As Part 2 of my series on same-sex parenting research, I am posting the transcript of a presentation delivered at the Catholic University just over a year ago. A section on same-sex marriage was provided after Michael Bailey and prior to my speech at the same comference.
(Quotes removed at the request of Brad Wilcox)
Here is a more socially conservative scholar who comes to an assessment similar to Meezan and Rauch: we don’t know much and not really enough.
Some distinctions are arising in the comments on other threads that should be sharpened going forward. Same-sex adoption of special needs kids should be distinguished from use of reproductive technologies to create kids without hope of knowing a parent of one gender. Whereas some would say public policy should not make these distinctions; others would say it can and should. What data exist to inform these discussions? Are there data that could address these issues? Or is policy to be made on the basis of presuppositional principles? How do we decide which principles apply? I would say the best interest of children would be such a principle. If research finds, on balance, discouraging results from studies of same-sex parenting (however defined), do equal protection arguments for adults trump any potential child consequences? What if research finds that some outcomes are better for same-sex parenting and some are not, then how should public policy take mixed results into account?
Let’s keep talking…
Jayhuck,
Gay or not, the one-sex-short arrangement is not marriage.
Whether the nonmarital alternative that is gaycentric has the big shiny future you see in your crystal ball, you still need to understand the argument against the merger of nonmarriage with marriage.
When I say nonmarriage, I am not overly concerned with the gay type of relationship. The nonmarital category is much broader than that.
As is the same-sex category.
At issue is what an SSM-merger would abolish in marriage recognition.
If you can’t address that, okay, but you have not progressed one baby step from just banging your shoe, or flip-flop, or snowboot, or whatever, on your keyboard.
To be clear: Justice Marshall possessed a predrawn conclusion; she did not genuinely use rational basis analysis in her Goodridge opinion.
And I see that happening here where SSMers start with the premise that the one-sexed arrangement (which they assume must be gay) is a subset of marriage and as such the man-woman criterion is a marriage ban.
There is no actual reasoning on display. The conclusion is posed as a foregone conclusion.
Just as Jayhuck makes predictions and in so doing chooses not to engage the actual argument in favor of the man-woman criterion.
That’s what the plurality of justices did in Goodridge.
And, as Ken has appeared to do here, Marshall reached back to before Massachusetts was a state and she imperiously rewrote common-law marriage from which the marriage statues and the reference to marriage in the state constitution had been derived. It is retroactive judge-made law that, supposedly, amends the state constitution and, supposedly, amends the statutory laws in Massachusetts.
The constitution agrees with the statutes: marriage is both-sexed.
Marshall disagreed with the statutes and posed as if using rational basis analysis (which is supposed to be highly deferential to the legislature) to legislate on behalf of the elected lawmakers.
She disagreed with the state constitution’s reference to marriage, and pretended to divine the shared public meaning of marriage and did so by amending the marriage reference in the state constitutin — which cannot be amended without the consent of the governed via a direct vote to ratify a proposed amendment.
So when SSMers say this is all inevitable, they do not show they understand the Goodridge opinion.
Jayhuck,
If, after a generation, same-sex marriage does turn out to be a disaster, would it be better if by then it were already established worldwide, or limited to the few places where it is now?
Just answer the question; don’t merely insist that it won’t.
Society is going to have to change its understanding because gay marriages are already taking place
Jayhuck,
This is the problem – saying what society has to do. When you say that, it is looked upon as you are trying to force others to believe as you do – that will never work. That marriages are taking place is not the issue, forcing others to accept it as right in their eyes is the issue that is being rejected. In time, people can very well accept same gender marriages as an equal to other gender marriage, however, it cannot be forced. That is why I think a law that protects the issues that any couple are concerned with is put into place instead of using the word or institution of marriage – it will eliminate the forcing of moral acceptance and more than likely protect more people sooner than later. The acceptance part will come or not come but at least the protection part that most same gendered couples are concerned with will be in place.
Chairm said in post 81525:
Once again, Ken, the answer is plenty and the rest is not open for discussion here. To repeat: full stop.
I would point out it was you who used the “I know gay people…” assertion to bolster your claims in post 81296. Since you are refusing to give any more details about your inter-actions with them, I am forced to conclude, as Timothy has, that you really don’t know them well enough to understand their relationships.
Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse points to a fundamental of marriage that cannot apply to the all-male nor to the all-female arrangement (homosexual or not, gay identified or not, same-sex attracted or not):
Unfortunately, her implication that such a situation could not arise in an opposite gendered couple is incorrect. The “presumption of paternity” is just that, a presumption. If the case had involved an opposite sex couple where the biological father was not the husband, then the father could prove the presumption is false and you have basically the same problem. Note, this does depend on the situation and the specific state. However, in states that do presume the married couple are the legal parents of the child, that same presumption could apply to same-gendered couples (and thereby remove the whole mess of 2nd parent adoptions). But 1st it requires same-sex couples to be allowed to be married.
Chairm sak in post 81525:
In fact, I’ve asked for you and other SSMers to state, describe, explain the core of the relationship you have in mind. The ball remains in your court.
There is no “core”, it is a relationship not an apple. I have already explained to you the issue is allowing gay couples to obtain civil marriage licenses and all of the ensuing rights, benefits, privileges and responsibilities that brings.
Chairm said in post 81532:
Ken, at the getgo you said (for no apparent reason and for no stated reason) that,
–> [Chairm] “had no knowledge of the Loving opinion.”
I never said that. I suspect you are misreading what I said in post 81029. However, in that post I was talking about Richard Loving, the person, not the Loving v. Virginia opinion.
R.K.,
No. Homosexuality does not equal heterosexuality for one quantitative reason. And that’s not any more animus than saying that an egg does not equal a sperm means some “animus” against eggs or sperms.
Do you think homosexuality is a moral lifestyle choice?
Wrong. I want to hear you explain why each and every one of them is bogus. In detail.
Suit yourself.
The most commonly used argument against gay marriage is that “marriage is about producing children”. This is bogus because if the people who said that really meant it then they would have been arguing for the voiding of any and all marriages in which the couples were infertile including those of menopausal women, and they would have done so with the same vigor with which they are opposing gay marriage.
Another less-frequently used argument is that a man-woman union is blessed by god and thus only a man-woman union should be sanctioned by the state. This is bogus because if people only thought that man-woman unions were blessed by god then they would have argued against atheist marriages with the same vigor with which they are opposing gay marriages. It is bogus to argue that straight marriage is “ordained by god” and then allow people who defecate on the very notion of a god to take part in it.
Another frequently used argument is the “marriage has always been this way” argument, also known as the “traditional” argument. This is bogus because it is simply false. The marriage-based-on-love tradition that we currently follow is a fairly recent innovation in marriage. In the past, marriage was used to gain money, make alliances, and otherwise change social standings among families in society. And this goes without mentioning that polygyny (more than one wife simultaneously) was practiced in many, many cultures including Hebrew and Christian cultures (as they are supported by scripture). The “institution” of marriage has gone through many changes, both in purpose and in the numbers of members permitted.
The last argument I hear is the “slippery slope” argument which states that if gay marriage is allowed, then any kind of union will be allowed. This argument is bogus because, honestly, who cares if more unions get allowed? No union of any sort would deprive any other individual of life, liberty, or property (unless it was a forced marriage, a type of marriage which used to be pretty common before the “definition” of marriage changed for the umpteenth time), and therefore no harm can be demonstrated.
What’s left? Punishing gays, that’s what. And that’s what this is about. Just admit it. Thou shalt not bear false witness.
R.K. asked Jay,
If, after a generation, same-sex marriage does turn out to be a disaster, would it be better if by then it were already established worldwide, or limited to the few places where it is now?
What kind of “disaster” did you have in mind? A 50% failure rate, perhaps?
I think straight marriage is pretty much a disaster, especially for the children of those straights whose “till death do us part” proves to be a huge lie.
Of course, this isn’t really about “preventing a disaster”, is it?
“I’d say things are finally looking up for gay couples who have struggled so long for recognition.”
Homosexuals have always been recognized and as I’ve mentioned, in ancient Greece it was fashionable among almost all men to engage in homosexual practices, pederasty, etc. This demonstrates that with sufficient indoctrination these practices certainly do spread. The homosexualists are working hard at indoctrinating children from the earliest grades and as homosexualists are observing, “things are finally looking up.” Impressionable youth in particular are being swayed into affirming all sorts of sexual activities. If homosexual practices can be extolled then the door is wide open to affirm and condone all sexual practices, and as I hear the naïve youths saying, “Dah, what’s wrong wit dat?”
But it is indeed very naïve to imagine that the naïve cannot wake up, cannot come to knew realizations of ancient truths. The ancient truths and the obvious do not simply evaporate. They are merely temporarily obfuscated by the intensity of the propaganda. As youth matures and in dispassionate times ponders what marriage must mean and how absurd it is to misuse sexuality to form aberrant sexual relationships, when they take account of how these practices undermine normal, wholesome family relationships, even as a few homosexuals will be sincerely striving to maintain a semblance of normalcy, youth will turn against the extollers of this confused lifestyle and wonder how they could have been so gullible to be so misled by the concupiscence of those attracted to their own sex.
But there will always be youth for self-serving adults to mislead with their propaganda, and their will always be objective teachings, as old as history, to help youth through the maze of confounding claims.
One last point for now. It is stated: “If marriage is truly a religious institution, there are already many churches that perform same-sex ceremonies. . . .”
If marriage is a religious institution churches cannot perform mock marriages. Thoroughly apostate, heretical and irreligious congregations perform mock marriages. You are free to join them and go through their heretical ceremonies if you wish to make-believe you are married. I’ve even heard of a Church of Elvis where they perform all sorts of “marriages.”
Peace.
“I am forced to conclude, as Timothy has, that you really don’t know them [homosexuals] well enough to understand their relationships.”
Please reread 81547.
Jose,
Wow – Aberrant relationships and mock marriages? Talk about propaganda! If this is the way you feel I’m not sure why you are on this blog. Most of us on here are trying to show respect for others and find some common ground. You don’t appear to care to do either.
Chairm said in post 81538:
Dr. J. used that one example to highlight how such a presumption cannot apply to the all-male nor the all-female arrangement. That’s accurate.
Unless you alter the presumption from “paternity/maternity” to “parentage.” However, the entire argument is irrelevant since the case had to do with adoption not marriage.
If the couple in the case had been legally married how would that have changed anything? How does denying them legal marriage change anything?
Jose Solano wrote,
The homosexualists are working hard at indoctrinating children
Very Christian of you, Jose. Your entire post was very, very Christian. I say that with no amount of sarcasm. Christianity is *still* a religion in which vilifying and hurting gays is an important part of the faith. My question for you is, are you aware of the damage that your kind of propaganda is doing to Christians’ reputation?
Perhaps a visit to barna.org might put some things into focus for you, Jose. I suggest you read this:
http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdate&BarnaUpdateID=280
I want to amend my last statement. Yes, there are many Christian churches which welcome gays. I was directing my comment toward Jose, who will undoubtedly see those churches as “apostate” because they do not uphold the apparent sacrament of hating gay people.
Chairm said in post 81557:
The Court rejected the use of rational analysis in the Loving case.
Upon re-reading Loving v. Virginia, I realize I was mistaken about that the court rejected the state’s argument on the rational basis claim and was in fact rejecting the argument that a rational basis test should be used (however, the part I mis-read was not the one Chairm as cited).
Additionally to clear up some confusion, my equating of “rational basis” and “compelling state interest” was simply because anything that doesn’t pass a rational basis test cannot have a compelling state interest.
For emphasis: “some permissible state objective.”
The “permissible state objective” is essentially (although not identical to) the “compelling state interest” argument.
Now, before you start making all sorts of tangential arguments about “permissible state objective” and “compelling state interest” I’d appreciate it if you’d answer my questions from post 81338, specifically:
Are you also familiar with the term “strict scrutiny”? If so, in what cases (situations) is that applied?
Then in your opinion, what is the criteria for the state to deny rights to people?
(you can re-read 81338 for the context).
J.James,
You have singled out Christianity as the religion that, in your words – hates, hurts and villifies – do you know if there are other religions in America or around the world who do the same or even worse?
Ann,
You have singled out Christianity as the religion that, in your words – hates, hurts and villifies – do you know if there are other religions in America or around the world who do the same or even worse?
Yes. Islam is worse.
I dislike Christianity. It can be saved thanks to its interpretive tradition (which allows Christians to get as fat and as rich as they want, but does not yet permit them to love gays).
I hate Islam. It is evil.
Ken you are wrong about the marriage presumption of paternity. It cannot apply to two men nor two women.
When you point to third party procreation you point to extramarital procreation you point outside of marriage.
Time to amend again: Christianity *does* permit Christians to love gays, but only provided that the Christians in question interpret the Bible in such a way. I was directing my “[Christianity] does not yet permit [Christians] to love gays” comment toward Ann who likely sees Christians who interpret the Bible in a gay-friendly as apostates.
Ken said that he is “forced to conclude” but that is false because you are are openly indulging in adverse speculation. And stereotyping. And identity politics. Andn in so doing you have mrely stooped to attack the person, not the substance of the comments.
Ken said “There is no “core” and I think we should take him at his word. From his viewpoint there is no core to the relationship type he has in mind. It is hollow, according to him.
–> Unless you alter the presumption from “paternity/maternity” to “parentage.”
That stands as a vote to abolish the marriage presumption of paternity.
And that’s why the SSM-merger is a direct attack on the nature of marriage and on the most pro-child social institution we have.
Ken,
–> Are you also familiar with the term “strict scrutiny”? If so, in what cases (situations) is that applied? Then in your opinion, what is the criteria for the state to deny rights to people?
As I demonstrated in my comments yesterday, yes I know the term and it does not apply to the rights-based claim that the man-woman criterion of marriage is unconstitutional.
No rights are denied, contrary to your predrawn conclusion.
To form a nonmarital alternative is a liberty exercised, not a right denied.
Ken,
–> I realize I was mistaken
That is good form, Ken. The self-correction is very much appreciated.
* * *
And, yes, it does appear that I misread one of your comments in which you referred to lack of knowledge of Richard Loving and NOT knowledge of the Loving opinion.
My mistake — in the midst of discussing the Loving opinion, I clearly read “opinon of Loving” the wrong way.
* * *
I do think enough is known of Mr. Loving (ie he was the father of his wife’s children) that in his court case he was not preparing ground for a “right” to the sort of relationship in which he’d be denied the marriage presumption of paternity and in which segregation of fatherhood from motherhood would be the norm.
Chairm said in post 81582:
At issue is what an SSM-merger would abolish in marriage recognition.
And according to you, what specifically would it “abolish?”
in post 81587:
Justice Marshall possessed a predrawn conclusion;
In your opinion (and probably several others). Do you have any actual evidence to prove this isn’t just your opinion?
she did not genuinely use rational basis analysis in her Goodridge opinion.
In her majority opinion, she gave the criteria for a rational basis test, in MA; she cited 3 reasons the state gave for denying gay marriage; and she showed why the reasons didn’t meet the criteria for a rational basis. Simply because you do not agree with her conclusions (as Spina et. al) doesn’t mean she didn’t use a rational basis analysis.
You seem to make a lot of unsubstantiated claims about Marshall (and others who you disagree with), but not a whole lot of evidence.
Ken,
–> Additionally to clear up some confusion, my equating of “rational basis” and “compelling state interest” was simply because anything that doesn’t pass a rational basis test cannot have a compelling state interest.
Sure, but that reverses the means-ends test that these levels of scrutiny serve.
I great part, these different levels of scrutiny are about where to place the burden — on the state or on the complaintant — in arguing for the constitutionality of a given use of a given classification.
You’ve talked of sex discrimination, for example, but that classification gets an intermediate standard rather than the strict standard and rather than the rational basis standard.
You’ve also talked of sexual orientation, but that gets rational basis, not strict scrutiny.
In other words, you have been demanding “a compelling interest” becaus eyou have been mistakenly assuming that the man-woman criterion must be presumed unconstitutional and that the burden shifts to the defenders of that criterion.
The burden remains on the would-be reformers to justify the reform.
–> The “permissible state objective” is essentially (although not identical to) the “compelling state interest” argument.
Again, you may consider this a mere quibble, however, along with low levels of scrutiny, there are lower levels of burden on the state to justify a given use of a classification. This is significant.
Yes, I realize that the Supreme Courts jurisprudence has increasingly become a muddle. That is indicative, I think, of judges showing lack of restrain (as judges) and succumbing to the temptation to act as “super-legislators”.
In fact, the Goodridge opinion is a clear example of that.
Now, sure, the result may please some people, but look to the process and to the principles that bolster our form of self-governance and the rule of law. Judges should not be rewriting the common law as the way to legislate changes to the statutory law; and they should not be doing so to amend the state constitution.
I said this earlier: when the Goodridge court looked, superficially, at the marriage statutes of Massachuetts, it claimed to have seen a “marriage ban” where none existed.
A couple years later, when Justice Marshall considered whether or not Rhode Island also had such a “marriage ban” written in its laws, she suddenly became blind to very same sort of statutes that she had considered a “marriage ban” in Massachusetts.
End-gaming is a very serious problem that should concern all citizens, regardless of viewpoint on SSM.
This time at issue is SSM. But next time? It could be something that you might not want judges to act as if they, and not the rule of law, was supreme.
Chairm said post 81664:
It is hollow, according to him.
I said NO SUCH THING! And I do not appreciate you twisting my words in this manner. However, it does show the level of deceit to which you are willing to go to “prove” your arguments.
I said there was no “core”, which YOU kept using to imply that all relationships must have a single basis. People (gay and straight) are involved in relationships for a variety of reasons.
Ken, Marshall shifted the burden to the state, as you briefly described. That is not rational basis review.
Tell you what.
Walk me through her rational basis analysis.
Don’t get suckered by her hints of a higher standard of review. She did not create a new suspect classification based on sexual orientation. She did not invoke sex classification. She claimed to have used rational basis.
I think what you will find is that her claim to have used such a standard served merely as bookends to her meanderings. She planted one foot, pivoted around it, and turned in circles.
That indicates that she had a predrawn conclusion.
Chairm said in post 81673:
–> Unless you alter the presumption from “paternity/maternity” to “parentage.”
That stands as a vote to abolish the marriage presumption of paternity.
And that’s why the SSM-merger is a direct attack on the nature of marriage and on the most pro-child social institution we have.
Yet again you take my words out of context and misrepresent them. Changing the wording from “paternity/maternity” to “parentage” would have NO EFFECT on opposite-gender marriages, other than to remove the sex based word (“paternity”) and replace it with a sexless word (“parentage”). All it would do would be to make clear that same-sex marriages (where they exist) have the same rights as opposite-sex ones, and may have avoided the problems in the case Morse cited.
Ken,
My friend, I do hope you realize that you are wasting your time. You are arguing from fact, logic, and objective reality. Those are never convincing arguments to someone who is arguing from ideology.
Ken, if it has no core, what it at is center? Nothing. That is the same as hollow. No deception there.
Look, if we draw boundaries around something, as I think is necessary if marriage — as a relationship type — is to be distinguished from nonmarriage — all the other relationship types — we do need to identify what we are drawing the boundaries around.
That’s just basic lawmaking and is not unique to marriage law.
Put it another way: what are the common elements of the relationship type you have in mind?
Not the various legal incidents that are associated with it, not the secondary or tertiary aspects that may be found outside of the bounds in bits and pieces, but rather the common elements which give coherence to the relationship type.
It doesn’t have to be one thing.
You disagree, but I’ve noted that at the core of marriage are three things: 1) sex integration, 2) contingency for Responsible Procreation, and 3) the combination of these aspects. I don’t see these as bits and pieces but as a coherent whole that is greater than the sum of its parts.
Maybe you see bits and pieces, only, and no coherency? Please explain.
Ken
–> Changing the wording from “paternity/maternity” to “parentage” would have NO EFFECT on opposite-gender marriages, other than to remove the sex based word (”paternity”) and replace it with a sexless word (”parentage”).
First, the marriage presumption is a presumption of paternity.
It is NOT a presumption of “paternity/maternity”.
Second, paternity in this presumption is indeed sex-based. Human generaity is both-sexed. And marriage integrates fatherhood with motherhood. That does not need to be eliminated for the sake of sex equality within the conjugal relationship. Rather the opposite. It needs to be reinforced.
Third, yes, parentage is a sexless word. And that’s the point. It neuters the meaning of the marriage presumption of paternity. As in gender-neutralizes was is cleary gendered.
You proposed a substitution for the marriage presumption of paternity. That is a vote to abolish this presumption.
And, sure, a presumption is rebuttable. I never said it was not rebuttable.
However, since it can not apply to two men nor to two women, due to the both-sexed nature of human generativity, the presumption is not rebuttable for one-sex-short arrangements.
That is, it is not rebuttable because there is nothing to rebut. The presumption does not exist in such an arrangement.
An alternative basis might be created, sure, but, as in adoption, that would depend on parental relinquishment and on state intervention to decree an unrelated adult to be the child’s alternative parent.
Adoption points outside of marriage. Marital status is not bestowed by adoption. SSM cannot bestow adoption — without the prerequisites.
So, compare those prerequisites with the marriage presumption of paternity. If your proposed substitution becomes necessary, for the sake of treating all unions of husband and wife as if they lacked either husband or wife, then, your proposal entails the abolition of the marriage presumption of paternity.
If something does not fit the one-sexed arrangement, then, according to SSM argumentation, it does not fit marriage and is not intrinsic to the conjugal relationship.
If not, why not?
Ken: People (gay and straight) are involved in relationships for a variety of reasons.
That is not the question. To use your own terms, what is the state’s compelling interest in recognizing marriage? This has been the ongoing question which you have not been able to answer.
Tomothy, by your comments you appear to be convinced by identity politics and not by reason nor by respect for human dignity. You may well use reason and show respect on some other issues, but on this one, in this discussion, such has been subordinated by you to claims that suspend disbelief.
It is indeed irrational that homosexualists would have us agree on the very foundational issues that we are contesting in order for them to see that we love them. Yes, one must agree that two men indulging in anal intercourse is not an aberrant sexual behavior and that nonmarriage, that is, same-sex “marriage” is really marriage and not a mockery of marriage. What nonsense.
J. James,
–> they would have been arguing for the voiding of any and all marriages
That shows a totalitarian streak in your view of governance and of social institutions of civil society.
–> with the same vigor with which they are opposing gay marriage
That vigor is in support of marriage and in opposition of its arbitrary replacement with recognition of something else.
On the other hand, you seem to equate a disability (i.e. infertility) with homosexuality. Or something like that. You might want to clarify, but you have presented a straw man argument there.
* * *
–> they would have argued against atheist marriages
[blink]
So now society is condemned for being pluralistic. I suppose this means we are not living up to the charge of “Theocrats!”
Heh.
The nonreligous arugments in favor of the man-woman criterion curt across religious, and irreleigious, lines.
Kicking religious beliefs does not advance the public discourse of the SSM-merger. But, sadly, it does feed the gay identity politics and religious identity politics, alike.
* * *
–> The “institution” of marriage has gone through many changes, both in purpose and in the numbers of members permitted.
And yet, with all that, the man-woman criterion has remained essential.
This is because the nature of marriage integrates man and woman. And that sex integration is combined with the contingency for Responsible Procreation. There are inferior forms of integration and procreation, within marriage, but the core has remained the same across time, geography, and cultures. The both-sexed basis distinguishes marriage from other forms of relationship types that may have been esteemed for other reasons than what stands at the core of marriage.
* * *
–> who cares if more unions get allowed?
Right, the argument that you seem to have missed is the one that says that to identify marriage, and to draw its boundaries, society needs to decide what is inside, and what is outside, the lines being drawn.
So if, as you say, there is no slippery slope, because there is no more slope, than, I guess SSM would be situated beyond the cliff’s edge.
Sort of how Wild E. Coyote runs on air before he realizes that he will descend into yet another puff of dust down below.
* * *
–> What’s left? Punishing gays, that’s what.
Yes, I suppose, in your mind, the affirmation of marriage is punishment for gays.
But it is not. Marriage is not anti-gay.
Sure, the way the SSM campaign has pushed SSM, to disagree in law or even in discussion is an act of bigotry. Circular thinking that.
But that’s the power and the corruption of identity politics in its various forms. Gay identity politics is no exception.
As I said upthread, in comparison with the Loving case there is no criminalization, no penalty, no true ban, on what some here have called “gay marriage”. The practice is tolerated. And is accorded protections. Those who practice it are not punished through penal laws like the Lovings and other interracial couples were punished.
Not outlawed the way that polygamists and bigamists have been punished. Not banned the way closely related people are ruled-out and are even considered transgrressors of the incest laws just for holding themselves out to be the equivalent of common-law married.
Playing the “gay victim” game just doesn’t plass muster when it comes to the special status of marriage in our society.
Chairm,
Tomothy, by your comments you appear to be convinced by identity politics and not by reason nor by respect for human dignity. You may well use reason and show respect on some other issues, but on this one, in this discussion, such has been subordinated by you to claims that suspend disbelief
I think, perhaps, you are projecting
Chairm,
I’m just curious – if you wish to ban gay people from being able to get married, then what options are there for gay people to attain those rights that so many married people enjoy? I’m just curious, if you wish to establish a group of second-class citizens, a group who would undoubtedly benefit from marriage rights and privileges, and probably pass those benefits onto society, how do you suggest gay couples be afforded these benefits? Through Civil Unions? Please don’t suggest seeing a lawyer, because that isn’t even a possibility for many, not to mention this wouldn’t give gay couples a fraction of the rights that straight people enjoy.
Chairm,
Preventing gay people from being able to marry IS anti-gay. Look up the definition of anti-gay!
Jayhuck: Preventing gay people from being able to marry IS anti-gay.
That may be, but nobody is arguing that here. “Gay people” currently marry and nobody is saying that should change.
Jayhuck,
I’m just curious – if you wish to ban taxi drivers from being able to get sirens, then what options are there for taxi drivers to attain those rights that so many ambulance drivers enjoy? I’m just curious, if you wish to establish a group of second-class citizens, a group who would undoubtedly benefit from ambulance rights and privileges, and probably pass those benefits onto society, how do you suggest taxi drivers be afforded these benefits? Please don’t suggest seeing a lawyer, because that isn’t even a possibility for many, not to mention this wouldn’t give taxi drivers a fraction of the rights that ambulance drivers enjoy.
Chairm
Kindly provide the claims that suspend disbelief or apologize for the accusation.
Well, I’m kidding. I know that you won’t actually apologize nor show bizzare claims on my part.
Frankly it makes little difference to me. You lost credibility with me when you claimed your opinions were based on observation of your close friends who are gay couples. At least Jose had the integrity to admit that his wildly homophobic rants drive self-respecting gay folks away from him.
Is everybody having fun?
Lots of heat, but not much light as far as I can see. I am ok with letting this go on since everyone seems to be getting into it. But I wonder if we could try something.
Everyone who is still commenting – offer your best argument for your position without attacking the opposition.
Taxi Drivers and Ambulance Drivers?????????????
Warren,
I’m not really sure anything more can be said on this topic. No minds are going to be changed here, and I find the arguments keep going around in circles. Anyway, that’s obviously just my opinion.
Same-sex couples and Married couples?????????????
Warren – my position:
What is the essence of marriage?
We all know that marriage has mutated and morphed over the millennia to be something far different than when it started. The purpose and use of marriage today is much unlike that of 200 years ago, 2,000 years ago, or 4,000 years ago.
Marriage has been used to acquire heirs, unite warring factions, establish ownership of women, provide for unsupported females, and even out of love. It has been polygamous, monogamous, consensual, contracted, based on devotion, between total strangers, arranged, mail-ordered, and even between two devoted persons who have fallen in love and become engaged. There is even some evidence to show that in some cultures it has been between persons of the same sex.
Marriage has been recognized by vows before God and family and community, by secret contracts, by jumping over a broom, by living together for a long enough time, by contracts between nations, by rituals involving human sacrifice, underwater, in a sky dive harness, and even by Elvis is a Vegas drive up chapel.
There have been so many reasons, so many purposes, so many methods of marriage that it can become confusing exactly what comprises marriage. But there is one thing that unites all the various marriages that have existed through history.
Marriage is the creation of a family out of persons who would otherwise be unrelated.
Some persons – including some here – will never be able to accept that gay couples are families. In fact, the language used by anti-gay activists to differentiate their position is “pro-family”, terminology that by definition decries gay couples as not being families.
But I know that these families exist. Families are being created by gay couples and such marriages are being recognized by friends, family, community, church, and by God. And eventually our government – and most Americans – will come to recognize what is already occurring.
I am deleting comments that attack other views now. Just state your position in the affirmative and leave the attacks or rebuttals out. I will delete those comments. Do not rebut any further and do not attack a poster’s comments any further. Just state your position in the affirmative.
Just reread 81739, 81706, 81632, 81555, 81547, etc. Also reread the excellent commentaries by Chairm, Fitz, R.K. and Op Ed. The case against same-sex “marriage,” same-sex relationships, and same-sex parenting has been laid out explicitly.
Thank you Warren for putting up with much discourse that indeed strayed far from the thread. I think the objective reader who wishes to wade through this volume of comments will see that homosexualists cannot identify the core of marriage and are merely seeking to redefine it, that is, deconstruct its ancient and universally understood meaning. We are the defenders of marriage not its adulterators.
To deliberately deny children the benefits of a mother and a father is a terrible form of child abuse. If we were in some desperate situation where we had no alternative I could understand how a homosexual couple might address some of the needs of a child in dire straits. We are not there nor should we proceed as if we are. Pour money into improving child care facilities if necessary but whatever we do let’s not subject the innocent and vulnerable to a fatherless or motherless upbringing with people that engage in aberrant sexual activities and corrupt the meaning of marriage.
To end on a point of agreement I’ll say that I do agree with Jayhuck on only one thing at this time. And so I’ll offer him the last word if no one else intervenes. He has said,
“I’m not really sure anything more can be said on this topic.”
Thank you Warren for the forum you have provided.
Peace.
The nature of marriage unites man and woman; it integrates the sexes most clearly when combined with Responsible Procreation; fatherhood and motherhood are brought together out of the two-sexed nature of humankind, the both-sexed nature of human generativity, and the both-sexed nature of human community.
This has remained unchanged throughout recorded human history.
Contrary to some viewpoints, even related people can and do marry; when some point to changes in the social institution they usually miss the fact that these are typical variations on a theme — the nature of marriage as I have just described it. History is not a road to somewhere but it does provide a wealth of accumulated human wisdom from experience across time, geography, and cultures. With all the variations in the protocols of marriage, the core of the conjugal relaitonship has remained constant.
For a society, marriage is like a skill that a musician learns. Without the core disciplines, a musician cannot successfully improvise. One needs the basics, the essentials, from which to create variations and to test new ideas and to adapt to changing circumstances, much as a jazz quartet play off each other without losing their theme. Marriage is a skill that must be learned, and relearned, across generations. When the core of marriage is shown preference, each generation carries on the theme and sustains the most pro-child social institution that humankind has invented as the cultural adaptation to our physiology and biology and our highly social nature.
While SSM might have merit, it must stand on its own two feet and not piggyback on the both-sexed institution of marriage. Whatever its merits and demerits, this nonmarital alternative can only be justified with its own independant claim for a relationship status, at law.
Thusfar, SSMers have argued for tolerance and for protections — all of which are available through other means than denying, in marriage recognition, the core of the conjugal relationship.
The nature of the one-sexed alternative (gay or not, same-sex attraction or not, related or not) is sex-segregative and, where parenting is included, points to outside of marriage to either adoption or 3rd party procreation. What we know, with certainty, about SSM and parenting is that all double-dad or double-mom scenarios entail parental relinquishment (or loss) and some form of government intervention to decree a child adopted by the unrelated prospective parent.
Now, if such a relationship type merits tolerance, and I think it does, and if it merits protections, and I think it usually does, then it can be accorded a bundled of legal incidents based on the core of the trust relationship. And, as such, it requires no new relationship status, at law, to be created, although some lawmakers might choose to go that route.
Where affordablity or accessiblity can be improved, that can follow the usual uniforming process by which states have treated like as like. That can be advanced today with the well-used provision for designated beneficiaries — available widely across the country. It might also be advanced with a new relationship status which would be eligible for only those people who are ineligible to marry each other. It would not be based on the gaycentric view of government regulation of romance. There would be no gay test and no presumption of sexual relations. But this nonmarital alternative is not a duplication of marriage for it does not share the core of marriage. So there would be no such thing as incestuous combinations. Indeed, related people, related closely or not, would be eligible on the basis of mutual caretaking, dependencies, and, as already noted, trust.
For those who worry about costs, a nominal fee of about $15 is required for Reciprocal Beneficiaries in Hawaii. The model for this alternative is not really Hawaii’s statute on Reciprocal Beneficiaries, but rather the long-existing and well-used provision for designated beneficaries. And that, I am confident, would have very wide support across the country, across ideological lines, across religious lines, and across the political spectrum. It would also have the advantage of being far more inclusive than even SSM in Massachusetts or Civil Union in Vermont.
The first thing is to protect the social institution’s core — the comment elements that give it the coherence worthy of the designation as a preferred social institution.
That requires affirming its core. The man-woman criterin stands for sex integration. The marriage presumption of paternity is key to the set of principles entailed in Responsible Procreation. And when society affirms the core of the relationship type to which it grants special status, then, the protocols and the regulation of its boundaries follows in light of equal rights, justice for all, and the ruel of law.
Besides marriage itself, which is the foundational social institution of civil society, the SSM campaign has raised the specter of our undermining our form of self-governance. The government does not own civil society — it does not own marraige — but laws can and do influence social institutions. Governments can push social institutions to the brink of collapse, sometimes over that brink, and so must be restrained from using the big hand of the state to intrude upon civil society.
How does the SSM campaign undermine self-governance? By abusing the judicial branch’s role in reviewing marriage statutes. By decrying the consent of the governed as some sort of “mob rule”. By directly attacking the independence of civil society and the basics of responsible and accountable lawmaking. By pressing identity politics into social policy and into the foundational institution of marriage.
The law teaches. And, as I’ve seen with SSMers far and near, the courtcentric arguments of the SSM campaign have taught many fallacies and have spurred the continuous manufacture of yet more items to add to the litany of falsehoods that accompanies the conflation of marriage with nonmarriage.
Responsible procreation, not just any and all procreation and not compulsory procreation.
Integration of the sexes, not segregation of fatherhood and motherhood, not exclusion of one sex.
Marriage is a social institution and the legal aspects are merely the shadow of the thing that casts that shadow. Society ought not to confuse what flows from the core of marriage for the core of marriage itself.
Apologies for the various typos. I have a slight disability with my hands.
Warren — thanks for keeping the comment section open. The civil tone has been very good even if things got a little bumpy now and again.
Congradulations on more than 650 comments under a single blogpost.
Timothy did an excellent job of showing how marriage has existed in many different incarnations over time. Whether marriage has ever existed for same-sex couples is not the primary concern for me, although, as Timothy said, there is some evidence to suggest that it has existed in some cultures. What is being determined is whether it can withstand the inclusion of other people, and I think it has proven that it can. Many countries including the United States have adopted same-sex marriage to varying degrees and all, it appears, without incident. Time will undoubtedly tell us more but if history shows us anything, it is that change can often be a good thing – and that even if we’ve always done or understood marriage a certain way, that doesn’t mean it is the best way. Times do change and institutions, like marriage, will change with it. I think that including marriage rights and privileges for gay couples will only serve to strengthen society and the institution itself.
To those who I have deleted, please see comment 81759.
Thanks for all the energy invested here…
Warren,
I have a lot to say on this subject and do not have the time tonight, but I will be commenting extensively on it tomorrow, if that is alright.
For now, though, let me ask people to really think whether or not these general types of arguments are really good ones.
1. “You say you have a core definition/limit (to anything). But sometimes you go outside the definition. Therefore, why not go much further outside the definition, or abolish it altogether”.
2. “We have already made a lot of changes. Therefore, it can’t possibly hurt if we make an even greater change yet, even one that is unheard of.”
Again, these are general arguments, reduced to a general form. Do they hold up in a general sense, without resort to specific issues?
Another general argument:
3. “This system (an system) is already severely damaged. Therefore, another extreme change could not possibly damage it any further.”
In general, is this a good argument?
Typo: (an system) above should read (any system), of course.
http://crookedtimber.org/2006/08/25/against-gay-marriage/
All the articles linked to should be read by anyone interested
Note the use of two common pro-SSM arguments.
The “institution” of marriage has gone through many changes, both in purpose and in the numbers of members permitted. (The implication being that it has adapted to all of them fine).
The other “argument”:
What kind of “disaster” did you have in mind? A 50% failure rate, perhaps?
I think straight marriage is pretty much a disaster, especially for the children of those straights whose “till death do us part” proves to be a huge lie. (The implication, of course, being that because marriage is already in bad shape, another redefinition couldn’t possibly hurt it).
Note the total contradiction between these two lines of argument.
RK –
Perhaps I’ve already said this, but in case you hadn’t noticed, gay marriages are already taking place in this country and many others, and no real problems have been created by these marriages.
Jayhuck, probably neither did polygamy create serious problems as yet, still we think it is not appropriate. What about group marriage? Should we open our minds to whatever possible type of marriage may be proposed that does not “create problems”? Is “not creating problems” a criterion? I think not.
Seen in this light, I agree with the argument that marriage integrates reproduction or its possibility (by nature, not by state of health).
It’s because they’re allowed to mary that the MRSA report was able to be compiled by the zip codes. We’ll just continue to see what kinds of “problems” occur. Of course then it will be too late.
Nemario –
MRSA is hitting all kinds of people, including children. Football players and locker rooms are actually high risk groups and areas.
Evan,
Not creating a problem is definitely a criterion, because SSM detractors use “problems” as they main reason for not allowing them. Of course, when it comes to equal rights, similar arguments are always made for the groups seeking “a place at the table”.