"In this country, the people decide. Not monarchs. Not apparatchiks. Not generalissimos. We decide. And we don't want SSM. We never voted for SSM. We aren't going to vote for SSM. You tell us that some would-be despots in black robes will utter some magic phrases and force us to accept law that we don't want."

Wow. And people say I'M emotional.

Ya know, Justin, just half a century ago, most U.S. states outlawed marriage between whites and blacks. Many clergymen preached that mixed-race unions were profanely immoral, violating the will of God. Polls found 80 percent of whites in agreement. Florida imposed a 10-year prison term for such weddings, and Alabama up to seven years.

Georgia’s Supreme Court once ruled that interracial marriage isn’t moral because "the God of nature made it otherwise." Virginia’s Supreme Court upheld the ban, denouncing "alliances so unnatural that God and nature seem to forbid them." A Pennsylvania court ruling said couples must "follow the law of races established by the Creator himself."

Things change, Justin. It isn't the job of courts and judges to uphold the will of the majority. And when another half-century passes, Gay couples will be as accepted as interracial ones are today ... and people will look back, wondering what all the fuss was about.

"It isn't the job of courts and judges to uphold the will of the majority."

What is their job, Chuck? And what constraints do they have in doing it?

Are there cases when judges should hold up the will of the majority, or are they always supposed to favor the minority? How do we know which one they should favor in a particular case?

Utopian Idealism defines what is going to happen "in another half century"
As Chuck has stated - he is clarvoint, he can see the future - and his justice will ultimently prevail.

Of coarse - Legalized Abortion was going to end illagitamicy, single parent households were to disapear since every child was a wanted child.

No Fault Divorce - this was going to be better for children, more healthy than raising them in a "loveless" enviroment.

Gender equality - was going to make relationships easier and marriages more stable - as true equality would bind equal partners together.

Its interesting to note : when no-fault divorce was introduced, a common refrain was-

"HOW DO TWO PEOPLE GETTING DIVORCED EFFECT YOUR MARRIAGE"

Shamefull Sophistry uttered by dellusional fanatics, bent on forcing there simple minded ideology on all of society.

Dear Mike S.:

It is not the courts' job to uphold the precise will of the majority of the people. That's what elections are for. The job of the courts is to uphold the Constitution, regardless of whether the necessary decisions fall in line with the will of the majority. It is up to the judges to determine, without bias from the rest of the population, what constitutes equality under the law, or equal protection. It seems more than obvious to me that to exclude Gay people from the institution of marriage is a clear violation of any notion of "equality," and I have yet to see anyone dispute that on a rational level. Therefore, it is not "activism" on the part of judges to declare that Gay people should be treated equally under the law, rather it is an example of judges performing their rightful duty.

Chuck,

"The job of the courts is to uphold the Constitution, regardless of whether the necessary decisions fall in line with the will of the majority."

And what criteria or standards should they use in upholding the Constitution?

"It is up to the judges to determine, without bias from the rest of the population, what constitutes equality under the law, or equal protection. It seems more than obvious to me that to exclude Gay people from the institution of marriage is a clear violation of any notion of "equality," and I have yet to see anyone dispute that on a rational level."

And I've yet to hear a rational explanation of why I can't substitute the words "bisexual" or "polygamous" for "Gay" in your statement.

Chuck- Equal protection & due process clause dont exist in a vacume.

Spend some time in law school and you will learn that you interpret amendment as they were written
(and that was written to protect racial minorities from unjust discrimination)

You dont say that seperate bathrooms are "seprate but equal accomadations" and then institute single sex lavatories on the basis of "sex discrimination"

A hell of a lot more goes into legall reasoning than just chanting the word "equality"

By the way, for those who don't have a problem with judges deciding things for the rest of us, imagine that Terri Schiavo was your sister, or your daughter.

What kind of law is it, what kind of society is it, that says the lives of Khalfan Khamis Mohammed and Mohammed Daoud al-`Owhali’s [the terrorists convicted in the Kenya and Tanzania embassy bombings] have value — over which we must anguish and for the sustenance of which we must expend tens of thousands annually — but Terri Schiavo’s is readily dispensable? By court-ordered torture over the wrenching pleas of parents ready and willing to care for her?

link

Talk about "Not in Our Name."

Chuck,

I don't get it - you just cited a bunch of cases where you think judges were incorrectly upholding or interpreting the law. How do you know they aren't making a mistake now by insisting on SSM?

"What it means is that we need to have a check on the system to make sure that the tyranny of the majority doesn't allow democracy to run amok, trampling on the interests of the minority and disenfranchised." Seeing as how we've endured three or four decades of cultural Marxism deconstructing our society, largely with the help of lawyers wielding the threat of lawsuits as a weapon, and black-robed lawyers legislating from the bench with the slimmest of majorities among a handful of jurists, I think we damn well ought to give "the tyranny of the majority" a chance for a while. I think it would be a very, very welcome change of pace.

ELC & Ben

I agree that drastic changes are important
As Ben stated - the confirmation of constructionist judges (you know, "out of mainstream" "far right wing") is essential.

Two or three (possibley in this term) are essential {we could actually right the ship without major procedural changes)

To this end I am calling every day to my Senators & putting heat on republicans and Spector to toe-the line on appointments.
I am also working with the KofC to light things up come confirmation time!

(this is really are last chance- we cant get Borked again (or Kennedied))

However - On the SSM question alone-
I believe they have a stratagey to sit on there gains no matter what. Yhis makes development in Mass. crucial.
Is amazing what they can accomplish with a handfull of people who are willing to break the law.

Thanks

(sorry for mistakes- cant manage to spell check edit into these comment boxes)

Ben makes the point that if We The People support “slavery, racial segregation, denying women the right to vote, and preventing people of different races to marry, (ResIpsas' words)” and you believe that We The People shouldn’t be allowed to, say, own slaves, than you believe that We The People are “ignorant, stupid, and evil.”

If follows than, by that same logic, that if you believe that We The People are not ignorant, stupid, and evil, if We The People want slaves slavery is enlightened, intelligent, and good. THAT, in my humble opinion, is evil.

This story about campaign finance "reform" is more evidence that liberal elites don't care for democracy. (And yes, Bush was craven and foolish for signing the bill.)

All the liberal caterwauling about corporate control of the media would be comical if the stakes weren't so high.

As I've said before, Fitz and Justin will be the first in line at the courthouse when California voters decide to tax religious institutions or Massachusetts voters decide to ban all gun. They will come up with constitutional arguments saying that such actions are unconstitutional--although they may not be.

We have the courts for a reason. To prevent constutional violations. That the framers did not anticipate those potential violations 250 years ago is not really the issue. The constitution was never meant to be a dead, stagnant document stuck in time.

Arturo,
What makes you so certain that "We The People" would want something so repugnant? How many people do you know that support a return of those conditions? If you know more than a handful out of the hundreds of people you probably know, your perspective is severely limited.

What is their job, Chuck? And what constraints do they have in doing it?

Their job is ensuring that the rule of law is applied equally to all the citizenry. Do a search

You dont say that seperate bathrooms are "seprate but equal accomadations" and then institute single sex lavatories on the basis of "sex discrimination"

No, because sex distinctions (and race, etc) are not automatically discriminatory. If we separated the sexes in bathrooms because we wanted to continue to subordinate women or if we provided women with bathrooms significantly sub-par to men's rooms, then that would be a problem.

"The constitution was never meant to be a dead, stagnant document stuck in time."

That's why we have a procedure for amending it. What you really mean is, "If the constitution doesn't support my preferred policy, then to hell with what the text actually says."

Actually, it's a reason not to amend it willy-nilly to please the needs an angry majority.

The Constitution stands the test of time and has been able to adapt to things we never would have dreamed it. To scar it with silliness like the FMA show the level of disprespect conservatives have for the court and the Constitution. They would much prefer mob rule with no checks and balances.

Smmtheory:

If We The People want slaves, should we be allowed to keep slaves? If you think no, than you agree with me. If you think yes, you agree with Ben.

Arturo

Yes Mike, you said it- "sex distinctions (and race) are not automatically discrimination"
We dont allow seprate bathrooms because we want to keep women inferior (nor do we not allow SSM because we want to keep gays down) and we dont have different accomadations because the courts make us, but because women dont generally pee standing up.

See - men and women are different- thats judged at intermediary scrutney - becuase RATIONAL public policy is weighed against egalitarian principle's

The same thing will be done when marriage
(providing a general framwork so that men & women can recieve protections, duties ect. because they procreate- and the object of that act is best raised with its natural mother & father)
Thats RATIONAL also.
You may not like it..but thats not the same as irrational..

Now I believe that you all (Res Ispa, Mike, Nancer, Chuck) ALL find it RATIONAL also.
Your simply forced by your legal stratagey to claim it is not.

Arturo, it is entirely Constitutional for the American people to ammend the document creating a "right" to own slaves. It will never happen, but it is entirely legal to do so. If you think that is not right, and We The People should not have the right to make such drastic changes to our government, then you must be appealing to some "higher authority" of your own. But who are you so force the will of your "higher power" onto everyone else?

Res, the U.S. Constitution cannot be amended "willy-nilly". It is a long and deliberative process, for that very good reason. It cannot be done lightly, but We do have the right to.

And as our hand is being forced, and the document is being ammended by judges and activists who are so convinced of their own "higher power", we will.

"To prevent constutional violations."

This is the problem - you have no principled way of determining what a constitutional violation is. If you don't rely on the text and meaning of the constitution, then like Ben said you can interpret it to mean anything you want. Emanations and penumbras, and all that.

Not much time to post today, but a quick response to this:
Chuck: "It is not the courts' job to uphold the precise will of the majority of the people. That's what elections are for. The job of the courts is to uphold the Constitution."

Where did the Constitution come from, Chuck? Did the Hand of God etch it on a mountainside? No. The words that are in the Constitution are there because people voted on them. That's what makes those words special.

The Constitution isn't an alternative to the will of the majority. The Constitution is itself the will of the supermajority, albeit a supermajority in the past. In our legal system, everything is the will of the voters, whether expressed directly or indirectly. There is no source of law other than the voters.

Confusion on this is common because Chuck's statement sounds a lot like a related but very different point: Judges are not required to uphold the will of today's majority. The whole idea of the Bill of Rights is for yesterday's supermajority to restrict today's majority.

The trouble is that people often summarize that point by omitting the time reference. They say that a judge's proper role is to thwart the will of the majority. That sloppy formulation implies to some that there is something more than the will of the people that governs us. But if you restate the idea more precisely, it should be clear that the question is not "Who decides?," but "When did they decide?" and "By how large of a supermajority?"

The "Who?" never changes. It is always the people. They wrote the Constitution. It means what they intended it to mean. The Courts' job is to determine what they intended it to mean.

Why is that so hard to accept?

--...If you think that is not right, and We The People should not have the right to make such drastic changes to our government, then you must be appealing to some "higher authority"...

Marty:

1. You think it is right that We The People should be allowed to keep slaves if We want?

2. Yes, I do think that one day your side will come to know that affording the same respect and dignity to gay people, as to heterosexuals, is what God intended.

"1. You think it is right that We The People should be allowed to keep slaves if We want?"

No, it would not be morally right. But it could be constitutional, if the constitution was so amended. There's no strict correspondence with "morally just" according to some external standard and "constitutionally allowed". Of course, a constitution that is manifestly unjust will not be stable over the long term, but that's a different question from deciding what laws are or are not constitutional.

On your own account of judicial review, what recourse would you have if a judge, rather than the people, said that slavery was legal, a la Justice Taney in Dred Scott?

"2. Yes, I do think that one day your side will come to know that affording the same respect and dignity to gay people, as to heterosexuals, is what God intended."

This equates "affording the same respect and dignity" and "affirm their choices regarding sexual behavior". But clearly those things are not necessarily synonomous.

The Constitution isn't an alternative to the will of the majority. The Constitution is itself the will of the supermajority, albeit a supermajority in the past. In our legal system, everything is the will of the voters, whether expressed directly or indirectly. There is no source of law other than the voters.

This is patently false. The Constitution (and the Bill of Rights) is not the will of the supermajority of the past; it is the establishment of the rule of law, of the people, FOR the people, by the people. It is the basic framework by which voters can govern themselves.

Do a search for Plato, demos and polloi. Without the rule of law, we are at the mercy of the mobs.

The "Who?" never changes. It is always the people. They wrote the Constitution. It means what they intended it to mean. The Courts' job is to determine what they intended it to mean.

Fine, but by those standards no conservative should ever bitch about having semi-automatic weapons bans because the founding fathers never intended for the Second Amendment to cover those. Oh, and women shouldn't be able to vote because the founding fathers never intented for them to. Oh, and the Fourteenth Amendment only protects blacks from racial discrimination because there were no Arabs in the country back then and they didn't indend for it to protect them.

Give me a break.

Michael: Your last post made no sense at all to me. I can kinda guess what you're trying to say, but it's all very unclear. Take a deep breath. Relax. Try to make sense.

Despite what some people say here, judges cannot make the Constitution say anything they want. Their job is not to confirm the will of the people, not is it to undermine it. The job of judges is to ensure that laws are being applied correctly, and are consistant with higher stratas of law, namely state constitution and the US Constitution.

The problem is that some passages of the Constitution are broad guildlines for federal and state laws, so there are different opinions on how to apply these guildlines, for example, what does "equal protection under the laws" mean? The supporters of SSM contend that they don't have equal protection under the laws because the legal rights & responsibilities that opposite sex couples can obtain with respect to each other by getting married are either unavailable to same sex couples, or they are available only at a must higher cost ($3000 for attorney & filing fees vs. $50 for a marriage license).

This may be a shock to some who've read my other comments, but I admit that some court decisions are really stretching their interpretations. The worst example I'm aware of is the Dred Scott decision, which I had not actually read until recently when it was referred to in another discussion here. It essentially rules that negroes cannot be US citizens, the Founding Fathers never intended the lofty ideals expressed in the Constitution and Declaration of Independence to apply to them, therefore, Negroes are not entitles to protection under the law. YIKES!!

But back to SSM. Have we discussed the establishment of a legal bond that two people could obtain simply called "couple partnerships"? This would establish the same rights & responsibilities between two parties as marriage, and be available at the same price as a marriage license. However, it would not legally be called "marriage." This would respect the feelings of people uncomfortable with gays getting married, while allow "separate but equal" protection, much like separate restrooms for men & women (which exist only to respect the feelings of those who don't want members of the opposite sex in the room while they use the toilet.)

Who do you all think of the "couple partnership" idea?

How can I not get in on this ?

Ironically, my first response is in support of something Mike S. wrote. (Ironic based on our history of exchanges). It was:

“Everybody repeat after me: "Unjust does not mean unconstitutional. Unjust does not mean unconstitutional. Unjust does not mean unconstitutional..."

I agree. There are many laws that may be seen as unjust but yet are within the constitution. And yes, if the people so choose, they can amend the constitution to do what they want. In this case, they can amend it to deny SSM. They can amend it to return to slavery. They can amend it to do what they want. I also agree that some of the recent SCOTUS decisions are very concerning. Particularly, the recent juvenile death penalty case and the prayer at the Texas HS football game case. I agree with those that say these are examples of legislating from the bench rather than interpreting current constitutional law.

So while I do support equal rights for gays and feel their relationships should be granted legal recognition, I see where the current process has negative consequences.

Also, I am not yet convinced that denying SSM is an example of sex discrimination because marriage IS available to them – just not in a meaningful way. I do see the unjustness of it – but as Mike wrote, ‘Unjust does not mean unconstitutional”.

But the problem in that argument lies in the fact that marriage is NOT constitutionally defined as being between a man and a woman in those states where the judges have ruled (MA, NY and CA) Only the recent amendments have put that in. Therefore, I think a judge has more space for this ruling under the equal protection clause (although I am not convinced) than it did for the juvenile death penalty case under the cruel and unusual punishment clause.

A couple of other things from Ben’s statements:

Marty: "Why are 'We The People' being shut out of the most important cultural decisions of our time?" ResIpsa: "Because 'We the People' have a knack for approving of things like slavery, racial segregation, denying women the right to vote, and preventing people of different races to marry." What a remarkable exchange! On that logic, why bother calling them judges? Why not just call them benevolent oligarchs? Or we could buy them little faux military uniforms and call them generalissimos."

The reality is that the judicial branch is there to make sure that the legislature does not make law that goes against rights guaranteed by each states and the federal constitution. I also happen to agree that they have ‘gone too far’ in many cases – even in those where I agreed with their beliefs – but felt their opinion was based on their political view and not an interpretation of whether the law in question was constitutional or not. Yet if new laws were being made to legally recognize heterosexual relationships and deny same-sex relationships, I’m not sure they could be constitutional (in those states without an amendment).

But where Ben is off-base is in his “We Don’t Want It” section. We are not a pure democracy. The legislatures, the President and yes, the legal system do many things regardless of public support. The majority of the public felt OJ was guilty, was against the War on Iraq, was against the impeachment process of Clinton, was in support of the continuation of the Brady Bill and many other examples of laws, judicial decisions (some of which you may support) and executive branch decisions made without the support of the majority of the people. What you are saying here is that a judge should make no ruling that goes against the majority of the people. That is unequivocally wrong.

From Mike S.: “What I am NOT willing to stipulate is that being raised in a same-sex household is no different from being raised by ones biological parents. Which is precisely what enactment of SSM would say.”

Come on. Does that mean that by allowing adoption says that being raised by adoptive parents is no different than being raised by biological parents? Does that fact that an 80 yr old man is allowed to marry a 19 yr old girl mean that being raised in that situation is no different than being raised by people closer in age? The law also allows people to marry regardless of financial status although being raised in a poor family may be different than being raised in a middle-class one. So you seem to be saying that all things must be equal in order to legally acknowledge it. What kind of socialist argument against SSM is that ?

As much as I’d like to continue … my paid employment beckons … I hope to get back and stress some people out.

"what do you think of the couple partnership idea"

Your right about one thing Dancer - its an "idea"

I am not defending a word (i.e. marriage.)Im defending an idea!

No matter what you call it, Be it civil unions (thats what their called in Scandanavia) or couple partnerships - or domestic partnerships or anything else. They all conflate the unique status marriage has in our society.

We have existed for millinia in this country and civilizations around the world without having other institutions under a special rubric and given rights and privelages.
(much less the same rights and privilages)
as marriage

Two brothers may want (or need) special rights
A son or daughter taking care of sick relatives may want (or need) special rights.
Close friends or roomates may want (or need) special rights
Even divorced people (they still have familial ties remember) may want certain rights (like health care ect.)

If society wants to grant them AND/OR Gay couples some or all of the rights of marriage...then call your legislature and ask him to sponsor such a bill.

This is a bate & switch tactic...
Gay couples are not being deprived of anything.
The courts in Mass,& Vermont commited judicial tyranny...its bad law and worse public policy

Its wrong and I have NO sympathy for your lame (made up) plight!!

I save MY sympathy for those 93% of prison inmates who dont have fathers,
Or the 70% illegitamcy rate among the under class.
or the 50% divorce rate that tears up families and children.
Or the rising rate of young women who go barren waiting for Mr. right.

Our marriage culture is falling apart because of the sexual revolution of the 1960's
Its taken 40 years of sustained damage that liberal assholes like you (inhuman monsters)
call "evolution" & "gender equity"

And now (just when its starting to show signs of healing itself) Gay activists come along and want to kick the cruches out from under it.
They want to attack the very definition of the word. Destroy its very concept.

And they call it justice...
Why?
Because their soooo narcassisitic that they only think of themselves and their selfish desire's
and their idelogical kin in the universities and feminist ranks.

And not all those poor kids in broken homes, or divorced families....or prison.

Mark: "What [Ben is] saying here is that a judge should make no ruling that goes against the majority of the people. That is unequivocally wrong."

No, I'm not saying that Mark. The more precise heading would have been: "We never wanted it." I'm repeating what I already said in this thread, but I don't dispute that the point of our Constitution is to hold back momentary passions. Your examples of OJ Simpson, the Clinton impeachment, and the War on Terror are fine examples of that. (Though we might differ on the details.)

But the point---again---is that the Constitution comes from the people. The people wrote those words.

The difficulty here gives me an idea: We origialists should stop personifying the Constitution, e.g.: "The Constitution grants," or "The Constitution guarantees." It's a common metaphor, but it clouds our thinking in this case. The Constitution is nothing but some words on paper. The document itself doesn't crawl around Washington DC, smiting errant legislators. It's the people who do things. So let's rearrange our syntax to emphasize that fact.

The Constitution doesn't grant us freedom of speech. Americans granted themselves freedom of speech by voting for the Bill of Rights. The Constitution doesn't demand Equal Protection. Americans demanded Equal Protection, by voting for the Fourteenth Amendment. And the Constitution doesn't give a right to privacy---because the voters never put one into the document.

See, this is all agonizingly clear for me because I'm a lawyer by trade. I write legal documents for a living. Legal documents are not tea leaves. They are not the entrails of sacrificed animals. They are expressions of somebody’s intent. The reason that you create legal documents is to make your meaning clear and unambiguous. We sign written leases so that landlords won’t have to argue with tenants about how much rent is due. That’s the whole point! That’s what it’s all about! You write things down so that people won’t come up later with nonsensical claims about what it is that you meant to say.

That’s what makes Goodridge and the 1976 Mass. ERA so completely mind-boggling. At least with the 14th amendment, we don’t have an easy way to understand what they were thinking when they voted on it. We would actually have to read a book or two, and do a little research. But with the Mass. ERA, the truth is just a few clicks away. We can talk to actual voters who were alive when they passed it. And yet, the Goodridge court told them: “Sorry. You may have thought that you weren’t voting for SSM. But you were. Better luck next time, suckers!”

Fitz:

FYI, I am legally married to a person of the opposite sex.

What I've enjoyed about the comment discussions here is that for the most part they are more-intelligent-than-average discussions on contraversial topics that don't devolve into personal attacks or profanity.

Please don't wreck it.

Sorry Dancer..
That is my general feel however.
What I dont like about this WHOLE conversation (the one happening on the web, here, or in society)
Is that it is their argument on their terms!!
No matter what happens...they move THEIR ball , down THEIR court..

Most people agree that the mainstream media and the universities are liberal & even more people concead that there most liberal when it comes to social issue's...

We (social conservatives) have been trying to discuss everything from divorce to pre-maritial sex, to illegitamacy for 40yrs & CANT EVEN GET A HEARING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Now a handfull of lawless judges come out and pre-empt the whole family movement and call us IRRATIONAL BIGOTS.

Its frustrating to say the least..
But...
Sorry anyway.

Its taken 40 years of sustained damage that liberal assholes like you (inhuman monsters)
call "evolution" & "gender equity"

Woah there, bucko. Not all of us have even been around this long and not all of us are "liberal assholes". Pardon me, but your bias is showing...

Michael: Your last post made no sense at all to me. I can kinda guess what you're trying to say, but it's all very unclear. Take a deep breath. Relax. Try to make sense.

My garbled post was merely meant to point out that the founding fathers relied very much on Plato's Republic for their creation of the Constitution. And neither Plato, nor the FFs, had very much faith in the demos (common man). The rule of law is substituted for the philosopher kings Plato proposed, having little trust for rule by the rich or the commoners. The rule of law, therefore, creates a society where no social class is allowed to dominate over any other; that is a "just" society.

We are not a democracy. We have never been a democracy. And we should never become one.

It is up to the judges to determine, without bias from the rest of the population, what constitutes equality under the law, or equal protection.

Boy, Chuck. You must really hate the recent SCOTUS decisions citing public opinion and foreign precedents.

Mike..
stop pating yourself on the back for having read a little Plato.

Its a constitional democracy, a republic, a representative democracy its all sort of things.

However I believe Bens point on it being a supermajority law is essentially correct.
You say it is based on the rule of law..
That is correct.. His point is that original law (i.e. the constittion had to be adopted by the F.F who represeted the countries regions and were elected and Further was ratified by the respected states legislatures, as are all amendments)

I.E. - ALL laws come from the People... (even the "rule of law") the constittion or whatever.

Some people want to break those rules. in order to change other rules they dont like. (their called judges from Mass.)

And My Bias DOES show.. I dont try and hide it.
Have a little more philisophical and historical depth and breadth and your realize that (as I stated) New Leftists (liberal A*H*) started us down the road in the 1960's and we have been fighting them ever since. (its called the culture war)

Just because you werent born then, dosnt mean you thinking hasnt been philisophically hijacked by them.

Michael:

I’m very skeptical about the influence of Plato on the founding fathers. My understanding is that they were influenced mostly by the English history from which they had just emerged. The English were very familiar with the idea that one man could defy the will of the people. It was a major theme in their history. And in revolting, they were reasserting what they saw as the correct side in the debate: that the people do not exist to serve their government, but their government exists to serve its people. That’s why they put this phrase into the Declaration:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, . . . That to secure these [unalienable] rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

Notice that “consent of the governed” part? It’s not just some verbal fluff. It’s exactly what they were talking about. The English government was denying the colonists their rights as Englishmen. The king had signed a charter decades before guaranteeing the colonies a considerable amount of self-government. Later, the king and Parliament decided to ignore that deal, and set new rules. The colonists revolted because they were being denied the rights that their charters had granted them. They had tolerated the erosion of their self-government rights for several years, but finally they decided to stand and fight, just as their forebears in England had against previous despots.

Michael: “We are not a democracy. We have never been a democracy. And we should never become one.”

You’re confusing democracy with self-rule. We’re a very long way from the kind of mob rule that you’re talking about, Michael. But when US Sup Ct pulls new law that the country hates out of thin air, and when people try to claim with a straight face that that’s how our system of government ought to work because the voters are such ignorant, evil little bigots—then it looks like we are drifting back towards what the founders were fighting against.

It has been a while since I actually read the Declaration. This part seems relevant to the discussion:

“Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

fitz, your email is bouncing. drop me a line.

"Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

Amazing words. Ben Bateman couldn't have said it better.

Yes, excellent Ben...

The most preceant line I believe is the
"when a long train of abuses....pursuing invariably the same Object envinces a design to reduce them under obsolute Despotism..."

That line, I would say started with the Griswold v Conn. decision (others differ) and continues to this day.
The Object is to demoralize the populace.. Litterally De-Moralize our body politic on the premise that sexuall liceance is akin to liberty & traditional values akin to "irrational" taboo.

Marty, Im at my local library at the moment & their default mail client wont pull up your address.

Perhaps their is some other way for us to exchange..
Maybe I'll get a new e-mail account. (my old box got so full I think it crashed- And I dont do personall mail from work)

A question for SSM supporters (and my fellow SSM opponents too, if they wish):

Let us suppose that it were possible to allow the legal marriage of gay couples.....without in the process changing the public perception of marriage as between opposite sexes. I don't think it is possible (at least not under the terms of the current debate), but let's just suppose there was a way to do it. Would you accept this, that is, would you be willing to accept retaining the general public perception of marriage as between men and women if individual gay marriages were legally recognized? Or would you want the public to get it through their collective psyche that marriage was now between any two people regardless of gender?

For SSM opponents, the converse question can be asked: would you be willing to accept legal recognition of individual gay marriages if you were convinced somehow that the general public perception of marriage would not be altered in the process? I know I would have far less problem with it if I thought this were possible. You see, it really isn't about punishing gays. I do believe that everyone has the right to live their own life as they see fit, provided they don't abuse others. It is the manipulation of the public's perception of marriage, and in the process, relationships in general, that I am concerned about.

More questions, some old, some new, may follow.

RK, yes, personally.

I'm really not so cold to the very real challenges that gay people face, least of all those posed to their unfortunate children. But there are two things standing in the way for me:

1. Resentfulness at this whole "equality" business. What is being demanded here is not equal treatment, but a very special case, based on a painful perception of various forms of anti-gay discrimination. It's true that America has a strong anti-gay bais. This also has nothing whatsoever to do with marriage law -- least of all finding it "unequal".

2. Recognition that this IS a special case. We could accomplish what you are asking, RK, by making a special exception for homosexual marriages, true "gay marriage", wherein two things must be proven: that the partners are indeed biologically homosexual (as something clearly distinct from male or female), and that such orientations are not subject to change over time.

That's what's being sold - "gay" marriage. But that's not what we're buying...

For SSM opponents, the converse question can be asked: would you be willing to accept legal recognition of individual gay marriages if you were convinced somehow that the general public perception of marriage would not be altered in the process? I know I would have far less problem with it if I thought this were possible. You see, it really isn't about punishing gays. I do believe that everyone has the right to live their own life as they see fit, provided they don't abuse others. It is the manipulation of the public's perception of marriage, and in the process, relationships in general, that I am concerned about.

Well, this is basically the situation we have now. Gays can get married in religious ceremonies, and they can gain many, if not all, of the legal benefits of marriage piecemeal. Your question is basically counterfactual - the primary motivation for the SSM movement is to have everyone agree that same-sex couples are no different from opposite-sex ones. There isn't really any other motivation. All the talk about rights and benefits of marriage is a proxy for the equality argument.

I'll repeat my question for the umpteenth time: there are a variety of people arguing in favor of SSM, which can roughly speaking be divided into two camps: the "conservative" side that wants to preserve marriage but allow gays in, and the radical side that want to deconstruct the institution of marriage and sees SSM as a way to do it. I don't know what the numbers on each side are, but obviously in this forum we primarily have the former. Yet I've never seen any of them address the radicals in any serious way - it's just taken as a given that they are wrong, and that their goals cannot, or will not, be realized through SSM. I don't see how you can expect those of us opposed to SSM to just take your assurances on this - why don't you offer some defense of why the radical view will not be realized? If you don't, how can you expect us to take your arguments seriously?

The large majority of people are hetersexual, therefore, if SSM is legalized, the large majority of married couples will be heterosexual. Most, if not all, of the married couples you personally know would be heterosexual. So I don't know why the public perception of marriage as being between a man and a woman - at least most of the time - would change.

When we read about the upcoming marriage Mary K. Letourneau and Vili Fualaau (who started having sex together when Vili was 12 years old), Britany Spears marrying her friend after a pitcher of margaritas, or women who marry mass murderers in prison, we roll our eyes because they don't fit our idea of the ideal marriage, yet we don't see these as a threat to the intitution of marriage itself.

Mike & Marty

Yes...
But I would reiterate.
Regardless of their actual motivation, or the plausability of allowing SSM without damaging marriage (somthing that is happening amoung even ourselves- merely by repeating gay "marriage" ad naseum)

P.C. - is all about whats NOT said.
As a country & civilization we are NOT talking about cohabitation, divorce, adultary, bareness, illegitamcy, fatherlessness- family and relationship breakdown between the sex's
(the whole gamit of social pathologies associated with the sexual revolution)

What they have done is open up another front in this war- and in doing so have captured the conversation away from the marriage & family movement.

In this enviroment THEY cant lose, WE cant win.

All we can do is triage.
Its all defense..
and its a shame.

Fitz, you asked for "the skinny" a few days ago, and since your email address is bogus, here are two sites you should be reading daily:

http://www.familyscholars.org/
http://www.marriagedebate.com/mdblog.php

Thanks Marty.

I Actually read those sites often.
They concern more general philisophical and legal arguments against SSM.

What Im really looking for (if it exists) is sites that go into the general political battles and legaslative battles througout the nation.
Example. - How goes the move to ammend the constittion in Mass?
Example. - Is Conn. actually at risk of legalizing SSM through its legislature? (I know the bill got out of commitee)
Example. How close are Calf. domestic partnerships to legal marriage & what do judicial insiders say may happen.

The devil as they say...is in the details,
If such a centralized data base (& analysis) does not exist - it should
(this has to be strangled in its grave politically) & traditional marriage and sexuallity needs to be defended and pronounced culturally to reverse trends of the 60's

(oh Marty)
My E-mail used to be good- but like I said, it got to full and yahoo bumped it- I guess?)
Thanks guys

Mike S:

1. The important thing about the Dred Scott decision was that it supported slavery, and that it supported “the will of the people” (and that it did so based on a strict interpretation of the constitution). A more enlightened judge, who believed in affording respect and dignity to the black person (against the will of the majority, but in keeping with a people that was becoming more enlightened), might have made a decision that was not “ignorant, stupid, and evil.” That decision might have furthered the enlightenment of the people. And that might have mitigated somewhat the devastating effect of the coming Civil War.

2. Homosexuals’ sexuality is not synonymous with their person’s dignity. But they are connected. Like with heterosexuals.

That decision might have furthered the enlightenment of the people. And that might have mitigated somewhat the devastating effect of the coming Civil War.

Or it might have exacerbated the rift, leading to a longer, more fierce war or even an actual separation of the states. Historical what-if is a lot of fun, but it's almost as difficult to predict what would have happened as it is to predict what a given change will do now. Funny that supporters of same-sex marriage have so little respect for what they do not know in both cases.

Justin:

It's not that we have "little respect for what we do not know." It's that we clearly see that your arguments are fundamentally based on denying the homosexual person his dignity.

The Dred Scott decision surely had great consequenses. The decision was either just or unjust. The consequences were either good or bad. I chose to believe that just decisions have good consequences. You can believe that good consequence necessitate unjust decisions. Or maybe you believe that the Dred Scott decision was just.

"They are expressions of somebody’s intent. The reason that you create legal documents is to make your meaning clear and unambiguous. We sign written leases so that landlords won’t have to argue with tenants about how much rent is due. That’s the whole point! That’s what it’s all about! You write things down so that people won’t come up later with nonsensical claims about what it is that you meant to say."

The problem with that Ben is that as you know, legal documents are written with such specificity that often there is no wiggle room; because if you give wiggle room; you know someone will try to wiggle. And if they are successful, then the next time the document is drafted, it will be even more specific.

I think your $1,000 example is terribly flawed one for that exact reason. No reasonable person could argue over the meaning of $1,000, just as no reasonable person could argue over the meaning of "[N]either shall any Person be eligible to that [the Executive] Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years...."

The problem is that the phrases that we argue over are all written in broad generalities, and the Framers left behind no "book" of specific intent that tells us exactly how the norm is to be applied vis-a-vis every single thinkable specific factual scenario.

In European "civil code" nations, they attempt to do this with their legal codes and the result is hundreds of thousands of pages in civil codes. In common law nations like America our laws tend to be more general and we expect Courts to fill in the many of the specific gaps, with the result being hundreds of thousands of pages of appellate case law.

That Constitutions tend to be such relatively short documents, with many provisions written in broad generalities, like "cruel and unusual punishment," or "the freedom of speech" signifies a specific intent on the part of the Framers to construct a document with "built in flexibility" whose meaning could change over time.

Back to your $1,000 example. Here's a more reasonable one: Let's say a landowner rents out a huge parcel of land to a community for 200 years. The landowner is to charge the community a "reasonable" amount from year-to-year.

So 125 years later, what's a "reasonable" amount? That's what Constitutional Interpretation is like.

See this post on my blog here for a more detailed argument.

Boy, Arturo, you're not very free with the leeway that you allow others. Why are my only options to "believe that good consequence necessitate unjust decisions" or "that the Dred Scott decision was just"? Can't I believe that just and unjust decisions alike can have good consequences, bad consequences, or (more often) a mix of the two?

Frankly, Jon, I see no more or less truth to your assertion that "no reasonable person could argue over the meaning of $1,000" than I see in the suggestion that no reasonable person could argue over the opposite-sex meaning of marriage. Sometimes I question their reasonability, but people do argue about the latter meaning.

"yet we don't see these as a threat to the intitution of marriage itself. "

I do. I just don't see how we can ban those types of marriages without inappropriately intrusive measures by the government. Well, that's not quite true, in those particular cases. We could require a waiting period in the Spears case, and we could have specific laws against the Letourneau case (but that would affect who, just that one couple?) Namely, banning marriage when one of the couple had been convicted of statutory rape and/or sexual abuse against the other member of the couple. But clearly we don't have justification to ban all "May-December" marriages.

Jon Rowe, i think the simple point here is that consent to legalize SSM was never granted, when we the people consented to equal rights for women and blacks. Those amendments would never have passed, if they had also included a right to same-sex marriage, so its ridiculous to assert that they always included such a right.

We the People DID not consent to that, and it's clear that we DO not consent to that, as each time a judge tries to say otherwise, the push to amend the constitution in explicit terms gets just that much stronger.

Arturo,

"1. The important thing about the Dred Scott decision was that it supported slavery, and that it supported “the will of the people” (and that it did so based on a strict interpretation of the constitution). A more enlightened judge, who believed in affording respect and dignity to the black person (against the will of the majority, but in keeping with a people that was becoming more enlightened),"

I don't know for sure (I don't know if anyone does, precisely), but I think it is far from clear that Dred Scott supported the will of the majority. Clearly the Northern states had a higher population at the time. I realize that many people in the North prior to the war had a "I don't care" attitude towards slavery - sort of like the "personally opposed, but I support a woman's right to choose" in regards to abortion today. But I think Dred Scott said that you couldn't even ban slavery in the new territories, which I think most people were in favor of.

"It's that we clearly see that your arguments are fundamentally based on denying the homosexual person his dignity."

Can you elaborate on this a little? What is the basis for human dignity, and how is it being denied by objecting to SSM?

Justin wrote: “Or it might have exacerbated the rift, leading to a longer, more fierce war or even an actual separation of the states. Historical what-if is a lot of fun, but it's almost as difficult to predict what would have happened as it is to predict what a given change will do now."

------- Very true – it is difficult to predict what a given change will do now or in the future. Along those lines, the opponents of SSM need to be stop asking for assurances that there won’t be a catastrophic effect by enacting it. It’s a rhetorical and downright silly argument. It can be used against the enactment of any change or policy. Based on it, no change or policy should ever be enacted due to “we don’t know what the effects will be?”.

Justin wrote: “Funny that supporters of same-sex marriage have so little respect for what they do not know in both cases.”

------- ... and opponents of same-sex marriage show little respect for what they do not know.

R.K wrote: “Let us suppose that it were possible to allow the legal marriage of gay couples.....without in the process changing the public perception of marriage as between opposite sexes. Would you accept this, that is, would you be willing to accept retaining the general public perception of marriage as between men and women if individual gay marriages were legally recognized?

Marty wrote: “I'm really not so cold to the very real challenges that gay people face, least of all those posed to their unfortunate children. But there are two things standing in the way for me:
1. Resentfulness at this whole "equality" business. What is being demanded here is not equal treatment, but a very special case ...

------- To borrow a phrase from Ben: What a remarkable exchange !

R.K and Marty – If SSM were enacted, then it would be legal for couples to marry regardless of gender. Just like it is legal for a 15 yr old to marry an 85 yr old – despite the public perception of marriage. Just like it is legal for an interracial couple to marry – despite the public perception of marriage.

I guess where I’m going is … your perception of marriage is irrelevant. Just as irrelevant as those who feel the public perception of current marriage law is flawed due to the denial of SSM.

So in your view, homosexuals cannot be either male or female – it is its own gender. Either that or male/female denotes an distinct orientation akin to being 'homosexual'. Just clarifying the physiology lesson.

"when we the people consented to equal rights for women and blacks."

The problem is that you only "consented" to give women the right to vote. All of the EPC's jurisprudence gauranteeing equality rights to women is just as "unoriginal" as same-sex marriage would be.

Also, regarding what was consented in 1868 for blacks, the end of segregated schools is debatable. Michael McConnell makes a decent case, Bork makes a poor case that Brown was consistent with what you would call "original intent." Other scholars like Lino Graglia and Raoul Berger make a good case that Brown was inconsistent with original intent.

What is not debatable is Loving. There are no two ways about it: What you think of as "original intent": Did the people who ratified this Amendment realize that they were ratifying a ban on interracial marriage? The answer is "no." The 14th Amendment was ratified upon the reliance by the folks who voted for that Amendment that they weren't outlawing interracial marriage.

But keep in mind that Loving wasn't decided until 100 years later, until all but in the ballpark of 15 states got rid of their ban on interracial marriage. Were the Federal Equal protection clause to be used to nationalize gay marriage, it ought not be done until roughly the same number of states have recognized gay marriage.

MM: So in your view, homosexuals cannot be either male or female – it is its own gender.

That's not at all what i said. Well, i can see how you might have read it that way, but no, not even close to what i meant. No bother though, a minor detail that i probably should have left off.

Jon,

"The problem is that the phrases that we argue over are all written in broad generalities, and the Framers left behind no "book" of specific intent that tells us exactly how the norm is to be applied vis-a-vis every single thinkable specific factual scenario."

But that is the point - we're a long way from arguing about the meaning of particular phrases when we get into "emanations from penumbras". And Marty is right - you can't honestly extrapolate from "there's a gray area here" to something it's obvious the writers would never have intended or countenanced, like abortion or SSM.

Also, I'd like to hear your response to this article on the demographics of Europe. Does this sound like a "a truly vibrant culture" to you?

Just to clear the matter up for MM:

I said "[proven that] the partners are indeed biologically homosexual (as something clearly distinct from male or female)"

By which i mean that regardless of male/female, it must be proven that "orientation" is something distinct from, and as important as, one's sex. I'm not at all impying that gender comes with any presumed orientation -- i'm saying that i do not think one's "orientation" is really even relevant to the question of marriage, while one's sex is critical.

Lik i said, i probably should have left that parenthetical part off. It adds little but confusion to what i stated.

"And Marty is right - you can't honestly extrapolate from "there's a gray area here" to something it's obvious the writers would never have intended or countenanced, like abortion or SSM."

It's not so obivious. One reason why the framers wrote in such broad generalities, is that they wisely realized that they didn't possess all of the information to give all, or even many specific factual answers to such general constitutional principles. For instance, the framers didn't say that pornography was or was not protected speech under the First Amendment; it left that question specifically unanswered, but rather said that government was to "make no law...abridging the freedom of speech."

Although the framers knew of had laws against the act of "sodomy" (and there evidence that what they thought of as sodomy was an unconsensual act -- and many sodomy laws also applied to heterosexual behaviors that are completely normalized today), they did not know of homosexuals who could flourish in meaningful relationships with one another. This is not to say, as some argue, that the "homosexual" as a constitutive identity was completely unknown until recently. But for the framers of the original Constitution or the 14th Amendment to know of homosexuality in a way *remotely* close to the way we understand it today, they would have to go back into the writings of antiquity to, for instance, Plato's Symposium and the metaphor contained therein for eros and sexual orientation which seemed to put homosexual love on an equal footing with heterosexual love. There is no evidence as far as I know of any framer reflecting on those provisions of Plato's work.

Yes, that does change the meaning from what I had originally thought. I now understand your intent.

That is the big question isn't it ? Whether marriage should be defined as the uniting of two people having distinct and separate genders ? Or should it be defined as the uniting of two distinct people into one relationship regardless of gender ?

One of the big kahuna of questions - at least in my view.

Pure sophistry, Jon, pure sophistry. If we're not bound to respect what the text actually says, and we're not bound to respect the historical meaning of the text, then the Constitution is, literally, meaningless. Given the following two propositions:

1) The framers did not intend to recognize a right to SSM in the Constitution.

and

2) The people of the United States have not ever voted for, and do not now want, SSM.

How can you possibly argue that it is justified, as a matter of constitutional law, for a judge to declare that all of a sudden, in 2005, the state must recognize same-sex marriages? I'm not talking about arguing that as a matter of justice, we should recognize SSM, I'm talking about as a matter of constitutional jurisprudence. There is simply no intellectually honest way to argue this - all you are left with is the claim that judges are entitled to read their own preferences into the constitution. Which, as has been pointed out numerous times, is simply a soft form of tyranny. (Which is not so soft in cases like abortion or Terri Schiavo.)

The big kahuna of questions: "Or should it be defined as the uniting of two distinct people into one relationship regardless of gender?"

At times like this i always point out that two halves do not neccesarily create a whole. It takes two opposite halves do that.

There is also the well-worn cliche that "the sum is greater than its parts" -- which is perfectly consistent with the innate procreativity of a man+woman union, and perfectly irrelevant to any same-sex union.

Note that neither of these holistic concepts take "orientation" (of any sort) into the least account.

Mike S. wrote: "How can you possibly argue that it is justified, as a matter of constitutional law, for a judge to declare that all of a sudden, in 2005, the state must recognize same-sex marriages? I'm not talking about arguing that as a matter of justice, we should recognize SSM, I'm talking about as a matter of constitutional jurisprudence."

I needed to say this based on our past experience. I agree, Mike. Well almost. I agree that there is not *clear and obvious* constitutional jurisprudence (such as sex discrimnation) that says SSM should be enacted. But, as I've said before, I think there is more weight behind the argument that SSM is a denial of a right based on equal protection than there is behind the decision that eliminates the death penalty option for people under 18. More, not enough in my view. The debate for me is about the justice ad to refute some of the arguments made - well, on both sides. Playing both sides can be fun.

Marty: I understand your point. All I am saying is maybe the definition of 'opposites', in terms of relationships, may not be limited to gender alone.

Also, I do not buy into the procreative argument. Simply put, procreation is an potential outcome of marriage. I do not see where the ability to procreate currently is or should be a factor in determining what a legal marriage.

Why does this sort of construction keep popping up?

Simply put, procreation is an potential outcome of marriage.

No. Procreation is not "a potential outcome of marriage." Procreation is a potential outcome of sex between two people of opposite sex. Sperm and egg do not halt in their functions because the people of whom they are parts are not married. That is why it is important to maintain the link between procreation and marriage.

By the way, Barbara Boxer recently articulated the Left's disdain for the US Constitution when it doesn't suit their purposes:

Why would we give lifetime appointments to people who earn up to $200,000 a year, with absolutely a great retirement system, and all the things all Americans wish for, with absolutely no check and balance except that one confirmation vote? So we're saying we think you ought to get nine votes over the 51 required. That isn't too much to ask for such a superimportant position. There ought to be a super vote. Don't you think so? It's the only check and balance on these people. They're in for life. They don't stand for election like we do, which is scary.

See? It doesn't matter that the Constitution says a majority vote is required to confirm judges - she thinks it should be 60 votes, so she's going to go with that number (does anybody doubt the number would be different if the number of votes required to overcome a filibuster were different, as it used to be?). Nobody believes there is any kind of principle behind this argument - it's pure political calculation.

Mark: Marty: I understand your point. All I am saying is maybe the definition of 'opposites', in terms of relationships, may not be limited to gender alone.

True enough, of course -- gender(sexual) oppositeness is the bare minimum for a valid marriage. It is procreative in the barest of abstracts. Sometimes in these arguments you get the feeling that SSM supporters would be happier if we actually barred infertile couples from marrying, or old people beyond their reproductive years. But we don't do that -- why? Not because they cannot procreate -- but because of Freedom and Equality! Yes, marriage is about procreation. Yes, we live in a free country where all people are created equally. So while we legally (well, constitutionally) could bar non-procreators from marriage, we don't. All you have to do is meet be barest of abstract requirements, and you're in. Simple as that.

Yet even that is too high a standard for people who harbor resentment over their substandard sexuality, and would have us lower the standard of marriage (which they could easily meet, if they only chose to) to a point where it is completely meaningless.

We're argueing several related yet separate issues here:

1) Would legal SSM be beneficial to our society, detrimental to our society, or neither benefical nor dtrimental?

2) Is the interpretation of the Constitution that prohibits banning same sex marriages a valid interpetration?

While you know where I stand on the first question, I'm not so sure on the second. The US Constitution doesn't explicitly define the prerequisites marriage, so it would seem to be a issue states can decide for themselves. Enter "equal protection under the laws." Gays and lesbians are not permitted to marry the people they have comitted relationships with, so they don't feel "equally protected." But on the other hand, gays and lesbians are free under the law to marry persons of the opposite sex, so in this sense they do have equal protection.

But SSM marriage is clearly something many people would not accept. I'm not even sure if it would pass a general vote in Massechusettes.

So again, how about creating a legal status two people of any gender called "partnership," that will offer equal protection under the laws. Then to respect the majority of people in many places, reserve the term "marriage" for those who at least might have their own children?

Dancar,

So again, how about creating a legal status two people of any gender called "partnership," that will offer equal protection under the laws. Then to respect the majority of people in many places, reserve the term "marriage" for those who at least might have their own children?

Various members of the anti-SSM camp here have voiced various degrees of support for various type of civil unions arrangements. You can find some of those positions and arguments if you search the archives. My general position is that if you make civil unions in order to mimic marriage, you have to make the available to bothh gays and straights (or, practically, that is what will happen), which will have the effect of weakening marriage. However, I'm OK with passing various measures to accommodate homosexual couples piecemeal. But I would rather those laws include various other relationships as well, such as a daughter and elderly mother living together. Also, in many cases, like I said, gay partners can gain all or most of the legal benefits of marriage now - it just requires work on their part and is not considered automatic as it usually is with married couples.

Like I said, most of those advocating for SSM aren't really that interested in these benefits per se - what they really want is the societal recognition and affirmation of their relationships. So generally speaking your solution is a nonstarter for both sides: if it's too close too marriage, conservatives won't support it, and if it's not close enough to marriage, liberals won't support it.

Justin says: “No. Procreation is not "a potential outcome of marriage." Procreation is a potential outcome of sex between two people of opposite sex. Sperm and egg do not halt in their functions because the people of whom they are parts are not married. That is why it is important to maintain the link between procreation and marriage.”
------- I should have prefaced my statement with “As far as the link between marriage and procreation is concerned ….” I am aware that procreation can occur outside of marriage and marriage can occur and exist without procreation. But I think that the primary link that our culture should support is the link between parents and their children - regardless of whether the link is biological or not.

Marty says: “Sometimes in these arguments you get the feeling that SSM supporters would be happier if we actually barred infertile couples from marrying, or old people beyond their reproductive years.”
------ Not happier or even in agreement. But at least I would see the procreative argument as consistent. But in your case, you’re not really making the procreative argument, you’re making the ‘opposite sex’ argument.

Marty says: “Yet even that is too high a standard for people who harbor resentment over their substandard sexuality, and would have us lower the standard of marriage (which they could easily meet, if they only chose to) to a point where it is completely meaningless.”
----- Based on our significantly different views of homosexuality, there seems to be no value in even attempting to bridge this gap. (and I‘m showing a lot of restraint and nuance here) Yet I believe that legally acknowledging same-sex relationships results in a higher standard, not a lower one.

The issue is one of policymaking, not constitutional revision. The SSM side are "johnny-come-latelies" who have barged into the long-struggle to strengthen marriage. The concept of SSM is made more plausible, in propagandic terms, with the negative direction of trends in family formation/dissolution. If the trends were going in the other direction, SSM would not be imaginable. Also, as society has increasingly demonstrated acceptance (if not approval) of homosexuality, these various legislative measures have been used to drive a legalistic wedge between marriage and procreation.

This makes it hard to understand how enactment of SSM can be motivated by a desire to join marriage as collaborators in strengthening the social institution. The basic argument seems to be that marriage is a shell of its former self so let's make it official, enshrine that tidbit in the Constitution through a misapplicaton of the equality doctrine, and count a victory, not for marriage, but for the affirmation of homosexuality.

>> [As far as the link between marriage and procreation is concerned], procreation is a potential outcome of marriage. I do not see where the ability to procreate is currently is or should be a factor in determining what [is] a legal marriage.

In simplistic market terms, there is the consumer of a product and there is the producer of that product. And there is the prosumer who both produces and consumes the product. The concept of an economic transaction is not my meaning here; the complementary aspect is.

Men and women are procreators. One does not produce sperm and the other consumes it; one does not produce eggs and the other consumes it. Apart, they cannot create life. Apart, they cannot sustain their society. Together they pro-create. And as a society, what men and women pro-create all of us both provide for and benefit from. We are bond to each other through this pro-creation.

And not just men with women. The mysteries of giving life, in creating one flesh, make of men and women pro-creators in cahoots with something beyond themselves. Men and women play the mortal part in creation. They - or rather We -- do this in our daily effort and in that effort we grow from a speck, to infancy, maturation, and we diminish until we are taken away. What we leave behind, or rather who we leave behind, are us but not us, a part of us but also apart from us.

In this way our human physiology reveals the arbitrary duality of mankind and womankind. Together we procreate humankind. This is not a social construct. The social construct is marriage itself. Marriage is our cultural adaptation to the abritrary means by which one generation preceded another and another follows. This is humankind's pro-creative model.

Societal supports for marriage might vary across time, geography, and cultures. However, the man-woman combination is as universal as its core purpose. The pro-creative bias is not an anti-homosexual bias. Marriage is society's contingency for offspring -- born planned or unexpectedly.

None of us are conceived as orphans, but each of us might have become orphans. Adoption, like marriage, is a cultural adaptation and it imitates procreation. As a couple might bear their own child, they might raise an orphaned child. As a widow might raise her fatherless child, a single woman might raise a parentless child. As with a widower and his motherless child, a single man and a parentless child. But as with widowhood, adoption is open to the marriage of single men and women who have adopted. And although that might be unrealized, adoption would not bar an unwed individual no more than it would remove a widowed parent from his or her child.

And yet as a society we comprehend that adoption is for the sake of the child, not the exercise of an adult's right to raise a child. We have a societal expectation that a parent is "owned" by his or her offspring, not the other way around. Marriage is the expression of that expectation: men and women are bonded together with their children for the sake of the children.

Parental status does not bestow marital status. Marital status includes the right of a husband and wife to procreate within their marriage. This outcome is not assured at the outset, and may not be realized in each and every instance, but marriage presumes the mating of man with woman (i.e. the procreative act of sexual intercourse) and provides a home for children not presumed to be orphans at conception.

>> [T]he primary link that our culture should support is the link between parents and their children - regardless of whether the link is biological or not.

Almost all adults marry and almost all marriages have children. There are negative trends in extramarital sexual relations, unwed cohabitation, nonmarital childbearing, and divorce; these have eroded our marriage culture first in the very idea of marriage and second in the practice of that idea. So today instead of upwards of 98% of us marrying, something like 90% will, and if census forecasts are correct, people in their twenties today will marry to the tune of about 80% in their lifetimes. But there are some signs that these negative trends have at least stalled and may yet be reversed.

Marriage is our procreative model. The man-woman criterion of marriage perfectly expresses this as objective truth. The parental link is the biological link; but it is also the cultural link as acknowledged in the marriage idea. It is not enough to bond child to mother, or child to father, or father to mother. The familial bond that arises from the procreative model (even if through adoption's imitation of procreation) is what gives weight to the state's civil marriage law.

It is not the state that creates marriage. The state creates the civil laws that acknowledge and support marriage. Without legal incidents and benefits, marriage would persist in society. But given the negative trends, the least that a self-governed society can expect of the state is that the state do no further harm to this social institution.

Earlier someone mentioned alternatives to marriage. I agree that there may be justification for some form of bundled legal incidents and benefits for domestic arrangements that include nonmarriagable combiantions. These arrangements need not presume sexual relations but would be based on specific caregiving relationships -- with emphasis on the parental responsibility toward children in the household.

This turn of the discussion would take us farther from the kerfuffle over newly asserted rights to a newly espoused unisexed model of domesticity, and take us back to the legislative arena where elected representatives enter the public square to discuss policymaking.

That's where minority rights and majority rule are properly accomodated on matters of social reform. But SSM advocates are true believers in making social reform through legal bluster. And certain Courts are prone to march at the head of that parade.

Mark Miller, showing restraint: Yet I believe that legally acknowledging same-sex relationships results in a higher standard, not a lower one.

A New Standard is not a result of same-sex marriage -- it is what will allow it, or not, to happen. Allowing any two persons of any sex to marry is a lowering of the existing standard -- one that is already plenty low (just about everyone agree's it is too low). So how can you claim that removing the opposite sex rule actually raises the standard by which people are judged fit for marriage?

And please, don't restrain yourself on my account :)

"and almost all marriages have children"; that's way too broad of a statement. Given the significant numbers of divorces and remarriages into older age, there is a much more than nominal number of "marriages" with no children, like Mr. and Mrs. John Kerry, Mr. & Mrs. Bob Dole., etc.

Plus what are we going to do, perhaps not too far into the future, when science makes it possible for 2-men or 2-women to procreate with one another? Is that the time to allow gay marriages?

Thank you for this, Jon:

Plus what are we going to do, perhaps not too far into the future, when science makes it possible for 2-men or 2-women to procreate with one another? Is that the time to allow gay marriages?

It really serves to highlight the degree to which various issues on the table (or soon to be there) line up along two incompatible worldviews; try as they might, people cannot pick and choose among the various facets.

Just as those who supported a right to contraception within marriage were largely unaware that they were laying the groundwork for the normalization of homosexuality and the redefinition of marriage, not many among those who support same-sex marriage are aware that they are laying the groundwork for cloning and the further commodification of life.

Not surprisingly, the redefinition of marriage is related to the redefinition of humanity. The laws of nature must be rewritten so that no human being need deny, or even keep in social perspective, his desire.

Chairm wrote: "The basic argument seems to be that marriage is a shell of its former self so let's make it official, enshrine that tidbit in the Constitution through a misapplicaton of the equality doctrine, and count a victory, not for marriage, but for the affirmation of homosexuality."
---- I don't buy the 'marriage is a shell of its former self" part but I'll admit the intent is more about the normalization and acceptance of homosexuality (as opposed to "affirmation of").

The pro-creative bias is not an anti-homosexual bias.
------ I agree with this.

Marriage is society's contingency for offspring -- born planned or unexpectedly.
------ I agree that this is ONE of the functions of marriage. But not the only one, not even the primary one, and not one where the lack of should deny marriage. This is where we differ.

Parental status does not bestow marital status.
------ This is a good point. Currently, two people can be legal parents but not be allowed to have any legal recognition of their relationship. I guess I feel that parental status should afford the legal opportunity to obtain marital status.

Almost all adults marry and almost all marriages have children ...so today instead of upwards of 98% of us marrying, something like 90% will, and if census forecasts are correct, people in their twenties today will marry to the tune of about 80% in their lifetimes.
------ What is your point here ? That since a majority of people marry and a majority of those procreate that this justifies denying marriage based on inability to procreate ? Not a good point.

Earlier someone mentioned alternatives to marriage. I agree that there may be justification for some form of bundled legal incidents and benefits for domestic arrangements that include nonmarriagable combinations. These arrangements need not presume sexual relations but would be based on specific caregiving relationships -- with emphasis on the parental responsibility toward children in the household.
----- Ironically I don't agree with these as in my view, this would result in the watering down of marriage more than including same-sex partners. To me, it is not you who are defending 'marriage' - because given the choice of ending marriage for all or including same-sex partners to the fold, you would rather end it. To me, that says that your view is more anti-gay, than pro-marriage. But I bet I know your response .. that it is impossible to be both accepting of gay relationship and pro-family/marriage.

Marty: Currently, there is no standard or criteria for being "fit" for marriage. As has been noted, even homosexuals can marry - as long as they marry someone of the opposite sex. So to me, allowing SSM would neither raise nor lower the standard. My point was that legally acknowledging same-sex relationships is a positive step - but I see where I made it very clumsily. As far as restraint, I'm married with children - restraint is a big part of life. :)

"Not surprisingly, the redefinition of marriage is related to the redefinition of humanity. The laws of nature must be rewritten so that no human being need deny, or even keep in social perspective, his desire."

Personally, I think one of the great inventions of Western society is the science that allows us to transcend nature. Up until recently virtually every couple knew what it was like to lose a child shortly after childbirth; now that's the exception, not the rule.

Isn't getting a bug, a germ and dying part of the natural process?

From talking to many women, childbirth itself is not too fun an experience; but it's simply part of reality. So if you want kids, you deal with it.

I look forward to the day when babies are born in artificial wombs because that's going to save the women of this world so much pain.

Chairm: Marriage is society's contingency for offspring -- born planned or unexpectedly.
Mark: I agree that this is ONE of the functions of marriage. But not the only one, not even the primary one, and not one where the lack of should deny marriage. This is where we differ.

We all agree that "stability" is also a social good that is encouraged by marriage, but have you ever asked yourself why? It's not because two adults need help surviving, it's because they're so darned likely to have kids! The kids demand and deserve a stable home. But during the past few decades, we've certainly seen that "stability" is relative, even when there are kids involved! If the government is involved in promoting family stability, it's because of the weakest members of the family. You can't say that procreative aspect of marriage is not primary, while simultaneously holding up kids of gay couples as a reason to demand access.

The very idea of SSM neuters marriage of its primary aspect, family. And as we've already witnessed in this thread, SSM could very easily pave the way to a "right" to the frankensteinish same-sex reproductive technology that is coming our way.

Meet Kaguya

Currently, there is no standard or criteria for being "fit" for marriage.

Sure there is. Actually there are 4, give or take an arguable point:

1. The partners must be of age. (state laws vary)
2. The partners must be mostly unrelated (state laws vary)
3. Neither partner may be already married. (state laws are unanimous)
4. The partners must be opposite sexes (state laws are unanimous, aside from judicial activism)

Remove any one, and the bar is lowered. Add another, the bar is raised. And i see no reason why number 4 is not subject to state regulation, any more or less than the other 3. There is no "civil right" to break the unanimous rules of marriage and procreation -- but we can create one if we want to. But that's We -- The People. Not Your Honor.

I look forward to the day when babies are born in artificial wombs because that's going to save the women of this world so much pain.

Please tell me you're joking.

Just as those who supported a right to contraception within marriage were largely unaware that they were laying the groundwork for the normalization of homosexuality and the redefinition of marriage, not many among those who support same-sex marriage are aware that they are laying the groundwork for cloning and the further commodification of life.

Slippery slope, schmippery slope. Not many among those who supported women's sufferage were aware they were laying the groundwork for contraception during marriage. And many among those who suppored emmancipation were aware they were laying the groundwork for women's suffrage which laid the groundwork for contraception which laid the groundwork for queer's wanting legal recognition of their relationships and some human dignity. So maybe we should just go back. Hell, let's go back to the monarchy because the Revolution laid the groundwork for all of this.

Each issue must be delt with on its own, Justin.

“We all agree that "stability" is also a social good that is encouraged by marriage, but have you ever asked yourself why? It's not because two adults need help surviving, it's because they're so darned likely to have kids!”
------- I don’t agree with your reasoning as to why "stability" is a social good. It is very much related to the stability and mutual caring aspect regardless of whether children are involved. If your way were true, “marriage” would have no value until children become involved.

“If the government is involved in promoting family stability, it's because of the weakest members of the family.”
------- I’m not really sure what you mean here. Is it that the government should promote family stability because of the children ? I agree. But why can’t that apply to families with same-sex parents ?

You can't say that procreative aspect of marriage is not primary, while simultaneously holding up kids of gay couples as a reason to demand access.”
------- Why can’t I say that ? I must be missing something.

The very idea of SSM neuters marriage of its primary aspect, family
------- Again, I don’t see how that works. But I happen to feel that ‘family ‘ can, does and should include same-sex couples - whereas you feel otherwise.

Sure there is. Actually there are 4, give or take an arguable point:
Age, unrelated, not already married and opposite sex.
Remove any one, and the bar is lowered. Add another, the bar is raised.
------ Ok, there is criteria but I was thinking more along the lines of “fit” defined by financially or emotionally, etc - but your point is taken as far as existing criteria. So would you support adding any criteria - thereby ‘raising’ the bar ? Same race was a criteria at one time. Did eliminating that “lower” the standards ? Would adding ANY criteria result in strengthening marriage in your view ?

“And i see no reason why number 4 is not subject to state regulation, any more or less than the other 3.”
------- I agree that #4 may be subject to state regulation and as far as I know, it still is, as shown by the states have the amendments banning legal recognition of same-sex couples and those like MA or VT.

Also, regarding Michael's last comment to Justin:
---- Well said. My sentiments exactly.

Oh and regarding Marty's comment to Jon about babies being born in artifical wombs:
---- I concur with you. I actually hope he's joking too.

I look forward to the day when babies are born in artificial wombs because that's going to save the women of this world so much pain.

Save them pain, but cost them what?

Jon said,

""and almost all marriages have children"; that's way too broad of a statement. Given the significant numbers of divorces and remarriages into older age, there is a much more than nominal number of "marriages" with no children, like Mr. and Mrs. John Kerry, Mr. & Mrs. Bob Dole., etc."

What are you saying, that it's a good idea for marriage to be totally unrelated to procreation and child rearing? That that is already the case? Where will the next generation come from, and who will raise it if not their parents?

"Personally, I think one of the great inventions of Western society is the science that allows us to transcend nature. "

But we don't "transcend" it, we manipulate or control it. Sometimes this is a good thing (antibiotics), and sometimes it isn't (using pesticides to kill Jews efficiently). Almost every technological advance has good and bad consequences. Sometimes these are obvious, and sometimes not. This is also not new - humans have always done this - what has changed is the power and efficiency with which we can manipulate nature. Which carries with it a correspondingly important responsibility to make prudent choices about which technologies to pursue, and how to use them once we have them (see, nuclear weapons). Your flippant attitude that effectively says, "hey, if we can do it, let's try it!" is the height of irresponsibility.

Michael,

"Not many among those who supported women's sufferage were aware they were laying the groundwork for contraception during marriage."

Are these things really that strongly linked to each other? Certainly there is no logical connection between the right to vote and the "right" to use contraception. The liberalization of contraception and abortion laws is frequently portrayed as part of the "emancipation" of women, but I think that both of those movements were driven just as much by men interested in increased sexual freedom as by women. Also, even if they had, in fact, been driven by women's rights, it's a seriously open question whether such changes actually have made women better off.

Each issue must be delt with on its own, Justin.

You might have a point were you working through legislative means. If you're working through the judiciary to demarcate Constitutional rights — i.e., the people don't have a say — then you don't have the liberty to deal with each issue on its own. Judges look backwards to precedent, so even if you believe that they ought to be empowered to adjudicate social norms, you'd do well to require them to consider what precedent they are setting with current rulings.

Especially if we're discussing such things as "rational basis." What you're suggesting is that we must judge a rational basis while ignoring broad swaths of possible consequences that help to make a particular policy rational.

If you are interested I wrote a post defending artificial wombs in more detail here.

Mark: So would you support adding any criteria - thereby ‘raising’ the bar ?

Absolutely. First, i'd start taking adults at their word when they pledge "Til Death Do Us Part" in front of God and/or a Judge. As lightly as such committments are being taken today, they are all but meaningless, legally.

Second, one of the ways i'd enforce that, is setting a limit on marriage, ie: If you've married and divorced more than once (broken the vow above twice), you would be ineligible for yet another marriage. And i'm being very generous here, by granting two strikes, instead of expecting you to mean it when you pledge forever.

Jon Rowe, who doesn't have comments on his blog, but beleives children should be incubated inside machines, said: And no one should force those parents who want to do it the "natural" way to use artificial wombs. Although one day, natural childbirth might be regarded as a much riskier thing to do. Women are still dying from complications in childbirth you know.

Since you are far-sighted enough to see that someday artificial incubation may become far safer than natural pregnancy, how then would you propose that "We the People" could stop a future government from mandating that all pregancys be incubated this way? Especially considering that "We the People" don't seem to be entitled to a voice in such matters, even today?

What could stop such a tyrannical government from seizing total control of procreation, by such a simple (and it's for the kids!) mandate?

Yes, i know we're delving into science fiction here, but you're old enough to know: todays sci-fi is tommorows "Ask the Ethicist" column...

To tell you the truth Marty, if government works the same way at that time period as it does now, the liberty to partake in natural child-birth is far liklier to be restricted by a democratically enacted statute expressing the "will of the people" (yeah -- how many of those thousands of pages in the federal register really represent the will of the people) and far liklier to be protected by a court striking down the statute under the theory of "substantive due process."

Utter speculation on both our parts Jon, and a conversation i'd love to have -- but probably not here. This gets into God, Huxley, and could even relieve what i see as a bias against men who currently have NO reproductive rights -- simply because they have no womb.

But i'm not an athiest, so i do have ethical issues with playing god. And I get that others don't have this dilemma, and are perfectly fine pretending to be god.

Dancar wrote (a ways up now):

"The large majority of people are hetersexual, therefore, if SSM is legalized, the large majority of married couples will be heterosexual. Most, if not all, of the married couples you personally know would be heterosexual. So I don't know why the public perception of marriage as being between a man and a woman - at least most of the time - would change."

Here we have it again---the neat grouping of the population into two well defined, distinct camps of 100% heterosexuals and 100% homosexuals, which everyone knows is not based on reality.

Don't deal with the thorny issue of bisexuality, with what percentage of the population is potentially bisexual, with whether or not SSM will cause a higher percentage of this group to become actively bisexual, and whether or not this will cause a change in the public perception of marriage as we see more and more cases of people marrying first one gender and then the other, slowly but surely creating an image of interchangeability. Sure, there will probably always remain a core of die-hard heterosexuals, but this group will become less and less determinative of the public perception, which is shaped more by Hollywood than by small-town rednecks.

I will predict that if SSM is legalized, within fifteen years we will see a massive increase in bisexuality, particularly among the young. And this will change perceptions a lot.

But my question to SSM supporters was not whether they think the public perception of marriage will change, but whether they think it should change. Or, more specifically, whether or not they would be satisfied if somehow SSM could be legalized and the perception of marriage remained as it is. For instance, do they approve of Massachusetts eliminating the terms "husband" and "wife" and replacing them with "Party A" and "Party B" (or other neutral terms)? Do they think Ontario was right to eliminate all references to gender in everything relating to marriage?

Mark Miller: "If SSM were enacted, then it would be legal for couples to marry regardless of gender. Just like it is legal for a 15 yr old to marry an 85 yr old – despite the public perception of marriage. Just like it is legal for an interracial couple to marry – despite the public perception of marriage."

Please note, Mark, that none of the examples you cite as somehow parallel to the change that SSM entails ever required changes like the ones Massachusetts and Ontario think are necessary.

If Mark's examples did not alter the public perception of marriage, there's a reason---they were never a part of it in any major way.

You could have asked a child or adult from 1990, 1950, 1900, 1850, or 1850 B.C. for that matter what marriage was in simple terms. Do you think their first response would have been "It's when two people of the same race get together" or "It's when two people of the same age get together"? When they have existed, those have been nothing but added on qualifiers. By contrast, the idea that marriage is between men and women has been central to the public perception of marriage in every culture we know of. But it is for this very reason that changing this central definition will alter the public perception of what marriage mneans far more than ending anti-miscegenation laws or age limits ever did.

RK:

The questions you posed way up there are good ones, and should be answered honestly by both sides. I’ll respond to your concern.

What we have seen in the different societies that have become more accepting of gay people, is a decrease in male-male sex between or among those who are not strictly gay. I brought this up here before, and even Justin, after instinctively reacting negatively to this idea, finally conceded that it might very well be true. There is no reason to think that gay marriage will somehow reverse the trend. Heterosexuals live to be admired by other heterosexuals. In the past, when it was all done in secret, heterosexuals or bisexuals could practice homosexuality, and still not “compromise” their heterosexuality. Today, and after gay marriage, engaging in homosexuality does very much compromise their heterosexuality, and so they stay away from it. What gay marriage will do is further cement heterosexuals’ and bisexuals’ heterosexuality. That’s why it doesn’t have to be “proven,” as Marty suggested, that a man marrying another man must be biologically homosexual.

In response to Mike S.’s concern, which he’s raised an “umpteenth time,” the more radical homosexuals who wish to deconstruct marriage generally oppose gay marriage, not support it. From what I’ve seen there has been a small increase of these radicals to support gay marriage. I believe that it’s because they have been swallowing the nonsense that opponents of gay marriage have been preaching. But it’s nonsense.

As for opponents of gay marriage, many will not support it even if somehow it was proven that the general perception of marriage will not be altered. As long as they believe that homosexuality is a “disorder” and that homosexuals should be shamed into heterosexuality, not only will they continue to oppose gay marriage, but the will try to reverse all the progress made so far.

Mike S:

I’m not ignoring the question you asked me. But you must realize that it’s not an easy one to answer. After 2000 years, your side hasn’t exactly come to an agreement on what “dignifies” the heterosexual.

What we have seen in the different societies that have become more accepting of gay people, is a decrease in male-male sex between or among those who are not strictly gay. I brought this up here before, and even Justin, after instinctively reacting negatively to this idea, finally conceded that it might very well be true. There is no reason to think that gay marriage will somehow reverse the trend.

You're misrepresenting what I said. My final comment in that thread explicitly refuted your "no reason to think" claim:

I'd argue, Jon, that what we're seeing is the overlap of new tolerance with a lingering stigma. That will change with such leaps of normalization as that of marriage. For one thing, one can already observe the mainstreaming of female-female experimentation. The different cultural mandates for men, however, can be worn away over time, particularly as homosexual relationships are presenting as equally (with no allowable lines of distinction whatsoever) deserving of encouragement in a civic sense.

I'd direct readers' attention to something that Jon Rowe wrote, agreeing with Arturo:

As homosexuality has come more out in the open, and has become an identity, in this culture, any type of sexual activity between two members of the same-sex raises the inference of a homosexual or bisexual identity.

Again, if what Arturo observes is true, then it would seem to be a quirk of the current status of homosexuality in our culture — somewhere between a legitimate freedom and a normalized lifestyle. The point — or a point — of SSM is to completely normalize homosexuality, and it would seem likely that risked association with a particular "identity" would lose its social force if all identities were to become equivalent.

"After 2000 years, your side hasn’t exactly come to an agreement on what “dignifies” the heterosexual."

I'm not sure what you mean by "your side", although the 2000 years reference implies that your talking about Christians. If you know anything at all about Christian theology, we claim that human beings are made in God's image, whence derives their inherent dignity. And we claim that marriage has inherent dignity as an institution ordained by God. There's more to it than that, obviously, but the point is that, from a Christian perspective, one's dignity has nothing to do with one's sexual orientation.

Marty: My point was whether the addition of “any” criteria to marriage would be, in your view’, raising the bar. (such as racial or economic criteria) But you didn’t respond to that part.

Would you support the legal denial of divorce for any reason ? Would you also make sure that the government verified that married people lived together forever - regardless of circumstance ? I actually think the “til death do us part” should be removed from vows unless the couple wishes to keep them in and then be held to it. Thereby, making that inclusion an optional yet meaningful part of the marriage contract.

As to your limit idea, I’d be against that at the state level. If specific churches or clergy wish to institute that rule before they blessed a wedding, that is fine. But to me, individual freedom and liberty ensures that the state cannot deny marriage based on being previously divorced. Would you feel the same way if a woman had been divorced twice but then became a born-again Christian and found a man she wanted to marry ?

R.K.: I never said that SSM would not be a significant change in current law and the traditional definition of marriage. I have acknowledged this before. Allowing SSM would result in changing the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples. I have also acknowledged that this change is more significant than the age or race barriers because of that very reason - it does effectively change the current definition. And yes, by changing the definition, the public perception would change in that marriage would no longer be limited to opposite sex couples.

But where we differ is that I feel that the primary concepts of marriage (civil) can still remain after including same-sex couples. Therefore, I obvioulsy don’t feel that ability to procreate is one of those primary concepts.

So I do not agree with those that say allowing SSM is a no more significant change than allowing interracial couples to marry or say, changing the age of consent from 18 to 19 or something like that. It is a much more significant change to how marriage is presently defined. But that significance does not necessarily mean that the change has no merit.

Mark: My point was whether the addition of "any" criteria to marriage would be, in your view’, raising the bar. (such as racial or economic criteria) But you didn’t respond to that part.

Sure i did. I said that previous failures to uphold your vows would make you ineligible to be taken seriously, when making them yet again. Call it a 3-strikes rule.

Would you support the legal denial of divorce for any reason?

Confusing question. But I would support divorce on precious few occasions: Fraud, adultery, and if one party were imprisoned for a very long period. Otherwise, i expect adults to be held at their word.

Would you also make sure that the government verified that married people lived together forever - regardless of circumstance?

Co-habitation is not a requirement of a valid marriage. It never has been. (although it is used sometimes as circumstantial proof that a marriage is not entirely fraudulent. We need not confuse that point.)

I actually think the "til death do us part" should be removed from vows...

And i'm sure you would maintain that this wouldn't "lower the bar" either, right?

...unless the couple wishes to keep them in and then be held to it. Thereby, making that inclusion an optional yet meaningful part of the marriage contract.

"meaningful", as opposed to legally binding? How do you propose we should enforce this part of the contract?

My opinion is that this clause is already included in every marriage contract, but is never enforced to the least degree. Thereby making it meaningless. How then would your "optional" version, be meaningful, if not for some way of expecting adults to be held to their gravest of vows?

Arturo said:

"the more radical homosexuals who wish to deconstruct marriage generally oppose gay marriage, not support it. From what I’ve seen there has been a small increase of these radicals to support gay marriage. I believe that it’s because they have been swallowing the nonsense that opponents of gay marriage have been preaching. But it’s nonsense."

You've rather obviously done very little research into the historical aspect of the sexual liberation movement. You appear to be blinded by your own desire. And to top it off, you have ultimately been seduced into this belief of yours by none other than members of the opposite sex that would not just deconstruct marriage but make it illegal. Not only does this effort to legalize SSM have the backing of Feministas, but of Marxists world-wide whose stated goal is also the abolition of marriage.

The question has been asked before, but precious few of you proponents can answer it with any sort of believable response. If the majority of your backers, your support group, view SSM as the next step toward complete abolition of marriage, what gives your belief that it will not be the next step any validity?

In other words, an overwhelming majority of people (both for and against SSM) believe that this quest for SSM is going to lead to abolition of marriage. So which of us are being the gullible ones here?

I'd be interested in hearing a few SSM advocates respond to smmtheory's last paragraph, above.

--

>> John Row: Given the significant numbers of divorces and remarriages into older age, there is a much more nominal number of "marriages" with no children....

Yes, I mentioned earlier that these negative trends need not continue unabated. Yet, most women who remarry will have at least another child with her new husband. This is significantly linked to the emerging trend of older women, in their late thirties and forties, accessing medically assisted methods to improve the chances of bearing a child. Of course, a large share of these births are to cohabating couples and this adds to the numbers of nonmarital births. These trends also converge with official and unofficial adoptions that occur within blended families.

We can slice it this way and that but society needs a viable procreative model. If not marriage, then, what better model would take its place?

--

>> Mark Miller: [Contingency for offspring is] not the only [function of marriage], not even the primary one, and not one where the lack of should deny marriage. This is where we differ.

We may be talking past each other on this. To clarify: I am speaking, firstly, of the core of marriage itself (as THE procreative model of our society) and, secondly, of the primary reason that the state acknowledges marriage as a special institution.

>> Mark Miller: [Is your point that] since a majority of people marry and a majority of those procreate that this justifies denying marriage based on inability to procreate?

That was not the point of my comment. The man-woman criterion is no mere invention of social engineers. It is intrinsic to marriage both in concept and in practice. The inability to procreate does not deny marriage to anyone.

But if one would form a same-sexed household, then, one has chosen an alternative to marriage.

My previously remark was based on the observation that despite the weakening of marriage, almost all of us at least attempt to put the marriage idea into practice. [In contrast, only 12% of the adult homosexual population are in same-sex households.) And despite contraception (and abortion), unexpected pregnancies do occur and marriage continues to be the best non-coercive contingency for the offspring of men and women. This just reinforces the central reason that society expects the state to acknowledge social institution of marriage in the first place.

>> Mark Miller: [Alternatives to marriage] would result in the watering down of marriage more than including same-sex partners. To me, it is not you who are defending 'marriage' - because given the choice of ending marriage for all or including same-sex partners the fold, you would rather end it.

Actually, should SSM be enacted, state recognition of marriage would be replaced by the new notion of the SSM template. The Massa Court explicitly did just that, for instance. The alternatives I referred to would be available only to unmarriagable couples with certain caregiving relationships. These arrangements would not be the "civil union" of Vermont but made distinguishable from marriage in civil law. The unisexed combination would be one of several that could be eligible but there would be no presumption of sexual relations. On the other hand, if a man-woman couple wanted to form a state recognized domestic household, they'd have marriage or nothing.

>> Mark Miller: If your way were true, "marriage" would have no value until children become involved.

Bingo. The social institution of marriage is of value because it is our society's model for procreating. Children *are* involved. But I'm guessing that you'd focus on the particulars of this or that marriage rather than the institution and the purpose of state recognition of it.

With enactment of SSM, state reocognition of the marriage idea will be denied to all of society. We won't marry, we'll SSM. The *substitute* will be a weak version of unwed cohabitation.

SSM can only indirectly lend state support for marriage itself. Buddy unions will appropriate the legal incidents and benefits of marriage; SSM will empty itself of utility in social policymaking. The afterlife of the social power of marriage will not long sustain the idea of SSM.

It may take a decade or so, but eventually governments will withdraw from the SSM business altogether. In the meantime, the social institutin of marriage will fend for itself despite being undermined by the deconstructionists.

">> Mark Miller: If your way were true, "marriage" would have no value until children become involved."

This seems to be a fundamental sticking point for many supporters of SSM - they think that we can substitute a model of marriage & family that is essentially grounded in the choices of individuals about who they want to live with and care for, rather than in biology. As smmtheory notes, this has some consistency for radical Marxists and feminists, whose explicit goals are the deconstruction of traditional societal structures. Where I have a hard time is with people like Mark, who are ostensibly not interested in breaking down such structures. All the evidence we have says that it simply will not work to base families on the particular desires/choices of the adults involved. Human nature being what it is, too many spouses will not stay together for life, and too many parents will not properly care for their offspring, if their individual desires are the determining factor. I find it somewhat mind-boggling that people like Mark can't see this.

Human nature being what it is, too many spouses will not stay together for life, and too many parents will not properly care for their offspring, if their individual desires are the determining factor.

The inverse will be equally true: too many offspring will not properly care for their elders.

Deconstruction of family results in deconstruction of the virtues of loyalty, and duty, and honor. All to be replaced by "self-actualization" and a nanny-state. No wonder the marxists are interested...

Several SSM opponents seem to argue that the value of a marriage is upheld by how many people you deny marriage to, as if marriage were a market commodity like oil or coffee, with prices that climb in scarcity and drop in abundance.

I always throught the value of a marriage was determined by what the two people bring into the marriage and how they conduct themselves within it. I've never understood how the legal status of Adam and Steve would affect what Brian and Eve bring to each other and their children. Am I wrong?

Dan, is the value of a drivers license determined by the people who fail the test and are denied the license? Of course it is -- otherwise we would have no test, and everyone could drive whenever they want.

Supporters of SSM feel that since no one bothers to check the expiration dates on the license anymore, we might as well give them to anyone who wants to drive, with no test at all.

And if everyone can have a license with no special qualifications, then we don't really even need one at all...

Mike S:

Official Christian doctrine is lovely. But I'm interested in how things play out in the world. For a long long time, lovely words translated into denying women a sense of human dignity--to satisfy the male heterosexual ego.

I always throught the value of a marriage was determined by what the two people bring into the marriage and how they conduct themselves within it. I've never understood how the legal status of Adam and Steve would affect what Brian and Eve bring to each other and their children. Am I wrong?

Yes. Your error is in thinking of marriage as solely a private arrangement between two individuals. It is that, of course, but it's also a public arrangement. As Justin remarked recently, though, apparently many of the arguments revolving around culture are too subtle for some.

+++

Marty, good point about caring for elders. I've seen several analyses that point to the large welfare state in Europe being a factor in people's decisions not to have children. It works on both ends, by having the state provide (or not, if your French and trying to survive a heat wave, but I digress) for the elderly, so people have less incentive to have kids; and by requiring higher taxes, which makes it harder for young people to a) find jobs, and b) start a family.

This is another facet of the biology-marriage connection.

Dan said:

"I always throught the value of a marriage was determined by what the two people bring into the marriage and how they conduct themselves within it."

Of any individual marriage that MIGHT be true. Of the institution of marriage as a whole and the support that a society gives to marriage as a whole, that is patently untrue. Society's interest in marriage is not the individuals, it is the product of marriage, the children. Society operates on the principle of ROI (Return On Investment). There is no inherent ROI in SSM. And to suggest that there is no harm in making an investment in it when there is no inherent ROI just because Society as a whole does not micro-manage the other investments in marriage makes your motives suspect. If you were my investment manager, I'd fire you.

Arturo said:

"For a long long time, lovely words translated into denying women a sense of human dignity--"

So are you suggesting that there is no dignity for women in a heterogamous union? This would accord with the Marxist & Feminista ideologies.

Mark: My point was whether the addition of "any" criteria to marriage would be, in your view’, raising the bar. (such as racial or economic criteria) But you didn’t respond to that part.
Marty: Sure i did. I said that previous failures to uphold your vows would make you ineligible to be taken seriously, when making them yet again. Call it a 3-strikes rule.
----- No, you didn’t. You said which specific criteria should be added. I asked whether you would support making the bar higher in ANY way – not just in some ways.

Marty: But I would support divorce on precious few occasions: Fraud, adultery, and if one party were imprisoned for a very long period. Otherwise, i expect adults to be held at their word.
-------- So if a couple was married using the phrase “Til Death Do Us Part” and one of them committed adultery, to you, that would be grounds for not holding them to their word. Is that correct ? (careful, we may treading on common ground here :)

Marty: Co-habitation is not a requirement of a valid marriage. It never has been.
-------- True. But you have been saying that marriage is about what is best for the children – having a mom and dad, disallow divorce so why not make co-habitation part of that. ? Are you saying that it is important that mom and dad stay marriage but less important that they live together ?

I actually think the "til death do us part" should be removed from vows...
And i'm sure you would maintain that this wouldn't "lower the bar" either, right?
----- It doesn’t affect the bar right now since it isn’t enforced. You said that yourself. I’m just saying that if it is in there, then it needs to be enforced. Right ?

My opinion is that this clause is already included in every marriage contract, but is never enforced to the least degree. Thereby making it meaningless. How then would your "optional" version, be meaningful, if not for some way of expecting adults to be held to their gravest of vows?
------- It wouldn’t. Therefore those that included those vows would be held to them. I guess your point is that the government would then need to keep track of marriages based on whether that phrase was used in their vows. That would be a challenge but anything can be done.

In other words, an overwhelming majority of people (both for and against SSM) believe that this quest for SSM is going to lead to abolition of marriage. So which of us are being the gullible ones here?
-------- First, I don’t believe that the overwhelming majority of people believe that SSM would lead to the abolition of marriage. Yes, there are those on both sides – pro-SSM people who do want to abolish marriage. – and anti-SSM people who feel that allowing it would effectively end the institution of marriage. My belief – and I think I am in the majority of those who advocate legal acknowledgment of same-sex relationships – is that neither will occur. Why is that not option considered ? As far pro-SSM who are Marxists and interested in ending marriage, those people are no more relevant to the debate than saying that anti-SSM people include neo-Nazi groups and Al Queda terrorists. Those that want to use SSM to dismantle marriage are in the wrong. The agenda of one group who supports SSM does not represent the view of the entire movement. I don’t think your side wants to be associated with everyone who supports your view on this issue.

The social institution of marriage is of value because it is our society's model for procreating. Children *are* involved.
-------- Well, after reading your response, there may not be a way for us to even debate this further since I don’t feel that the core of marriage is procreation or that procreation is the primary reason that the state acknowledges marriage as a special institution or that marriage has no cultural value without procreation. That is my view. I guess I don’t have lots of evidence to support it except that I don’t recall any groups objecting to allowing elderly or disabled couples to marry because they can’t procreate. I know, it’s not the specific ability – it is having the ‘equipment’ that matters. Right ?

Smmtheory:

No, I didn't say that.

Are you saying that when the heterosexual male did in fact use the Bible to inhumanely subordinate women...that that was just lovely.

Mike S. All the evidence we have says that it simply will not work to base families on the particular desires/choices of the adults involved.

What do you mean by “not work” ? Because the divorce rate is over half ? Because some parents neglect and/or abandon their children ? We live in a free country. A country where we do have individual choices as to whom we marry, the freedom to end that marriage, whether we have children (in or out of marriage) and how many children we have. We don’t have rules requiring what we do but we (try to) deliver appropriate consequences when people aren’t responsible for the choices THEY have made. Freedom comes with negative consequences. Cultures with less individual freedom do have much lower rates of crime, divorce and abandonment of children is not an issue. If those are the only desired results, then there is a legal path for you to support.

Earlier in this thread there were comments that went something like “I want babies to be born in alternative wombs to eliminate the pain and suffering of women going through childbirth”. Well who does not want to eliminate pain and suffering ? Yet Justin responded “at what cost?”. I feel that logic applies here too. Sure we can legislate that all couples get married, have x kids, stay together forever and make sure that the law prevent our human nature from having a bad family outcome.

Another example is that this country would be much safer if we allowed the police to go into any home whenever they wanted and searched for guns, bombs, drugs, extra-marital sex, anything. But we have chosen not to allow police to do that. Why ? Because of the perceived cost to individual freedom.

As in all (OK, most) debates, there are costs and there are benefits. We now base families based on the particular desires/choices of the adults involved. Yes, there has been a cost in doing that. Are you saying that cost is too high ? Or just that adding same-sex relationships to the mix makes it too high ? Or both ?

No Arturo,
I'm saying cite examples instead of using the same old tired platitudes anti-christians have been using for ages. By far the majority of societies that have ever existed in the world have been patriarchal. It's got nothing to do with the Bible bub. It was going on long before the Bible existed. Women have been given greater dignity and freedom in Christian societies than in any other. If you don't believe it, you could go visit some place where Christianity has had very little influence if you dared.

Ironic that Mark Miller, who supports SSM, would say this:

We live in a free country. A country where we do have individual choices as to whom we marry, the freedom to end that marriage, whether we have children (in or out of marriage) and how many children we have. We don’t have rules requiring what we do but we (try to) deliver appropriate consequences when people aren’t responsible for the choices THEY have made. Freedom comes with negative consequences.

Which would negate any argument that marriage descriminates against gays, that traditional marriage law is somehow oppressive, and that their dignity is in any way impugned. The choice of marriage is equally open to all, yet we keep hearing it is unfair -- because of the CHOICES made by those who no longer qualify.

Same-sex couples have been around for ages. Choosing to become involved in one is an explicit choice to NOT be involved in marriage. But all of a sudden we're being told that these people "aren’t responsible for the choices THEY have made". To which i say: freedom has its consequences. Equality can be a real bitch sometimes...

Marty, my comments were in the context of this response by Mike S.- SSM opponent:

"All the evidence we have says that it simply will not work to base families on the particular desires/choices of the adults involved."

Now re-read my response again.

I happen to agree with you that current marriage law is not sex/gender discrimination and that it not oppressive.

But where we differ is whether marriage law (or legal acknowledgement of social relationships - which is currently defined by 'marriage') should be changed to include same-sex relationships.

Yes, equality can be a real bitch. Even for those who want to deny equality for their own agenda.

But you aren't making sense. Help me reconcile this.

I happen to agree with you that current marriage law is not sex/gender discrimination and that it not oppressive.

So you must agree then that this is not a question of civil-rights or constitutionality, correct?

But then you say:

Yes, equality can be a real bitch. Even for those who want to deny equality for their own agenda.

I thought you just agreed that no one was being denied equality. So what am i missing here?

Fair enough.

I don't feel - or am not yet convinced - that SSM is a constitutional civil rights issue. I don't feel that it sex discrimination because neither sex is being discriminated against (or both are equally). To me, the current definition of marriage includes the 'opposite-sexness'.

But I do support the pursuit of legal recognition of same-sex relationships. I do support the pursuit of normalization and social acceptance of homosexuality.

Most of my debate with you and others revolves around some of the arguments made against those pursuits such as 'children need mothers-fathers, procreative model, etc.

So my comment "Even for those who want to deny equality for their own agenda." did not apply to the civil rights defense of SSM, but to those whose agenda it is to deny equal rights to gay people and their relationships based on their sexual preference.

But I can see where those two comments could have been seen as contradictory.

Mark, could you briefly describe the SSM idea that you espouse?

>> Mark Miller: ... I think I am in the majority of those who advocate legal acknowledgement of same-sex relationships ... Those that want to use SSM to dismantle marriage are in the wrong.

The SSM argument leads to the substitution of marriage, not its expansion. And, sure, the majority in this country are not out to harm homosexual individuals and to police same-sex relationships. In fact, most people would support some state recogniton of such households (but not just the sexually-based domestic partnerships) -- and I think it is evident that most see such households as outside of marriage.

But it looks like when that acknowledgement is on the table, there is outright rejection by MOST advocates of SSM. On civil rights and equality grounds. As I think Mark has said, the impetus is primarily about affirming homosexuality, not strengthening marriage. So that part of the SSM argument boils down to a claim that SSM is mere tinkering with the outer edges of eligibility.

The trouble with that line of reasoning is that it assumes that procreation is a marginal concern; SSM would explicitly push the central aspects of marriage to the margins. That would make the newly enacted idea something quite different from the marriage idea.

Now the SSM idea might indeed be compatable with marriage, but it is not marriage itself.

>> Mark Miller: I don’t recall any groups objecting to allowing elderly or disabled couples to marry because they can’t procreate. I know, it’s not the specific ability – it is having the ‘equipment’ that matters.

But you know that the state would not be empowered to dissolve marriages on 65th birthdays, for example, or when a woman reaches menopause. That would directly contradict the marriage idea. It would also especially burden younger married women -- most with children. Society is trying to encourage marriages to remain intact; state power to unilaterally dissolve marriages based on a biological clock just would not fit within the marriage idea.

Likewise with the notion of making people with physical disabilities ineligible. The state does not dissolve marriages that meet with such misfortune. If it continues to recognize the marriages in that tiny subset of the man-woman combination, it would not make the same conditions the basis for barring particular couples.

But more importantly, it would appear that the SSM argument looks to the disabled and elderly in search of some subset of the marriagable combination that is anologous with the unisexed combination. This is standard SSM argumentation. The state is supposed to embrace the rarest of examples outside of marriage (i.e. the tiny subset of homosexual adults who live in same-sex households -- especially those with chidlren) and the rarest of examples within marriage (the sexually disabled -- not really the elderly). Yet, what disables the entire unisexed combination is not a physical disability or the inability to be fertile with someone.

Yes, it is the sameness that is inherent in the unisexed combination. It is this that makes such an arrangement more like an individual acting alone.

"By far the majority of societies that have ever existed in the world have been patriarchal. It's got nothing to do with the Bible bub."

I'd agree with you here. This is just a part of human nature; men are the stronger more dominant sex. I don't believe in the innerrant Truth of the Bible. I think however, in many ways, it's an at times beautiful, at times harsh and ugly poetic expression of how the authors understand human nature. But human nature is just an "is," not an "ought." Human nature has its good, its bad and its neutral parts (and placing our aspects into each box is what we can spend an eternity arguing over).

But men certainly are by nature not only physically stronger, but also more dominant and assertive. And that's why most societies have tended to be patriarical.

Justin,

If the stigma attached to homosexuality goes away fully, there is no reason to believe that there will be more "real" homosexuals, at least if we are talking about homosexual males who do not have waivering orientations.

There is however, good reason to believe that many heterosexual males will experiment with homosexual sex and have it for release, during certain periods in their life when females aren't available. And I say this because a casual glance at various cultures across time does show that a huge % of the society, much larger than the 2-3% who are constitutively homosexual, have the capacity to enjoy homosexual acts.

But in all of these cultures and subcultures -- Ancient Greece, Prisons, Navy Boats, Latin Cultures, All Boys Schools, and on and on -- the men, in the long run are heterosexual.

That is, only a Kinsey "3" -- someone who is fully attracted to both sexes -- really has a *choice* over the matter of which gender they will decide to purse in the long run.

I think that Kinsey "1s" and "2s" (remember a Kinsey "0" is perfectly heterosexual, a "6", perfectly homosexual) constitute a much larger % of society in potential, if not in practice than most people realize. But a Kinsey 1 or 2 cannot flourish in the long run homosexually. Just as a Kinsey 4 or 5 cannot flourish in the long run heterosexually.

Mark,

As in all (OK, most) debates, there are costs and there are benefits. We now base families based on the particular desires/choices of the adults involved. Yes, there has been a cost in doing that. Are you saying that cost is too high ? Or just that adding same-sex relationships to the mix makes it too high ? Or both ?

Both.

Sure we can legislate that all couples get married, have x kids, stay together forever and make sure that the law prevent our human nature from having a bad family outcome.

We don't have to legislate that. Legally, all that is required, in my estimation, is to shore up divorce laws so that it isn't so easy to get divorced (perhaps making it harder to get divorced if there are minor children involved), and perhaps institute some kind of waiting period and/or counseling requirement for obtaining a marriage license. Further cultural changes are necessary, too, and there are other areas of our public life and policy that could be made more family-friendly, but as far as marriage is concerned we don't need drastic legal steps taken. Of course, I think instituting SSM would be a major negative to the institution of marriage. But I'm willing to bet that if you made my suggested changes part of the bargain for recognition of SSM, the political support for it would drop considerably.

I guess I don’t have lots of evidence to support it except that I don’t recall any groups objecting to allowing elderly or disabled couples to marry because they can’t procreate. I know, it’s not the specific ability – it is having the ‘equipment’ that matters. Right ?

I don't mean to be gruff, Mark, but how many times can y'all repeat this same argument without addressing the response that has already been made countless times?

As far pro-SSM who are Marxists and interested in ending marriage, those people are no more relevant to the debate than saying that anti-SSM people include neo-Nazi groups and Al Queda terrorists.

Wrong. Unless you intend to argue that maintaining marriage as-is furthers the aims (not just maintains a status quo, but furthers additional aims) of the right-wing groups, the left-wing groups are more relevant, particularly when so much of the effect of SSM will be determined by the manner in which the culture treats it and moves on from it.

Mark brings us back around to the entire debate about Kurtz's work and provides a great opportunity for summary:

Are you saying that cost is too high ? Or just that adding same-sex relationships to the mix makes it too high ? Or both ?

Yes, we're saying that the cost of the current degree of dominance that freedom has over responsibility is too high, and the point is that SSM seems likely to push the degree even further and/or, at the very least, denies a cultural mindset that would be crucial toward moving the balance in the right direction.

There is however, good reason to believe that many heterosexual males will experiment with homosexual sex and have it for release, during certain periods in their life when females aren't available. And I say this because a casual glance at various cultures across time does show that a huge % of the society, much larger than the 2-3% who are constitutively homosexual, have the capacity to enjoy homosexual acts.

Well, then, we largely agree that Arturo's assertion that SSM will "further cement heterosexuals’ and bisexuals’ heterosexuality" is wrong. I would push you, however, to think about your phrase "when females aren't available." Borrowing an idea from Marty (meant simply for example): most men marry relatively plain women, in part because no supermodels are available.

How would that fluidity not bleed into marriage and change the notion behind it completely? Especially if your contention is that large segments of inherent heterosexuals would ultimately move out of their homosexual relationships? (I'm referring to the whole Kinsey thing.)

Mark, could you briefly describe the SSM idea that you espouse?
----- You’ll have to be more specific in your question. I feel my position has been clearly made – disagreement not withstanding.

The SSM argument leads to the substitution of marriage, not its expansion.
----- That is an assertion, not an argument. I don’t think it does.

And, sure, the majority in this country are not out to harm homosexual individuals and to police same-sex relationships. In fact, most people would support some state recognition of such households (but not just the sexually-based domestic partnerships) -- and I think it is evident that most see such households as outside of marriage. But it looks like when that acknowledgement is on the table, there is outright rejection by MOST advocates of SSM.
-------- I’m not sure that ‘MOST’ is accurate in that context. Also, I can say that when legal acknowledgment of any same-sex relationships other than opposite sex marriage is on the table, there is outright rejection by MOST opponents of SSM. Do you think that only SSM supporters have a further agenda with respect to this issue ? If so, you are mistaken.

But you know that the state would not be empowered to dissolve marriages on 65th birthdays, for example, or when a woman reaches menopause. That would directly contradict the marriage idea …. the state does not dissolve marriages that meet with such misfortune.
------ I’m not saying the state would dissolve existing marriages based on age or physical disabilities. But based on your criteria, new marriage applications for elderly or disabled (can’t procreate) should be denied.

But more importantly, it would appear that the SSM argument looks to the disabled and elderly in search of some subset of the marriagable combination that is anologous with the unisexed combination. This is standard SSM argumentation. The state is supposed to embrace the rarest of examples outside of marriage (i.e. the tiny subset of homosexual adults who live in same-sex households -- especially those with chidlren) and the rarest of examples within marriage (the sexually disabled -- not really the elderly). Yet, what disables the entire unisexed combination is not a physical disability or the inability to be fertile with someone.

------ No, not embrace – just legally acknowledge. Just like the state ‘embraces’ an 18 yr marrying an 87 yr old – or – marriage to an incarcerated person.

We just don’t agree that the ability to procreate is what separates ‘marriage’ from some other relationship between two people that is not entitled to legal acknowledgement.

Justin:

About the future, we disagree. But that's the future. About the present, you conceded. What's important is that it shocked you (plural). It doesn't really fit in with how you view the world.

Mike S.,

We don't have to legislate that. Legally, all that is required, in my estimation, is to shore up divorce laws so that it isn't so easy to get divorced (perhaps making it harder to get divorced if there are minor children involved), and perhaps institute some kind of waiting period and/or counseling requirement for obtaining a marriage license.
------- Well, to me, you are not totally against the idea of basing families on the particular desires/choices of the adults. You just want certain lines drawn having to do with divorce, add some requirements here and there and other barriers. I agree in some cases – but I suspect my ‘lines’ would be different than yours. But we are both working on drawing lines with respect to choice vs. responsibility.

But I'm willing to bet that if you made my suggested changes part of the bargain for recognition of SSM, the political support for it would drop considerably.
------ I think you are wrong. I think most of the ‘less radical’ SSM advocates are merely interested in legal acknowledgment in their relationships in the same way that opposite sex relationships have that option.

I don't mean to be gruff, Mark, but how many times can y'all repeat this same argument without addressing the response that has already been made countless times?
----- You’re kidding, right ? Re-read the above and substitute the name “Justin” for “Mark”.

Wrong. Unless you intend to argue that maintaining marriage as-is furthers the aims (not just maintains a status quo, but furthers additional aims) of the right-wing groups, the left-wing groups are more relevant, particularly when so much of the effect of SSM will be determined by the manner in which the culture treats it and moves on from it.
-------- So your point is that the associations of those who align with those that want to change from the status-quo are more relevant than the associations of those that want to keep the status-quo. Please. The extreme-winged associations are totally irrelevant in both cases.

Mark brings us back around to the entire debate about Kurtz's work and provides a great opportunity for summary:
--------- Your welcome.

Yes, we're saying that the cost of the current degree of dominance that freedom has over responsibility is too high, and the point is that SSM seems likely to push the degree even further and/or, at the very least, denies a cultural mindset that would be crucial toward moving the balance in the right direction.
-------- I think that increased freedom LEADS to more personal responsibility as opposed to taking precedence over it. But I guess we would differ over to whom we should give responsibility to. We do agree that there needs to be a proper balance between freedom and support/encourage proper behavior – but would probably disagree on both how and where that balance should be set.

Marty McKeever had this to say about the use of artificial wombs:

"But i'm not an athiest, so i do have ethical issues with playing god. And I get that others don't have this dilemma, and are perfectly fine pretending to be god."

I disagree with Marty's belief that support for radical, life-changing technologies implies atheism. The function of science is to elucidate the laws of nature, not to change them, since natural laws are inviolate by definition. In a monotheistic framework, God authored every facet of nature that we will ever discover through science, and He created the human intellect that allows us to incorporate those discoveries into technology. If one picks and chooses which technologies have divine approval and which do not according to his own cultural sensibilities, it is he who is playing god.

The only relevant moral question, in my view, is whether such technologies are put to use for good or evil. Using artificial wombs to grow an army of mutant soldiers and take over the world would be evil, obviously. But in the more likely scenario, parents would choose an artifical womb to prevent the injury or death of their child, and of the mother. If the procedure were proven safe, it would be inhumane to compel natural childbirth simply to uphold most peoples' view of the natural order.

You might be interested in this site, which seeks to rein in activist judges.

Marty wrote:

Your error is in thinking of marriage as solely a private arrangement between two individuals. It is that, of course, but it's also a public arrangement. As Justin remarked recently, though, apparently many of the arguments revolving around culture are too subtle for some.

I understand the big picture cultural arguments, but when I bring them down to the individual level by asking how the existance of SSM would cause hetersexual couples to get divorced, or not get married in the first place, I am steered back to a big picture argument.

But other big picture cultural issues can be brought down to an individual level without becoming absurd. For example, if you talk about the effects of too much TV and junk food on children, you can descibe specific examples of children whose health and development suffers because of too much TV and junk food. If you are talking about the effect of pervasive interet pornography on marriage in the Intenret Age, it isn't difficult to explain how internet porn hurts a specific marriage, and find examples of marriages under stress or those that have divorved due in part to internet porn.

So if your big picture theory doesn't make sense logically when you apply it on an individual level, the theory is probably incorrect.

Dan mis-attributed the above. Someone else wrote that.

Matt, help me prod Jon Rowe into opening comments on his blog. Oh, and out of curiosity, what church do you attend?

John Howard expressed this, on another blog. I'm sharing it here, because it seems very important:

it’s [right of procreation] not some marriage right, it is the essential sine qua non right of marriage. Without a right to procreate, it is not marriage, and that’s not just my assertion, I can prove that. There has never, ever, at any time in history, been a couple that was not allowed to procreate but was allowed to marry. There have been lots of couples that were not allowed to procreate, like siblings, etc, and every single one of those couples were NOT ALLOWED TO MARRY. Siblings are not infertile, but they are denied, by law, the right to procreate. The Lovings were denied, by law, the right to procreate. They were ARRESTED IN THEIR BED at two in the morning in order to keep them from procreating. When the Supreme Court was deciding this case, it did not occur to them that there could possibly be a difference between the Loving’s “basic civil right” to procreate, as cited from Skinner (which established the right not to be sterilized), and their right to marry - they were, in fact, the very same right. ...

FWIW.

Marty, from your tone I'm guessing your question is facetious, but I'll answer it anyway ... I am a Unitarian-Universalist. My personal opinion on the existence and nature of God is "insufficient data" so I guess I am an agnostic.

I agree that it would be great if Jon Rowe would open his blog for comments. That would give you an opportunity to respond to the substance of my argument :)

Yes Matt, you are correct. I'm always supicious because the people who don't actually believe in God sure seem to have the strongest opinions about who/what He is or isn't.

Having a unitarian-universalist like yourself tell me what is and what is not "playing god" just confirms my paranoia. :)

It's okay though -- we were made in the very Image of God -- so we can't help but try to play god. It's in our nature.

Mark,

------- Well, to me, you are not totally against the idea of basing families on the particular desires/choices of the adults.

I am totally against the idea that we should solely base families on the particular desires of the adults involved. I'm not in favor of the idea that there should be no element of adult choice in structuring families. But the needs of children and society come first. Once those needs are met, then the adult choices come in. But modern culture reverses that order.

I was the one Dancar was responding to.

I understand the big picture cultural arguments, but when I bring them down to the individual level by asking how the existance of SSM would cause hetersexual couples to get divorced, or not get married in the first place, I am steered back to a big picture argument.

First of all, I don't think SSM harms and existing heterosexual marriages. Second, I do think it harms the individual gay couples who get 'married'. But I think they are already harmed by engaging in extramarital (with marital defined as the union of one man and one woman) sexual activity. They already think what they are doing is morally OK, so adding the fictive cover of calling their relationship a 'marriage' doesn't really add much to the existing harm done. Adding that cover has serious ramifications to the big picture, however.

For example, if you talk about the effects of too much TV and junk food on children, you can descibe specific examples of children whose health and development suffers because of too much TV and junk food.

To make this analogy work, you would have to have a committed group of people going to the courts to assert that watching too much TV and eating too much junk food is no different from watching no TV and only eating healthy food. Not only that, but too much TV and eating are a Constitutional right, dammit! The Federal Government, in fact, puts out guidelines for what a healthy diet should consist of. In the context of SSM, what your side is arguing is that the Courts should declare such guidelines unconstitutional.

"I disagree with Marty's belief that support for radical, life-changing technologies implies atheism."

But you can hardly blame him for making that connection, as most of the radicalists, whether on the issue of creating life or in de/re-constructing marriage, are atheists. And most of those advocating prudence and caution in these matters are observant Jews or Christians. Obviously, there are exceptions both ways, but the trendlines are pretty clear.

"The only relevant moral question, in my view, is whether such technologies are put to use for good or evil."

How do you make this determination? And how do you religious views factor in to this process, if they do at all?

Marty says:

"Having a unitarian-universalist like yourself tell me what is and what is not 'playing god' just confirms my paranoia. :)"

and having (Southern Baptists? Pentecostals?) like you tell me what should be legal or illegal, who should live or die, etc. confirms my paranoia.

We would both be better off without our paranoia.

Sorry, no offense meant, Matt. Just testing my stereotypes, which happen to be amazingly accurate.

But Mike S. is correct, the lines are pretty clear. Atheists/agnostics tend to support Abortion and SSM, and vice versa. Sure, there are exceptions here and there, but the overlapping worldviews are rather consistent.

It has only been since i became a father that i realized that the people who do not believe in an eternal afterlife, that abortion is a civil-right and not a murder, that the world is overpopulated, and that sodomy is a perfectly acceptable choice, cannot possibly have the best interests of MY children at heart. Therefore, i do my best to keep them far far away from such dangerous nihilists.

Nothing personal of course. Just protecting my family like any good dad would.

Marty: Sorry for the mis-attribution.

Mike S:

We don't give driver's licenses to blind people because we can explain on an individual level how a blind driver might endanger himself and others on the road.

One of the abstract anti-SSM argumment that reads SSM separates procreation from marriage, hence marriage as we know it would cease to exist. Bringing it down to the individual level, you've acknowledged that SSM will not harm existing heterosexual marriages. As for future potential marriages, why would the existence of SSM cause heterosexuals who love each other and want to create a family to decide not ro get married?

Mike S. asks:

"How do you make this determination? [whether a technological or social innovation is good or evil] And how do you religious views factor in to this process, if they do at all?"

This question came up in the context of hypothetical "artifical wombs", but also applies to policies on abortion and same-sex marriage, as Mike S. and Marty pointed out. In general, my own instinct is that a policy that hurts people is evil, especially children, and one that helps people is good. This still leaves lots of ambiguity, of course, since it's hard to figure out what will ultimately be helpful or harmful.

Personally, I am somwhat skeptical of liberal positions on abortion and SSM. It is conceivable that same-sex marriage could indirectly lead to broken homes, and that babies in the womb acquire the essential properties of human life at a much earlier phase of development than science now believes. I am cautious on these issues more out of belief in human rights than out of religious belief.

The artificial womb scenario, however, is different. Most conservative objections to it, along with reproductive cloning, genetic engineering, etc. seem to be entirely religious, as if some powers over the natural world must be kept from humans or we might challenge God himself. Liberals often make similar arguments in defense of environmentalism, as if the Earth were some kind of deity that must not be offended.

I object to this line of thinking primarily because of my own religious belief -- that whatever forces and/or beings created the universe, they are so much greater than we are that we could not possibly challenge them. To suggest that God (or whatever) needs help from churches and governments to accomplish His will paints a very limited picture of divinity. If there is a God, I hope He is bigger than that.

Dancar, i think Elizabeth Marquardt explains it well:

The people it will really affect, as I’ve said before, are the kids who will grow up in a society that does not affirm, and is in fact increasingly hostile to the idea of affirming, their need for their own mom and dad. In such a society the parents will be even less likely to get and stay married, and the pain that children feel will meet with silence.

Sorry, left off the citation link:
http://familyscholars.org/index.php?p=4240

Mark Miller, on principle we might disagree on the man-woman criterion, but surely we can agree that the obstacles to implementation of a fertility requirement make such a requirement a nonstarter.

I assume that neither of us favors coercive and/or invasive measures. But let's drill down to where the SSM argument leads.

>> I’m not saying the state would dissolve existing marriages based on age or physical disabilities. But based on your criteria, new marriage applications for elderly or disabled (can’t procreate) should be denied.

If marriagability requirements are not met, then, the marriage would be voided. How do you imagine government recognizing the marital status of a post-menopausal couple but not recognizing marriagability of such a couple?

Suppose a fertility requirement was instituted. The government could presume that each and every couple is sterile (and unmarriagable) until they have children; a marriage license is issued with childbirth and parentage confirmed by DNA testing. No children, never married.

Or the government could presume that each couple is potentially fertile (and marriagable) until proven otherwise; and if childless, then, their marital status is nullified or is unilaterally dissolved by the state. No children, never married, or at least not married anymore.

In the former implementation, the state would encourage premarital sexual intercourse and childbearing. In the latter, each couple would be on probation until a child arrived on the scene. Amounts to the same thing. The explicitly temporary status of newly-united couples would undermine the marriage idea itself. We already know that unwed cohabitation and unilateral divorce have weakened the social institution, so I doubt that a fertility requirement would do little to strengthen marriage.

And although it might boost the activity of infertility services and the billings of legal firms, a fertility requirement would contribute very little to the procreative model and probably do great harm, not only to the social institution, but also to liberty in general.

The state created civil marriage laws to acknowledge the non-coercive procreative model, not to micro-manage procreation.

Besides, how would the sexual equality doctrine apply where marriagability is determined by biological age? Men ordinarily remain potent for most of their lives unless they undergo surgery, while almost all women become sterile in mid-life by doing nothing more than aging gracefully.

And do you really imagine the government piling-on the survivors of cancer, for example, who become sterile due to medically necessary treatments?

>> I can say that when legal acknowledgment of any same-sex relationships other than opposite sex marriage is on the table, there is outright rejection by MOST opponents of SSM.

Incorrect. You would frame civil union as marriage-lite for gays and lesbians, or somesuch. Domestic partnerships need not be taylor-made for homosexual couples. There is a much broader segment of our population that includes primary caregivers who are unmarriagable. If society determines that it benefits from such arrangements, it might find a way, perhaps through the state, to benefit these domestic partnerships. Unfortunately, in some jurisidictions the legislation of domestic partnerships (or civil unions) has been framed as primarily serving gays and lesbians.

>> I said: "The SSM argument leads to the substitution of marriage, not its expansion.

>> Mark Miller said: "That is an assertion, not an argument."

The assertion is backed by the written opinion of each court that has claimed that the procreative model of marriage must be replaced by somethingn else. It is also backed by the argument that I and others here have made.

Marty:

The "Every child deserves their mom and dad" argument is a big red herring. Of course every child deserves their mom and dad! There is no "hostility" because no one claims that children don't deserve their mother and father.

The huge majority of situations where children are not raised by their own mothers and fathers are due to divorces and out-of-wedlock births which have nothing to do whatsoever with same-sex relationships.

Some opponents of SSM (not necessarily those on this blog) seem to believe that legal SSM would trigger a massive wave of parents getting divorced so that they could marry same-sex partners. I can't imagine why they believe this way. This is another example of an argument that turns absurd when you bring from an abstract down to an individual level.

Dancar,

The "Every child deserves their mom and dad" argument is a big red herring. Of course every child deserves their mom and dad! There is no "hostility" because no one claims that children don't deserve their mother and father.

It is not a "red herring", it's the heart of the debate, provided you place the word biological before "mother and father". The pro-SSM side is saying that there is no difference between having a mom and a dad, or having two moms or two dads. But every child has a biological mother and a biological father. If we say that SSM is no different from traditional marriage, then we're saying that, for example, kids conceived by a lesbian couple via in vitro fertilization don't deserve to be raised by their biological parents. (The argument goes beyond this, but I'm too lazy to type it out right now.)

The huge majority of situations where children are not raised by their own mothers and fathers are due to divorces and out-of-wedlock births which have nothing to do whatsoever with same-sex relationships.

Question: Is the current level of children not living with both of their biological parents due to divorce or out-of-wedlock births too high or not, in your opinion?

Some opponents of SSM (not necessarily those on this blog) seem to believe that legal SSM would trigger a massive wave of parents getting divorced so that they could marry same-sex partners. I can't imagine why they believe this way. This is another example of an argument that turns absurd when you bring from an abstract down to an individual level.

If the argument is actually as you've phrased it, I cannot imagine there are more than a handful of people who make it. In my opinion, you can rightly dismiss this line of argumentation.

As for future potential marriages, why would the existence of SSM cause heterosexuals who love each other and want to create a family to decide not ro get married?

Based on the reasons for your support of SSM, why should that couple get married?

Matt,

In general, my own instinct is that a policy that hurts people is evil, especially children, and one that helps people is good. This still leaves lots of ambiguity, of course, since it's hard to figure out what will ultimately be helpful or harmful.

So, if your instinct contradicts my instinct, how do we determine the truth of the matter?

Personally, I am somwhat skeptical of liberal positions on abortion and SSM. It is conceivable that same-sex marriage could indirectly lead to broken homes, and that babies in the womb acquire the essential properties of human life at a much earlier phase of development than science now believes. I am cautious on these issues more out of belief in human rights than out of religious belief.

You seem to be arguing on strictly utilitarian grounds here. Is it possible for something to be morally wrong, even if it affects nobody but the individual committing the act?

What are essential properties of human life?

Are "belief in human rights" and "religious belief" mutually exclusive categories? Where does your belief in human rights come from?

I object to this line of thinking primarily because of my own religious belief -- that whatever forces and/or beings created the universe, they are so much greater than we are that we could not possibly challenge them. To suggest that God (or whatever) needs help from churches and governments to accomplish His will paints a very limited picture of divinity. If there is a God, I hope He is bigger than that.

I generally agree with your objection to this line of thinking - human beings contravene the "natural" (i.e., that which would obtain if human beings weren't around) order of things all the time.

Christian theology does, in fact, hold that the Church is His instrument on earth. It also holds that He has created a moral order, which we have a duty to conform ourselves to. Thus different types of governments, and different actions taken by particular governments, will either conform to that moral order or they won't. So, no, He doesn't need governments to do His will - we need government to do certain things in order for us to do His will.

Mike S. wrote:

It is not a "red herring", it's the heart of the debate, provided you place the word biological before "mother and father". The pro-SSM side is saying that there is no difference between having a mom and a dad, or having two moms or two dads.

If you use the word "biological" that actually weakens the argument against SSM, because the number of children in same-sex couple households will likely always be a small fraction of the number of children raised by heterosexual couples where only one is a biological parent.

If you say that a single parent household or one biologicial parent with a spouce of the opposite sex who is not a biological parent is not different from both biological parents, but that a same-sex couple is different in a detrimental way, that's a stronger argument.

Question: Is the current level of children not living with both of their biological parents due to divorce or out-of-wedlock births too high or not, in your opinion?

In my opinion, the divorce rate and out-of-wedlock is higher than it ought to be. I believe that when one brings a child into the world, one assumes the responsibility to create the best possible environment for the child to be raised. That includes approaching one's relationship with the child's other parent in a responsible manner, and preserving that relationship whenever possible.

However, in the United States the goverment seldom interfers with families, except when children are clearly in danger. The rights of parents to raise thier children as they wish, with few exceptions, trumps the desires of others that children be raised only in circumstancing others consider ideal.

If the argument is actually as you've phrased it, I cannot imagine there are more than a handful of people who make it.

Well, that's not how they phrase it. But when I see banners reading "Every child deserves their mother and father!" it makes me wonder that they believe will happen if SSM is legal that will deprive a significant number of children from their mother or father. That was the best I could think of, but it is inferred.

Based on the reasons for your support of SSM, why should that couple get married?

We have a lot of believers of marriage on this board, and I'm one of them. I'm not going to spell them all out right now, except that the statement a couple makes to their family and community when they marry, and the legal advantages and protections that apply to souces and children will continue to exist if SSM is legal.

Mike S:

So, if your instinct contradicts my instinct, how do we determine the truth of the matter?

I don't know how to reconcile belief systems that differ on first principles. Ideally you would be able to lead your life according to your beliefs and me according to mine. But in the real world these are sometimes mutually exclusive, so there must be compromise. That, or we could go back to killing each other, as people have done for thousands of years.

Is it possible for something to be morally wrong, even if it affects nobody but the individual committing the act?

In my opinion, an act that only harms the actor is morally neutral, though very sad. In reality, however, self-destructive behavior will almost always harm other people as well, and is therefore morally wrong.

What are essential properties of human life?

As far as a human embryo, maybe the onset of central nervous system activity? The answer is not clear, so we should be very cautious.

Are 'belief in human rights' and 'religious belief' mutually exclusive categories? Where does your belief in human rights come from?

For me, human rights is a first principle, not a consequence of any other principles. Therefore, I reject any religious belief that sanctions harming another person.

[God] doesn't need governments to do His will - we need government to do certain things in order for us to do His will.

How does this justify a ban on radical technologies, such as cloning or artifical wombs? We are not talking about forcing everyone to use the technologies, just making it available to those who opt for it.

Dancar: ... the number of children in same-sex couple households will likely always be a small fraction of the number of children raised by heterosexual couples where only one is a biological parent.

This is yet another situation where statistics can be skewered to say what you want, instead of what is worthwhile. Of course the number of children living in opposite-sex broken homes will always be higher. But the ratio (10, 20, 50%) will always be far far less than that of same-sex couples, 100% of whose children come from broken homes.

100%!

However, in the United States the goverment seldom interfers with families, except when children are clearly in danger. The rights of parents to raise thier children as they wish, with few exceptions, trumps the desires of others that children be raised only in circumstancing others consider ideal.

Which is correct, and as it should be. I see no children being taken from their same-sex families, or their single-mothers. The rights of the "parents" to raise their children as they wish are perfectly intact. That still doesn't make the couple "marriageable" in any way. The same-sex parents chose their lot, at least as much, if not more, than opposite sex parents. Why would society want to redefine one of its core institutions because certain people made themselves (and their children) ineligible? Freedom of choice, freedom of consequence. Equality can be a real bitch sometimes.

Matt: For me, human rights is a first principle, not a consequence of any other principles. Therefore, I reject any religious belief that sanctions harming another person.

I take it you are staunchly pro-life then, right?

Marty: I take it you are staunchly pro-life then, right?

I am pro-life, but not staunchly. The "third trimester" rule currently in place errs to much on the side of the mother's rights as opposed to the child's. Abortion should be forbidden at a much earlier phase of pregnancy.

On the other hand, it seems like a stretch to treat an unimplanted blastocyst as a human being, let alone a single-cell fertilized ovum.

Arturo,

When and, more importantly, what did I concede?

Matt Taylor writes...

having (Southern Baptists? Pentecostals?) like you tell me what should be legal or illegal, who should live or die, etc. confirms my paranoia.

Does that analogy work? Is atheist/agnostic to God as Christian is to the law? I suspect a great many secularists believe that, even if they don't believe that they believe it.

Dan,

The problem with pointing to specific marriages is that the target is "people raised in a society in which marriage means X." That won't be available for a while.

As for the logic of why SSM opponents are suspicious, those arguments are all over the place already.

Most conservative objections to it, along with reproductive cloning, genetic engineering, etc. seem to be entirely religious, as if some powers over the natural world must be kept from humans or we might challenge God himself.

I think you need to expand your reading and/or read with an eye toward leaving out what you're predisposed to expect to find.

Some opponents of SSM (not necessarily those on this blog) seem to believe that legal SSM would trigger a massive wave of parents getting divorced so that they could marry same-sex partners.

Strawman! I've never seen this point actually made.

Niether have i. Nor have i seen any banners saying "A child deserves a mom and a dad" although it does ring a recent mitt romney bell...

As if what, Mom and Dad are now politically incorrect?

"As far as a human embryo, maybe the onset of central nervous system activity? The answer is not clear, so we should be very cautious."

What is significant morally about the onset of CNS activity, and why is the answer not clear?

Dan said:

"Some opponents of SSM (not necessarily those on this blog) seem to believe that legal SSM would trigger a massive wave of parents getting divorced so that they could marry same-sex partners."

Actually, I have heard the claim from a proponent of SSM who stated that all the poor homosexual people forced to marry somebody of the opposite sex due to fear of being ostracized would then be able leave their loveless fraudulent relationships and take up with another partner that they could have a meaningful relationship with. I thought the claim was rather suspect. Or was that needless to say?

Either way, from whichever side the claim might emanate, it sounds not only highly speculative but totally silly and I can't imagine being taken very seriously if I were to utter such nonsense.

I said,

"Based on the reasons for your support of SSM, why should that couple get married?"

To which Matt replied,

"We have a lot of believers of marriage on this board, and I'm one of them. I'm not going to spell them all out right now, except that the statement a couple makes to their family and community when they marry, and the legal advantages and protections that apply to souces and children will continue to exist if SSM is legal."

But the argument for SSM is that marriage is only about the relationship between the two adults. Having kids, on this basis, is irrelevant to getting married. On your argument for SSM, they should get married if they feel like it, or not if they don't - the kid has no bearing on the matter.

Mike S.: What is significant morally about the onset of CNS activity, and why is the answer [as to the criteria for human life] not clear?

CNS activity is significant morally because it is how people are judged to be alive or dead, after birth at least. The same rule could be applied before birth.

It is not clear whether this definition is satisfactory, because we do not completely understand human consciousness. CNS activity may not be an essential component of consciousness, though it does appear so at present.

Justin: Does that analogy work? Is atheist/agnostic to God as Christian is to the law?

More properly, secularist is to Christian law as Christian is to secular law, but the analogy is really of little help in the debate. So in that sense, no, it doesn't work.

Justin: I think you need to expand your reading [of arguments against radical biotechnology] and/or read with an eye toward leaving out what you're predisposed to expect to find.

You're right on the "artificial womb" question at least. It turns out some, both liberal and conservative, have pointed out that loss of the mother-child bond during pregnancy could harm a child's emotional development. This is a valid objection.

"Every child deserves a mother and a father."

I've this used several times as an argument against SSM. This would imply that a large number of children who would be raised by both biological parents if SSM remains illegal would instead be raised with at least one parent missing if SSM is made legal.

How would this happen? If SSM is made legal, a large number of parents would get divorced, or split up if co-habitating with children.

If this argument means something else, please elaborate.

Mike S:

But the argument for SSM is that marriage is only about the relationship between the two adults. Having kids, on this basis, is irrelevant to getting married. On your argument for SSM, they should get married if they feel like it, or not if they don't - the kid has no bearing on the matter

Well, the percentage of legal marriages that are between two adults (100 percent) is greater than the percentage of marriages with children (something less than 100 percent). It is been pointed out here over and over again that not all marriages produce children, so there is no requirement that marriages produce children.

But that doesn't make childlen irrelevent to marriage. I've read that a substantial percentage of weddings occur as a result of pregnancy, so there is a widespread belief that getting married is the responsible thing to do when a child is on the way. It is widely recognized that marriage (with a suitable spouse) is the best environment in which to raise children. However, we don't outlaw single parenting, we don't outlaw all sorts of parental behavior we may disapprove of. So the possibility that some children will be raised in a SSM does not compell a prohibition of SSM.

"However, we don't outlaw single parenting, we don't outlaw all sorts of parental behavior we may disapprove of. So the possibility that some children will be raised in a SSM does not compell a prohibition of SSM."

It's not prohibited - you can go marry someone of the same gender in a MCC, and the police aren't going to fine you or send you to jail. It's just that the state doesn't recognized such a union as a marriage.

Lack of recognition is not equivalent to a ban. I wish SSM supporters would get that through their heads.

I think I bit off more than I can chew. I don’t have time to keep up with this. Just a few responses:

Mike S. wrote: “I am totally against the idea that we should solely base families on the particular desires of the adults involved. I'm not in favor of the idea that there should be no element of adult choice in structuring families. But the needs of children and society come first. Once those needs are met, then the adult choices come in. But modern culture reverses that order.”

------- “But the needs of children and society come first. “ How is that accomplished? To some, that means that it should be made more difficult to fire/layoff someone (union rules), gun laws should be tightened, universal health care, welfare and of course the mother of them all – military action. There are many ways to represent “the needs of children and society”. And many are considered based on liberal ideology. Few would argue that the needs of families and children come first, the question is how best to accomplish that along with maintaining appropriate individual choice. I contend the answer is not as simple as you believe. Just as you say that current divorce law represents the culture of ignoring the needs of children, there are many who feel that welfare reform ignores the needs of children. (not me, but many). There are lots of choices to make. And each choice is more complex than simply “good for children vs. bad for children”.

Mike S. wrote: “It's not prohibited - you can go marry someone of the same gender in a MCC, and the police aren't going to fine you or send you to jail. It's just that the state doesn't recognize such a union as a marriage. Lack of recognition is not equivalent to a ban. I wish SSM supporters would get that through their heads.

-------- True, lack of recognition is not a ban. The same can be said about divorce. Parents can separate without a legal divorce. And the police aren't going to fine them or send them to jail. But the legal divorce provides a contract for the rights and responsibilities of each parent with respect to the child and each other. You act as if the pursuit of legal recognition has no value. Interracial couples could always live together and have a marriage ceremony just like same-sex couples can do today. But there was a BAN on legal recognition of those relationships. I’m not saying that the reasons for the interracial ban are akin to not having SSM. I’ve acknowledged there are differences. But the argument that “same-sex couples can accomplish the same thing without legal acknowledgement” is hypocritical based on the pro-marriage arguments such as promoting stability and reducing illegitimacy.

Chairm:
I never meant to argue that denying marriage applications based on age or disability was a good policy, practically realistic or even tenable. I don’t think it’d be good policy based on a reason you didn’t even mention – having to do with adoption. While some couples cannot procreate, they may be interested in becoming foster parents and/or adopt. Of course, I’d also open this up to same-sex couples too. Again, where we differ is that you argued that the ability to procreate is a primary criteria for marriage and then argued that it is not practical or realistic for the state to verify that couples meet that criteria. So you are left with the assumption that opposite sex couples can procreate and that is enough to be eligible for legal acknowledgement while same-sex couples cannot procreate, therefore, they are not eligible. My argument is that the ability to procreate is not primary enough to be used as a criterion for legal acknowledgment.

You wrote: You would frame civil union as marriage-lite for gays and lesbians, or somesuch. Domestic partnerships need not be taylor-made for homosexual couples. There is a much broader segment of our population that includes primary caregivers who are unmarriagable. If society determines that it benefits from such arrangements, it might find a way, perhaps through the state, to benefit these domestic partnerships. Unfortunately, in some jurisidictions the legislation of domestic partnerships (or civil unions) has been framed as primarily serving gays and lesbians.
--------- Your agenda here is to make sure that there is no legal acknowledgment for the relationships of gays and lesbians. My agenda is the pursuit of such legal acknowledgment. I know that domestic partnerships need not be taylor-made for that purpose. But they can be framed to serve it – along with serving other purposes. Just like marriage is framed to link parents with their biological offspring, yet has some other purposes.

You wrote: "The SSM argument leads to the substitution of marriage, not its expansion. The assertion is backed by the written opinion of each court that has claimed that the procreative model of marriage must be replaced by something else. It is also backed by the argument that I and others here have made.
--------- True. But some of my assertions have been backed by written opinions of certain courts also. In addition to being backed by those that agree with me here. In the end, we both have supporters and opponents of our respective views.

Matt,

"CNS activity is significant morally because it is how people are judged to be alive or dead, after birth at least. The same rule could be applied before birth."

This essay argues otherwise. To wit,

Embryos are genetically unique human organisms, fully possessing the integrated biologic function that defines human life at all stages of development, continuing throughout adulthood until death. The ability to act as an integrated whole is the only function that departs from our bodies in the moment of death, and is therefore the defining characteristic of “human life.” This definition does not depend on religious belief or subjective judgment. From the landmark case of Karen Ann Quinlan (1976) on, the courts have consistently upheld organismal function as the legal definition of human life. Failure to apply the same standard that so clearly defines the end of human life to its beginning is both inconsistent and unwarranted.

"It is not clear whether this definition is satisfactory, because we do not completely understand human consciousness. CNS activity may not be an essential component of consciousness, though it does appear so at present."

Do you think it is a good idea to make moral distinctions about who is or who is not a person based upon something as difficult to define and measure as consciousness? Surely you don't think that people who are in a coma are automatically nonpersons?

Mark,

"I think I bit off more than I can chew. I don’t have time to keep up with this."

Perhaps it would help if you didn't go off on tangents, like moving from what is best for children in the context of marriage to union rules.

"You act as if the pursuit of legal recognition has no value."

No, I don't. I realize that that legal recognition has value for some same-sex couples - I just think that value is vastly outweighed by the negative value to society as a whole.

So, does anybody still want to argue that polyamory is unrelated to the SSM debate?

So, does anybody still want to argue that polyamory is unrelated to the SSM debate?

Yep. Polyamory still has nothing to do with the SSM debate. Unless opponents of marriage equality continue to make them related.

If monogamy isn't pushed as the driving force behind marriage stability and its importance for society, polyamory is hard to combat. Child-rearing and effects on children should be a focus of this debate. The question is, are social conservatives ever going to accept that gays are a) capable of meaningful monogamy and b) capable of being successful parents? Because if this battle remains an issue of adult rights, it will be won and in the exact apocalyptic way that the Kurtz's and Santorum's predict it will. But if gays are granted the dignity and respect they and their families deserve, polyamory can be fought and won on a different battleground.

You keep saying that Michael, but you never specific what battleground. Care to be more specific now?

Ugh... let me try that again.

You keep saying that Michael, but you never specify what battleground. Care to be more specific now?

"The question is, are social conservatives ever going to accept that gays are a) capable of meaningful monogamy and b) capable of being successful parents?"

I've never claimed otherwise (at least that individual gays are capable of monogamy - whether the gay community as a whole is, or is interested in supporting monogamy, is open to question, though). I just don't think those criteria are sufficient to call a same-sex union a marriage.

"Because if this battle remains an issue of adult rights,"

This is precisely how the battle is framed by SSM proponents. How else could it be a legal case, or be compared to the Civil Rights movement? I don't recall you offering any denuciations of this argument, Michael.

Michael,

Polyamory is positively banned. The issue was directly addressed at the federal level. Bigamy makes an outlaw of the transgressor (although enforcment tends to be spotty).

None of these three points are true for SSM.

--

>> Mark Miller: "some of my assertions have been backed by written opinions of certain courts also. In addition to being backed by those that agree with me here. In the end, we both have supporters and opponents of our respective views."

But the opinions I cited are those that agreed with the very SSM argument that you have described here! The enactment of SSM would replace marriage with something else. The dissenting opinions in these various court cases also noted the substitution.

Thank you for acknowledging that this was not just assertion on my part.

It seems that we have reached an agreement on this point. Or have we?

>> Mark Miller: "you argued that the ability to procreate is a primary criteria for marriage and then argued that it is not practical or realistic for the state to verify that couples meet that criteria. ... My argument is that the ability to procreate is not primary enough to be used as a criterion for legal acknowledgment."

I think we keep tripping over a fundamental difference in how we view procreation. Marriage, as a social institution, is our society's procreative model. I do not claim that each and every marriage must produce offspring. It is not the outcome in this or that marriage that determines if the couple is marriagable. Law is best not made on the hard cases or rare exceptions (i.e. less than 2% of childless married couples are reproductively disabled by medically necessary treatments that cause permanent sterility). The man-woman criterion suffices.

Pushing procreation to the sidelines when it is actually central to the marriage idea, is like changing the rules of billiards by keeping the cue ball off the table and in a corner pocket.

[Groan. Nope, I am not The Analogy Man. Heh.]

>> Your agenda here is to make sure that there is no legal acknowledgment for the relationships of gays and lesbians.

That is incorrect, as my comments have repeatedly indicated in various discussions here.

It is not marriage or nothing,for the unisexed combination.

Not all domestic partnerships that consist of individuals of the same sex are de facto gay or lesbian couples. That is why I suggest that only nonmarriagable combinations with certain caregiving arranagements be eligible for this one alternative to marriage. There is loads of room for different jurisdictions to test out different features with lelgislation rather than court diktats.

Ooops. Yes, of course, DOMA has addressed SSM at the federal level. Brain hiccup.

I guess my third point there was that if one supports the ban on multi-marriage, then, one might support the federal role on the SSM issue as well. The legislative role, that is.

Michael,

And now we're back around to the intra-gay-rights battle. As Joe Kort describes things, it appears that you have competition for how "monogamy" ought to be defined for homosexuals.

This is precisely how the battle is framed by SSM proponents. How else could it be a legal case, or be compared to the Civil Rights movement? I don't recall you offering any denuciations of this argument, Michael.

I haven't denounced it because I also think it's true.

I should have been more specific, however, when I said "adults' rights." What I ought to have said was "individual rights to choose". Because if its freedom of choice that SSM is won on, if the precedent is on freedom to choose your partner, polygamy stands a greater chance of being argued for.

If social conservatives battle gays on protecting sexual orientation, that's exactly how this civil rights argument gets framed. But if they would accept homosexuality, that is accept it as unwavering and fundamental as heterosexuality, then this wouldn't be about radical, individual "choices". Monogamy can be preserved.

I don't like to slump on other people's blogs, but I've said this a bit more articulately here:
http://thirdofthemonth.typepad.com/thirdofthemonth/2005/03/whats_worse_for.html

Because when it comes down to it, social conservatives are right; this isn't about benefits. It's about being recognized and respected. And if society could just hand us that recognition and respect it would save everyone a lot of grief. Otherwise, we're going to have to take it. And that will probably get ugly.

If social conservatives battle gays on protecting sexual orientation, that's exactly how this civil rights argument gets framed. But if they would accept homosexuality, that is accept it as unwavering and fundamental as heterosexuality, then this wouldn't be about radical, individual "choices". Monogamy can be preserved.

Well, as many people have pointed out, both homo- and heterosexuality are not "unwavering". But the larger point is that, generally speaking, social conservatives don't deny that homosexuality is an intrinsic nature of many people's personality or makeup. I recognize that some people could never possibly be attracted to someone of the opposite sex. I also realize that some of those people desire to commit their life to someone, live with them, remain monogamous, and perhaps even raise children together. But that doesn't mean that I'm required by principle to call that couple married - that is, to say they are no different from a heterosexual couple that acts in the same manner.

"It's about being recognized and respected. And if society could just hand us that recognition and respect it would save everyone a lot of grief. Otherwise, we're going to have to take it. And that will probably get ugly."

Now who's being fascist? You're saying that I have to think a certain way, and if I don't you're going to force me to?

Seriously, you cannot recieve respect through force. All you can hope to do is force everyone else to bend to your will by pushing through legal recognition of same-sex couples as equivalent to opposite-sex couples. But you won't gain respect that way. I believe this was one of Justin's points in his article on Andrew Sullivan.

But that doesn't mean that I'm required by principle to call that couple married - that is, to say they are no different from a heterosexual couple that acts in the same manner.

You can call that couple whatever you want. You don't have to personally recognize anyone's marriage. But the state must treat it's citizens as equally as possible. And just because *you* see a fundamental difference, doesn't mean that the rest of the country does.

Now who's being fascist? You're saying that I have to think a certain way, and if I don't you're going to force me to?

No. (Although I haven't been called a facist since college. That gave me a fuzzy). No, I don't want to force you to think a certain way. I want us to think about other civil rights battles and how the force required to secure equalities left cultural rifts. If blacks were handed civil equality from the get-go, we wouldn't need have that godawful affirmative action. Sure, there'd still be individual racism.

And when I say respect and recognition, I don't want it from you. I want it from my government. I want my relationship to be given at least as much legal respect and recognition as Elizabeth Taylor's sixth.

One of the flight attendants on the plane that crashed in Queens a few months after that September thing had a longterm partner. He has been denied survivor benefits even though they were financially interdependant, etc, for over twenty years. That is simply wrong.

And if you would recognize that that is wrong, and do something to correct it, maybe we can keep polygamy out.

All you can hope to do is force everyone else to bend to your will by pushing through legal recognition of same-sex couples as equivalent to opposite-sex couples. But you won't gain respect that way.

But that's all I really want; respect from my government in the form of equal treatment (now I'm waiting for Marty to chime in for the umpteenth time about how I am equally allowed to marry a woman and yada yada yada). Again, I couldn't give a shit if you respect me; I respect me. I'm not planning on going around forcing people to embrace homosexuality. I have a particular lack of respect for people who homeschool. Or refuse to accept evolution. Oh, and Mormons. But that doesn't mean I want to keep them from fully participating in civil life.

"But the state must treat it's citizens as equally as possible. And just because *you* see a fundamental difference, doesn't mean that the rest of the country does."

Of course it does - every vote taken on this issue results in a majority, sometimes a vast majority, favoring the traditional definition of marriage.

You speak as if the state is somehow distinct from the people. "Government of the people, by the people, and for the people...", remember?

Let's imagine we're talking about a constitutional amendment to ban the teaching of evolution in public schools. Say it passes. You and I would both think such a thing would be wrong, probably even harmful to the nation. But that would be the law, because that's how our system of government works. There are all kinds of people who want various kinds of recognition from the government. We have a procedure for working out whether to afford such recognition - why are you any different?

"I want us to think about other civil rights battles and how the force required to secure equalities left cultural rifts."

That's exactly backwards from SSM - the civil rights issue was decided by the majority, and it was the minority who resisted who had to be forced to accept the will of the majority.

"He has been denied survivor benefits even though they were financially interdependant, etc, for over twenty years. That is simply wrong."

That situation could be addressed in other ways besides calling him and his partner married.

"I'm not planning on going around forcing people to embrace homosexuality."

But many of your co-proponents of SSM are. You are planning to force people to treat it as no different from heterosexuality in the context of marriage. Look at Canada - their judiciary is forcing SSM on them, and they've already decreed that all government forms must do away with the words "husband" and "wife". They are forcing the country to accept a gender-neutral view of marriage. The fact that you're advocating for a judicial decree is evidence that you're trying to force people to accept homosexuality, if not embrace it. If you were trying to persuade them, you'd be favoring the legislative route.

>> Michael: "And when I say respect and recognition, I don't want it from you. I want it from my government."

Margaret Somerville is the founding director of the Centre for Medicine, Ethics and Law at McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

Quote:

"Some reasons for undertaking an act mean it manifests respect, other reasons for the same act, that it shows disrespect.

"To reject same-sex marriage in the public square in order to affirm moral or other objections to homosexuals is a failure of respect and would be discrimination. To reject it because marriage could no longer embody the inherently procreative relationship between a man and a woman and, thereby, institutionalize and symbolize the functions of marriage related to procreation and children is not discrimination. Many - one hopes the vast majority - of opponents of same-sex marriage do not disrespect homosexuals or their relationships. Yet the same-sex marriage case is based almost entirely on equating being against it with necessarily being against homosexuals, disrespecting them and thereby breaching their human rights. That connection needs to be challenged.

"And respect is not a one-sided issue. Same-sex marriage raises fundamental issues of mutual respect, although this seems not to be recognized by its advocates. What is required to respect homosexual people and their committed partnerships, and to respect people for whom marriage institutionalizes and symbolizes the inherently procreative relationship between a man and a woman? The only “least invasive-of-both-streams-of-respect” response is to legally recognize same-sex partnerships and keep marriage as the union of a man and a woman. But, same-sex marriage advocates reject that option outright.

--

Source:
http://marriageinstitute.ca/pages/renovate.htm

--

SSM advocates seek approval of homosexuality via the small portion of the adult homosexual population which resides in some form of same-sex households.

But replacing marriage is much more than shwoing tolerance (which the state can offer to all manner of behaviors even if begrudgingly) or acceptance as per domestic partnership status for nonmarriagable combinations.

Societal respect can be expressed through the state; but tolerating and accepting same-sex households does not require society to disrespect its procreative model and deny ALL of society the right to state recognition of marriage itself.

What annoys me most is that people are trying to equate public declaration of the immorality of homosexual acts as being equivalent to the rejection of "same-sex marriage in the public square in order to affirm moral or other objections to homosexuals is a failure of respect and would be discrimination."

What you fail to realize Michael is that if the majority of the people of the nation view homosexual acts as immoral, you and other practitioners will not gain the respect or recognition that you all desire. Being petulant and threatening that things will get ugly if you all do not get your way will only exacerbate that.

People have always been free to choose morally reprehensible behavior patterns and always been free to choose not to believe their bahavior is morally reprehensible. While you may believe there is nothing wrong with your behavior, you will never be able to walk around day to day without wondering if somebody is tsking at you behind your back in silent disapproval. Even if you proponents of SSM succeed in getting the legal construct of marriage, you won’t be able to get away from that.

Smmtheory states the cold hard truth. Even legalized same-sex marriages will always be considered "second-class", simply because the bar was lowered to allow inherently sterile partnerships. The long infertile opposite-sex couples who eventually adopt their children can attest that the silent stigma of being perceived as "somewhat broken" is very real. And in their case, it is -- VERY REAL! They sought medical treatment for years!

But in the case of same-sex couples, this same brokenness is by design, is by choice, and apparently something pathological. This form of "marriage" will never be "equal" until the standard of comparison (man+woman=baby) has been completely eliminated.

Most gay activists know this of course, but don't dare say it aloud. It's been part of the lesbian feminist playbook for decades.

As Mike notes, Canada (Ontario, at least) has decreed that all government forms must do away with the terms "husband" and "wife". And, as I mentioned earlier, Massachusetts tried to do the same thing, replacing those terms with "Party A" and "Party B". Which demonstrates what a massive change to the public perception of marriage SSM forces the public to accept.

Now some here have claimed that it really won't do that. Which is why I again ask them: do they approve of the changing of all husband and wife references to gender neutral terms as Canada and Massachusetts have either done or tried to do. Now I know that some SSM supporters don't approve of this (for instance, Tom Sylvester of the Family Scholars Blog thinks the "Party A and B" stuff was "just horrible"). But I'm wondering what SSM supporters here feel about it. And, if they support it, how do they still argue that SSM won't force a radical public redefinition of marriage which will alter its perception among members of the next generation?

Heh, Jon Rowe bit. :)

You speak as if the state is somehow distinct from the people. "Government of the people, by the people, and for the people...", remember?

Right. For the people. For all of the people, not some of the people. Gays are those people too. The state should attempt to treat all of its citizens as equally as possible (cue Marty: gays are being treating equally because they can marry someone of the opposite sex, equality is a bitch, or some crap like that).

There are all kinds of people who want various kinds of recognition from the government. We have a procedure for working out whether to afford such recognition - why are you any different?

Because where talking about MARRIAGE. It's such a fundamental concept that absolutely no analogy works. It's the most important private/public contract we have. And the government recognizing my marriage doesn't mean it no longer doesn't recognize yours.

That situation could be addressed in other ways besides calling him and his partner married.

Well, exactly. I'm not sure exactly what position you think I hold in this whole debate. Personally I believe SSM is not only a right, but it is also good for the country. But I don't understand what you want, other than to keep the word "marriage"? Because some of the amendments that your fellow citizens voted for would make is such that any legal protections that mimic marriage would be barred. If you have a particular cutural attatchment to the word "marriage", I respect that.

But what the court did in Goodridge, for example, I see as exactly how this ought to play out: a group of people feel as though the law isn't treating them fairly. They go to the courts. That is exactly where bad laws are supposed to be fought. The courts found an injustice. They then told the legislature to fix the problem. The legislature can then fix it as they see fit.

You are planning to force people to treat it as no different from heterosexuality in the context of marriage.

No, I want the GOVERNMENT to treat it no different from heterosexuality. People can treat it however they want. I don't treat Britney Spears' (to pull the favorite pop wedding of the hour) first or second marriages the same as I treat my parents' 30+ years or my grandparents 50+. But if she wants to make assbackward choices, so be it. I'm not going to advocate not allowing her to get married.

The fact that you're advocating for a judicial decree is evidence that you're trying to force people to accept homosexuality, if not embrace it. If you were trying to persuade them, you'd be favoring the legislative route.

I have never advocated for a judicial decree. I advocate for judicial review of laws to determine if the citizenry is being treated fairly. That is where the minority has to go. We don't have a bunch of Congressmen willing to fly in at midnight to sign a bill to attempt to protect our rights. I'd much rather go the purely legislative route, but in order to make a political movement possible, its propopents must be free to advocate for their position. But it's been pretty hard for gays, especially in some states where sodomy was still illegal, to be openly gay and be in politics; you can advocate for animal rights all you want because it isn't illegal to be nice to animals.

Personally, I'm very proud of CT, my homestate. There will be a legislatively created same-sex civil union there very soon. That is what I'd prefer.

But I'm wondering what SSM supporters here feel about it. And, if they support it, how do they still argue that SSM won't force a radical public redefinition of marriage which will alter its perception among members of the next generation?

Party A and Party B? It's a little weird. But I don't see the point of having legal definitions of husband and wife. Because other than "male spouse" and "female spouse", what legal distinctions do a husband and wife have? Legal distinctions, that is. No where in the legal definition of marriage does it say that the husband has any different "role" than the wife, other than sex.

That said, I honestly don't think that it will have any impact on the public understanding of marriage, other than there would remain the remote possibility that someone told you they were married, it might be to someone of the same sex.

People come to situations with a lot of cultural preconceptions, which I doubt would change. If Bob, a hypothetical casual white aquaintance of mine, told me he were married, I'd assume he had a wife who was also white, the same age as him and that he considered her the love of his life. I would instantly make this assumption based on who I perceive Bob to be. If, however, I found out that Bob's wife was Philipino, half his age and that their first child was older than their marriage, I'd have a completely new idea of what Bob's marriage was like. But they'd still be married; they just wouldn't have what I would have called a "typical" marriage. But I wouldn't go around and start assuming that everyone's marriage was like that. My perception of marriage wouldn't change in the slightest.

And if Bob's wife turned out to be a man? Well, I wouldn't go around assuming that everyone was gay. 95% of the time, if I guessed Bob's spouse was a woman, I'd be right. I know a fair amount of gays. And I still assume everyone is straight when I meet them. That's not going to change.

I'm curious, though, about the SSM opponents here. What exactly do you mean when you say there will be a radical redefinition and change the perception over the next generation? That, how do you think their perceptions will change and how will that be bad?

There's arleady been a radical redefinition and perception change in the meaning and idea of marriage with the advent of no-fault divorce. But from your perspective it doesn't seem radical at all, just subtle. It went from the pre-marriage attitude being predominantly - this is for keeps, I'll have to live with this decision for the rest of my life - to one of - if it doesn't work out, at least I can get divorced. It went from a pre-marriage attitude of predominantly - let's get married and have kids - to one of - let's get married and maybe have some kids.

The next step was divorcing marriage from the procreative act. From your perspective again, it doesn't seem radical at all, just subtle. It went from a pre-marriage attitude of - I can't wait to get married so I can find out all the mystery surrounding (s)(e)(x) - to one of - how do I know I'm going to be happy with my partner unless we do it before we get married?

I doubt you can even imagine having the prior mindsets. Are you beginning to see how it goes?

Funny how Michael claims that marriage is a "fundamental concept", but considers the whole man+woman thing somehow arbitrary... and "bad law".

We have a procedure for working out whether to afford such recognition - why are you any different?

"Because where talking about MARRIAGE. It's such a fundamental concept that absolutely no analogy works. It's the most important private/public contract we have."

So if it's really important to you, then you can take an alternate route.

"And the government recognizing my marriage doesn't mean it no longer doesn't recognize yours."

The exact same thing could be said (and is said) by a polyamorist, but you insist that there'e no link between the two arguments.

That situation could be addressed in other ways besides calling him and his partner married.

"Well, exactly. I'm not sure exactly what position you think I hold in this whole debate. Personally I believe SSM is not only a right, but it is also good for the country. But I don't understand what you want, other than to keep the word "marriage"? Because some of the amendments that your fellow citizens voted for would make is such that any legal protections that mimic marriage would be barred. If you have a particular cutural attatchment to the word "marriage", I respect that."

I don't want the courts to unilateraly redefine the meaning of marriage. I would also not want the state or federal legislatures to do so, but if they did it would at least represent the will of the people, not the will of 4 or 5 judges. I'm open to various ways of legally recognizing same-sex couples, as long as the regime set up is not a "marriage-in-all-but-name" scenario. In the example you cited, would it not have been possible for the two people involved to name each other beneficiaries in their wills? If that is not possible, then I'd advocate changing the laws so it is possible. But if it is possible, then what you are complaining about is the fact that such a designation wasn't automatic, not that it was barred to them.

"But what the court did in Goodridge, for example, I see as exactly how this ought to play out: a group of people feel as though the law isn't treating them fairly. They go to the courts. That is exactly where bad laws are supposed to be fought. The courts found an injustice. They then told the legislature to fix the problem. The legislature can then fix it as they see fit."

This is where we fundamentally disagree about how our government is supposed to work, and I don't see anyway of resolving the issue. Perhaps you've heard the phrase, "life isn't fair"? Well, guess what, there are all kinds of laws that are unfair to various people - it's not the courts' job to make life fair for everybody. It's also not their job to fix every bad law or to right every injustice they see - they are only authorized to reject laws that directly contradict the constitution. They are authorized to determine how the existing law applies to a particular situation, but if they don't like the law, or the result, they are not allowed to simply order the legislature to come back with another law that gives the result the court wants.

I still don't get why you can't see the general problems with relying on a handful of judges to make rules like this. Just because you like the Goodridge result doesn't mean you'll get the results you want all the time. Aren't you just relying on the whims of the current judges?

Marty said:
Funny how Michael claims that marriage is a "fundamental concept", but considers the whole man+woman thing somehow arbitrary... and "bad law".

Please search back and point to a specific place that I refered to the law as arbitrary. I believe that it is not arbitrary at all, which is why I do not favor polygamy. I do believe that it can be modified to accomodate homosexuals.

In the example you cited, would it not have been possible for the two people involved to name each other beneficiaries in their wills? If that is not possible, then I'd advocate changing the laws so it is possible. But if it is possible, then what you are complaining about is the fact that such a designation wasn't automatic, not that it was barred to them.

The example was about workers compensation benefits granted by the government after the death of a spouse. Even though he was the beneficiary of the will, those benefits were denied. That means that his government doesn't treat his relationship like that of a heterosexuals.

Perhaps you've heard the phrase, "life isn't fair"? Well, guess what, there are all kinds of laws that are unfair to various people - it's not the courts' job to make life fair for everybody.

And so when, after 20 court rulings upholding original guardianship, Michael Schiavo is allowed to turn off his wife's feeding tube this just falls under "life isn't fair"? Ok, I can go with that.

Or.... I can say that you have a very minimalist position on what the role of the judiciary is. It's not just about the constitution. However, these judges found that the state marriage law was in violation of the state constitution. They didn't invent a new law. Please point out where they did.

I still don't get why you can't see the general problems with relying on a handful of judges to make rules like this. Just because you like the Goodridge result doesn't mean you'll get the results you want all the time. Aren't you just relying on the whims of the current judges?

I DON'T like relying on a handful of judges. I thought I made myself clear. I want the legislature to realize that they are denying gays full citizenship and correct it. I still don't understand all these cries of judicial activism. No one has MADE A NEW LAW. Pass amendments to the Constitution if you need to go that far in oppressing gays. Fine. I don't care. (Ok, I do care, but...) But NO ONE HAS MADE A NEW LAW.

I really hope, and I truly mean this in the most Christian way possible, that each and every one of you has a gay child. That way, you can spend the first couple of years trying to figure out how you made them gay (because that seems to be a general sentiment on this board). And then you can spend the next couple of years lying awake at night wondering if you ever said anything, even in passing, that hurt them. And after all that, you can try to explain to them how you actively worked to make sure that they would always remain only partially protected by their government, but how it was for the "good of society".

You know, just so you understand. I'm also through trying to figure out why you can't quite grasp that I have the same concerns for society that you do...

Thanks for hanging in there with us Michael, even when we're a bit obtuse. me especially.

Still, when you say things like:

That means that his government doesn't treat his relationship like that of a heterosexuals.

and

I want the legislature to realize that they are denying gays full citizenship and correct it.

You are engaging in the confused reasoning that this debate is about sexual orientation, when it is not. That's been one of the more frustrating things -- supporters see this as entirely about orientation, regardless of sex/gender, while opponents see it as entirely about sex/gender, regardless of orientation.

No one is denying gays rights to marriage, its just that gays aren't even remotely interested in the marriages they have equal rights to.

How can we resolve this?

How can we resolve this?

By getting your head out of your ass? Of course it's about orientation! For both sides. Because no anti-SSM pundit is seriously advocating that gays should marry straight people.

Heterosexuals do not understand this. The little girl who dreams of walking down that aisle and having the perfect husband and house and children and yada yada yada? All of her dreams, desires, lifeplans, etc are all in line with what's expected. Her biggest disappointment would be marrying the wrong man, or losing her love to someone else. Woah is her.

Well the homosexual can find that love of her life but cannot marry her, not because she's married to someone else but because the governemnt won't let them.

To insist that this isn't about orientation is a baldface f*cking lie and shows either a lack of compassion or an unwillingness to accept the fundamentals underlying sexuality.

"I DON'T like relying on a handful of judges. I thought I made myself clear. I want the legislature to realize that they are denying gays full citizenship and correct it."

But the point is that if you can't get what you want via the legislature, you'll accept a judicial decree as a reasonable substitute. Whereas if I couldn't get what I wanted via the legislature, I would not run to the courts to "reinterpret" and existing law in my favor.

"I still don't understand all these cries of judicial activism. No one has MADE A NEW LAW. Pass amendments to the Constitution if you need to go that far in oppressing gays. Fine. I don't care. (Ok, I do care, but...) But NO ONE HAS MADE A NEW LAW."

Talk about being obtuse. All the laws, federal and state, have always had the implicit assumption that 'marriage' referred to one man and one woman. Nobody every contemplated same-sex marriages until 10 or so years ago. It's preposterous to assume that the law as written applies to same-sex couples, as the Goodridge majority did. The whole point is that the Mass. SC didn't write down any new law, because that's the job of the legislature. But they radically reinterpreted existing law to reach a wholly novel conclusion that nobody had ever thought of before. The effect is the same as if they had simply replaced existing laws with their new, improved, version.

Time to cool down, Michael.

Of course it's about orientation! ... Because no anti-SSM pundit is seriously advocating that gays should marry straight people.

Actually, plenty of serious marriage advocates believe that "orientation" can and does change, and should -- especially if you're interested in starting a family. Now i'll be the first to admit that scientific data supporting "change" is specious and politically poisoned, but so is all the data refuting it! Yet we've both seen it happen with our own two eyes.

To insist that this isn't about orientation is a baldface f*cking lie and shows either a lack of compassion or an unwillingness to accept the fundamentals underlying sexuality.

You are too funny! Here, let me change one little word for you, and add a touch of salt:

"To insist that this isn't about procreation is a baldface f*cking lie and shows either a lack of compassion or an unwillingness to accept the fundamentals underlying sexuality."

So the fundamentals of sexuality are not procreative? I guess you're with SlimJim, who thinks that its "dubious" to assert that human life begins when a sperm fertilizes an egg... as if that would have ANYthing to do with ANYthing at all, right?

"NO ONE HAS MADE A NEW LAW"

Actually we have, several of them in fact. 38 States passed the DOMA because they weren't buying what your people were selling. The Federal goverment passed the DOMA because they weren't buying what your people were selling. And 17 States have ammended their very sacred constitutions because they aren't buying what you're selling (with more in the pipe).

"We The People" are not buying what you're selling here! And forcing it on us will win you no friends, friend.

Michael, for me, it really isn't about orientation, it's about androgyny, which I believe is cultural poison. I mean, if you want to know why I have taken up the anti-SSM cause, that is why, not because of hostility toward gays, though I know you probably won't believe me. But then I guess our difference is that while you see SSM as being about gay rights, I see it as being about the androgynization of culture. Noah Millman has elaborated a lot about his feelings on this matter, which are similar to mine though by no means identical.

>> I asked: "Mark, could you briefly describe the SSM idea that you espouse?"

>> Mark replied: "You’ll have to be more specific in your question. I feel my position has been clearly made – disagreement not withstanding."

I'll restate the question in light of our disagreement.

I'd say that civil law recognizes the social institution of marriage because it is the procreative model that sustains our society. Take away the link to procreation and the law would recognize some other thing, not marriage.

Suppose that there was no state recognition of opposite sex relationships. The law would deal with children as separate from the adult relationships of men and women. No such thing as marital status in civil law.

Would you still have a case for state recognition of same-sex relationships? Reasons for government licensing and legal incidents that stand apart from the loaded notion of marriage?

For my part, I think there might be reasons to provide state recognition of households that have zilch to do with marriage per se.