Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Sandefur picks up where I left off in criticizing Doug Kmiec's op-ed about same-sex marriage being a threat to human survival and adds some very important arguments to the mix. He offers an excellent response to the "marriage is all about procreation" argument:
With that in mind, let us look at marriage. In Kmiec's view, marriage is primarily about procreation. Another view--a view I hold to be more consistent with the worldview of the Declaration of Independence--is that marriage is about the union and conversation of souls. It is about shared values, ideas, memories, and identities. It is about mental and spiritual unity, and not about biology. This, indeed, is why marriages between infertile couples (like George and Martha Washington), or couples far beyond the age where they can have children, is not only accepted but applauded in the United States. This is why childlessness, while often regrettable, is hardly a veto on a marriage. This view of marriage is consonant with respecting individuals because of their common humanity.
Nicely said. And here's an argument I wish I'd thought of: if you really think that marriage is all about procreation and propagating the species, why would you be against polygamy?
By contrast, seeing marriage as primarily centered around reproduction would validate marriages entered into only for that reason; marriages without mutual respect between the spouses. If we see marriage as primarily a mechanism for breeding, then love is largely superfluous. Yet would this not be the very barbarism of which Kmiec would disapprove? Indeed, if the "survival of humanity" should be the governing principle in matters of laws regarding sexuality, then why shouldn't polygamy be encouraged? Or rape? Why should the law not require divorce for infertile couples? Or forbid prophylactics?
If you are really concerned, as Kmiec claims to be, about underpopulation and the "continuation of the species" would you not be encouraging polygamy? That is precisely how the Mormons, for example, grew their numbers in a remarkably short period of time. And then he offers another clever argument:
But single sex marriage does not "disorder" the continuation of the species in any way. Kmiec's claim that "giving state approval to non-procreative marriage cannot be denied as a contributing cause to the decline of families with natural children" is truly astonishing. Of course it can be denied. Homosexuals are not going to participate in the reproduction of the species one way or the other--unless the state somehow forces them to do so. Should we force homosexuals to have children? That would remedy the depopulation Kmiec worries about. But, of course, it would violate the principles of the Declaration of Independence to which Kmiec has appealed.If homosexuals are not going to participate one way or the other in the orderly continuation of the species, then banning them from getting married is no more likely to advance this purpose than banning rap music is to increase attendance at Mozart concerts. The people who do the former are no more or less likely to participate in the latter thanks to such a prohibition.
Except, of course, for those homosexuals who do choose to have children. And if anything, being able to have stable legal unions with all the protections that such unions provide for children will encourage gay couples to have children rather than discourage them. So if we are to take the propagation of the species argument seriously, it leads to the opposite conclusion than the one they want to reach.
So why don't they follow their own premises to their logical conclusion? Because those aren't really their premises at all, they are disingenuous arguments used only as a form of special pleading. Sandefur nails them on that too:
It is implausible in the least to say that the "distinction" by which same sex couples are barred from marriage is one "reasoned" on the basis of humanity's "survival." The ban on same sex marriage is rooted not in the needs of reproducing the species, but in long standing disapproval of homosexual relationships, a disapproval based on moral arguments, not on arguments of necessity.
The arguments against same-sex marriage can't be taken seriously because they do not reflect the real reason why people oppose same-sex marriage. The real reason can be expressed quite simply: "ewwww." And that does not a rational argument make.
Politics
Comments
This is always a risk when you start with your conclusion and dig around for any support. Things which can be forced into reinforcing your position can often more easily be used to refute it.
Posted by: Chris Anderson | June 23, 2008 9:44 AM
I saw a report over the weekend that the earth's population is expected to hit 7 BILLION on 2012. Can't we scratch the "be fruitful and multiply" instruction off the ole to-do list now? I don't think the species is at any risk of destruction from underpopulation.
Posted by: CPT_Doom | June 23, 2008 10:22 AM
Ah, but CPT, you forget that Europe's low rate of population growth is causing it to be overrun my Muslims, who will, in about 15 years time, have instituted Sharia Law over the old continent. Surely you do not want that to happen to the good ol' USA, right? The USA needs to have CHRISTIAN religious law, not that towel-head crap!!!
Posted by: Valhar2000 | June 23, 2008 10:39 AM
Is it not also the case that we need as many people as possible to pick up the pieces after procreation has taken place, but for whatever reason the individual(s) cannot look after their own child?
Unless it could be conclusively shown (and it can't) that children that are adopted by homosexual singles or couples were truly damaged by the experience -- above and beyond that of heterosexual parents, on average -- there is a ready made population that can provide a far better upbringing for children that we know are often damaged by their experiences in care.
I have to wonder about people who place their own prejudice above the welfare of others, and particularly children. There is something quite wrong about that, and we should be a lot more angry than we currently are.
What happens in the US when a single homosexual attempts to adopt a child, by the way? Are they duty bound to reveal their sexuality?
Posted by: Damian | June 23, 2008 10:42 AM
Most developed countries are at zero population growth or below replacement. The big problem bigots have is that the "WRONG" people are reproducing. They are too brown, don't speak the right languages and don't worship the right god. the answer, of course, is not to reproduce more white Europeans, but to develop poor countries so they will reduce their fertility. Slow or negative population growth sucks mightily in the short run but can only be a good thing in the long run regardless of which color people "win."
Posted by: Susan Brassfield Cogan | June 23, 2008 10:46 AM
Marriage is primarily about regulating the transfer of property - between men and women, and between parents and children. All the religious 'holy matrimony' bullshit is just window dressing and a means for social inforcement, and the only reason to deny the same rights to same-sex couples.
Posted by: Tycho the Dog | June 23, 2008 12:02 PM
I've had Kmiec as a professor at law school, and I know him to be a very intelligent and honorable person, even when I vociferously disagreed and debated with him on issues like gay marriage. But he is also a deeply committed Catholic, and he believes very strongly in natural law principles, which - surprise - prove that lifestyles arranged according to the principles of the Catholic church happen to be in exact accordance with the working of nature.
Conservatives like Kmiec are comforable with viewing marriage as primarily as a prophylactic against extinction of the human race because they view sexual orientation as a choice in a free market of sexual orientations, like cars in a showroom or new homes in the latest subdivision. From this framework, holding marriage out only for heterosexuals is an incentive to get a person to choose heterosexuality over homosexuality, much like a mortgage tax deduction may encourage someone to choose home ownership over renting. Certainly, no one is biologically predisposed to driving a stick-shift or staying in an apartment forever. Thus, if there are more benefits to being straight than gay, then people will choose being straight and maintain the propogation of our species.
This kind of mindset neatly explains why social conservatives like Kmiec do not see any flaw in the logic of arguing that heterosexual marriage does not discriminate against homosexuals because they are free to marry a member of the opposite sex. If it all it comes down to is a simple conscious choice, why not offer an incentive to the consumer in the sexual orientation marketplace to choose the option that will ensure the very survival of humanity?
Posted by: JohnC | June 23, 2008 12:06 PM
First of all, I have proof that gay marriage is ruining the sancitity of marriage. On Friday I looked at my left finger and my wedding ring is gone...disappeared...nowhere to be found. I know it is all those no-good gays! I mean it can't be the fact I've lost 65+ pounds since January. It can't be that I probably should have had it resized. No...it's all THEIR fault;-)
That being siad, my denomination says NOTHING in the vows about marriage being about procreation. NOT ONE LITTLE WORD! Not even one little word in the ceremony. It is about two becoming one.
I have plenty of married couples in my church that do not have children; for various personal reasons-all the way from not being able to conceive to just not liking kids much. Their marriage is just as valid as mine; which has produced four children.
This is an argument that has no legs!
Posted by: Rev. AJB | June 23, 2008 12:09 PM
Just a small correction to JohnC's statement. Prof. Kmiec does not believe in natural law principles, but in supernatural law principles, which masquerade as natural law principles, and have done so for a very long time. Saying "the current class structure/social prejudices/distribution of wealth and opportunity/mores regarding marriage, &c., are the way they are because God wants them that way" is the farthest thing from natural law principles. Until Kmiec and other Catholic, soi-disant natural law writers realize that, natural law theories will continue to be treated with scorn by the legal and political academy.
Posted by: Timothy Sandefur | June 23, 2008 12:49 PM
Let me not to the marriage of true minds
William Shakespeare
Let me not to the marriage of true minds
Admit impediments. Love is not love
Which alters when it alteration finds,
Or bends with the remover to remove:
Oh, no! it is an ever-fixéd mark,
That looks on tempests and is never shaken;
It is the star to every wandering bark,
Whose worth's unknown, although his height be taken.
Love's not time's fool, though rosy lips and cheeks
Within his bending sickle's compass come'
Love alters not with his brief hours and weeks,
But bears it out even to the edge of doom.
If this be error and upon me proved,
I never writ, nor no man ever loved.
Posted by: khan | June 23, 2008 1:05 PM
Have you seen this one? I had no idea that there was a legal requirement to have the appropriate, functional genitalia--with intent to procreate--checkbox on the marriage license form:
http://www.kentucky.com/589/story/440599.html
Posted by: Mariah | June 23, 2008 1:48 PM
I'm from the San Francisco area, and Kmiec is a frequent guest on Forum, one of our local public radio programs. I've always enjoyed hearing from him as he's obviously a bright man who knows what he's talking about. I've also always been surprised to listen to him on the gay marriage issue, because it's abundantly clear that whether he realizes it or not, he's backing his reasoning into his conclusions.
I don't think he's being disingenuous. I get the impression that he genuinely thinks that his scattered assertions from natural law make sense, and he doesn't seem to pick up on why people would question those assumptions. Two men can't make a baby? True. On average, two men also weigh more and will require more food than a man and a woman. We must be careful not to upset the natural balance of things.
Posted by: Troublesome Frog | June 23, 2008 1:54 PM
So what they're saying in linking Marriage = sex + procreation is that my husband and I (who knew I was infertile before we were married) have an invalid marriage, in spite of our 21 years together and 2 adopted kids. Sorry, but I beg to differ.
Posted by: Becca | June 23, 2008 1:59 PM
Mariah-I've filled out many marriage licenses in my day-all except one for the state of Indiana. (The one was in Florida). Have yet to find that little check box on genitalia. Not looking forward to the day when the state asks me to have couples "drop trou" to prove they have the right plumbing;-) I mean clergy have enough problems as it is;-) However, right now they do have to fill out the bride and groom part; which technically couldn't stop transgender couples from marrying.
Pretty scary article-especially since the author had to put down what he was arguing for at the end because I really couldn't tell when I was reading it.
Interestingly enough, Indiana does have a requirement in one area that you must have proof you CANNOT procreate in order to get married. That is the case for first cousins to get married. I know...start the banjo music right now....Although the only couple I have ever known to use this loophole was a couple of first cousins who were in their eighties-and had been raised that it was wrong for a man and a woman who were not brother and sister to live in a house together unmarried. They didn't like living alone and were great companions for one another. And they told me they had no intentions of consumating the marrige--like I needed that mental image in my head!
Posted by: Rev. AJB | June 23, 2008 2:11 PM
Becca-In my eyes-and in the eyes of most Christians-you're valid. Even without the two kids. Glad you found a husband who was understanding of your situation and willing to explore other options to have a family.
Posted by: Rev. AJB | June 23, 2008 2:15 PM
In response to Timothy Sandefur, your point is well taken on natural law. Some of my sharpest debates with Kmiec were over that very issue. He and like-minded students would posit in class that natural law was so fundamental to society that it could conceivably even trump the Constitution.
My problem with that natural law, which I expressed to Kmiec, is that it improperly conflates the societal use of the term "law" with its scientific counterpart. A societal "law" is but a snapshot of a what a particular social group opposes and seeks to oppress at a given point in history. Thus: A person MUST NOT murder another person.
Conversely, a scientific "law" is an order of the universe which cannot be violated by virtue of that same order. Thus: A person CAN murder another person if he is physically able and has an opportunity, regardless of what society desires or seeks to compel. However, a person cannot on his own resources alone float in the air when he steps over a cliff, regardless of the countless cartoons which may have suggested to the contrary.
The concept and terminology of "natural law" seeks to grant a set of moral aspirations the imprimatur of objectively verifiable truth that only true science can offer. To the extent that "natural law" attempts to state irrefutable laws of collective human behavior, it merely duplicates the work that sociologists have been doing for centuries without much success.
Because "natural law" is so malleable and subject to the perspective of ideals and perspective of the individual asserting it, I argued to Kmiec that it would be quite dangerous indeed to offer such a squishy, fuzzy doctrinal escape clause to the Constitution.
Posted by: JohnC | June 23, 2008 2:41 PM
As I've stated in previous threads, it's not the case, as far as I can tell, that most Catholics think that marriage is solely about procreation: the sexual act is both procreative and unitive, and a man leaving his home to be united with his wife would seem to exclude polygamy, really. (And seriously, look at some of the instances of polygamy in the Bible: Abraham, Jacob, David. They very rarely worked out well for anyone.)
Posted by: The Christian Cynic | June 23, 2008 5:13 PM
C-Span carried a forum on gay marriage held at some conservative thinktank -- AEI as I recall. Kmeic was not there but there was no shortage of similar conservative Catholics (Michael Novak, etc.) on the panel and in the audience, and ol' (disguised super-)natural law was flowing freely. When the very capable defender of g.m. on the panel pointed out exactly the same flaws that Sandefur has, the befuddlement, non-sequiturs and avoidance was stunning. To the point of comedy.
Posted by: Foggg | June 23, 2008 5:49 PM
JohnC--
That's a very common complaint against natural law theory, but it ultimately fails, I believe. That accusation overlooks the distinction (made by Aristotle in the N.E. for example) between the human sciences and the more exact sciences like physics.
Natural law ethics isn't an analogy to (comparitavely simple) laws of matter like gravitation; it's an assertion about the (vastly more complicated) characteristics of living and thinking beings. A natural law claim like, for example, "murder is wrong," is much more analogous to a claim such as "not watering a plant is hurtful to the plant." It is true that not watering a plant on one day is not going to kill the plant--thus some witty person might say that there is no such thing as a natural law here, since on any particular day that you fail to water the plant, it will still survive. But the fact is that plants are of such a nature that certain things are good for them and certain things are bad for them, and naturally so--i.e., not merely by convention. What natural law ethics says is that human good and human evil is of the same order as this claim about plants.
I would recommend H.L.A. Hart's brilliant The Concept of Law as well as Den Uyl and Rasmussen's (much more difficult) Norms of Liberty for a nice rational discussion of genuine natural law ethics/politics. These books are a great relief from the mysticism that people like Kmiec or Robert George use as substitutes for good, solid natural law ethics.
Posted by: Timothy Sandefur | June 23, 2008 8:19 PM
The procreation wing of the anti-gay argument is strictly a red herring, and a weak one at that. Gays have existed as long as humanity in general has, and the global population trajectory has been climbing across time (currently at an alarming rate, in my opinion, but that's another topic entirely).
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | June 24, 2008 5:55 AM
Let me see if I get the natural law argument. In the human male, stimulation of the prostate gland on a regular basis produces health benefits and a pleasurable sensation. The prostate gland is perfectly situated for stimulation by another man's penis. Therefore, male-to-male anal sex should be encouraged, provided basic safety precautions are observed, like monogamous partners. So the state should encourage gay marriage. Would that be a good example of natural law translated into human law?
Posted by: Abby Normal | June 24, 2008 9:15 AM
>> And if anything, being able to have stable legal unions with all the protections that such unions provide for children will encourage gay couples to have children rather than discourage them. >>
Pure BS. Having gay marriage does not encourage gays to get married. Gays hardly get married anymore in Mass. even though gay marriage is legal there. I hardly think that having civil unions will encourage gay couples to have children either. This argument is utter nonsense.
>> It is about shared values, ideas, memories, and identities. It is about mental and spiritual unity, and not about biology. >>
Utter bullcrap. If that is your idea of marriage, then your marriage is dead. What happens if ten years down the road your mental and spiritual unity are not so unified anymore? What if all those grandiose feelings of love and passion go away? Does that mean the marriage should end? Some people think so, and kids are left in the lurch. If you are single, you maybe can get away with entering a marriage based on all the warm and fuzzy stuff Sandefur mentions, but if you have kids, that stuff is back-burnered. Marriages do not last based on feelings of mental and spiritual unity, they last based on COMMITMENT to stick it out when the feelings aren't so good. Your feelings are secondary when it comes to maintaining the stability of your family for the sake of your kids. When you have kids, marriage is NOT about "shared values, ideas, memories, and identities" and mental and spiritual unity" so much as it is about COMMITMENT and providing a stable, loving home for your children.
>> The arguments against same-sex marriage can't be taken seriously because they do not reflect the real reason why people oppose same-sex marriage. The real reason can be expressed quite simply: "ewwww." And that does not a rational argument make. >>
So what if people think "ewwwww" when they think of gay marriage? People have a right to their preferences and they have a right to vote on them. The truth is that there are a lot of valid reasons for opposing gay marriage, just none that you like. I find the reasons for supporting gay marriage utterly irrational, personally. So I guess it is just reduced to a battle of opinions, right?
>> But single sex marriage does not "disorder" the continuation of the species in any way. Kmiec's claim that "giving state approval to non-procreative marriage cannot be denied as a contributing cause to the decline of families with natural children" is truly astonishing. Of course it can be denied. Homosexuals are not going to participate in the reproduction of the species one way or the other--unless the state somehow forces them to do so. Should we force homosexuals to have children? That would remedy the depopulation Kmiec worries about. But, of course, it would violate the principles of the Declaration of Independence to which Kmiec has appealed. >>
That is hardly a "clever" argument, Ed. Actually, Sandefur misunderstands the point being raised here. The liberalization of marriage and families - gay marriage is just one more rung on the ladder of that - has led to the decline of population and committed families in Europe. More children are being raised out of wedlock. Gay marriage is not encouraging people to get married, it is one more step in the long process of dismantling the stable, committed family. Gays hardly bother to get married in Europe at all, so how can it be said that marriage will be encouraged by gay marriage? It is incredible how myopic so many of you are on this. We've seen it in this country too with the implementation of liberal policies like no-fault divorce, welfare programs, and the liberalization of sexual behavior that really took hold back in the 60's. And what do we have now? Huge numbers of divorces (linked to higher rates of early sexual behavior and crime), cohabitation (which has a significantly higher rate of child abuse), and huge numbers of kids being raised in single-parent familys (resulting in higher rates of poverty), and huge numbers of kids born out of wedlock. Gay marriage is just the natural next step in the dismantling of the traditional family. The liberalization of the family has directly led to this and based on that, I don't think liberals have very good ideas about what families should look like. Their experiment has been a disaster and has led to crime and poverty and instability for children. I have no doubt that future generations will look back and wonder what we were thinking, just as some day when abortion is finally defeated it will be looked on like we look on slavery today.
Posted by: mroberts | June 24, 2008 1:30 PM
mroberts, you say "The truth is that there are a lot of valid reasons for opposing gay marriage, just none that you like."
Then how come nobody can ever articulate one?
All we ever hear is hysterical nonsense suggesting that allowing gays to marry will "destroy traditional marriage." I just learned last night that a gay couple of my acquaintance, together for 28 years, is getting married in August in San Francisco. I assure you that my 14-year marriage to my wife will not dissolve at that instant.
Want to be the first to cite a valid reason for opposing gay marriage? Oh, wait, there you go with "Gay marriage is just the natural next step in the dismantling of the traditional family." Bzzt, thank you for playing.
Posted by: Squiddhartha | June 24, 2008 1:46 PM
> Then how come nobody can ever articulate one? >>
No, people articulate them all the time, you just DON'T LIKE what they have to say. It doesn't matter what I say, it never is a "valid" argument to you people.
>> All we ever hear is hysterical nonsense suggesting that allowing gays to marry will "destroy traditional marriage." >>
I just addressed this in my last post, but people like you always like to just ignore it. Philosophically, gay marriage means that marriage is now essentially meaningless. Because when something can mean anything, it really means NOTHING. If it can mean anything, then it has little value, and it has been torn down from the pedestal on which it formerly stood. Maybe you don't think that matters, but it DOES. What is valued in society has an impact on how people act. If marriage is valued, people will treat it with respect. If it is not, they won't. Gay marriage proponents have no philosophical basis by which they can deny any other form of marriage, so philosophically speaking marriage has been dismantled. Again, if it can mean anything, it is essentially meaningless. So philosophically, gay marriage DOES destroy marriage by making it meaningless and something not worth of being valued. The proof is abundant in Europe and in Massachussetts. Gays don't bother to get married anymore! In fact, NOBODY does, and children pay the price. Not all of that can be blamed on gay marriage specifically, but it certainly can be blamed on liberalism in general. Gay marriage is just another step in the process of dismantling the traditional family that has taken place under liberalism. Liberals sure like to think they are enlightened, but the results of their philosophies and policies speak for themselves. Look what has happened over the past 40 years to the family and look at the price society has paid. Liberals have made an utter mess of things.
Posted by: mroberts | June 24, 2008 2:04 PM
No, gay marriage does not mean that marriage is essentially meaningless, nor does it mean that marriage means "anything." You are wrong. I am married, and it is anything but meaningless. Are you married? If so, is your marriage now meaningless?
Marriage is still two people committing to one another. Despite the hysterical claims of some opponents, nobody has seriously suggested that it should be extended to polygamy, or groups, or men marrying dogs, or anything but two people.
You say "Gays don't bother to get married anymore! In fact, NOBODY does, and children pay the price."
Are you honestly asserting that nobody, gay or straight, has gotten married in Massachusetts in, say, the last month?
Or are you just making stuff up?
I just said that a gay couple I know are getting married. Hell, after 28 years together, as far as I'm concerned, they are married; they're just certifying it. But the fact that they're doing so clearly shows that they value marriage -- so how does that square with your absurd claim "gay marriage DOES destroy marriage by making it meaningless and something not worth of being valued"?
Posted by: Squiddhartha | June 24, 2008 2:19 PM
mroberts wrote:
And then let's look at:
And you wonder why we think your arguments aren't valid. Perhaps it's because you keep making such ridiculous arguments. If gays are allowed to get married, will YOUR marriage suddenly have "little value"? Will it suddenly be "essentially meaningless"? If the answer is yes, that does not speak well about your marriage. If the answer is no - and it's obviously no - then your argument is proven false. You can't make "marriage" meaningless and without value without making particular marriageS meaningless and without value.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | June 24, 2008 2:25 PM
>> And you wonder why we think your arguments aren't valid. Perhaps it's because you keep making such ridiculous arguments. If gays are allowed to get married, will YOUR marriage suddenly have "little value"? Will it suddenly be "essentially meaningless"? If the answer is yes, that does not speak well about your marriage. If the answer is no - and it's obviously no - then your argument is proven false. You can't make "marriage" meaningless and without value without making particular marriageS meaningless and without value. >>
Ed, apparently you don't get it either. No, I never said that I was no longer married or my marriage or anybody else's suddenly was meaningless. Meaning comes from a certain regard for marriage. Those that are in happy marriages are obviously going to regard their marriages highly. I am talking from the standpoint of society here. Now that we have gay marriage, there is no philosophical reason to prevent making marriage be ANYTHING. If something can mean ANYTHING, it is MEANINGLESS. Maybe YOU still find meaning in your marriage, and that's great. But as a society, we have torn down marriage as a hallowed and respected institution because it has no instrinsic meaning anymore, again, because it can mean anything. If something can mean anything, then people generally are going to have less regard for it. The proof is in the state of marriage in Europe. Certainly there are people in Europe who find meaning in their marriages, but their society as a whole does not, as proved by the very low marriage rates.
Posted by: mroberts | June 24, 2008 2:33 PM
>> Are you honestly asserting that nobody, gay or straight, has gotten married in Massachusetts in, say, the last month?
Or are you just making stuff up?
>>
Squiddhartha, your comprehension skills are lacking, to say the least. Yeah, that's exactly what I mean, absolutely ZERO marriages in Massachussetts last month.
>> Marriage is still two people committing to one another. Despite the hysterical claims of some opponents, nobody has seriously suggested that it should be extended to polygamy, or groups, or men marrying dogs, or anything but two people. >>
Oh really? Now that we have gay marriage, give me 3 valid reasons why we should not have group marriage or polygamy.
Posted by: mroberts | June 24, 2008 2:36 PM
mroberts wrote:
This is absolute gibberish. If something is meaningless, then it's not possible to find meaning in it - by definition, for crying out loud. The whole notion that marriage could be made meaningless is ridiculous - it's going to "mean something" to every single married person (not always the same thing, of course, but that's true now).
Marriage rates in Europe actually went up after gay marriage was introduced. I can't wait to hear your irrational explanation for that.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | June 24, 2008 2:54 PM
>> Marriage rates in Europe actually went up after gay marriage was introduced. I can't wait to hear your irrational explanation for that. >>
Maybe they did for just a short bit, but on the whole marriage rates are WAY down. AND, gays are hardly getting married anymore. Tell me, in Massachussetts, why are gay marriages nearly nonexistent today if gays treasure marriage so greatly? If gay marriage is so great for marriage, why are we not seeing a reversal in the long-running decline in the rates of marriage? Sorry, but a small blip in the opposite direction does not imply a reversal. Those of you that trade stocks would understand that.
>> This is absolute gibberish. If something is meaningless, then it's not possible to find meaning in it - by definition, for crying out loud. The whole notion that marriage could be made meaningless is ridiculous - it's going to "mean something" to every single married person (not always the same thing, of course, but that's true now). >>
Uh, of course the person who gets married will find meaning in it, or else they wouldn't have gotten married! Wow, mindblowing there Ed. Again, you completely miss the point. Sure people find meaning in marriage THAT GET MARRIED. But the fact is that hardly anybody finds meaning in marriage anymore in Europe because NOBODY GETS MARRIED. And why not? Because society no longer values marriage! Why not? Because marriage is not longer a hallowed institution! Why not? Because it has literally been dismantled to the point that it is meaningless. Gay marriage is just one more step in the long process of dismantling the traditional family. If marriage can mean anything, then it effectively means nothing and will no longer be valued by society. I don't know how you guys just don't get it. Tell me, if liberalism is not the reason marriage rates have declined in Europe, what is?
Posted by: mroberts | June 24, 2008 3:07 PM
So now that gay marriage exists the term no longer has meaning? Are you saying marriage can now be used to describe one-night-stands, friendships, or business partners? Or is it even more meaningless, like pet ownership is now marriage too. Maybe it's totally without meaning, so I'm married to my lunch sandwich.
Or perhaps it does have some meaning. Maybe it means two people who have committed to love and support each other for the rest of their lives. Perhaps the term still describes people who have sworn to share their responsibilities, to care for each other, and to stand by each other come what may. It seems to me that when people commit to bind their futures together, that is marriage, regardless of what's between their legs. And that doesn't seem meaningless to me at all.
Posted by: Abby Normal | June 24, 2008 3:09 PM
>> So now that gay marriage exists the term no longer has meaning? Are you saying marriage can now be used to describe one-night-stands, friendships, or business partners? Or is it even more meaningless, like pet ownership is now marriage too. Maybe it's totally without meaning, so I'm married to my lunch sandwich. >>
As stupid as that sounds, why not? As I asked another guy the following: what reasons can you list for forbidding group marriages or polygamy? I would be curious to read your answer.
>> Or perhaps it does have some meaning. Maybe it means two people who have committed to love and support each other for the rest of their lives. Perhaps the term still describes people who have sworn to share their responsibilities, to care for each other, and to stand by each other come what may. It seems to me that when people commit to bind their futures together, that is marriage, regardless of what's between their legs. And that doesn't seem meaningless to me at all. >>
OK, if it is so meaningful, how come so few people are doing it liberal places like Europe?
Posted by: mroberts | June 24, 2008 3:26 PM
mrroberts-Your Eurpoe argument is all wrong. Marriage rates in Europe were on the decline well before gay marriages were made legal. A big problem the Church (and I use big C purposely) has in Europe is that it is state-funded and state-sponsored. In many Eurpean nations there is no seperation between church and state. I mean look at England where the Queen is the head of the church? The state funds the church and the church is there for the ministries of hatch, match, and dispatch. Church attendance and participation has been declining in Europe for years. What need do people have to participate? The church is well-funded by tax dollars and will be there when I need it. And that is true when it comes to marriage-especially in the church.
We cannot compare what is happening in Europe to what is happening here-where we have freedom of religion and seperation of church and state. If I don't have a congregation showing up every Sunday morning and leaving a little something in the offering plate, my church will close. It's that simple.
I don't see where gay civil marriage is any threat to the sanctity of marriage. There are other, tougher, issues that I think are threats. (Alcoholism, abuse, joblisness, etc.)
Posted by: Rev. AJB | June 24, 2008 3:42 PM
>Pure BS. Having gay marriage does not encourage gays to get married.
MrRoberts, I find it curious the emphasis that you place on people being encouraged to marry. People will marry without the encouragement- and indeed ins spite of active discouragement- all the time. My husband and I have been together over a quarter century- through good times and through a few rough spots that we've had to work very hard to weather. No social forces encouraged us to do so. In fact, we did so in the face of the significant discouragement of, well, people like you. Having legal marriage available protects the relationship. Prior to our marriage we took what steps we could (living wills, power of attorney, etc.) to protect the relationship from outside forces and circumstances. We did this realizing full well that these documents did not provide us with the full benefits and protections of marriage. We still maintain these special provisions, becuase we must. Our marriage is not recognized in this country- it was performed in British Columbia. I always feel such a sense of security when we are in Canada. If something happens to him, there will be no questions- I am simply the spouse and will be treated as such.
Posted by: DougT | June 24, 2008 4:42 PM
Now that we have gay marriage, give me 3 valid reasons why we should not have group marriage or polygamy.
Um...in case you haven't been reading the news, we already have polygamy -- and it's being practised by people who never allowed gay marriage in the first place. You need to update your shrieking-points. This "gay marriage leads to polygamy" nonsense is totally ignorant of the historical fact that polygamy has been practised by societies that have been consistently hostile to homosexuality and have never allowed gay marriage.
Posted by: Raging Bee | June 24, 2008 4:47 PM
I'll actually put it out there: I value marriage less if gays and lesbians can't have it. I'd just feel dirty getting married, like I was using a white's only restaurant. Maybe that's a bit extreme and I'm only speaking for myself here, but I'm not super comfortable using an institution if it's going to exclude loving soulmates simply because of their gender. Happily, I live in enlightened Massachusetts.
Posted by: Dennis N | June 24, 2008 4:55 PM
I think it's obvious that mroberts doesn't know the meaning of the word meaning.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | June 24, 2008 5:07 PM
Don't pretend to be stupid. I know you're smarter than this. Think about it for a few minutes and I'm sure it will come to you. I'll help get you started, a one-night-stand shouldn't get half my stuff when we part ways, my cats should never decide what happens to me if I'm on life-support, and my sandwich has no need to inherit my possessions if my cats pull the plug.
The same arguments that have always been made still hold. I've heard the arguments that it promotes abuse, contributes to social destabilization by creating a shortage of available mates, and creates legal confusion. For example, how much is someone entitled to when divorcing three partners or if two people disagree about pulling the plug on the third? I don't see same-sex marriage having any impact on those arguments.
There are numerous factors that feed into this and I'm not an expert. But here are just a few off the top of my head. Increased legal, economic, and social equality for women means that they are no longer as reliant on finding a provider to ensure their future prosperity. Birth control has greatly reduced the number "opps, we need to get married" weddings. Inflated marriage rates following World War 2 created an artificial peak. Stricter laws regarding marriage for the sake of citizenship had a big impact. New tax laws in many countries have removed much of the financial benefits of marriage. Better education and counseling have lead to a dramatic decline in teen weddings. Economic prosperity has reduced the need to pool resources. All these factors and more play into this complex issue.
Same-sex marriage on the other hand, has had a upward influence on marriage rates. You have dismissed that as a blip. But it's hard to see how you can maintain that it hurts marriage when the trend predates the same-sex marriage debate by decades and the numbers show that it had the opposite effect on the trend from what you predicted.
Posted by: Abby Normal | June 24, 2008 5:08 PM
mroberts
reasons against bestiality? How about (1)impossibility of informed consent; (2)many human diseases derived from animal diseases - more intimate contact with animals increases the liklihood of another disease (ebola?)making the inter-species jump; (3) general societal trend to treat animals more humanely.
reasons against polygamy? Try (1) unless women with multiple husbands are about equal in number of total spouses with men with multiple wifes, there will be an imbalance (see Mormans). IMO, such imbalances will probably lead to exiling members of the excess class (Id.), increases in adultery, prostitution, maybe rape.
(2) Society values stable relationships as beneficial for raising children, simplifying property issues, etc. Divorce stats show the 2 person marrriages are difficult to maintain - adding a third (or more) person likely increases the difficulty exponentially (eternal triangle imbedded in marriage, not a good idea).
(3) Waste of judicial and legislative resources clearing title on marital property if a spouse dies (if second wife dies, do husband and first wife split her property, what about her kids, etc)
Posted by: gort | June 24, 2008 5:24 PM
Mrroberts - as you well know marriage rates in Massachusetts in 2004 increased significantly, divorce decreased significantly according to data provided by the CDC, where is your data?
Japan, for example, has fallen below the replacement rate for around 10 years, homosexuality is not legally recognised - and the reason for the fall in feritlity is...?
Divorce rates in Australia have been stable for nearly 30 years despite the increased gay rights, and the reason for the disconnect between gays getting hitched and the divorce rate is because ... ?
Don't worry I don't expect you to actually answer a question, just rant nonsensically as usual. -DJ
BTW - Say hello from all here to your loving wife.
Posted by: DingoJack | June 25, 2008 1:17 PM
DJ-Meanwhile, here in the states, divorce rates have increased because *gasp* more divorced people are getting remarried. And it has been statistically proven that those who have divorced once do have a higher incidence of getting divorced again. Also, I think it's become more socially acceptable for a spouse in an abusive situation to leave that abuse behiind.
Posted by: Rev. AJB | June 25, 2008 1:47 PM
>> Your Eurpoe argument is all wrong. Marriage rates in Europe were on the decline well before gay marriages were made legal. >>
Goodness folks, I swear half of you cannot read. YES, I KNOW that. I've been saying that marriage has been on the decline because of liberalism, of which gay marriage tends to be a part. Liberalism has led to the decline of marriage. Gay marriage is just another rung in the ladder, or perhaps a nail in the coffin of marriage is a better analogy. You may think that gay marriage encourages marriage, but the numbers do not lie. Sure, maybe there was a spike in marriage initially after gay marriage was legalized, but big stinking deal. Short term trends are not necessarily evidence of long term trends, those of you that trade stocks should know that. The long term trend is still DOWN since liberalism really took hold. And the rate of gay marriages has utterly fallen off in places where it was legalized. Goodness, I hope I don't need to post this again.
My other big beef is what it will mean for religious liberty. Whenever I bring this up, I'm always met with a chorus of denials. Everybody always reassures me that religious people have nothing to worry about. Of course that is all pure BS and lies, which means that those who continually make that assertion either are woefully ignorant or outright liars. Here's an excerpt from an article by NPR addressing this issue (I added bold text to emphasize some points). Folks, NPR gets it, I would certainly hope you will too for a change.
Even NPR recognizes the danger to religious liberty. Can't wait for the denials from all you on this board. The question is, do you care? If you don't, I think that says all that needs to be said about the quality of person you are. If gays want to do their thing, fine. I don't agree with it, but whatever. However, they are doing MORE than just their thing, they are demanding that I endorse it. And they will sue if I don't. THAT IS WRONG, PERIOD.
Mission America summed it up well:
Posted by: mroberts | June 25, 2008 3:08 PM
>> BTW - Say hello from all here to your loving wife. >>
Dingo, was that meant genuinely and nicely, I hope?
Posted by: mroberts | June 25, 2008 3:15 PM
mroberts "Even NPR recognizes the danger to religious liberty."
Now go through that story, but replace "homosexual" with "black" or "jewish" (or, in the vernacular that would've been used at the time that they got the rights that WASPS already had, "nigger" or "kike"*).
*note: yes, I felt dirty typing those words.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | June 25, 2008 5:20 PM
>> Now go through that story, but replace "homosexual" with "black" or "jewish" (or, in the vernacular that would've been used at the time that they got the rights that WASPS already had, "nigger" or "kike"*). >>
The analogy fails. One can go from being homosexual to straight, but one cannot go from being black to white. If the characteristic can be changed it is NOT immutable and therefore not subject to special protections under discrimination laws.
Posted by: mroberts | June 25, 2008 5:24 PM
As far as I'm concerned, as long as you're a private citizen, or a private company, you have the "right" to be a bigot. To balance that, I have the "right" to spend my money elsewhere. This gets sticky in places where bigotry is widespread, however. As such, it works better as an ideal than as reality (and what doesn't?).
If, however, you or your company/group accept money from the State or are licenced by the State for a specific purpose (taxpayer funded programs of any kind whether faith-based or secular, or doctors, EMTs, pharmacists, public service employees, public school teachers/administrators, etc), you do not have the right to be so, um, discriminating. My tax dollars must not support your bigotry. Be a dink on your own dime.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | June 25, 2008 5:30 PM
The counter analogy fails! Evidence indicates that few of "the gays" successfully convert to our team.
You realize, of course, that your logic also strips real Christians of their right to discriminate, right?
Also...you forgot my mention of Jewish in that post. Why is that? Can a Jew not convert to another (or no) religion?
Posted by: Modusoperandi | June 25, 2008 5:41 PM
"One can go from being homosexual to straight.."
Good grief, what utter bullshit.
Posted by: John | June 25, 2008 5:47 PM
I'm still missing my wedding ring....maybe it will return if California outlaws all these gay marriages....
Posted by: Rev. AJB | June 25, 2008 6:00 PM
....however teh gays did return my t.v. remote, which has been missing for a few days....thanks guys;-)
Posted by: Rev. AJB | June 25, 2008 6:02 PM
BWAH HAHAHHAHA!
Post of the day!
Posted by: gwangung | June 25, 2008 6:35 PM
The Huguenin situation in New Mexico is indeed a serious mistake, mrroberts, but what are the odds of it being reversed when it hits a real Court (as I understand it, there is an automatic right of appeal of a Human Rights Commission decision)? I have a hard time believing that it is ever possible to force an artist to work on a project they detest (nor would I want that artist working on my project). Apparently, this whole case arose because the Huguenins were not tactful enough to say they had another appointment on that date. I imagine they know better now.
Posted by: kehrsam | June 25, 2008 6:37 PM
mrroberts - the old "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" rule applies in regards to your assertion that "one can go from homosexual to straight".
Where did you get that whopper from? Care to share some valid, statistically significant data to support that? My goodness, not even James Dobson tries to make that claim anymore.
Posted by: Michael Heath | June 25, 2008 6:51 PM
mroberts, I identified a number of pressures that have contributed to the declining marriage rates in Europe. I am proud to say that many of them are the result of liberal values. Though conservative values are also behind a couple of them. Do you dispute any of those factors or claim that any of them should be stopped? For example, would it be worth restricting access to contraception to improve marriage rates?
You also haven't shown how these falling rates have harmed Europe. If what we're seeing is the elimination of loveless marriages, abusive marriages, or marriages of convenience, then I'd say it's a good thing. When I look at Europe, along with the falling rate of marriage I see a rise in economic prosperity, higher levels of academic achievement, and longer/healthier lifespans.
Without getting into the whole debate about whether homosexuality is a choice or a natural characteristic, what if it were Christians that were being discriminated against? Christianity is a choice. Should a business have the right not to serve Christians? Should McDonald's be allowed to stop serving Christians if their CEO thinks Christianity is immoral? Is McDonald's currently promoting Christianity because it allows Christians to eat there? Should publicly funded charities and universities be allowed to discriminate against Christians, even though those Christians paid some of the taxes that went into their funding?
Regarding Marc Stern's questions in the article you quoted, just because he's asking them doesn't imply any answer. I could just as well ask, if California passes their same-sex marriage ban will I be blocked from adopting? What about buying a home with my lover? Will we be barred from signing a loan together? Obviously the answers are no.
I've asked a lot of questions in this post and I apologize for that. But I really have no idea what your answers will be and I promise to be open to whatever your replies are, to take time to consider them and try to see things from your point of view. Fair enough?
Posted by: Abby Normal | June 25, 2008 9:21 PM
Mrroberts - in answer to the question you directed at me, yes I mean it in a nice way. Don't confuse dissent with dislike.
Perhaps you (and others) might be interested in these articles from the Sydney Morning Herald today:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/science/dyed-in-the-womb/2008/06/25/1214073342452.html
http://www.smh.com.au/news/science/its-all-a-matter-of-a-shapely-brain/2008/06/25/1214073342449.html
Cheers DJ
Posted by: DIngoJack | June 26, 2008 2:16 AM
Do you mean like Christianity? Wayyy easier to change your religion than your sexual orientation. But if someone is gay, why should they have to change to be straight?
Posted by: Dennis N | June 26, 2008 11:56 AM
Reading the "Dyed in the Womb" article means I should be ready for at least one of my sons to "come out" to me in about 10-15 years.
Posted by: Rev. AJB | June 26, 2008 12:11 PM
I'm sure you'll be an understanding dad, not a judgemental preacher, Rev. Wonder if Mrroberts read it? Certainly not conclusive, but interesting neverthelass. -DJ
Posted by: DinjoJack | June 26, 2008 12:55 PM
>> Mrroberts - in answer to the question you directed at me, yes I mean it in a nice way. Don't confuse dissent with dislike. >>
Great Dingo, I appreciate that. Too many times dissent IS equated with dislike. Likewise, it should never be construed that I dislike those I disagree with - an accusation I hear (or read) often.
Posted by: mroberts | June 26, 2008 1:18 PM
>> Without getting into the whole debate about whether homosexuality is a choice or a natural characteristic, what if it were Christians that were being discriminated against? Christianity is a choice. Should a business have the right not to serve Christians? Should McDonald's be allowed to stop serving Christians if their CEO thinks Christianity is immoral? Is McDonald's currently promoting Christianity because it allows Christians to eat there? Should publicly funded charities and universities be allowed to discriminate against Christians, even though those Christians paid some of the taxes that went into their funding? >>
Abby, your attempt to equate legal protections for homosexuality with religion is erroneous. Religion has been granted special, specific protection under the First Amendment. NOWHERE in the Constitution has sexual behaviors been protected. Maybe you can classify both religious and expressions as behaviors and therefore attempt to apply the arguments I made against special protections for homosexuality to religion, but it doesn't work.
>> You also haven't shown how these falling rates have harmed Europe. If what we're seeing is the elimination of loveless marriages, abusive marriages, or marriages of convenience, then I'd say it's a good thing. >>
NEVER when I argue with people with more of a liberal persuasion do they mention what is good for the children in those marriages. Yes, nobody should be required to remain in an abusive marriage. However, those are a small percentage of all marriages. My wife grew up in a family where the parents had a "loveless" marriage, but for the sake of the kids, THEY STUCK IT OUT and made it work. Any my wife is far better off for it. Why is it that nobody considers it important for parents to deny their own selfish impulses for the sake of the kids they willingly created? Why do lefties never mention what is good for the kids? Only what parents want for themselves? Sorry, having a loveless marriage is not a good enough reason to tear apart a home and destroy the lives of kids. Sorry, but having a loveless marriage does not justify shuttling children to a different home every other week. Parents that willingly entered marriage and willingly chose to create a child are BOUND by the OBLIGATION to create a stable home for that child.
Posted by: mroberts | June 26, 2008 1:28 PM
DJ-Yes, I made that promise to my three boys and my daughter when each of them were infants. I was at a conference with a pastor/friend (who is gay) about two weeks after my first son was born. Hearing him tell me his story, I realized I always wanted to be there for my kids-no matter what. Especially when it came to something they wouldn't rightly choose on their own. I mean given the way our world feels about homosexuality, who would choose to be gay?
Posted by: Rev. AJB | June 26, 2008 2:13 PM
Now that being said, it doesn't always mean I'll agree with my kids. If my daughter turns into Amy Winehouse, Jr. she'll be hearing a lot of things from me that she won't like one little bit!
Posted by: Rev. AJB | June 26, 2008 2:16 PM
The analogy fails. One can go from being homosexual to straight, but one cannot go from being black to white. If the characteristic can be changed it is NOT immutable and therefore not subject to special protections under discrimination laws.
One can also go from being Pagan to being Christian. Does this mean religious discrimination is okay? Or do you advocate "special rights" for religious people?
Posted by: Raging Bee | June 26, 2008 2:28 PM
>> One can also go from being Pagan to being Christian. Does this mean religious discrimination is okay? Or do you advocate "special rights" for religious people? >>
LOL. Raging Bee, I am amazed by some of the stuff you say. Religious people already have special rights for their behavior. Read the First Amendment. Behaviors are not typically protected under discrimination laws, but our Founders saw fit to protect religious liberty because they view the rights of conscience as an unalienable right. That however, cannot be said for sexual behavior. There is nothing in the Constitution that specifically grants special protections for sexual behaviors.
Posted by: mroberts | June 26, 2008 2:47 PM
And nothing that allows them to be forbidden.
Posted by: Dennis N | June 26, 2008 2:53 PM
mroberts "Abby, your attempt to equate legal protections for homosexuality with religion is erroneous. Religion has been granted special, specific protection under the First Amendment. NOWHERE in the Constitution has sexual behaviors been protected."
So we simply have to start a homosexual religion! Genius! Dibs on the lesbians! Woo!
Posted by: Modusoperandi | June 26, 2008 2:54 PM
>> And nothing that allows them to be forbidden. >>
Sure, that could be argued. But then it would up to the individual states to decide what they want to do on the issue. But the Constitution does not allow by default for special protections for sexual behaviors. Sorry.
Posted by: mroberts | June 26, 2008 3:07 PM
Someone's sex life is not a matter for the government, just ask Lawrence vs. Texas. However, sex has nothing to do with gay marriage. Couples of any type could be married and never touch each other.
Posted by: Dennis N | June 26, 2008 3:12 PM
>> Someone's sex life is not a matter for the government, just ask Lawrence vs. Texas. However, sex has nothing to do with gay marriage. Couples of any type could be married and never touch each other. >>
If someone's sex life is not a matter for the government, then why are gays pushing to get special protections under the law for their sexual behaviors?
Posted by: mroberts | June 26, 2008 3:18 PM
They're not looking for anything special. They're looking for equal.
Posted by: Dennis N | June 26, 2008 3:20 PM
And as I said above, sex and marriage are different things. You don't get a license to have sex, you get a license to get married.
Posted by: Dennis N | June 26, 2008 3:22 PM
>> And as I said above, sex and marriage are different things. You don't get a license to have sex, you get a license to get married. >>
Yeah, but people are getting sued for criticizing gays' SEXUALITY, not their marital status. Obviously the law is being used to give special protection for sexual behavior. The issue is sexual behavior, not marital status. You statement doesn't hold water.
>> They're not looking for anything special. They're looking for equal. >>
Hardly. Gays managed to create their own institution of marriage that is different from the normal traditional one. I don't see how that is equal. Instead of following the rules, they created their own set of rules.
Posted by: mroberts | June 26, 2008 3:27 PM
Who was sued for criticizing someone's sexuality? Don't confuse criticism with discrimination.
Gays didn't create anything. Marriage was expanded to include any two people, and all marriages should be equal under the law. Remember the last time marriage was expanded, to you know, include mixed races? Now it's on its way to including different sexualities.
Posted by: Dennis N | June 26, 2008 3:31 PM
According to the senior pastor at my first call, this already exists. When the local Presbyterian pastor blessed the relationship of their organist and his partner, Dennis started calling the church the "Lesbyterian Chruch."
Sorry...someone has already beat you to the punch!
Posted by: Rev. AJB | June 26, 2008 3:41 PM
"Sorry...someone has already beat you to the punch!"
*Pout*
Posted by: Modusoperandi | June 26, 2008 4:38 PM
Interesting response mroberts, thanks. Could you clarify one point? If you are against discriminating against Christians because religion is specially protected by US Constitution, why are you against the California court decision, where sexual orientation is a protected class, just like religion? More generally, are you against discrimination against homosexuals in states where they are considered a protected class?
I noticed you didn't respond to my questions about the driving forces behind marriage rates in Europe. Would it then be safe to assume you agree with my assessment?
You say she is far better for it. I'm not doubting that. But I do wonder on what you base that assertion? Do have a method of determining how she would have been had her parents never married? Keep in mind we were talking about why falling marriage rate might not be such a problem. I get the impression you were talking about divorce, which would be a whole new can of worms.
Posted by: Abby Normal | June 26, 2008 8:39 PM
>> If you are against discriminating against Christians because religion is specially protected by US Constitution, why are you against the California court decision, where sexual orientation is a protected class, just like religion? More generally, are you against discrimination against homosexuals in states where they are considered a protected class? >>
Abby, that there should be no discrimination against Christians should not even be worth debate. It should be a foregone conclusion. Why? Because it says it in the Constitution! Maybe I read your meaning wrong, but you almost seemed to think that it might be OK to discriminate against Christians based on their religion despite what the First Amendment says.
Secondly, I disagree with the California Court decision because it was pure crap. First of all, marriage was defined by voters a few years ago with Proposition 22 as being only between one man and one woman. It is unconstitutional for the legislature to overturn a ballot initiative, yet the California legislature has since then passed numerous laws granted all the privileges of marriage to gay couples. And the Supreme Court used the fact that the legislature had passed those laws as part of the reasoning for extending full marriage rights (which only consisted of the name "marriage" at this point) to gay couples! Their decision was based, in part, on laws that were illegal to begin with! The decision was horrendously activist.
Look, I am a strong proponent of states' rights. If the citizens of a state vote to have gay marriage, then fine. I won't like it, but they have the right to determine what they want for their state. However, gay marriage has NEVER succeeded by popular vote, and in fact has been voted DOWN numerous times. So, gays instead SUE for it. The whole way they are going about this is just WRONG. Undermining the democratic process is not good for anybody, ESPECIALLY when it involves undermining the law. The dishonesty surrounding the gay marriage movement is absolutely breathtaking sometimes. If we don't have respect for the democratic process and the rule of law in this country, we are screwed.
Posted by: mroberts | June 27, 2008 1:07 PM
>> You say she is far better for it. I'm not doubting that. But I do wonder on what you base that assertion? Do have a method of determining how she would have been had her parents never married? Keep in mind we were talking about why falling marriage rate might not be such a problem. I get the impression you were talking about divorce, which would be a whole new can of worms. >>
Abby, solidifying a relationship in marriage - especially when it involves kids - just MAKES SENSE. Think about how much trust goes into a relationship when you are sharing everything and living under the same roof? How can you really trust somebody when they could just leave tomorrow? Think about the security that children feel when they know that their parents are always going to be around. Cohabiting couples may SAY they are committed, but if they truly are, why don't they solidify the relationship in marriage? As many gay activists often assert, marriage provides many protections for both parties in the marriage. If somebody says they are committed to the other person but is not willing to tie the knot, how can you say they truly are committed? Let me give you an example of why I think people should be getting married. I used to work in mortgage banking and I recently gave the following advice to a guy I know that was contemplating buying a house with his girlfriend. I told him, ABSOLUTELY DO NOT buy the house with her unless you get married. Why? Because you might break up! You are not really committed unless you actually get married, so one person could walk away at any time! this happened to one of my mortgage customers a long time ago. She bought a house with her boyfriend, he bailed on her, and for the past 20 years she has been paying the house payment, the maintenance, etc, all by herself. When she wanted to sell or refinance, she COULDN'T. Why not? Because her boyfriend from 20 years ago was still on the title of the house and a legal owner. He refused to talk to her or authorize selling or refinancing, so she was stuck. She could not move, could not refinance to pay off debt. And if she finally managed to convince him to let her sell, he was entitled to half the equity, even though he wasn't paying for any of the house bills.
Marriage PROTECTS both parties, and children, with SECURITY. It solidifies the commitment that is absolutely essential to building the trust that is ESSENTIAL to a good relationship. I find nothing more tragic than poor kids who are subjected by their single moms to an endless stream of live-in boyfriends. This destroys the sense of security of a child, never allows them to build a strong relationship with a father figure, and exposes them to vastly greater chance of abuse. Committed marriages are GOOD for kids. Why would we not want anything less than what is good for kids?
My wife certainly is better off because her parents stuck it out. By denying themselves and committing to providing a stable home for their kids - something that is absolutely essential - they demonstrated deep character and selflessness. Because they willingly had children, they were OBLIGATED to provide a stable home for their kids. Walking away simply because they weren't happy would have been an example of tremendous SELFISHNESS. Liberalism constantly undermines the family unit because it elevates personal wants and desires over personal OBLIGATIONS. If you have a family, you are therefore OBLIGATED to provide a stable home for your family. My thinking is this: if somebody wants to sleep around and never commit to anybody, they ought to get sterilized first. They should NOT drag kids into the chaos of their life. That is WRONG.
Posted by: mroberts | June 27, 2008 1:28 PM
Your most recent rant sounds like solid reasons why gays should be allowed to get married. Remember, being gay doesn't mean being promiscuous, and it doesn't mean chaos.
Posted by: Dennis N | June 27, 2008 1:33 PM
"However, gay marriage has NEVER succeeded by popular vote, and in fact has been voted DOWN numerous times. So, gays instead SUE for it. The whole way they are going about this is just WRONG. Undermining the democratic process is not good for anybody, ESPECIALLY when it involves undermining the law."
Although it's not entirely analogous, isn't this at a high level essentially what the Lovings did to get the ban on interracial marriage overturned? I believe that that had also never succeeded by a popular vote, and although I think they essentially appealed the decision instead of technically 'suing', was the way they went about it wrong? It undermined 'the law' in the exact same way.
Posted by: Spartan | June 27, 2008 2:13 PM
>> Your most recent rant sounds like solid reasons why gays should be allowed to get married. Remember, being gay doesn't mean being promiscuous, and it doesn't mean chaos. >>
Dennis, you really can sound like a nutcase sometimes. Asking people to commit themselves to each other and follow up on their obligation to create a stable home for children is a "rant"? How stupid can you get. And giving gays marriage rights is not going to make them more committed. That is stupid. If that were true, gay marriage rates would not have fallen off to almost nothing in Massachussetts. Now that gay marriage is legal there, hardly any gays even get married. Clearly the idea that marriage is going to make gays more prone to commitment is just stupid.
Posted by: mroberts | June 27, 2008 2:19 PM
>> Although it's not entirely analogous, isn't this at a high level essentially what the Lovings did to get the ban on interracial marriage overturned? I believe that that had also never succeeded by a popular vote, and although I think they essentially appealed the decision instead of technically 'suing', was the way they went about it wrong? It undermined 'the law' in the exact same way. >>
Spartan, you're right. It ISN'T analogous. Marriage is about one man and one woman, not one man of a certain color and one woman of a certain color. There WAS no legitimate reason to limit marriage based on skin color, therefore a lawsuit was justified. However, suing to redefine marriage from one man and one woman is entirely different. That is CHANGING the definition of marriage.
Posted by: mroberts | June 27, 2008 2:23 PM
"Spartan, you're right. It ISN'T analogous. Marriage is about one man and one woman"
I think you are missing what is analogous. If you read my previous post and what I quoted from you, your complaint focused on the, illegitimate in your eyes, method that you see being used by gays, and I thought that to avoid being hypocritical, you would complain about that 'method' being used for any legal/political cause. The Lovings 'undermined the democratic process' and 'undermined the law' also. So for consistency's sake, either gays are not undermining the law to get what you don't want, or the Lovings did not undermine the law to get what you, well, I don't know that you 'want' interracial marriage, but you don't seem to mind it.
I don't know why you bothered mentioning the stuff about 'undermining democracy', when you're fine with it being undermined when you happen to agree with the outcome.
Posted by: Spartan | June 27, 2008 2:57 PM
So if gays want to have a family, they are OBLIGATED to get married. But you say they shouldn't be allowed? How does that make sense? Being gay does not mean sleeping around and never committing. People who sleep around and don't commit are not the same people who are looking to get married. Being gay does not mean being promiscuous, you have to divorce those two ideas in your mind.
I never said it would, but it does give those who want to be committed more stability. Which is something you go on and on about for why marriage is important.
Marriage is a legal union of two people. Who cares about their gender?
Posted by: Dennis N | June 27, 2008 3:47 PM
mroberts "Clearly the idea that marriage is going to make gays more prone to commitment is just stupid."
No, but it does give the committed pairs the legal protection (as well as, in some cases, the tax advantages) of State-sanctioned marriage. When a pair of eighty year old lesbians tie the knot after a kajillion* years together (they were among the first to get married in California, if memory serves), they are committed, and clearly so. You should be so lucky if your marriage lasts as long as their defacto one. Now, they have the legal protection that goes along with it.
You can be outraged and shake your fist all you want (heck, shake two), but that was a beautiful thing. If you can't see that, you can't see the forest for the trees.
*Note: not a real word
Posted by: Modusoperandi | June 27, 2008 3:56 PM
Marriage is not exactly a recipe for stability and commitment among heterosexuals, so let's just abolish the institution altogether, why don't we? Oh wait...
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | June 27, 2008 3:58 PM
>> I don't know why you bothered mentioning the stuff about 'undermining democracy', when you're fine with it being undermined when you happen to agree with the outcome. >>
Spartan, if that is conclusion you came to based on my post, then you completely my point. My point is this: marriage is about one man and one woman, regardless of color. A black man and a white woman fit this criteria, therefore their union is perfectly justified despite laws otherwise. The justice of laws prohibiting interracial marriage were rightfully disputed via litigation. Homosexual marriage does NOT fit this criteria, therefore it should be submitted to the people for a vote because the people have a right to decide whether or not they want a bedrock institution redefined and changed. Legalizing interracial marriage did not alter the marriage institution. Gay marriage DOES alter the marriage institution. Hopefully this is more clear.
Posted by: mroberts | June 27, 2008 4:28 PM
>> Marriage is not exactly a recipe for stability and commitment among heterosexuals, so let's just abolish the institution altogether, why don't we? Oh wait... >>
Oh please. How about we just fix it? Marriage and the traditional family has been destroyed because of LIBERALISM - a philosophy that essentially promotes self-interest over obligation. In elevating the individual, liberalism has created a generation of self-serving narcissists. Anybody that thinks of themselves first is either not going to enter into marriage at all or is going to be a disaster in marriage. Liberals try at every turn it seems to undermine and demean the traditional family, then they have the nerve to say that we need to abolish marriage altogether because it isn't working. Well, marriage worked fine before liberalism overtook our nation.
Posted by: mroberts | June 27, 2008 4:38 PM
>> No, but it does give the committed pairs the legal protection (as well as, in some cases, the tax advantages) of State-sanctioned marriage. When a pair of eighty year old lesbians tie the knot after a kajillion* years together (they were among the first to get married in California, if memory serves), they are committed, and clearly so. You should be so lucky if your marriage lasts as long as their defacto one. Now, they have the legal protection that goes along with it.
You can be outraged and shake your fist all you want (heck, shake two), but that was a beautiful thing. If you can't see that, you can't see the forest for the trees. >>
Maybe so, but I see the price I am going to pay with my religious liberty. If you don't believe, see the article I posted earlier on this blog post. Even liberal NPR gets it; hopefully you will too. Maybe gays are getting more rights, but it will be at the expense of my religious liberty.
Posted by: mroberts | June 27, 2008 4:41 PM
mroberts; I believe that I agree with you (in part) that private bigotry falls under free speech/freedom of conscience. As such, I think that the photographer story is unfortunate (he should fight it. The courts will side with him. Even "activist judges" generally put the Constitution before personal feelings, like the California decision falling under precedent and the 14th amendment, I believe). I do not believe that my tax dollars should fund your bigotry, however. In sum, I will both fight for your right to be a bigot, and will fight you for my right not to fund it with my tax dollars.
Of course...
If your religious liberty comes at the expense of human rights, then perhaps it's best that they be curtailed. You do realize that the argument from authority/tradition consistently comes out on the wrong side of history, right? Look at the Southern Baptist Convention, geocentricism, or most any authoritarian/fascist regimes.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | June 27, 2008 6:32 PM
>> You do realize that the argument from authority/tradition consistently comes out on the wrong side of history, right? Look at the Southern Baptist Convention, geocentricism, or most any authoritarian/fascist regimes. >>
Modus, that statement makes it sound like you believe that any change is good. Not necessarily. Just because what we are doing now is different from what we were doing before does not mean that it is necessarily better. Traditions often have merit and long-running traditions should not be set aside lightly.
>> If your religious liberty comes at the expense of human rights, then perhaps it's best that they be curtailed. >>
Wow, that is an incredible statement. If people are not free to practice their religion, this nation will not long remain free. The Founders believed that, and I don't think it is an accident that it was the first thing they amended the Constitution with. I find it amazing that somehow gays get to have whatever rights they want, but I am required to sacrifice mine - ones that have been sacrosanct since the beginnings of this nation. Why do I have to sacrifice MY rights? What makes gays so much better than me that they get to trample all over MY rights? How is it that this small minority of people gets to walk all over the rights of the vastly greater number of people that are religious?
This whole gay marriage thing is not going to turn out well for this country. Already in CO gay activists have managed to get the governor to fund a gender-neutral bathroom bill for that state that may also limit anti-gay speech in public. Is this is the vision of America that the gay activists have? Where you cannot EVEN CRITICIZE homosexuality? Where your ten-year-old daughter is going to be forced to share a restroom with a gender-confused man? How are we are freer nation because of stuff like this? Wow, I am blown away that there are people in this country that have no problem with this. We have a TINY TINY minority imposing on the majority. MOST Americans DO NOT support this insane stuff.
Posted by: mroberts | June 28, 2008 1:37 AM
mrroberts said:
This is often stated (especially by liberals, as it happens) but it is not true. What we think of as the First Amendment was the third proposed by Madison. The original first, which concerned the rules governing the number and apportionment of Congressional seats, was never adopted. The second, which governs the pay of sitting Members of Congress, was passed a few years back as the 27th Amendment.
The reason the First Amendment comes first is because it outlines limitations on the powers of Congress, and thus logically belongs in Article I. The First Amendment is thus first only by happenstance, and was so little valued in the early Republic that Adams was freely violating it while the ink was still wet (metaphorically).
Posted by: kehrsam | June 28, 2008 6:59 AM
I think you're missing the point. You keep switching back and forth between conflicting principles to justify your position.
You are taking a basically illiberal position---that other people should not be allowed to choose who to marry irrespective of gender.
Nobody is trying to make you marry a person of the same sex, if you don't want to. You are trying to prevent other people from marrying people of the same sex.
You are the one who is anti-liberty here. You're the one that wants to trample other people's freedoms.
You can try to justify that in "democratic" terms, but that doesn't change the fact that it's anti-liberty. It's what the Founders called the tyranny of the majority.
Nobody wants to limit your freedom of religion, except when your "liberty" oversteps its bounds and becomes tyranny.
Your right to swing your fist stops at somebody else's face. If you want to call your right to swing your fist "liberty," as though it included the right to hit somebody else in the face, then yes, we want to "infringe" on that "liberty." Somebody else's right not to be hit in the face trumps your "right" to swing your fist anywhere you want.
Likewise, your liberty to marry as you see fit does not extend to the right to tell other people not to marry as they see fit.
I don't know whether you're being disingenuous or just flat dumb, but the analogy to the Loving decision is apt.
Many people then did in fact think that allowing interracial marriage would sully and degrade the institution of marriage, in much the same way that many people now think that allowing gay marriage would.
Neither has anything to do with your "liberty," properly construed.
Equal rights are not special rights. Gays are not asking for the right to bugger you, or to marry you. They are asking for the right to marry each other, which has nothing to do with you, except insofar as you want to deny them equal rights.
You are insane, right? Nobody's talking about taking away any of your rights, except the right to deny other people equal rights. Get over it.
For the same reason as the Loving decision. It doesn't matter that most white people and a fair number of black people thought that there was something wrong with whites marrying blacks.
Many people made the same kind of argument you are making about gay marriage. They thought that it would be bad for society and bad for the children if interracial marriage was allowed. They thought that it would be wrong for the state to "endorse" that non-traditional and maladaptive kind of relationship by calling it marriage.
All of those arguments were illiberal, i.e., anti-liberty. They were arguments against extending a liberty to a certain class of people, because of (a) perceived costs to others and (b) the traditional "right" of the majority to impose its traditional standards on a minority.
You can make those arguments if you want, but don't pretend that what you're talking about is "liberty." It might be democracy, but this is one of those cases where liberty and democracy clearly conflict.
If you don't understand that utterly basic point, you do not understand the principles this country was founded on.
Stop waffling between principles of liberty, democracy, and traditional religious values. Where there's a conflict, acknowledge it and make an argument about which one trumps the other and why.
Otherwise, you're just ranting and rambling with no coherent position, and we'll just write you off as dishonest or crazy.
Posted by: Paul W. | June 28, 2008 10:28 AM
mroberts "Modus, that statement makes it sound like you believe that any change is good."
Changing to include more Americans in American society? How is that bad?
"Traditions often have merit and long-running traditions should not be set aside lightly."
We aren't setting them aside lightly. The arguments against change, in this case, don't hold up.
"Wow, that is an incredible statement."
Thank you. I am an incredible person. Why, just yesterday, I jumped over a building.
"If people are not free to practice their religion, this nation will not long remain free."
If your religion means that some Americans aren't real Americans, then you aren't free right now. You just don't notice because you aren't a member of an unpopular minority.
"I find it amazing that somehow gays get to have whatever rights they want, but I am required to sacrifice mine"
If we're still talking about gay marriage (which I doubt); they gained, you didn't lose nuffin'.
If we're still talking about freedom of conscience; I, in part, agree with you. Also, I in part, disagree. I'm not typing it out again. It's in one (or more) of my earlier posts. No, not that one. Warmer...warmer...hot!
"Already in CO gay activists have managed to get the governor to fund a gender-neutral bathroom bill for that state that may also limit anti-gay speech in public."
Colorado's SB200? . To paraphrase the words of somebody else, "I don't think that law means what you think it means". I read through it. There's bits that I agree with and bits that I don't. It will eventually be clarified in court decisions (controversial legislation generally is. Laws tend to be vague. This is because politicians are commonly lawyers).
From the bill
If that's the worst thing ever, you don't know bad. Plus, it's an amendment. The caps are the changes, I believe. They're just getting rights that they should have already had. Ones that other people had already."Where you cannot EVEN CRITICIZE homosexuality?"
You're confusing free speech and hate speech. As it happens, I believe that the latter falls under the former (unless there's an incitement to violence, which already falls under incitement laws anyway).
I will fight and die for your right to be an asshole. That's my bumper sticker. Just don't expect to do it on my tax dollars. That's my bumper sticker, too. It 's long, I know. I had to buy a wider car just to fit it.
"Where your ten-year-old daughter is going to be forced to share a restroom with a gender-confused man?"
You go into the bathroom with your daughter?
I kid! Seriously, men won't use the ladies room. There are no urinals there. Women won't use the mens room. It smells unpleasant in there and someone clogged the middle stall. No, I don't know who did it. Stop staring at me!
And why is that wrong, anyway? It's not like they're sharing a stall. Sure, she'll have some uncomfortable questions (uncomfortable for you, that is), when she comes out. Are you scared that, after exposure to a wider scope of humanity she might...learn tolerance?
"MOST Americans DO NOT support this insane stuff."
Yeah, damn those inalienable rights when some people have the audacity to use theirs, making you feel icky in the process.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | June 28, 2008 10:53 AM
Paul, YOUR position is hilarious. You are saying it is wrong to deny supposed rights to gays, but you apparently have no problem denying religious freedom to religious people. Your attempt to cast gays as some oppressed class is absurd. They tend to be well-educated, wealthier than most Americans, and they tend to live in places like Laguna Beach, Long Beach, West Hollywood, etc. Wow, life really sucks for those poor oppressed gays. Gays have never been told they cannot vote or they have to sit at the back of the bus. In fact, they can EVEN MARRY. They just have to follow the same rules that everybody else does. But, gays didn't like that. They wanted NEW rules that fit their preferences, so they have fought to redefine the institution of marriage altogether to fit what they want. I don't see how that is equal. Changing rules you don't like (that apply equally to all) is not equality, it is special treatment. Additionally, instituting rules that prohibit even CRITICIZING homosexualty is not equality, but special treatment. I can criticize any other group in the country and not be prosecuted. But criticize a gay, or make him feel "intimidated", and I might find myself being sued, fined, and thrown in jail if I live in the wrong part of the country (like NJ). Additionally, if I choose not to expose my kids to pro-gay propaganda in school, a judge might tell me sorry, I have no say in the matter. This happened in Massachussetts. What other group has that power in society? What other group is so protected that you cannot even CRITICIZE them? Sorry, gays have not achieved equal rights, they have achieved a special status in society where one cannot EVEN CRITICIZE them. This is not a hallmark of a free society where free speech is upheld and respected, this is hallmark of a TYRANNICAL one. Free societies do not pass laws that insulate groups even from criticism. Gays already have all the rights of the rest of Americans. This whole gay marriage debate is not even about marriage anyway - the proof is in the gay marriage rates in MAss. - it is about FORCING the rest of society to condone homosexuality. Hence the moves to pass laws that even penalize criticism. Open your eyes Paul, take a honest look at what is happening. You cited the Founders, but do you honestly think they would support laws that insulate a certain group from criticism under penalty of prosecution? If you think so, you prove to me that you know NOTHING about who the Founders were.
Posted by: mroberts | June 28, 2008 12:21 PM
mroberts:
Citation? This to me sounds like the location issue could (if even accurate) be due to these places of concentration being more tolerant of homosexuals; places like the Midwest where there is not as much tolerance of gays will have lower concentration because 1) they will leave (because really, who likes to live in a place where people hate them?) or 2) they will not be nearly as open about being gay because they don't want to be ostracized. I am still interested to know where you got this information or whether or not it's just an inference from popular stereotypes.
Posted by: The Christian Cynic | June 28, 2008 1:00 PM
>> They tend to be well-educated, wealthier than most Americans, and they tend to live in places like Laguna Beach, Long Beach, West Hollywood, etc. >>
I live in Southern California. You can also add Palm Springs to the list.
Posted by: mroberts | June 28, 2008 1:03 PM
Is this anecdotal, then? I really want to know.
Posted by: The Christian Cynic | June 28, 2008 1:08 PM
Mroberts gay-locater sounds distinctly anecdotal. If not, it sounds to me like they just don't like winter. And who can blame them?
Posted by: Modusoperandi | June 28, 2008 1:36 PM
Thanks, Mr. Chuckles!
You are saying it is wrong to deny supposed rights to gays, but you apparently have no problem denying religious freedom to religious people. Your attempt to cast gays as some oppressed class is absurd. They tend to be well-educated, wealthier than most Americans, and they tend to live in places like Laguna Beach, Long Beach, West Hollywood, etc. Wow, life really sucks for those poor oppressed gays.
Hmmm... so we don't have to protect individual civil rights of people who are well-off economically on average, and tend to live in particular areas?
So how's about we deny Jews the right to marry, then?
Or maybe just the richer-than-average ones. And while we're at it, we let the poorer-than-average gays marry, too?
Sorry, your justification for not worrying about the civil rights of a class of people based on crude demographics is just absurd.
OK, how about this rule: people can only marry people of the same sex. By your reasoning, that would be equal rights, too.
I suspect that if the shoe were on the other foot, you'd suddenly realize that superficially "equal" rights are not in fact equal, if some people get to do what they want, and other people don't get to do what they want.
Or how about a rule that says any two people can marry if and only if their ages differ by less than 5 years?
Here's one I especially like. Let's institute a rule that says you can only marry if you shout "There is no God!" during the service.
That'd be a fine, evenhanded rule, wouldn't it? After all, we'd apply the same rule to everyone, so that must amount to substantive equal rights, mustn't it?
Or maybe there's something just a wee bit wrong with your thinking that applying "the same rule" to people with different preferences automatically achieves equal rights.
Posted by: Paul W. | June 28, 2008 2:37 PM
mroberts, I just want to apologize for vanishing in the middle of our discussion. I went on a camping vacation and my BlackBerry died, cutting me off. This thread appears to be dead. So, I look forward to picking up the conversation again in a future thread. Sorry.
Posted by: Abby Normal | July 7, 2008 12:25 PM
You don't have to be too expensive enough to get through with marriage life. You have to be more controllable enough with your expensive.
"Marriage is an institution - if you don't mind being institutionalized." Groucho Marx, sage, wise aleck, and comic extraordinaire made that famous quote, and it certainly rings true. However, things on that landscape have changed in the last 60 years in America. Since the World War 2 era, the divorce rate has climbed to just over 50%, and the most common reason for divorce isn't parenting disagreements, nor is it over abuse or infidelity. The most common cause of divorce is over money, conclusively, and once a couple decides to take that plunge, they often end up over their heads because they don't know just what they've gotten themselves into, and many couples have to resort to payday installment loans. A lot of people, married or otherwise, struggle with financial decisions and when you have the tandem approach that is necessary to making a marriage work, then things can get even more complicated. Compromise and teamwork are essential, and so is communication. Communicating effectively and well is such an essential life skill, and the impact that not being able to do that are far reaching, as it can adversely affect your personal relationships, and your career. If you don't effectively communicate about finances with your spouse, then it will lead to problems. Money management for couples is vital, and there may be times that you have to get payday installment loans to keep yourselves afloat for a while. Click to read more on Payday Installment Loans.
Posted by: Payday installment loan | November 25, 2008 4:29 AM