of adding new requirements before and during a marriage.
Premarital Requirements
The law could require all brides and groom to sign a
declaration, on or before their wedding day, that they intended to
have children, as a condition to obtaining a marriage license. No
schedule of course (but see below). Easy enough to do.
The law could presume, based on biology, that women over the age of 50 are infertile and prohibit them from marrying. (The ability of a woman to conceive due to artificial stimulation would not be allowed to rebut this legal presumption.) If the prospective bride were under the age of 50, the law would require all such brides and their grooms to be tested and the positive results for fertility would be submitted (with protections of privacy) as a condition of obtaining a marriage license. Some prospective brides and grooms (and their parents) would welcome such a law, but are uncomfortable with asking their intendeds under current law. A legal mandate would make a request unnecessary. A negative result on the fertility testing would prevent a person from marrying — unless the situation were corrected so as to result in a positive test. (Thus, the law would not recognize the prospect of artificial insemination or in vitro fertilization as meeting this requirement.) Doctors and couples who submitted positive results knowing that they were untrue would be liable for fraud and the marriages would be annulled.
Postmarital Requirements
The law could give, let’s say, 10 years, for the marriage to
produce a child. If, by their 10thanniversary, or sooner if the
wife had reached the age of 50 (and was presumptively infertile),
the couple could not submit a birth certificate for a natural born
child, the government would terminate their marriage; the couple
would not be “divorced” but “terminated.” There would be no
allowance for women under the age of 50 who had had miscarriages or
abortions or whose children had been born and later died. The only
way for a childless couple to avoid the termination would be to
adopt children, including stepchildren.
When the youngest natural or adoptive child of a couple reaches age 18, the couple’s period of “responsible procreation” would have come to an end. Sons and daughters over the age of 18 can vote, marry without their parents’ consent, join the military without their parents’ consent, drive, etc. They may desire to have two parents, but they do not need the two parents to be married to each other. The government would terminate the marriage, with some obligations imposed on the parents to provide for postsecondary education. After termination, the couple could remain friends. They could even continue to live together. The couple could avoid the prospect of marital termination on this ground by adopting children under the age of 18. Moreover, while the terminated wife, if now postmenopausal in fact or in law (that is, over the age of 50), would be prohibited from marrying, the terminated husband could marry a younger, fertile, woman.
Reflections
We find
this thought experiment repugnant on several bases. First, for
government to regulate marriage in such a way would assume that
government created marriage and could manipulate it in any way it
wishes. Government did not create marriage. Human beings did not
sit around a campfire or in a legislative assembly thinking up the
idea of marriage, creating something new. Marriage existed before
law, before history.
Second, such legislation would create burdens on private parties and on the government to police it: Who is fertile? Who has had children within the allotted time? Who has reached age 50? Who has children all over the age of 18? All in an effort to identify and bar about 15% of couples from marrying. Our privacy rights assume that the government may not intrude into whether or not we are fertile or intend or do not intend to have children. And only we, not the government, may initiate proceedings to end our marriages.
Third, this kind of legislation would allow men to abandon women who are past the age of child-bearing and child-rearing and encourage them to marry younger women and start second families. Now, you can say that no-fault divorce also allows husbands to leave their wives for younger women. True enough and bad enough. No-fault divorce is an example of what can happen when legislatures think that marriage is subject to their power. No-fault divorce has fouled our nests.
This thought experiment demonstrates that current marriage law is tailored to fit — as tightly as we should dare go — the justification of “responsible procreation” for traditional marriage of one man and one woman.
Traditional marriage reflects and upholds who we are. Biologically, we are of two genders and only women can bear children. While women can bear children without benefit of marriage, marriage does indeed provide a benefit — in the first instance to the children, and second, to the mother, the father, and society. The focus of traditional marriage is on the needs of children, not, as one brief put it, on “the glorification of the adult self.” If the institution of marriage is not focused on children, but rather, as the opponents of Prop 8 assert, on the affective emotions of the adults, then government has no particular interest in the institution because it has no particular interest in the (mere) lifelong companionship of adults.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (133) | Leave a comment
More Articles by James M. Thunder
More Articles From Another Perspective
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/02/09/tailoring-marriage-law-to-sati
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
The Spectacle Blog
Former IRS Commissioner Refused to Say That Targeting Conservative Groups is Wrong
Benjamin Brophy | 2:27PM
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 2.9.11 @ 6:59AM
There are many childless couples who have lifelong marriages.
The only question is who should get married?
If a couple wants the sanction of the government it's actually to the benefit of governments everywhere to give it to them because they pay a marriage penalty in their taxes.
Perhaps that's why you see many liberal high tax states going for it. I personally have no objections to it and can't find any real conservative argument against the practice.
Frisbee| 2.9.11 @ 9:19PM
Many people were thought to be sterile who turned out not to be. And vice versa.
The ability to procreate is an innate capacity between a man and a woman. The only traditional requirement for marriage in this regard was the ability to CONSUMMATE the marriage. The state need not and should not pursue to what is realistically an impossible level of confidence, the fertility of the individuals.
Two men cannot consummate. Two women cannot consummate.
Anonygrl| 2.10.11 @ 11:08AM
Two men cannot consummate? Two women cannot consummate?
Let us examine some definitions of consummate.
a. To bring to completion or fruition; conclude:
Two men or two women can do that.
b. To realize or achieve; fulfill: a dream that was finally consummated with the publication of her first book.
Two men or two women can do that.
c. To complete (a marriage) with the first act of sexual intercourse after the ceremony.
Two men or two women can do that.
b. To fulfill (a sexual desire or attraction) especially by intercourse.
Two men or two women can do that.
Are you perhaps suggesting that if there is no penis to vagina contact, consummation is not achieved? Because if you are, let me point out that a criminal on death row can marry, even though he will never be able to consummate that relationship. A man who has been injured or cannot perform sexually for whatever the reason can still marry, even though that relationship will never be consummated. And some couples marry and CHOOSE never to consumate the relationship.
Thanks for playing, but consummation is not at issue, just as procreation is not, when a couple decides to marry. And the state does not require that it be, any more than they require procreation as a condition for marriage. The state merely requires two consenting adults who chose voluntarily to enter into the contract of marriage together, and $40 for a license. This set of circumstances can be fulfilled by same sex couples just as well as opposite sex ones, and thus satisfy the state's requirements.
The state's INTEREST in marriage is fulfilled when a couple stays together, providing support for each other, making a stable household, helping to keep each other fed, clothed, housed, and relieving the state of the need to provide these services. If that happens to include children and their care and protection, that is good too, but marriage does not require it. With over population becoming a larger and larger threat, the state garners no specific benefit from encouraging procreation. Procreation is going to happen anyway, and if it happens in a family that has the stability of marriage, all to the better, but that is satisfied equally by same sex marriage as it is with opposite sex marriage. And the state's interest in marriage is NOT in encouraging breeding. It is in insuring stable households, with members, be they adult or child, who are better cared for by dint of the partnership involved.
Frisbee| 2.10.11 @ 9:09PM
Consummating a marriage has only meaning "c". Please consider the context before publishing an entire dictionary.
And no, among humans, sexual intercourse can only occur between opposite genders.
Please don't rush for your dictionary again.
Kevin| 2.12.11 @ 7:45PM
This is the kind of moronic thinking that tells high school virgins that it's okay to have oral sex, since it's not actual sex. Don't split hairs: men can have sex with men; women can have sex with women. Therefore, same-sex couples can consummate a marriage according to definition c.
Chairm| 4.5.12 @ 6:46AM
Anonygirl said:
"Are you perhaps suggesting that if there is no penis to vagina contact, consummation is not achieved?"
That is the definition of sexual consummation in the law of marriage. Your pose of surprise is not credible.
Afterall, can you really claim that penis-anus is sexual consummation for the all-female scenario under the law wherever SSM has been imposed?
Maybe you meant some-inanimate-object-in-some-orfice instead?
If your intention is to dehumanize coital relations and to ridicule its societal significance -- indeed its interpersonal significance to the bodily union aspect of the comprehensive union of husband and wife -- well, that would not surprise given the dehumanizing alternatives that you might have in mind when considering the all-male or the all-female scenarios.
The stuff you described as more important than bodily union, well, those things do not depend on same-sex sexual behavior -- of whatever variety -- and so you cannot justify a public relationship status based on such behavior. And since such behavior is supposedly definitive of SSM, you have failed significantly in your odd comment to distinguish the type of relationship you have in mind from the vast range of types of relationships that are not marriage.
SSM is thus a subset of nonmarriage and not a type of marriage, in fact, even if you would have government arbitrarily stick the label, marriage, onto it.
Your hostility toward the marriage idea is notably not a pro-marriage stance. You are playing a cynical rhetorical tactic when you try to drive a wedge between infertile couples and the societal significance of the marital relationship.
MikeD| 2.9.11 @ 7:28AM
Oh, where to start! I guess the first place would be with the semantics. We have become so politically and linguistically correct that we have forgotten the correct use of the language. We interchange the use of "sex" and "gender". The correct word when referring to the difference between men and women is "sex". "Gender" is actually a term used in the discussion of grammar to determine whether a subject is masculine or feminine. Whew! Glad that's over with...
Now to the 'meat'. I understand the purpose of the article, but, at the end of the day, we have a government ruled by an insane judiciary that is attempting to rewrite the laws of nature because of the politics of guilt and power.
Allowing same sex people to marry is just the result of a campaign by homosexuals (driven by liberals and malcontents) to assert their power and drag the rest of us into recognizing; even LEGITIMIZING their choices of behavior. It is a power play, pure and simple.
But, it is like repealing the law of gravity just because some moron was angry because they couldn't fly! There is a certain natural order in the world and all the idiots who want to prove to themselves that their deviant behavior is actually fine and normal will not change that. The next thing will be to legalize marriage between humans and animals; or multi-person plural marriages. (There are actually some instances where various forms of marriage DO work in different, and unusual environments, but this is not the discussion.)
If there were some kind of environmental problem that could result in same sex marriage, then there might be a few instances where it could be justified. This is not one of them.
I have no interest in, nor any influence on, what people do with, and to, each other in the privacy of their own bedrooms. But, when they try to drastically change the very basis of our society just to prove their point and sooth their deep seated guilt over their unnatural actions, that concerns me and all the rest of us. There are sufficient ways any couple can do just about anything that a 'sham' marriage accomplishes in today's legal and financial world. Don't mess with marriage just to prove a point.
Dan Dough| 2.9.11 @ 7:25PM
"Allowing same sex people to marry is just the result of a campaign by homosexuals..."
First of all... WRONG
It is not homosexuals pushing this issue on the ballot... It's conservative Christian Groups. Gays and Lesbians are simply fighting back in court to maintain their rights. The same thing ANY Christian, Conservative, or ANY OTHER tax-paying US Citizen would do... if they saw their rights being voted away at the ballot box. It's the reason we have a Judicial System, remember? To protect citizen's rights?
And don't get all "high and mighty" about Christians losing their rights. It is vertually impossible to sure a Church or Priest/Minister, if they refuse a same-sex couple. Religions have RIGHTS AND PROTECTIONS under the law in this country. Gays and Lesbians, however, do not. So, if you want to get rid of "special rights"... then why not start with "religious rights"... they're special.
The ONLY TIME a same-sex couple can sue a religious organization is when said religious organization offers a service to the general public (outside their organization) i.e.: education, loans, healthcare, adoption, renting a hall. In that case, it is no longer a "non-profit religion", it is then a "for-profit, taxable business transaction". In which case, the church/religious group must abide by ALL CIVIL anti-Discrimination codes. Just like ANY OTHER business.
Now, you also mention "leaving it in their bedrooms"... might I remind you that just 40 years ago in this country... not even Straight Married couples were even permitted to purchase contraception.
80 years ago, in this country, married couples could be forced to divorce if they did not reproduce... certain people deemed "unfit" were steralized.
Would you rather we returned to that?
You just want the people you "deem fit" to have the right to marry. That's "government policing" of individual rights. What's the difference? Either way... it's still control, not freedom.
Frisbee| 2.9.11 @ 9:24PM
Dan wrote: "It is not homosexuals pushing this issue on the ballot... It's conservative Christian Groups."
The conservatives are reacting to judicial over-reach. Prop 8 merely reinstated Prop 22, with the exact same words, after some jerk judge threw out Prop 22 as "unconstitutional". Prop 8 was a constitutional amendment, to make sure the judges noticed that traditional marriage was indeed "constitutional".
Dan: none of us is allowed to do everything he pleases. Just because you may have certain attractions doesn't make them right. For a just man, his own self is a cause for suffering. Same for a Christian; his own self is a cross.
MikeD| 2.9.11 @ 10:25PM
Dan,
It's really too bad that your anger prohibited you from making any sense. Virtually every court case that has produced homosexual "rights" out of thin air were results of some liberal judge attempting to legislate from the bench by overturning a duly passed law or ordinance that the tiny homosexual minority just couldn't tolerate. This isn't just homosexual behavior, it's typical left/lib behavior that continually refuses to accept any action they don't agree with.
I don't give a damn what you or anybody else do in your bedroom, but don't make up some mythical right to shove it into my face by fraudulently creating some sort of judicial legitimacy.
Generally speaking, it is just one more example of liberal behavior because they are so ashamed of their behavior that they HAVE to force it's legitimacy on the rest of us to justify it in their own minds. It is similar to rich liberals using our tax money to sooth their social consciences, ala' the Kennedys. Next time please rebut with specifics instead of volume and hysterics.
Kevin| 2.12.11 @ 7:57PM
Try again, MikeD. The Iowa supreme court ruled *unanimously* that it was unconstitutional to prevent same sex couples from marrying. A majority of those justices were appointed by conservatives and considered conservative themselves.
Conservatives always insist on smaller government, but hypocritically want to expand the government's influence in civil marriages. They want an overarching federal policy to usurp states' rights to define marriage for themselves (DOMA). Conservatives want religious freedoms, but also want to tell some religious minorities that they cannot marry their own followers because their religious marriage rites do not conform to the majority of christian churches'.
How about this solution: churches marry whomever they want, but there is no legal benefit for a church wedding. The only purpose of a church wedding is to square yourself right with God and your faith. Satisfy those religious needs however your religion and your conscience dictate. Then, for the legal protections, the powers of attorney, the will and inheritance rules, the protection of your children, step-children, foster or adopted children, or other family members, let the government institute a non-discriminatory civil partnership unrelated to church marriage. Let that apply equally to everyone, regardless of faith, race, color, sex or sexual orientation, and so on. Limit the civil partnership or not, depending on the mores of the culture: to two people, if that makes the most practical sense; to non-relatives or to relatives over 60 years of age, if that's what society wants; to more than two people if it can be logically implemented and that's what people want. But you can be married to Jane in your church and have a legal civil partnership with Susan, if your church and your God are happy with that. You will get zero legal recognition to your church wedding with Jane, of course, unless you ditch Susan and form your civil partnership with Jane instead. Or if you have no church, you can just form the partnership with Susan. Or Jane. I won't care, since it's none of my business. And neither should conservatives care, since it's none of theirs, either.
JimH| 2.9.11 @ 7:34AM
In a free society the only role of the State regarding marriage would be that of contract enforcement. Some feel the government should promote marriage as it is of a benefit to society. That being said I think the issue is ultimately one of semantics. Never, to my knowledge in the history of humanity have same sex domestic arrangements been viewed as marriage.
Dan Dough| 2.9.11 @ 7:06PM
Never, to my knowledge in the history of humanity have same sex domestic arrangements been viewed as marriage." LOL... that's a great way to twist "history".
You fail to mention that throughout history (and even in modern day), marriage were nothing more than a socio-political contracts... with wives/women being nothing more than property to trade.
These marriages where not for the "benefit of society" (as you put it) but rather a means of wealthy men to use their daughters as "playing chips" to climb social ladders, create royal alliances, and build family fortunes.
And though there are few (though there ARE some) societies in history that "married" same-sex couples, it's interesting how you COMPLETELY FAIL to mention the cultures in human history which accepted same-sex couples as legitimate intellectual and sexual partners.
You are correct... traditionally, marriage was a contract between a man and woman in order to expand the family fortune, increase the family's social position, and produce and heir to carry the family wealth/name. However, at the very same time (i.e. Ancient Greece)... it was also completely acceptable for married men to have a male lover/friend. A husband's ONLY responsibility to his wife was to get her pregnant... other than that, he could do whatever he wanted.
I don’t know about you… but I think marriage has come a long way from that definition.
Don't tell me you STILL think marriage is like that? If so... how much is your wife worth? Can I rent her some night?
JimH| 2.10.11 @ 7:30AM
You are missing the point. I did not say that same sex couples were never accepted. I said that they were never considered to be married; even in Greece. Since the time of agriculture and settled communities, property ( land mainly) has become a significant issue. Marriage was, as you say part of the orderly way of dealing with ownership and inheritance. From what we see now, many hunter gatherer type societies have much looser marriage arrangements, if any. The order and growth provided by marriage has always been viewed as positives by society, therefore it was promoted by the state.
Chairm| 4.5.12 @ 6:54AM
Jim H hit the nail on the head. So Dan looked for another nail and still flubbed it.
Dan said: "These marriages where not for the 'benefit of society' (as you put it) but rather a means of wealthy men to use their daughters as 'playing chips' to climb social ladders, create royal alliances, and build family fortunes."
Neitgher wealthy men nor royalty participated in the vast majority of marriages so your odd account of marriage is rather goofy.
Across the anthropological and historical records, there is no precedent for the law treating the same-sex sexualized arrangement on par with marital status. You are simply wrong on this point.
Frisbee| 2.9.11 @ 9:26PM
"contract enforcement"
I agree that no-fault divorce should be illegal again.
Richard Baker| 2.9.11 @ 9:22AM
"Right to marry?" What next, a right to marry your dog or sheep, a right to marry your dog and a human being, or other such perversions? I'd love to have one of these defenders show me where in the Constitution exists the right to marry. The trivialization of the institution of marriage continues, apace.
Dan Dough| 2.9.11 @ 7:10PM
LOL... I was waiting for someone to bring up "beastiality". I'm suprised you didn't throw "pederasty" and "polygamy" in there too... just for good measure. Sorry, but there is a BIG difference between:
- 2 adult, professional, tax-paying, non-related male US Citizens committing to a LEGALLY binding contract...
and
- Some sick Guy and his dog having sex
Vic| 2.9.11 @ 11:45PM
But, what about the "rights" of the sick guy and his dog? Does he not have the same "rights" as the two guys who want to bugger each other? Is it really any less "sick"?
Anonygrl| 2.10.11 @ 11:16AM
No, of COURSE he does not have the right to abuse his dog.
A dog is not an adult human who can enter into a legally binding contract.
Frisbee| 2.10.11 @ 9:16PM
Two adult humans can indeed enter into a legally binding contract. But marriage presupposes the end result can include children, and that innate capacity only exists between a man and a woman.
And besides, why are you such a bigot about legality? Why force your morality on a guy and his dog?
The fact is, different species can have offspring, but same genders can't (among those species which have sexual rather than asexual reproduction). Even Rhino the hamster admits to having some "wolverine" blood in him.
Please get your dictionary, but just read it and don't enter it here.
AnonyGrl| 2.15.11 @ 12:38PM
Marriage does not presuppose anything more than a lifelong committment to one's partner.
My morality insists that people not harm others. A dog, which cannot consent, would be harmed. If your morality allows for abuse to a dog, I am sorry to hear it.
Marriage is not only about reproduction.
I brought in the dictionary because you obviously did not understand the meaning of the word you were using and I was just trying to help you out. So sorry if intelligence and a minimal amount of research bothers you.
Chairm| 4.5.12 @ 6:57AM
Do no harm to others?
Does that include moral harm by imposing on all of society a false moral assumption? If not, why not?
Frisbee| 2.10.11 @ 9:22PM
Dan thinks only "professionals" can get married. Isn't that bigotry?
Oh, and he thinks LOL is an argument. Here Dan:
LLOOLL! and also, LOLOL!
You know what's sick, and worse, it's gross and unhealthy, and causes Gay Bowel Syndrome instead of kids?
Kevin| 2.12.11 @ 8:07PM
Ninth amendment to the US Constitution: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
The right to marry is one of those rights, that despite specific reference to it in the Constitution is deemed to exist and belong to the people.
A. C. Santore| 2.9.11 @ 9:45AM
Sorry, Mr. Thunder, but your proposition would be a bad example of government interference in our lives - making M.O.'s push to reduce the size of portions served in restaurants look childish by comparison.
Why complicate it? In our Western culture, marriage is a relationship between one man and one woman sanctioned by the state and usually by a religion.
No-one is being prevented from marrying because of their sex.
Some are being prevented from marrying someone of the same sex. Just as some are being prevented from marrying someone below the legal age for marriage, or within a prohibited degree of consanguinity, or already married, or while being oneself already married.
Marry within the legal bounds of the legal definition of "marriage" and you're not losing your civil rights. The entire "legal" argument against this appears to be "But I don' wanna!"
As I see it, the attack is not based on civil rights, but on making an "in-your-face" statement.
If a state wants to create a new legal relationship for civil unions between people of the same sex - just not marriage - it may do that.
AnonyGrl| 2.10.11 @ 11:27AM
You suggest that a homosexual man must marry a woman if he wants all the rights and protections that marriage offers.
If the situation were reversed, and homosexuals could marry but heterosexuals could not, what would you do? Would you sit back and say "Well, that's it then. I can either marry a person of my sex, or I must forgo all the rights and privaleges of marriage entirely." Or would you argue that you should be allowed to marry the person you love?
Would you just accept that your relationship to the person you love didn't mean as much as someone else's? Would you allow the state to take away your children if one of you died? Would you think it was ok for your partner's family to overturn the will and take away your home and everything else you had earned together? Would you be ok with having paid a lifetime of taxes so that married people could get social security benefits that you were denied? If your partner was from another country, would you think that it was right that you two not be allowed to be together because marriage is not an option for you?
Probably not.
And there is no "in-your-face" statment about any of that, just the ongoing and simple request to be treated as an equal citizen with equal rights. Civil unions are NOT equal. Thousands of laws across the country say "marriage" not "civil union" and to change all those laws to create equality is an onerous burden on the government that can be easily avoided by simply acknowledging that we are equal and we should be afforded equal rights.
Frisbee| 2.10.11 @ 9:18PM
Anongyrl: Assuming you are opposite genders., you and Dan Dough should get married. Then you might even have kids, form the next generation, etc etc.
AnonyGrl| 2.15.11 @ 12:39PM
Rather than actually responding to any of what I had to say, THAT is your answer? I should marry a stranger?
Very clever.
Chairm| 4.5.12 @ 6:59AM
In what way, if any, are your questions relevant to the discussion?
To form a nonmarital relationship is a liberty exercised, not a right denied.
Seapuss| 2.9.11 @ 9:59AM
I think the proper conservative response to the challenge of "gay marriage" is to abolish civil marriage altogether.
First, civil marriage lost any legal connection to procreation and child rearing a long time ago. Nowadays, the only legal effect one will notice upon signing a marriage license is that the IRS imposes a “marriage penalty” on you at tax time, and your beloved spouse has a license to invoke the divorce statute and take half of your stuff if things don’t work out. Marriage statutes recognize marital unions only as amoral “economic partnerships”, while child custody, child support, and visitation issues are dealt with in entirely separate statutes, which apply whether or not the mother and father of a child were ever "married".
Second, why a conservative—especially one with a libertarian streak—would invite the government to stick its nose into his/her most intimate relationship is beyond me. Marriage ought to be viewed as a religious rite, not a legal right. And the government should be disinvited from interfering in that relationship by abolishing civil marriage altogether.
JayDick| 2.9.11 @ 10:35AM
I think "homosexual marriage" is an oxymoron that should never be accepted by our society or our government. Only (liberal) judges and gay activists are stupid enough to think homosexuals can be married. That said, I would rather the government get out of the marriage business entirely, as Seapuss suggests, than for them to recognize marriage between homosexuals.
AnonyGrl| 2.10.11 @ 3:45PM
I think your understanding of the word oxymoron is flawed. Oxymoron is a pairing of words that have opposite meanings, such as "jumbo shrimp" or "deafening silence."
A homosexual is a person who is sexually and emotionally attracted to a person of the same sex. Marriage is a union between two people who love each other. In no way do those two words have opposite meanings.
But if it makes you feel any better, you don't need to call it "homosexual marriage" when two men or two women choose to pledge their lives to each other. Instead, you could do what we are asking, and simply call it "marriage." Which is what it is.
John Navratil| 2.11.11 @ 11:06AM
AnonyGrl,
You are using a very modern definition of marriage, indeed. Historically, a marriage required a reading of the banns. Still today, all are charged with supporting they newlyweds in their marriage. The Christian religious ceremony ends with the admonition that no man should interfere with the marriage.
Marriage involves the entire community. Why? Property rights and succession were certainly one. But the biggie was children.
Prior to this age of wealth when people lived a lot closer to the earth, a succession was a necessity (someone to work the farm and take care of you in your later years) and a great expense. It took an otherwise productive working mother out of commission to raise children up to their productive years. Having someone's bastard children around was a burden on the community. To help motivate the poor farm girl to resist the plaintiff calls of the local Lothario, the laws of bastardy prevented a bastard child from inheriting from the father. Again why? It was a recognition that the continued existence of society required a next generation, children without support were a burden on the collective and the best way for children to be raised was in a family. The marriage provided this structure and imposed obligations on the parents in order to benefit the society as a whole. Love made it a whole lot easier to build a solid family, but nowhere is it considered a requirement for marriage. Arranged marriages existed then and now.
You may argue that today the rules are different. We can afford different family structures. Indeed you are, in some respects, correct. However we still need a next generation (it's kind of the point of life, isn't it) and while other arrangements may be adequate, a two-parent family is still regarded as the best way of bring up the next generation. We are currently reaping the "benefit" of having a under-class of women who have effectively "married" the government.
You invert the meaning of marriage when you center it on the couple. This is why most commentators here don't much care what people do in their own bedroom, but are opposed to the redefinition of marriage.
AnonyGrl| 2.15.11 @ 12:50PM
First, let me address the issue of "two parent families". Same sex couples can, and do, raise families, and have in studies been shown to be just as good at it as opposite sex couples. Yes, two parents provide better support than one. No, the gender of the parents is not a detriment to child rearing. In fact, in a recent study, lesbian parenting couples were shown to have better adjusted children than opposite sex couples. Yes, that is one study, but it is telling. All that being said, what better way to help insure that the children of such couples will CONTINUE to have the benefits of a two parent household than allowing those couples to marry?
Next... let us discuss traditional marriage. How far back do you want to go? We can go back to biblical times, where a husband might have multiple wives and, in fact, randomly rename them to suit his pleasure. We can look at the middle ages, where a woman could not own property, and was handed off to some stranger by her father to cement relationships between families or for money. We can look at marriages in this country when women could not go out and get a job, but were expected to stay home and make baby after baby.
Traditions change.
Currently, a heterosexual couple who wants to get married RARELY will tell you that they want to do it just so that they can raise children together. They might think that children would be nice, but that is not WHY THEY MARRY. To insist that homosexual couples should not marry for love but only for progeny is unfair and as unrealistic as expecting that is the reason heterosexual couples do.
Chairm| 4.5.12 @ 7:02AM
Traditions change, sure, and there is quite a lot of variety in the protocols of marriage across the anthropological and historical records.
Yet there is that two-sexed requirement that is persistently present anyway.
And it has a sexual basis that, while of great societal significance, is foreign to the one-sexed type of arrangement that SSMers, such as yourself, emphasize in your rhetoric and argumentation.
Frisbee| 2.10.11 @ 9:25PM
Seapuss wrote: "I think the proper conservative response to the challenge of "gay marriage" is to abolish civil marriage altogether."
Nonsense. Human beings arise from the union of a man and a woman. That man and that woman bear a recognizable natural duty to raise their children. The expression of the acceptance of that duty is marriage. This is recognizable as natural law, and civil law is bound to recognize and support natural law.
Seapuss| 2.11.11 @ 7:40AM
Mind you, I'm not talking about abolishing sacramental marriage (a/k/a "church marriage"), but simply abolishing civil marriage.
Civil marriage has long ago ceased recognizing and supporting what we think of as sacramental marriage. The law has stripped the legal institution of marriage of any moral component--the state will not enforce any spouse's vow of fidelity and faithfulness--and issues of child custody, support, and visitation are now governed by statutes outside of marriage law.
Abolishing civil marriage entails only getting rid of the one-size-fits-all, government-imposed, amoral "economical partnership" agreement, which comes into play when the marriage falls apart and which no one would agree to (i.e., the other party gets half of your stuff, no matter what they did) if they had to negotiate its terms ahead of time. I say get rid of it, and prevent it from becoming simply a device by which gays (or anyone else) seek society's moral stamp of approval for their sexual relationships.
buckeyeman| 2.11.11 @ 6:01PM
Seapuss, you are completely correct. The gross abuse of men in divorce court is horrific. Few would agree if they knew what the "contract" entailed in advance. Even fewer would agree if they knew how horrendously the "contract" would be enforced by a corrupt judiciary. You are also quite correct to note that the traditional role of marriage forming a framework for the financial support of offspring was destroyed years ago by benevolent government meddling. Additionally, child visitation and support are overseen whether a marriage exists or not. Among the various solutions to this conundrum, the best is to get the government out of the marriage business altogether.
George S| 2.9.11 @ 10:25AM
Some things should not need justification in the first place. To subject the religious rite of marriage to the scrutiny of the secular creation known as the Circuit Courts of Appeals -- created by a government created by men who were created by God within the sacrament of marriage -- is a farce.
The Constitution separates government from the spiritual. Once the Courts step in and force us to justify what cannot be justified within the secular realm to the satisfaction of man-made legal concepts, then nothing is sacred (literally!). Where can this lead? Who can use the "rational basis" argument to uphold the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment? Is it rational for people to believe in a God? If not, then what can we say about all those laws based on that belief? The survival of our Republic hinges on our Judeo Christian teaching, the foundation of our morality. Welfare was the opening salvo, taking aim at the family structure. Abortion forced us to define life. Now it is gay marriage, forcing us to define the glue that holds a civilized people together. The pattern is obvious.
Frisbee| 2.10.11 @ 9:28PM
That marriage is between a man and a woman arises from nature. I agree with you that government must acknowledge that reality.
Al Adab| 2.9.11 @ 10:39AM
Why does the State feel compeled to regulate marriage? Is their a government interest in societal stability?
Why do some not marrigable want the benefits of marriage? Could it be that the welfare state provides benefits to the married that it does not provide to the unmarried? If so then the fault lies with the welfare state not in the concept of marriage which arignnally was a Church recognized status.
VBMax| 2.9.11 @ 11:08AM
I find some good arguements above on the rejection of gay "marriage". The fact that it is even a topic of discussion shows how far our culture has fallen.
AnonyGrl| 2.10.11 @ 11:30AM
I find the fact that we are moving closer to marriage equality as a wonderfully good sign of how far our culture has risen.
bsuden| 2.10.11 @ 1:16PM
Ah that great idol god of equality before whom all must genuflect.
But if you insist, as per Geo. Orwell's Animal Farm you will find out that some animals are more equal than others.
But you don't want to marry a dog?
We can solve that problem. Nothing that a little waterboarding can't fix. You just don't understand radical equality means just that, the lowest common denominator. "Love" is just a little mental programming gone awry anyway.
Next shibboleth to go, as mentioned above, will be gravity. All together now, flap your arms and think "I'm flying, I'm flying".
AnonyGrl| 2.10.11 @ 3:02PM
Err... what? Not much of what you say makes a whole lot of sense... but let me see if I can parse any of it.
No one is asking you to genuflect. But equality is, if you may recall, what we are about here. "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal." This is arguably the most well known phrase from any document in American history.
The road to equality has been a bumpy one, but we are, at least, still travelling forward.
The society you seem to prefer, one where same sex couples are not allowed to marry, is a perfect example of that Orwellian dystopia of which you speak. The best way to avoid it is to ensure actual equality, not the idea that some are entitled to more rights than others.
Perhaps someone, some day, will explain to me why people who are so anti-gay are so pro-beastiality. It is never the pro-equality people who bring up the idea of marrying housepets, it is always those who want to make second class citizens of us who are pushing for that end. But to answer your question, no, I don't want to marry a dog. And, since a dog is not an adult human capable of entering into a legal contract, you can't do it either. Sorry.
Are you trying to suggest that waterboarding is some sort of a threat being used to ensure equality? Or are you suggesting it as some sort of a cure for those who are seeking equality? Your reference is murky. I am not sure what you find radical about equality, but I am fairly certain that if it were YOUR rights that were being infringed upon (and to head you off at the pass, no, there is no right to legislate discrimination of others) you would be understandably upset and be calling for equality yourself.
Gravity is already equal. No one is exempt, no one is excluded. We all get the benefits and responsibilities gravity carries, simply by being born on this planet. It doesn't matter if you are male, female, tall, short, gay or straight, gravity works the same way for all of us.
Equal rights should be the same.
Frisbee| 2.10.11 @ 9:29PM
Men and women are equal: they are not the same.
(Oh, and "vive le difference")
AnonyGrl| 2.15.11 @ 1:02PM
Certainly. EVERYONE is equal and no one is the same. This does not have any bearing on the issue of marriage equality.
Chairm| 4.5.12 @ 7:08AM
Yes, good summation.
We are all born equal, of a man and a woman.
The two-sexed nature of human generativity is also the two-sexed nature of human community. Humankind is not sex neutral but complementarily-sexed.
The significance of sex difference cannot be denied by SSMers who, afterall, insist that the sex of the persons is what makes all the difference.
Marriage unites the sexes. SSMers complain that the man--woman requirement means that the husband is sexually attracted to women and the wife is sexually attracted to men; and on that basis the man-woman requirement discriminates based on sexual attraction.
But if that is their view, then, they must acknowledge that marriage integrates by sexual attraction -- including as it does male attraction and female attraction. And, again by their view, SSM is segregative -- both by sex and by sexual attraction being either male-only or female-only.
Within the same-sex arrangement (sexualized or not) there is no equality between a man and woman and so sex equality is extrinsic to the SSM idea. Likewise there is no equality between the male attraction and the female attraction within an arrangement that excludes on that very basis.
SSMers do not understand equality even on the very terms that they have used to complain against the marriage status quo.
Joe D.| 2.9.11 @ 11:18AM
Mike D. you are correct. They have the right to marry like everyone else, just to the oposite sex. And don't get me started about how they were born. There has been no legitimate study to show this anywhere. Yet there have been disproving the being born this way. It is a choice made even though past child hood problems played into it. It was still a choice.
If you want help, there are many organizations out there to help. If not, don't drag the country down with you. Thanks
MikeD| 2.9.11 @ 1:23PM
The proof of the errors in their logic comes from their defense. They are homosexuals for two possible reasons: One, they were born that way, which makes it genetic and something they cannot control. Or, two, it is a lifestyle choice, made completely voluntarily.
If it is genetic, then they must admit they cannot control it and therefore, from evolution's perspective, they are superfluous since they will not be breeding and passing on any share of the gene pool.
If it is a lifestyle choice, they are making a conscious decision to do what they do, and are therefore NOT any member of any kind of minority. My son tells me that the homosexuals are the only (self described) minority one can join if they choose. Because of this, their behavior is aberrant and intentional and deserving of no notice, or accomodation by society. It's just as if they were choosing to all wear red socks and demanded minority status for their sartorial preferences.
If it IS truly genetic, then they must admit that they cannot control it, and, as such, are deviants because of this defect. In evolution, all genetic traits have an impact. Some are so minor that they are negligible. Others are so destructive they result in death, thus 'self correcting' the gene pool by culling out the defects via death and/or inability to breed. If homosexuality were truly a genetic defect, it would be bred out of the gene pool because they prefer sex with their same sex, thus precluding passing on the genes.
After all this, homosexuals have to recognize the facts. If it is a genetic defect, they are deviants and will be bred out of existance. If, instead, they state they are homosexual and breed anyway, they are contradicting themselves.
If, however, it is a lifestyle choice, they are liars by demanding any kind of accomodation by society at large because their choice is no more significant than choosing hair color or color of clothing.
If they just like sex with both males and females, that's a choice; and totally their business, as long as they do not try to make it more than what it is and try to jam it down our throats. Keep it in the bedrooms and get the hell out of our courtrooms and churches...and out of our Military.
These whining homosexuals are just like the other libs; if they want or like something, they just HAVE to shove it at the rest of us so they can feel good about their actions. And, if they do NOT like or want something, they scream and yell until they stop everybody else from doing anything they do not agree with. Just for chuckles and grins, try telling the children what homosexuals actually DO with each other. After that, I guarantee they will not see them as well dressed people who have excellent taste. They might actually be disgusted and repelled.
Paul| 2.9.11 @ 3:42PM
Mike D, I must take issue with the dichotomy that you posit: either desire to engage in homosexual acts is of natural, biological origin, or it is a freely willed desire, experienced only by choice, like the desire to go ice-skating. Is it not obvious that many people are afflicted by strongly experienced desires which they do not choose? Are not there many who lust after pleasures that they understand to be both shameful and harmful, even while wishing desperately for the fortitude to resist these temptations? While one may argue over choice and culpability in such a situation, surely it defines some middle ground between "physical nature" and "arbitrary and conscious will."
MikeD| 2.9.11 @ 4:08PM
Paul,
You start making your point and then you stop. Don't leave it hanging; please add your thoughts about where your discussion might be taking us. You apparently feel that there is something in the middle, or maybe even a spectrum rather than a dichotomy. Most studies indicate that human sexuality is a spectrum; that every person falls somewhere in that line between exclusively hetero and exclusively homo; although it us NOT a bell curve, but a strong 'skew' to the hetero side where only 1.2% describe themselves as exclusively homo; and 91.4% describe themselves as exclusively hetero.
But, you don't take your argument far enough. If it isn't a dichotomy, then what is it? And, if there is truly a spectrum, where should the society fall on that line? There must be certain absolutes in acceptable behavior lest we live in total chaos. Marriage is an institution that is based both on civil and religious law AND human behavior involved in creating and nurturing the next generation. At some point it becomes more important to meet society's important objectives than it is to meet the self important desires of individuals wishing to justify their activities and behavior. Please finish your thoughts; I'm interested in what you have to say.
Paul| 2.9.11 @ 4:35PM
Mike D, I appreciate your interest.
As my earlier remarks indicated, I believe neither that a desire to engage in homosexual acts is an act of arbitrary will, nor that such a desire is caused by the physical nature of any particular person. Rather, this desire and its resultant behavior are perverse, as are coprophilia, chronic alcoholism, or unrestrained gluttony. While, strictly speaking, one chooses whether or not to commit a specific act exemplifying one of these, coprophiliacs, alcoholics, and gluttons often experience their desires as afflictions. Psychology teaches us that such desires -- and a felt inability to resist them -- typically have roots either wholly or partially outside an individual's past or present choices. Morality requires neither that we punish those who engage in such perversity, nor that we affirm their behavior as wise or virtuous.
MikeD| 2.9.11 @ 11:01PM
Paul,
Two comments. First, you got me. For the first time I can't spout out my deep meaningless store of esoteric words. What is 'coprophelia'? (Yes, it's late and I'm too tired to look it up before bed!)
Second, I have tried not to inject morality into this, although it is inextricably intertwined with morals. Morally speaking, I'm not too sure where sexual behavior should fall if it is private, between consenting adults, does not involve children, and is not intended to impose any value judgement on others. (Although the homosexual activists try their best to do the opposite; that is, to impose THEIR view of morality, or lack thereof, on others.) While I have a strong sense of values and morality, I'm not completely certain that God is up there watching what we're doing in bed unless it is at odds with my qualifications listed above.
Frisbee| 2.10.11 @ 9:35PM
Even if same-sex attraction arises genetically, it doesn't matter. Many things may arise genetically that we are obligated as rational creatures to oppose.
Kleptomania probably has genetic origins too. So what? Should we cease to recognize property rights because the impetus to steal arises naturally? No. The kleptomaniac is obligated to fight his temptations.
Marriage is not about "attractions". In fact, to be faithful a married person must fight other attractions.
If you want to get married and have kids, do what it takes and find a good person of the opposite gender.
Thomas Alex| 2.9.11 @ 4:43PM
How do people know if they are lesbian, gay, or bisexual?
According to current scientific and professional understanding, the core attractions that form the basis for adult sexual orientation typically emerge between middle childhood and early adolescence. These patterns of emotional, romantic, and sexual attraction may arise without any prior sexual experience. People can be celibate and still know their sexual orientation--be it lesbian, gay, bisexual, or heterosexual.
Different lesbian, gay, and bisexual people have very different experiences regarding their sexual orientation. Some people know that they are lesbian, gay, or bisexual for a long time before they actually pursue relationships with other people. Some people engage in sexual activity (with same-sex and/or other sex partners) before assigning a clear label to their sexual orientation. Prejudice and discrimination make it difficult for many people to come to terms with their sexual orientation identities, so claiming a lesbian, gay, or bisexual identity may be a slow process.
Thomas Alex| 2.9.11 @ 4:44PM
What causes a person to have a particular sexual orientation?
There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.
Frisbee| 2.10.11 @ 9:36PM
This is true of millions of orientations. If your orientations are evil, fight them. The good ones you can follow (in moderation).
Thomas Alex| 2.9.11 @ 4:47PM
"DO with each other. After that, I guarantee they will not see them as well dressed people who have excellent taste. They might actually be disgusted and repelled."
Try telling children what Straight people actually do. 40% of Straight couple practice anal sex, and it's only increasing. Not to mention, many of the children you tell about Gay sex, are Gay themselves.
MikeD| 2.9.11 @ 11:04PM
I'd be too embarrassed to tell the story of what my first grade daughter asked us at the dinner table one day so long ago. While it embarrassed us, my wife's parents had no idea what the little tyke was talking about. Hint: It happened during the Clinton-Monika Lewinski soap opera.
Frisbee| 2.10.11 @ 9:37PM
Why not get your kids out of school, and home school them? Your precious daughter is being aggressively polluted.
Dan Dough| 2.9.11 @ 7:33PM
It's a choice to be a Republican... why should they be allowed to marry?
It's a choice to be a Christian. Why should they be allowed to marry?
Oh... and "Just for chuckles and grins, try telling the children what homosexuals actually DO with each other. " Really? With that said, I wouldn't even want you near my kid. With a mind like that, God knows what you'd "do", much less "say" to my child.
gary siebel| 2.9.11 @ 11:28AM
Your proposal just opens an entirely different can of worms. A more logical argument is that homosexuals already have precisely the same legal right to get married as heterosexuals -- they simply choose not to exercise it because they prefer to have sex with their own "kind." (Thus we see the true underlying reason for claiming sexual preference is genetic.)
Marriage is a privilege that results from someone acceding to a a request. No rights are contingent upon requests, therefore the State violates no rights by endorsing marriage as strictly between a man and a woman.
The solution is civil union on the one hand and traditional marriage on the other. Continuing to argue against homosexual marriage on the basis of any variety of religious belief virtually guarantees the gay agenda will win.
There is an equal right to request marriage, but there is no right to GET married. If I have the right to GET married, I choose Madonna, and if she refuses to marry me I will sue her for violating my "right."
Paul McGrath| 2.9.11 @ 11:39AM
You make a very excellent and hilarious point, Mr. Siebel, but I would disagree with your number-one on the wish list. Madonna would rank about a hundred and twelve on mine.
AnonyGrl| 2.10.11 @ 11:40AM
Is Madonna a willing participant in your marriage? No? Well, then, that argument is spurious.
If "marriage is a privalege that results from someone acceding to a request" as you say, then when a man asks his boyfriend to marry and the boyfriend agrees, they can marry? No? Then that argument is spurious as well.
As to choosing to marry someone of the opposite sex, please imagine that cases were reversed and you were only allowed to marry a man. Would you think that was fair and legal? No? Didn't think so. And whether homosexuality is genetic (it isn't, entirely) or a choice (it isn't, at all) matters not one little bit, legally. If two men fall in love, they should be granted equal rights to marriage, just the same as if they were an opposite sex couple.
Frisbee| 2.10.11 @ 9:44PM
gary siebel wrote: "Your proposal just opens an entirely different can of worms. A more logical argument is that homosexuals already have precisely the same legal right to get married as heterosexuals -- they simply choose not to exercise it because they prefer to have sex with their own "kind."
That is right on target, gary.
AnonyGl wrote: "As to choosing to marry someone of the opposite sex, please imagine that cases were reversed and you were only allowed to marry a man."
I reply that as I age, and my wife grows a little beard, and her body bears the "weight" of births, and age takes its course on both of us, and my eyes begin to fail, your argument gets sillier and sillier.
AnonyGrl| 2.15.11 @ 3:18PM
You suggest that your wife is becoming a man, and it is MY argument that is silly?
Unless she is transgendered, your wife is and will always be a woman no matter what age does to either of your physical appearances.
bobmontgomery| 2.9.11 @ 11:36AM
For a law to assert that one (or a government) cannot discriminate based on sexual orientation, is absurd. Pedophilia is a sexual orientation. Incest is not tolerated. If a law is intended to ban discrimination specifically against homosexuals, it must say so. Can a government discriminate based on political orientation? Well, if your politics is oriented toward the violent overthrow of the United States you might be discriminated against. Does the government discriminate against Christians when it exempts Amish from the new health care mandates? If a law is passed saying government cannot discriminate based on orientation, then it must includeall types of orientation within that class = political, religious, sexual or whatever class. Otherwise, governments, as well as people, may discriminate according to their needs. There is no anti-discrimination clause in the Constitution, and there is no right to marry clause in the Constitution. period.
Frisbee| 2.10.11 @ 9:44PM
Excellent bobmontgomery. Thanks.
AnonyGrl| 2.15.11 @ 3:30PM
Laws in this country are specifically for the purpose of preventing HARM to the citizens of the country. That is the purpose of the law, in general.
Homosexuality is NOT pedophilia (which harms children) nor incest (which causes genetic maladies) nor violent political orientation (violence being harmful to everyone). It is a normal variation, like heterosexuality. It occurs in nature, and is NOT HARMFUL.
To force false comparisons is a sign of bigotry. Please stop doing it. Heterosexuals are also pedophiles, and commit incest, and we do not assume that there is any reason to ban heterosexuality because of it.
As to the Constitution, there is no clause that allows you to spew your vitrol on the internet either, but you assume there is based on the first amendment. Equal rights and equal treatment under the law are guaranteed in several places. Do not make the uneducated mistake of assuming that because a particular word is not mentioned in the Constitution that the concept is not covered by it. If you are going to argue Constitutionality, it helps if you have a basic concept of how it actually works.
Anommynous| 2.9.11 @ 12:09PM
Equal protection? There is no violation of equal protection, and we as conservatives should never acknowledge this claim and should fight it until the end of time. Marriage is defined between a man and a woman, and every person in the United States has the "right" to marry a person of the opposite sex. Even homosexuals have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex, and some do, but most choose not to. Where's the equal protection violation?
The Equal Protection Clause is for racial equality, not behavioral equality.
Dan Dough| 2.9.11 @ 8:29PM
Lol... So, according to your logic:
In 1860, A Black man could be free... as long as he could make t to Canada?
In 1890, A woman had the right to own property... as long as she got married and the property was in the husband's name?
In 1919 A woman had the right to vote... as long as she pretended to be a man?
In 1950, a In 1960, a black woman had the right to ride in a bus... as long as she stayed in the back?
Are you beginning to see your absurdity?
MikeD| 2.9.11 @ 11:10PM
You are conveniently intertwining chronology with causation and attributing the sequence of events to causes that seem to be clear only to you. This is a form of sophistry; claiming that, when events happened in some sort of order that they were somehow CAUSED by that sequence of events. Not necessarily so. You have a preconceived result that you are using faulty logic to attempt to 'prove'. It is similar to stating that, since the World Trade center was attacked in 2001, that attack CAUSED the Tsunami of 2004 because it happened before the Tsunami. Chronology does not prove causation.
Anommynous| 2.10.11 @ 1:07PM
Dan, it's a fair question. Here's my answer:
In 1920, the woman gained the right to vote by virtue of the Nineteenth Amendment. The Constitution was amended to ensure this right.
As for women holding property, well, all the states recognize the right of women to hold property. And now that women have been guaranteed the right to vote by virtue of the 19th Amendment, and since women comprise roughly 50% of the electorate, good luck ever changing that back.
As for black men being free, well, we changed the Constitution again, didn't we? The rights of black men are guaranteed by the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments, which were written for that very purpose.
As for the black woman in 1960, such segregation laws have been rightfully stricken down as a violation of the Equal Protection Clause in the 14th Amendment, which was written to ensure equality on the basis of race. By their very nature, segregation laws are contrary to the 14th Amendment, because they are laws making distinctions on the basis of race.
In all your examples, the laws have been changed to address the problem, either through Constitutional Amendment or by laws in all 50 states. This is the way things used to be done: the legislature used to pass laws to address the problem. There has been no law passed to ensure equal protection on the basis of behavior.
A few of the individual states have passed laws via the legislature (e.g. Vermont) to recognize homosexual marriage, and there's nothing I can do about that because those laws were passed properly. However, to look to the judiciary to create new laws by reinterpreting existing laws in ways contrary to their original intent is greatly offensive to me. If you think there should be a right to homosexual marriage, then lobby your state legislature to change the law or lobby for a new Constitutional Amendment. That's the way it's supposed to be done.
anne m erskine| 2.9.11 @ 1:47PM
Before we continue to discuss the state's power over "marriage," perhaps we should get the terms right - THE STATE HAS NO POWER OVER MARRIAGE - marriage is a religious matter carried out by relgious institutions. Americans HAVE TO HAVE A STATE LICENSE in order to be married in a religious ceremony, but the state has no power to forbid or promote the marriage ceremony or sacrament. WHAT THE STATE DOES HAVE POWER OVER IS CIVIL UNIONS and CIVIL UNIONS must be available to two adults who wish to be joined together in union under the law in a CIVIL CEREMONY. MARRIAGE AND CIVIL UNIONS ARE SEPARATE ENTITIES - they are NOT one and the same, but trying to make them so is the work of those who want to undermine religion and sacred traditions and faith. STOP CONFUSING THE ISSUE - any two adults have the right to civil unions if they can meet the requirements of the blood test, but religious groups do NOT HAVE to marry anyone who does not fulfill the requirements of the particular faith. No wonder the argument has caused so much turmoil - MARRIAGE AND CIVIL UNIONS ARE TOTALLY DIFFERENT. Re-frame the argument using the correct terminology.
Dan Dough| 2.9.11 @ 8:21PM
What are you talking about?
You still need a STATE MARRIAGE LICENSE... whether you get married in a church or by a Justice-of-the-Peace. And (depending on the state) usually only ... a Judge (or some sort of Government Official) or an Ordained Minister can solemnize a legal marriage contract.
And you must provide that Marriage License in order to obtain the same "civil rights" (hereditary, health, child custody, spousal support, tax benefits... over 40,000 rights and privileges.... to be exact).
You must also show that marriage license when you cross the border into any other state or country.
NO STATE (including the Federal Government) OR FOREIGN COUNTRY recognizes State issued Civil Union Licenses. They ONLY recognize State Issued Marriage Licenses.
So, you are right... Civil Unions and Marriages ARE NOT the same. State Issued Civil Union Licenses do not equal the validity or benefits that State Issued Marriage Licenses do.
Herding different US Citizens into different categories, just to suite your own religious/moral/traditional views is nothing more than discrimination. It places tax-paying US Citizens in a separate class.
Vic| 2.10.11 @ 12:18AM
And do you not advocate herding different US citizens into your own irreligious/immoral/nontraditional views? Is that "nothing more than discrimination"? It places tax-paying US citizens in a separate class, does it not?. Will you not demand those who are repulsed by your actions accept your nontraditional, state sanctioned "marriage"?
AnonyGrl| 2.10.11 @ 11:48AM
No, Dan is pointing out that US Citizens should be put in the SAME category, when marrying, not into different ones. That you, as a bigot, choose to think of yourself in a separate class is at that point your own problem, not one codified in the law.
Your repulsion is also your own problem. Equality means that you can no longer insist on excluding people you find icky. So sorry, but while you have the right to be a bigot, you do not have the right to legislate discrimination.
Seapuss| 2.10.11 @ 8:24AM
Dan, most of the so-called "benefits" of marriage require one of the spouses to die, such as intestate succession (inheritance from a decedent who didn't execute a will) and passing property to a spouse free of the federal estate tax. During life, marriage is largely a legal detriment, in that the IRS imposes a “marriage penalty” on married couples and the state grants your spouse a license to invoke the divorce statute and take half of your stuff if things don’t work out. In addition, many of the perks of marriage can be obtained by gays—anyone, for that matter—through contract, such as healthcare powers of attorney, wills, trusts, domestic partnership agreements, etc.
My question is why gays don’t challenge the laws granting perks to married couples instead of challenging the laws that define marriage as one man and one woman? Why not pick the perks you want and challenge the laws that extend those perks only to married couples? As noted above, marriage is largely a legal detriment during life. Why would gays want to be married?
Besides, isn’t the gay lifestyle largely one of promiscuity? Traditionally, marriage has meant religion, monogamy, and breeding. Gays are largely anti-religious, promiscuous, and childless. Thus, being gay and being married aren’t really a good fit.
In the end, the quest for gay marriage boils down to seeking society’s moral approval for your sexual relationship. As a libertarian, I don’t think the government has any business extending its moral approval to anyone’s sexual relationships--gay or straight. That’s why I advocate abolishing civil marriage altogether.
AnonyGrl| 2.10.11 @ 12:02PM
Gays are promiscuous! Gays are pedophiles! Gays are into bestiality! Gays are icky!
However you state it, you are showing your ignorance and prejudice. Homosexuals are not any of those things, any more than heterosexuals are. That you still believe the nonsense being shoveled at you by bigots is sad and reflects very poorly on you.
If marriage is, as you say, such a terrible state to be in while alive, why does ANYONE want it? Why are heterosexuals not up in arms saying "DON'T MAKE US MARRY! IT IS AN AWFUL THING!"?
Is it perhaps, because that is complete hogwash?
I hate to burst your bubble, but homosexuals do settle down into monogamous, committed relationships, raise children together, live together their entire lives, go to church, mow the lawn, join the PTA, work, play and live exactly the same as you do. And they deserve all the rights, protections and sentiments of marriage, just as you do. And, just like any marriage, it is NOT only about sex.
And let's stop to think, for a brief minute, about the fact that Britney Spears was married for 55 hours. Religion? Monogamy? Breeding? A man can go out on the street and pick a woman who is a complete stranger and walk into the clerk's office and marry her, but if it were a man he had been living with in a stable, loving relationship for 50 years, he could not. Which relationship would you think more typifies marriage?
Abolishing civil marriage is certainly one option, but currrently it is enshrined in so much law that to remove it would be the labor of Tantalus. Until that happens, the way to equality lies in... well... equality. Same rights for everyone, whether you think they are marriage material or not.
Seapuss| 2.10.11 @ 6:32PM
AnonyGrl, I never said anything like, “Gays are icky”. I am in no way emotionally repulsed by homosexuality. My only possible concern is purely theological. You see, the practice of homosexuality is condemned in both the Old and New Testaments. I don’t know of any mainline Christian church that condones homosexual activity, and I do not feel qualified to dispute their condemnation of homosexual activity on theological grounds.
My primary point is that civil marriage is not the prize gay activists make it out to be. I was married and got divorced. I know firsthand that civil marriage is a worthless crock. The only legal consequences of getting married that I ever noticed were the IRS marriage penalty every April 15th and my former spouse’s invocation of the divorce statute when things didn’t work out. To be sure, my health insurer extended benefits to my former spouse, but that was purely a matter of contract (at least at that time). The insurance company was not legally obligated to provide spousal benefits (it simply chose to offer such benefits in response to my employer’s request) and could have legally extended the same benefits to same-sex couples or unmarried heterosexual couples (had it so chosen). Thus, the lifetime legal “benefits” of legal marriage, if any, were negligible and, in any event, were far outweighed by the legal detriments that I experienced. Other than legal consequences of marriage that occur on death, which are important in estate planning, I simply see no reason to get “legally” married—ever.
I think heterosexual couples get legally married because they don’t know any better. They are simply responding to the expectations of their families, peers, and society in general. Civil marriage has been stripped of any moral component—the state will not enforce a spouse’s vow of fidelity and faithfulness—and child support, custody, and visitation matters are now dealt with outside of marriage statutes. What’s left of marriage law is a one-size-fits-all economic partnership agreement that comes into play only when the marriage falls apart, and contains terms virtually no one would agree to if they considered and negotiated the terms ahead of time.
Thus, why gays or anyone else would want to be legally married is beyond me, except if all gays are after is society’s stamp of moral approval on their sexual relationships. But I think that is an illegitimate role for government to play.
AnonyGrl| 2.15.11 @ 3:45PM
"AnonyGrl, I never said anything like, “Gays are icky”"
OK... to be fair, what you said was:
"Besides, isn’t the gay lifestyle largely one of promiscuity? ... Gays are largely anti-religious, promiscuous, and childless."
You might just as well have said "gays are icky." It is the same level of rudeness.
And here is a partial list of churches and groups that DO accept homosexuality. There are others. You might contact one or more of them for their views, and assistance to make you feel more able to discuss and debate the issue with your own religious leaders.
Baptist
Association of Welcoming & Affirming Baptists
Welcomes and affirms all persons without regard to sexual orientation or gender identity, and who have joined together to advocate for the full inclusion of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons within Baptist communities of faith.
Buddhist
Gay Buddhist Fellowship
Supports Buddhist practices in the gay community and brings together the diverse Buddhist traditions to address the spiritual concerns of gay men.
Catholic
DignityUSA
Works for respect and justice for all gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender persons in the Catholic Church and the world through education, advocacy and support.
Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)
Gay, Lesbian, and Affirming Disciples Alliance
Organization of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered, and affirming members of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) with a prophetic voice calling for the full inclusion of LGBT persons in the Church.
Episcopal
Integrity
Fostering the full inclusion of LGBT persons in the Episcopal Church, using integrity as the leading grass roots voice.
Evangelical
Evangelicals Concerned
Encourages and affirms lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered Christians in their faith.
Hindu (Vaishnavas)
The Gay and Lesbian Vaishnava Association educates Vaishnavas, Hindus and the public in general about the "third sex" as described in Vedic literatures.
Jewish
World Congress of Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender Jews: Keshet Ga’avah
The worldwide voice of LGBT Jews seeking to support, inspire, and strengthen local groups; foster a sense of community among diverse individuals and organizations; and achieve equality and security for LGBT Jews worldwide.
Lutheran
Lutherans Concerned
embody, inspire, and support the acceptance and full participation of people of all sexual orientations and gender identities, their families, friends and allies, within the Lutheran communion and its ecumenical and global partners.
Metropolitan Community Church
Metropolitan Community Church
Founded in and reaching beyond the gay and lesbian communities and seeking the integration of spirituality and sexuality.
Muslim
Al-Fatiha Foundation
Dedicated to Muslims who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex, questioning, those exploring their sexual orientation or gender identity, and their allies, families and friends. Al-Fatiha promotes the progressive Islamic notions of peace, equality and justice.
Presbyterian
More Light Presbyterians
Following the risen Christ, and seeking to make the Church a true community of hospitality, the mission of More Light Presbyterians is to work for the full participation of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people of faith in the life, ministry and witness of the Presbyterian Church (USA).
Quaker (Religious Society of Friends)
Friends for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer Concerns
A North American Quaker faith community that affirms God in all people; learning that radical inclusion and radical love bring further light to Quaker testimony and life.
Seventh-day Adventist
Seventh-day Adventist Kinship
Devoted to the spiritual, emotional, social and physical well-being of current and former Seventh-day Adventists who are lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgendered.
Unitarian
Unitarian Universalism
Office of the Unitarian Universalist Association dedicated to fighting oppression against bisexual, gay, lesbian, and/or transgender people.
United Church of Christ
The UCC Coalition for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Concerns
Provides support and sanctuary to all our lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender sisters and brothers, their families and friends; advocates for their full inclusion in church and society; and brings Christ's affirming message of love and justice for all people.
United Methodist
Affirmation: United Methodists for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual & Transgender Concerns
Pursues full inclusion in the Church through respect, love, justice and mercy for all.
Unity
Association of Unity Churches
Teaches the practical application in everyday life of the principles of Truth taught and exemplified by Jesus Christ, leading to health, prosperity, happiness, and peace of mind.
AnonyGrl| 2.10.11 @ 3:58PM
The terms "marriage" and "married" are carried all throughout the laws of this country. It is asked on income taxes, it is mentioned in inheritance law... and so on. That being the case, the state DOES have power over marriage.
If the laws all said "civil union" instead of "marriage", then we would all be asking for civil union equality (and our detractors would be fighting against us getting THAT...).
Equality means the same thing, whichever term the law uses, but the same term must be used for all in order for it to be equal.
Additionally, any two adults do NOT currently have the right to a civil union in most states. If your argument is that is what they SHOULD all have, I am not opposed, as long as it IS truly what everyone gets.
Thomas Aquinas| 2.9.11 @ 1:58PM
Don't you mean "defendants," not "defenders." If you use plaintiff, use defendant. "Defender" is just confusing.
Mazzuchelli| 2.9.11 @ 5:31PM
The Spartans defined marriage as between man and woman.
I have genuine empathy for those gays who really feel the pain of exclusion. It seems to me, however, that whether the intent is pure or misguided, another Western tradition and institution will be felled with nothing there to take it's place.
Dan Dough| 2.9.11 @ 7:36PM
The Spartans ALSO paired their warriors into homosexual loving couples in order to defend each other more passionately in battle. The Spartans also ONLY looked at marraige as a "contract" to expand family wealth/position, and produce heirs. The Spartans also considered women only property.
I think we've come a long way in the definition of marriage since that... don't you?
Vic| 2.10.11 @ 12:24AM
The Spartans also left their imperfect or weak children in the wilderness to die of starvation or exposure. Should we also pick up that trait from the Spartans also?
Kay| 2.9.11 @ 8:05PM
Here's a thought: Marriage is created by and ordained by God, not the State! As such, what God has joined together (His created order of man and woman, not woman/woman or man/man) let no man tear asunder. The only interest the State has is in documenting said unions and collecting license fees. If it did not create marriage, it cannot destroy it, or alter it in any way!
Dan Dough| 2.9.11 @ 8:49PM
In that case, Kay, mail back your “State Issued” Marriage License, and declare yourself “ONLY married in the eyes of God.”
By denouncing your State Issued Marriage license, and declaring that it was never a valid document, you must:
1. Pay back all those wonderful tax refunds you got because of the Federal (and some State) Marriage Credits. Otherwise, you'll go to jail for Tax fraud... "cause you aren't married unless you have that little license.
2. Pay back any “spousal” assistance you may have received from Social Security, Medicare, Military, or Government Pensions. Again... no license... no benefits :(
3. Pay back any PRIVATE spousal pensions, retirement, and/or healthcare benefits you may have received. I don't know where you work... but my boss asked for my marraige license in order to register my wife for our medical benefits.
4. Pay back any spousal or child support you may have EVER received due to a divorce. Alimony is issued by the court system… not God.
5. Relinquish any rights you “think” you have to ANY property you and your “spouse under God” may share. There ain’t no “legal contract” that says it’s half yours.
That’s just the beginning. There are over 40,000 different (State and Federal) rights and privileges that automatically accompany that little “State Issued” Marriage License.
Are you really ready to give all that up “for God”? Yeah right.
Vic| 2.10.11 @ 12:25AM
Name three.
AnonyGrl| 2.10.11 @ 12:13PM
Name three of the rights and privaleges?
1)Married couples can, in all states, adopt their partner's children.
2) Married couples can, in all states, claim their partner's body in case of death, and decide on burial rights.
3) Married couples can, in all states, assume that their wills in favor of their spouses will not be overturned by bickering siblings of that spouse.
4) Married couples can, in all states, be sure that they will be allowed to make medical decisions for their children without having to jump through hoops.
5) Married couples don't have to worry if one of them signs a lease and the other one doesn't, that they will be evicted if something happens to their partner.
6) Married couples can get insurance from a spouse's employer where offered without a problem.
7) Married couples are not told "You may have been married on the other side of the border, but you are NOT married here in this state."
I've got better things to do than continue this list. You can do a quick search on the internet to continue your education.
John Navratil| 2.11.11 @ 11:10AM
And you can get all these with a civil union. No marriage required.
AnonyGrl| 2.15.11 @ 1:11PM
No, you can't. Because when YOU marry , and move to Wisconsin or Utah or wherever, you still have those rights. When someone gets a civil union, they get some of those rights, depending on what the particular state has put into their laws, but only if they stay in that state.
Kay| 2.9.11 @ 8:11PM
Mr. Thunder's summary is right-on!
Dan Dough| 2.9.11 @ 8:50PM
How much is a US postage stamp now? Start mailing back your "State Issued" Marriage License... TODAY!
Richard Baker| 2.9.11 @ 8:36PM
Dough:
Homosexuality is STILL perversion no matter how you look at it. So NAMBLA doesn't count, eh? Again, tell me where there's a right to marry in the Constitution.
Dan Dough| 2.9.11 @ 9:03PM
Well, you may consider homosexuality a perversion… But the following organizations (just to name a few) actually say the contrary. In fact, the following NON-AFFILIATTED organizations actually state that legalizing Same-Sex Marriage will have a positive effect on society:
-The American Academy of Pediatrics
-The American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
-The American Psychiatric Association
-The American Psychological Association
-The American Psychoanalytic Association
-The National Association of Social Workers
-The Child Welfare League of America
-The North American Council on Adoptable Children
-The Canadian Psychological Association
Now, to address your “marriage is not a right” crap. As I said to Kay... then go ahead and mail your “State Issued” Marriage license back, if you feel it doesn’t grand you any “rights” under the law.
By denouncing your State Issued Marriage license, and declaring that it was never a valid document, you must:
-Pay back all those wonderful tax refunds you got because of the Federal (and some State) Marriage Credits.
-Pay back any “spousal” assistance you may have received from Social Security, Medicare, Military, or Government Pensions.
-Pay back any PRIVATE spousal pensions, retirement, and/or healthcare benefits you may have received.
-Pay back any spousal or child support you may have EVER received due to a divorce. Alimony is issued by the court system… not God.
-Relinquish any rights you “think” you have to ANY property in your wife’s name. There ain’t no “contract” that says it’s half yours.
That’s just the beginning. There are over 40,000 different (State and Federal) rights and privileges that automatically accompany that little “State Issued” Marriage License.
Are you really ready to give all those “rights”? Yeah right.
AnonyGrl| 2.10.11 @ 12:20PM
If you are going to assume that all homosexuals are members of NAMBLA, I am just going to go ahead and assume that you are a member of the KKK, ok?
The right to marry does not HAVE to appear in the Constitution. What does appear is the concept that if a right is given to one group of citizens, it must equally be extended to all citizens. THAT is what equal rights means.
No where in the Constitution does it say that you have the right to get on line and infer that NAMBLA represents everything homosexual. Yet you assume you have that right because of the Constitutional protections offered under the first amendment.
If you are going to argue Constitutionality, you should understand its implications.
Chairm| 4.5.12 @ 7:23AM
Your comment is full of half-truths but writing a bunch of half-truths side-by-side does not produce even one full-truth.
Equality commands that we not treat people the same -- arbitrarily; and that we not treat people differently -- arbitrarily. The SSM idea is proposed to transgress both sides of the equality command.
The SSM idea is an outright rejection of the marriage idea. The core meaning of marriage is what distinguishes it from nonmarriage; the boundaries that society sets up between marriage and nonmarriage are justified by societal regard for that core meaning.
What is the stuff that distinguishes the type of relationship that is same-sexed from the rest of nonmarriage? Don't go on with lists of legal incidents for that would flow from whatever is essential to the type of relationship you have in mind -- before affixing the label and the legal status onto it.
Marriage integrates the sexes, provides for responsible procreation, and does these two aspects (at the very least) in combination as a coherent whole. Hence marriage is a social institution and not merely a private arrangement.
Marriage is the union of husband and wife and its sexual basis is extrinsic to all one-sex-short arrangements, sexualized or not.
The law just happens to reflect the sexual basis of marriage quite reasonably: see the sexual basis for consummation (sealing and renewing the marital relationship as comprehensive), annulment (the marriage deemed not to have existed), adultery (grounds for harm and dissolution), and most prominently the marital presumption of paternity (the husband will be the father of children born to he and his wife). None of this is applicable to the one-sexed scenario -- certainly there is no same-sex sexual behavior that can provide a coherent basis for confusing it for coital relations of husband and wife.
PolishKnight| 2.9.11 @ 8:53PM
I think the author is on the right track but this is one of those too-obvious-for-people-to-see moments:
The purpose of marriage is to protect the biological children of such a union AND also to recognize that union in a consistent manner.
Society has already undermined marriage by blessing unwed motherhood with welfare entitlements and searching out the fathers and forcing them to pay support. In addition, the so-called family courts reward women for filing for divorce and making false claims of abuse.
Want to strengthen marriage? Cut out those two gaping loopholes. Not only would families be stronger and fewer criminals running around from unwed mother homes, but leftism and feminism would be dealt a major blow. Presidential election exit polls show unwed mothers and women voting in 75% margins for leftist candidates...
One thing we have to say about the leftists: They sure do care about their constituencies. The Republicans ignore theirs and sometimes even treats them with contempt.
A working father and husband is the foundation of society and the Republican party. At least as far as the Republican party wants it.
Dan Dough| 2.9.11 @ 9:20PM
I hate to burst youre bubble, PolishKnight... but the LARGEST INCREASE this country saw in "Unwed Mothers" and welfare was during GHW Bush's Term. When he (and other Republicans) gave a tax credit to "family's with children". Bush also loosened welfare standards to help "families w/ children". This was all in the conservative mantra to "promote family".
The end result was a huge influx of "ghetto women" having "welfare babies"... just so they could get a bigger check.
Just goes to show... Republicans leave loopholes too. If your gonna give benefits, you need to give them to EVERY tax-paying US Citizen... not just the ones you "deem fit". That's not the way this country works. It's not Nazi Germany.
Vic| 2.10.11 @ 12:30AM
But it will be "Nazi Germany" if you have your way want it Dough. You can put all those creepy Christians where Hitler put the Jews, right?
AnonyGrl| 2.10.11 @ 3:11PM
Why do you assume that we want to do to you what you are trying to do to us?
We are perfectly happy to let all those Christians go live their lives however they like. What we are arguing is that we are being denied the same privaleges.
No one is saying that Christians need to be exterminated, but there are rather more references than you might like to know about to the fact that even today, there are people preaching that gays should be. American evangelical preachers who are finding less and less footing for that sort of rhetoric here in this country are going to places like Uganda, and convincing people there that the proper way to deal with a homosexual who speaks up and asks for his rights is to beat him to death with a hammer.
It is not the LGBT community that is promoting violence. It is the LGBT community that continues to live in fear of being BEATEN to death in their own homes.
Stop trying to paint the oppressors as the victims here, it does not work.
PolishKnight| 2.10.11 @ 6:44PM
Actually, the left has embraced radical Islam and non-whites whose cultures are not very tolerant of homosexuality.
That's what a reactionary anti-GW agenda gets them though...
The LGBT community doesn't care about anti-white male racism by the leftist community that labels well-to-do white women as victims of oppression when for centuries they have enjoyed protection via chivalry via "women and children first."
PolishKnight| 2.10.11 @ 6:42PM
I agree with you in that I'm against GW giving tax credits to unwed mothers. I regard him as a moderate Republican and certainly the left didn't seem to object to that particular plan.
Regarding Godwin's law and going Nazi: It's hardly nazism to suggest that father run families not only don't need "benefits" but are actual net producers. A tax break for them would be simply to allow them to retain what they have earned unlike unwed mothers who demand the state take care of them because so-called women's equality has not produced liberated women but rather wives of the state.
Elderson| 2.9.11 @ 8:59PM
"Government did not create marriage. Human beings did not sit around a campfire or in a legislative assembly thinking up the idea of marriage, creating something new. Marriage existed before law, before history."
Where do you get this from? How do you know that it wasn't thought up by human beings sitting around a campfire? For all we know, that's exactly what happened. Or are these your private religious beliefs that you want us to accept as fact?
Vic| 2.10.11 @ 12:35AM
It takes somewhere around 16 years for humans to rear their offspring. Don't you suppose its in their best interest to have parents bound to each other to provide for them until then? You want the "rights" of marriage, but none of that responsibility stuff, like child-rearing, right?
AnonyGrl| 2.10.11 @ 12:38PM
Where do you get the idea that same sex couples are looking for the rights but not the responsibilities of marriage?
bsuden| 2.10.11 @ 1:39PM
"Where do you get the idea that same sex couples are looking for the rights but not the responsibilities of marriage?"
By the very fact that you asked the question.
Heterosexuals are already forbidden to marry their relatives, pre-adolescents and more than one spouse at a time. It's called discrimination. Duh.
Now those who despise the bourgeouis breeders, want to play copycat and whine that they don't have "equal rights" and they are being discriminated against.
But not only are they hypocrites, they want to jump in front of all the heterosexuals that are being discriminated against.
IOW the whole equality thing is a ruse and a red herring. Marriage is a privilege, not a right and the cry baby/victim routines are getting old.
Of course, these days when absolutely everybody deserves a free lunch, free healthcare and an absolute right to freely indulge themselves sexually, all the above will fall on deaf ears.
So be it. Libertinism only precedes and provokes the revolution.
But the revolution eats its young. You can count on it.
Have a good time while it lasts. Sexual narcissism is just so fun and fulfilling, it will really be worth it. Really.
AnonyGrl| 2.10.11 @ 3:31PM
"Heterosexuals are already forbidden to marry their relatives, pre-adolescents and more than one spouse at a time. It's called discrimination. Duh."
Well, no. Actually none of those cases is called discrimination. The law exists to protect its citizens. So lets look at each of those cases, one at a time. The reason for restricting close blood ties from marrying is that when bad alleles are reinforced through inbreeding, the resultant offspring far too often suffer through bad genetic mutation. The reason to restrict under age marriage is to protect children from being sexually abused under the covers of legality. The reason for not allowing more than one spouse is that traditionally, the practice of polygyny in this country has been severly oppressive to women and to female children.
None of that pertains to the issue of two adults who are homosexual and looking to marry. Laws restricting same sex couples from marrying do not protect anyone, and they harm those couples and their families, which is not what the law is designed to do.
"Now those who despise the bourgeouis breeders,"... which is nonsense. We don't despise you, there is no logical reason to assume we do.
" want to play copycat and whine that they don't have "equal rights" and they are being discriminated against.
But not only are they hypocrites, they want to jump in front of all the heterosexuals that are being discriminated against."
Again, if you are counting laws that protect minors, women and unborn children as discriminating against you, we really have no common ground, and you have no common sense, for the continuation of this discussion.
You see equality as a ruse and a red herring? For what? What is it you think we are looking for that throwing equality out as a red herring is likely to achieve? I am really curious about what that might be.
"Marriage is a privilege, not a right and the cry baby/victim routines are getting old."
So stop crying and trying to play the victim, and understand that we have earned the privilege. We have lived and loved and cared for each other and our families forever, and we have earned the privilege of marriage.
"Sexual narcissism is just so fun and fulfilling, it will really be worth it"
Much like those who equate homosexuality with beastiality and pedophilia, those who think that marriage equality is simply about sex and who is having it have missed the point entirely.
Frisbee| 2.10.11 @ 10:01PM
Marriage is precisely about "sex and who is having it". Why? Because sex has the power to create the next generation.
Sex actually used to be called "the marriage act".
AnonyGrl| 2.15.11 @ 1:17PM
You are stuck in a groove with this idea that procreation is the only purpose of marriage.
Richard Baker| 2.10.11 @ 1:35PM
I love how you fags get so angry when someone disagrees with your perversion. Sorry that offends. Many of the organizations listed above have come to the opinion, one way or another, that child molestation is not really all that harmful to children, as an example. All the word games and word play don't change the perverseness of your choices. NAMBLA, gerbils up the butt, and all the rest are perverse and millions find your actions disgusting. That we disagree and don't buy your childish efforts to make normal that which is un-natural just offends you so. Too damned bad. Go cry in the corner then.
AnonyGrl| 2.10.11 @ 3:36PM
We've been asked not to feed the trolls.
Sometimes we deserve a medal for our self restraint. And sometimes we don't because we just have to make a little bit of a snarky comment, and for that, I apologize.
But I am posting it anyway.
Greg| 2.11.11 @ 5:56PM
ROFL
you must truly not know any gay people if you think this impression of them is at all accurate. In fact you must not know what many straight people are up to either i am sure it would blow your mind.
Richard Baker| 2.10.11 @ 5:20PM
Self-restraint? From homosexuals? Is that possible?
Frisbee| 2.10.11 @ 9:47PM
We must demand it and enforce it. The law is a force to help them overcome their temptations.
Greg| 2.11.11 @ 5:52PM
And are Heterosexuals any better? 50% end in divorce. need i name all the ones in the news lately like Brett Farve etc.
Greg| 2.10.11 @ 7:18PM
That same stability that is so valuable to raising children is also very valuable in other ways to the couple that is married as well as to society.
1. Combined households have greater disposable income and thus are good for the overall economy
2. Combined households have greater stability and lower financial risk that allow for long term investments such as homes.
3. Combined households with both people working provides better cushion during job loss
4. Longer term married people have been shown to have lower depression then their single counterparts
5. Married people live longer without assistance from the government when they get old
the desire to have Children is a great reason to get married but by far not the only one. And Children are a great reason for the Government to want people to get married but by far not the only one.
Frisbee| 2.10.11 @ 10:02PM
Great comments Greg. Thanks.
AnonyGrl| 2.15.11 @ 1:19PM
And with that, Frisbee has completely reversed his stance, agreeing with Greg that marriage equality is the correct thing to do.
Thanks Greg!
Timely Renewed | 2.10.11 @ 7:38PM
May I suggest that the real problem is the Supreme Court's illegitimate expansion of its power by reading the "privacy" doctrine into the hopelessly vague first section of the 14th amendment. By amending the 14th amendment to restore its original meaning as a ban on governmental race discrimination, we can solve this and a host of other constitutional abuses by the modern Supreme Court. See http://www.timelyrenewed.com
Richard Baker| 2.11.11 @ 6:58PM
Greg:
No amount of wordplay is going to change the perverse nature of homosexuality. That many of us see it as that infuriates you folks. Big fat hairy deal.
Greg| 2.15.11 @ 3:18PM
What word play? All i am suggesting is that the same way that marriage lends stability to a straight relationship that is so valuable to raising children it is also very valuable in other ways to society.
Children are a great reason for society to want to encourage long term relationships but by no means the only reason as that article suggest.
As for how perverse it is or how it infuriates you all i can see by your comments is that you have done zero research for your self. And obviously have not so much as engaged in just a civil conversation with someone that is gay or else you would know that many of your accusations are simply false.
Weather they are damned by god or not i know quite a few gay people that are selfless giving individuals. Emergency Room Doctors, Paramedics etc... that save lives and go out of their way to help people.
Weather you agree with them or not demonizing them is not constructive and will not cause people sitting on the fence about the issue to be convinced that you are right. If you want to speak with authority about this subject then get our of your comfort zone meet some of these people.
bee free| 2.13.11 @ 1:21AM
"Of course from the 1920's, even before, the
Fabian internationalists knew they'd have to
eliminate traditional culture, family culture
everywhere in the name of eugenics, efficiency,
control and, of course, incremental extermination. Christianity, especially genuine, Calivinist Christianity, had to be destroyed.
Promoting promiscuity, fornication, abortion,
deviance was invaluable to the agenda..."
-Alan Watt
Social Darwinism
Cutting Through the Matrix
(online)
-ANY QUESTIONS?
AnonyGrl| 2.15.11 @ 1:32PM
Yes. Who is Alan Watt? What are his credentials? Does he have any material that has been reviewed by a credible source, or is it only that one website where he offers spiral bound copies of his manifestos for sale? Are you confusing him with the prolific writer, Alan Watts?
Greg| 2.15.11 @ 3:22PM
Are you speaking English? So your saying all this is connected to Alien Abductions? This sounds like the plot form the X files.
sex toys | 7.4.11 @ 1:13AM
Yes. Who is Alan Watt? What are his credentials? Does he have any material that has been reviewed by a credible source, or is it only that one website where he offers spiral bound copies of his manifestos for sale? Are you confusing him with the prolific writer, Alan Watts?
Reebok | 8.11.11 @ 4:01AM
is good
العاب | 4.11.12 @ 4:36PM
No-one is being prevented from marrying because of their sex.