For years, Parents and Friends of Ex-gays and the International Healing Foundation have pushed the idea that ex-gays were a minority group like gays. They have mimicked the language of civil rights movements and yet very few people have seemed to buy it. Today, Chris Doyle’s group Voice for the Voiceless had a lobby day at the Supreme Court (even though you can’t really lobby the Supreme Court) and demanded their rights. Problem was only about 10 showed up.
CBN has more…
After all is said and done, I can’t figure out what rights ex-gays lack or why they need protection.
The CBN interview is a surreal viewing experience and a big commercial for IHF with unsubstantiated charges about “security threats.” If such threats were verifiable, I feel sure that Doyle’s group would make them public.
398 thoughts on “Ex-Gays Demand Something”
Comments are closed.
That is essentially the same claim Boo made before that was answered here
As the court noted in JvA (2012) , the question of SS parenting is a disputed point and remains a matter of public debate.
When your conclusion depends on a disputed point its called begging the question.
bman,
I have a personal opinion about marriage, however, mine is based on the sanctity of marriage rather than the secular view of marriage, so it remains my opinion and I do not impose it on others, nor do I use it to impede on the rights of others.
I know you were distinguishing which marriage concept was better for society, however, do you think that SSM, in itself, diminishes or takes away from society?
In addition to my earlier responses, Justice Cody’s dissent in the Goodridge case is an example of a rational basis argument that the majority of courts would accept.
If you download the ruling, the argument starts at the words, “The question we must turn to next is whether the statute, construed as limiting marriage to couples of the opposite sex, remains a rational way to further that purpose.”
From there, the argument continues to the end of the document.
You are referring to the majority of “state high courts” but my claim did not say “the majority of state high courts.”
I used the phrase “the majority of high courts” in a loose sense that meant “upper level courts” to contrast the courts in the article from lower level courts.
In light of your objection, however, the term “upper level courts” is definitely clearer, which I intend to use in the future.
As for “old dissents,” you did not show why the date of Justice Cordy’s dissent is relevant.
I referenced Justice Cordy to refute Boo’s claim that, “no rational basis argument had ever been made” contra SSM. Your objection to the date seems moot with regard to that point.
As for your calling it “old” that seems biased since the same general approach was used recently in the JvA and SvS 2012 cases. Additionally, the majority of courts in the article from 2003-2010 are relatively similar to Justice Cordy’s approach. Its not as “old” as you infer.
Regarding your claim, “Ken was right” you did not include a quotation. Its nothing more than an unsupported claim at this point, therefore.
Addendum:
Your tsunami claim seems to dismiss two cases in 2012 (August and November), that ruled against SSM, which is only a year or less ago.
Jackson v. Abercrombie, Hawaii.
Sevcik v. Sandova, Nevada.
Both cases are awaiting appeal to the 9th circuit.
The JvA ruling addressed your comment on parenting by saying it was a debatable point, similar to what Justice Cordy had said.
The SvS case argued that SSM could adversely impact society’s beliefs that link marriage to procreation and cause severe consequences.
A widespread belief among heterosexuals that marriage is not linked to marriage could make unwed childbirth the norm, which is not in the best interest of children or society.
Some here asked how ex gay rights are being denied.
Here are some excerpts from an article on CitizenLink just this week that shows an example of how the rights of ex-gays are being violated.
Um…Bman,
Rescinding an invitation may be rude, but it is not a violation of anyone’s rights.
Assuming such events are attended ‘by invitation only’, requesting he not attend at all, (I suspect this isn’t the case) it would still be a stretch to tie that to some sort of civil rights violation.
Mr. McClurkin has already demonstrated he will commandeer an event to make it his own private platform. That’s inappropriate in itself, but not surprising since he intends to ‘wage war’ between the ‘Christian’ community, and the ‘gay agenda’. He likely sees it as imperative. However, such a move at a Civil Rights celebration would only be more of an insult since he’s labeled GLBT advocates as ‘child killers’,
McClurkin, likely sees this as an infringement of his first amendment rights, which would only make sense if he intended to speak out during the concert. I suspect as much given what he said in his statement regarding the ‘dis-invitation’; “There should be freedom of speech as long as it’s done in love,”
That’s an interesting statement. ‘… as long as it’s done in love.” Unfortunately, actions done in ‘love’ are often nebulous and relative. In this case McClurkin would nearly have a captive audience to express his version of ‘love’ upon.
C.S. Lewis spoke on such love.
“Of all tyrannies,” he wrote, “a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. … You start being ‘kind’ to people before you have considered their rights, and then force upon them supposed kindnesses which they in fact had a right to refuse, and finally kindnesses which no one but you will recognize as kindnesses and which the recipient will feel as abominable cruelties.”
To claim an injustice was done upon Mr. McClurkin, one must reconcile his ‘righteous indignation’ in this statement;
“…a black man, a black artist is uninvited from a civil rights movement depicting the love, the unity, the peace, the tolerance.”
…with his earlier statements.
Speaking to his critics in the GLBT community:
“I’m not in the mood to play with those who are trying to kill our children.”
And the gay civil rights movement in general:
“The gloves are off,” he says. “And if there’s going to be a war, there’s going to be a war. But it will be a war with a purpose.”…”There is not enough being said. There are no Christian programs telling the news like it is. It’s time for Christians to stand up and fight”.
“The two trial cases I cited are recent and they opposed SSM. By contrast, you have not shown a single recent trial case for SSM.”
Yeah, cause there hasn’t been a single court case. Certainly none that are all over the news everywhere. Nope, not happening. And Kennedy certainly didn’t telegraph how he’d rule on a case with better standing. Nope, didn’t happen. Tell me something Bman, what color is the sky in your world?
“For that matter, you claimed a “tsunami” was on your side. Even if you found a matching number of recent cases on your side, it would not be enough to show “a tsunami.””
Uh huh. Denial ain’t just a river in Africa. Not that I terribly mind. If freedom and equality must have enemies, may they all be like you.
See here’s the thing Bman. You guys lose. You ALWAYS lose. You lost on racial minorities, You lost on women. You even lost on the Irish. Yet you want us to believe that this time, this is the one that’s going to be different. This is where your irrational fears are going to be convincing and stop the march of equality in its tracks. Because… well, just because. And it’s just so incredibly silly. It’s just a silly massive waste of time and effort in the name of not reversing or stopping equality, but just delaying it a little longer so a few more families will be hurt for no reason. That’s all your side can accomplish. And you know it. I’d say deep down you know it, except I don’t think it’s really that deep down. I think you’re actually smart enough to know that torturing the metaphor of a tsunami is not going to change anything. And what is simultaneously the worst and best part of this is that you guys don’t actually lose anything when we win. Except that now we have the internet you won’t be able to do what segregationists did and walk away from your statements. They will be preserved. This is the legacy you are leaving; silly delays. Enjoy it.
Tom Van Dyke# ~ Sep 7, 2013 at 2:08 pm
“There are many loopholes, such as “permitting” women past menopause to marry, that now we are driving gay marriage through. ”
These are not “loopholes.” These marriages are allowed because marriage is about more than “making babies” or even raising children.
“But we’re really not getting to the core issue, which is “why does marriage exist in the first place?” ”
Civil marriage exists because it is in the governments interest to promote and support long-term stable relationships. regardless of whether those relationships include producing and/or raising children.
“Sex as disease? Interesting argument.”
Sex is not a disease and I never said any such thing. What I said was that your assertion that the states’ only interest in sex was the procreation aspect of it was wrong, and I gave some examples to demonstrate.
“One could say that society has a compelling interest in monogamy on those grounds, I suppose. ”
Monogamy is not a requirement of marriage, although, it can be said to be an expectation of it (unless otherwise specified). As for your implication that gays aren’t (can’t be?) as monogamous as straights, I suggest you look up what the primary reason for divorce is.
Civil marriage exists because it is in the governments interest to promote and support long-term stable relationships.
Saying that over and over won’t make it true, Ken. “Relationships” is a post-20th century concept. Society has no interest in the parents’ “relationship” other than that they raise the kids. Feed, clothe and house them, keep them from becoming juvenile delinquents, and society’s compelling interest in “relationships” begins and ends with the fact that heterosexual lovers tend to become what we call “parents.”
Now, if you want to argue in the 21st century that society should use the power of government to create an institution of “gay marriage”—something that historically existed neither legally or even culturally—then that’s a valid argument of course, subject to persuasive proof. The proof that gay marriage will be a net positive for society is lacking, and may be unprovable until it’s too late to roll it back if it proves bad for society.
Basically, because there is so little solid empirical evidence one way or the other, the argument for SSM is and can only be: “What harm can it do?”
By shifting the burden of proof onto opponents of SSM–and there is no conclusive evidence one way or the other, nobody knows—whoever gets to shift the burden proof onto the other side wins. I disagree with Mr. “B’man” that there isn’t a tide in favor of SSM at the moment. However, he’s also correct that tides rush in, but they also recede.
At this point, there is no principled argument on gay marriage. I just wanted to see what a clever fellow such as yourself could come up with besides assertions. SSM has become a question of political will and political power—a small handful of states have democratically/constitutionally–legitimately!– created it, specifically New York state, Maryland, and a few others. California played the legal game [and won] by overturning the popular vote. Most of the rest had gay marriage imposed on them by their state Supreme Courts.
At this point, I expect an armistice—some states approving SSM, the rest resisting it. Like the Designated Hitter rule, eh?
If it’s good enough for baseball, it’s good enough for marriage, I make it. Why, it’s the American Way.
Tom Van Dyke – the 1M1F model of marriage prohibits the biological children of couples, one of whom is Intersex, from having married parents.
This is not a hypothetical, it’s a reality, not possible may-or-may-not-be, but actual and real.
You claim that allowing SSM might possibly lead to an increase in children whose biological parents are not married. You make a case that this is a possibility, however remote, though I note that there is zero evidence this has ever actually happened in jurisdictions that have SSM. Well, perhaps the evidence hasn’t been gathered, though if not, we only have the AFA, NARTH, etc etc, all well-funded groups to blame for not gathering it. As of now, there’s exactly as much evidence for your contention as there is for the existence of unicorns in the White House Garden, and rather less than for the existence of Santa Claus.
But compared to these phantasmagoria, we have actual recorded examples of children’s parents not being allowed to marry each other. Not because they can’t consent, neither are they barred from marrying because of incest. But because they are deemed neither wholly F nor wholly M.
It’s one thing to say a chimerical conjecture of possible harm is a “rational basis” all other things being equal, but they’re manifestly not. We have actual, well- evidenced, genuine harm on one hand, vs mere unevidenced and unquantifiable supposition of possible harm on the other.
As for your “exceptions”
The idea that a minority that is being legally persecuted, denied basic human rights, is perfectly fine if the minority is small enough is morally and intellectually bankrupt.
What would you do if one of these people, who you have stated are negligible, that it’s OK to treat them as non-human, came up to you and objected? What would you say to them?
That’s not a hypothetical, BTW.
Wrong again Tom. For example you can contract a lot more diseases from non-procreative sex than you can from a backrub. That is why the state is interested in both non-procreative and procreative sex (as I mentioned previously).
Diseases therefore> “create gay marriage”? Absurd.
Tom Van Dyke# ~ Sep 8, 2013 at 6:44 pm
“If someone wants to inject themselves into the discussion, they should read the discussion, rather than disrupt it with misunderstandings of what has been said. Sir.”
She wasn’t disrupting it. She was pointing out that once again you are basing your arguments on factually incorrect information.
“That they are exceptions and not the rule is sufficient.”
No it isn’t. the AZ law to allow sterile 1st cousins to marry clearly demonstrates that the state has a significant interest in marriage besides procreation. You keep claiming (without any proof) that the examples I gave are “exceptions” so you can ignore facts that are inconvenient to your arguments about marriage.
“Until you address this directly”
fine:
“Indeed, if the man’s impotent, that’s not grounds for divorce, it’s grounds for annulment.”
In some cases this is true (ex. the husband was impotent before the marriage and didn’t disclose this to the spouse), because sex is an expectation of marriage. However, infertility is NOT grounds for annulment. Because having children is NOT a requirement of marriage.
“If there was no consummation, there never was a marriage.”
Totally false, there is NO consummation requirement for a civil marriage in this country. A marriage exists as soon as there is a validly signed marriage license (or in some cases when it has been filed with the appropriate state office after being signed).
“because biologically speaking, there’s no difference between non-procreative “sex” and a backrub.”
Wrong again Tom. For example you can contract a lot more diseases from non-procreative sex than you can from a backrub. That is why the state is interested in both non-procreative and procreative sex (as I mentioned previously).
“if there were no such thing as children, it’s unlikely there would be any such thing as marriage.”
probably not, but I fail to see how that is relevant to the marriage discussion of today. Once again Tom we are discussing marriage in the 21st century, not from 5000 of years ago.
I believe I’ve addressed all of your “issues.” Now your turn how about you actually answer my question. I’ll repeat it again:
If the State’s primary (only?) interest in marriage is procreation (child-rearing?), then why is it okay to make “exceptions” for infertile straight couples (or other couples from whom it is NOT desirable that they raise children), but not for gay couples?
That’s something when even Buzz Lightyear agrees!
At most, that is an experiment conducted in one state that does not represent the general case, and so it agrees with TVD’s point that an exception does not establish the rule.
Furthermore, the state interest you mention needs to be specifically identified. If its an interest that is within the norm that men and women marry, that would not argue for an interest in legalizing the “marriage” of same sex couples, which could harm that norm.
It should be noted, too, the AZ law forbids marriage by fertile 1st cousin but allows marriage by infertile 1st cousins.
That still points to a policy that links that law to an interest in responsible procreation.
Yes, this whole argument/approach is highly problematic. I blogged recently about how it is a very illogical approach to not only the hard fought gains of the legitimate Civil Rights legacy. Ex-gays, as a protected class, meet a grand total of ZERO criteria required for such a status.
This also misses the point altogether when it comes to who we are as Christians. Sure not everyone involved in that realm are Christians but Christians will do themselves a disservice if they adopt this “cause.” Our identity as Christians and our concern is the Gospel; not ex-gay identity politics clamoring for a seat at a table we have already feasted off of.
Ex-gays are heterosexual. Oh, the oppression.
Except, of course, they (generally) are not – and that’s perhaps the problem …
They should, of course, have the same rights as everyone else: fair treatment under the law and the right of freedom of expression (so long as others are not harmed by the exercise of that right).
My previous post should have started:
My assertion about laws and court rulings were to point out that civil marriage was NOT only designed to “facilitate procreation.”
“Facilitate” is completely inaccurate here. manipulating the words buries the truth, not clarifies it.
Only sex between men and women makes babies. Marriage is to have a family structure in place for raising them if and when the babies show up, and they sure do.
Society and the state have no truly compelling interest in “sex” that doesn’t make babies one way or the other.
Tom said, “Society and the state have no truly compelling interest in “sex” that doesn’t make babies one way or the other.”
Generally, I agree. However, what must be added is that it is legal to secure children without sex. Since children may be cared for by same-sex couples then the state does have interest in the resulting families.
Does any of us have the ‘right to be believed’? Maybe this is what they really want? Maybe we all want it (I certainly often want ‘to be believed’)? Perhaps that’s what this is really about … If so, I can understand and sympathize with that.
Earlier you said, “We’re in the middle of a tsunami of court rulings striking down these anti-gay statutes,” and now you say, “Yeah, cause there hasn’t been a single court case.”
Wow, what a “tsunami” of court rulings that proved to be!
I view the rest of your post as a non-sequitur.
“The two trial cases I cited are recent and they opposed SSM. By contrast, you have not shown a single recent trial case for SSM.”
Yeah, cause there hasn’t been a single court case. Certainly none that are all over the news everywhere. Nope, not happening. And Kennedy certainly didn’t telegraph how he’d rule on a case with better standing. Nope, didn’t happen. Tell me something Bman, what color is the sky in your world?
“For that matter, you claimed a “tsunami” was on your side. Even if you found a matching number of recent cases on your side, it would not be enough to show “a tsunami.””
Uh huh. Denial ain’t just a river in Africa. Not that I terribly mind. If freedom and equality must have enemies, may they all be like you.
See here’s the thing Bman. You guys lose. You ALWAYS lose. You lost on racial minorities, You lost on women. You even lost on the Irish. Yet you want us to believe that this time, this is the one that’s going to be different. This is where your irrational fears are going to be convincing and stop the march of equality in its tracks. Because… well, just because. And it’s just so incredibly silly. It’s just a silly massive waste of time and effort in the name of not reversing or stopping equality, but just delaying it a little longer so a few more families will be hurt for no reason. That’s all your side can accomplish. And you know it. I’d say deep down you know it, except I don’t think it’s really that deep down. I think you’re actually smart enough to know that torturing the metaphor of a tsunami is not going to change anything. And what is simultaneously the worst and best part of this is that you guys don’t actually lose anything when we win. Except that now we have the internet you won’t be able to do what segregationists did and walk away from your statements. They will be preserved. This is the legacy you are leaving; silly delays. Enjoy it.
On the other hand, my husband and I get to file joint federal tax next year.
Earlier you said, “We’re in the middle of a tsunami of court rulings striking down these anti-gay statutes,” and now you say, “Yeah, cause there hasn’t been a single court case.”
Wow, what a “tsunami” of court rulings that proved to be!
I view the rest of your post as a non-sequitur.
On the other hand, my husband and I get to file joint federal tax next year.
That is essentially the same claim Boo made before that was answered here
As the court noted in JvA (2012) , the question of SS parenting is a disputed point and remains a matter of public debate.
When your conclusion depends on a disputed point its called begging the question.
The statement you selected has to be interpreted in the context it was made.
The term “inferior behavior” referred to inferior sexual behaviors becoming norms around children if the marriage norm was not upheld by law and policy.
That said, your argument actually helps make my case.
One simply needs to look at the perpetual and cumulative harm to black children from one generation to the next caused by the collapse of marriage in the urban black community due largely to government welfare policy.
The “inferior behavior” around black children that we want to prevent is the lack of marriage.
You wrongly apply my argument, therefore.
My argument, when rightly applied, means the marriage norm should be promoted among blacks and all people to deter inferior [sexual] behavior by adults around children.
It does not say inferior behavior should be used to deter marriage, contra your claim.
ken>….that is the point. It demonstrates the state [AZ] has a significant interest in marriage other than for procreation.
—-
You need to identify what that significant interest is.
Its not enough to simply say an additional interest exists without also identifying it.
You also need to show how its allegedly incompatible with facilitating responsible procreation.
If the additional interest turns out to be ancillary, complementary, and/or subordinate to facilitating responsible procreation, your point would be moot.
ken>”Further, WHY would a state conduct such an experiment? If as you and Tom keep asserting that marriage is for procreation, then this “experiment” makes no sense.”
—–
It makes sense, but here is the argument in smaller steps.
Premise: The state of AZ allows 1st cousins to marry if they are infertile but forbids marriage if they are fertile.
Premise: The state of AZ has an interest in fertility that it links to marriage.
Premise: An interest in fertility is also an interest in procreation.
Conclusion: Since the state of AZ links an interest in fertility to marriage, it also links an interest in procreation to marriage.
Tom Van Dyke# ~ Sep 9, 2013 at 2:16 pm
“Diseases therefore> “create gay marriage”? Absurd.”
You really can’t handle being proven wrong can you Tom? YOU were the one who made the absurd (and false) statement in support of your argument. When I demonstrate how it is incorrect, you twist my words to claim I’m saying something I never said.
all while ignoring my question. I addressed all of your “issues” as you requested, yet you refuse to answer my question.
bman# ~ Sep 9, 2013 at 1:15 pm
“At most, that is an experiment conducted in one state that does not represent the general case.”
It is not just one state. I know there are others (probably only a few) that have similar laws. also ALL states allow the elderly to marry (no state has an upper limit on marriage).
Further, WHY would a state conduct such an experiment? If as you and Tom keep asserting that marriage is for procreation, then this “experiment” makes no sense.
“It should be noted, too, the AZ law forbids marriage by fertile 1st cousin but allows marriage by infertile 1st cousins. ”
that is the point. It demonstrates the state has a significant interest in marriage other than for procreation.
bman# ~ Sep 9, 2013 at 11:58 am
“If we enact laws that facilitate inferior adult behavior around children, we can expect the child population would be harmed into infinity as each generation of children models the inferior behavior to their children upon reaching adulthood. ”
Using this argument, then if it were shown that african-american parents (or any other minority) had “inferior behavior” around children then they should be denied the right of marriage.
Of course the problem is your premise is false. Allowing gay couples to marry doesn’t harm children. And states already acknowledge that “gay behavior” doesn’t harm children because they allow gays to foster and adopt children.
The statement you selected has to be interpreted in the context it was made.
The term “inferior behavior” referred to inferior sexual behaviors becoming norms around children if the marriage norm was not upheld by law and policy.
That said, your argument actually helps make my case.
One simply needs to look at the perpetual and cumulative harm to black children from one generation to the next caused by the collapse of marriage in the urban black community due largely to government welfare policy.
The “inferior behavior” around black children that we want to prevent is the lack of marriage.
You wrongly apply my argument, therefore.
My argument, when rightly applied, means the marriage norm should be promoted among blacks and all people to deter inferior [sexual] behavior by adults around children.
It does not say inferior behavior should be used to deter marriage, contra your claim.
ken>….that is the point. It demonstrates the state [AZ] has a significant interest in marriage other than for procreation.
—-
You need to identify what that significant interest is.
Its not enough to simply say an additional interest exists without also identifying it.
You also need to show how its allegedly incompatible with facilitating responsible procreation.
If the additional interest turns out to be ancillary, complementary, and/or subordinate to facilitating responsible procreation, your point would be moot.
Conception can happen with IVF, however. I think it is important to remember – without the contribution of a man’s sperm and the contribution of a woman’s egg, a new life cannot be created. I do not think this is a coincidence.
ken>”Further, WHY would a state conduct such an experiment? If as you and Tom keep asserting that marriage is for procreation, then this “experiment” makes no sense.”
—–
It makes sense, but here is the argument in smaller steps.
Premise: The state of AZ allows 1st cousins to marry if they are infertile but forbids marriage if they are fertile.
Premise: The state of AZ has an interest in fertility that it links to marriage.
Premise: An interest in fertility is also an interest in procreation.
Conclusion: Since the state of AZ links an interest in fertility to marriage, it also links an interest in procreation to marriage.
Tom Van Dyke# ~ Sep 9, 2013 at 2:16 pm
“Diseases therefore> “create gay marriage”? Absurd.”
You really can’t handle being proven wrong can you Tom? YOU were the one who made the absurd (and false) statement in support of your argument. When I demonstrate how it is incorrect, you twist my words to claim I’m saying something I never said.
all while ignoring my question. I addressed all of your “issues” as you requested, yet you refuse to answer my question.
bman# ~ Sep 9, 2013 at 1:15 pm
“At most, that is an experiment conducted in one state that does not represent the general case.”
It is not just one state. I know there are others (probably only a few) that have similar laws. also ALL states allow the elderly to marry (no state has an upper limit on marriage).
Further, WHY would a state conduct such an experiment? If as you and Tom keep asserting that marriage is for procreation, then this “experiment” makes no sense.
“It should be noted, too, the AZ law forbids marriage by fertile 1st cousin but allows marriage by infertile 1st cousins. ”
that is the point. It demonstrates the state has a significant interest in marriage other than for procreation.
bman# ~ Sep 9, 2013 at 11:58 am
“If we enact laws that facilitate inferior adult behavior around children, we can expect the child population would be harmed into infinity as each generation of children models the inferior behavior to their children upon reaching adulthood. ”
Using this argument, then if it were shown that african-american parents (or any other minority) had “inferior behavior” around children then they should be denied the right of marriage.
Of course the problem is your premise is false. Allowing gay couples to marry doesn’t harm children. And states already acknowledge that “gay behavior” doesn’t harm children because they allow gays to foster and adopt children.
Conception can happen with IVF, however. I think it is important to remember – without the contribution of a man’s sperm and the contribution of a woman’s egg, a new life cannot be created. I do not think this is a coincidence.
That’s something when even Buzz Lightyear agrees!
You claim that allowing SSM might possibly lead to an increase in children whose biological parents are not married.
No, I didn’t argue that, since there is so little evidence about the effects of SSM on children [let alone society] one way or the other. It’s an epistemological rabbit hole, and I’ll decline your kind offer to step in it.
But compared to these phantasmagoria, we have actual recorded examples of children’s parents not being allowed to marry each other. Not because they can’t consent, neither are they barred from marrying because of incest. But because they are deemed neither wholly F nor wholly M.
¿Huh? I wouldn’t know where to start discussing such one-in-a-million occurrence, and certainly not by changing marriage laws for the whole country because of it. If anything illustrates the absurdity of arguing the exception and not the rule, this is it. To make an exception for these folks seems more prudent than to create a loophole and then driving gay marriage through it in the name of “fairness.”
Wrong again Tom. For example you can contract a lot more diseases from non-procreative sex than you can from a backrub. That is why the state is interested in both non-procreative and procreative sex (as I mentioned previously).
Diseases therefore> “create gay marriage”? Absurd.
At most, that is an experiment conducted in one state that does not represent the general case, and so it agrees with TVD’s point that an exception does not establish the rule.
Furthermore, the state interest you mention needs to be specifically identified. If its an interest that is within the norm that men and women marry, that would not argue for an interest in legalizing the “marriage” of same sex couples, which could harm that norm.
It should be noted, too, the AZ law forbids marriage by fertile 1st cousin but allows marriage by infertile 1st cousins.
That still points to a policy that links that law to an interest in responsible procreation.
Heavens. I guess that’s inferior me told. I better get to the back of the bus. BTW: To infinity and beyond! Isn’t what Buzz Lightyear says in Toy Story?
ZB>”…the 1M1F model of marriage prohibits the biological children of couples, one of whom is Intersex, from having married parents…”
—–
You could make a similar claim that monogamous marriage law,”prohibits the biological children of some couples from having married parents…” where one parent is already married.
Although the principle of monogamy could be eliminated to benefit the children in those families, it would also pose harm to children on a scale much larger, because it would forever facilitate bigamy in the general population.
From that perspective we see how marriage is designed for the good of the child population, and how normative harm cumulates over infinity for the child population if an inferior marriage concept was generalized into a norm.
It should be asked whether a marriage concept is superior or inferior as a norm for all generations to follow to infinity, therefore, before its legalized as a norm.
We also want law to bias the population-level-behavior of adults around children toward what is best for children today, and best for today’s children to model upon adulthood to their children, into infinity.
If we enact laws that facilitate inferior adult behavior around children, we can expect the child population would be harmed into infinity as each generation of children models the inferior behavior to their children upon reaching adulthood.
That’s what we don’t want.
By default, anything that poses normative harm to the fabric of society, or erodes the best norms, also implies cumulative long term harm to the child population to infinity.
In sum, the case you describe calls for compassion, but it doesn’t call for a solution that would harm the norm that men and women marry, as that would pose long term normative harm to children into infinity.
You claim that allowing SSM might possibly lead to an increase in children whose biological parents are not married.
No, I didn’t argue that, since there is so little evidence about the effects of SSM on children [let alone society] one way or the other. It’s an epistemological rabbit hole, and I’ll decline your kind offer to step in it.
But compared to these phantasmagoria, we have actual recorded examples of children’s parents not being allowed to marry each other. Not because they can’t consent, neither are they barred from marrying because of incest. But because they are deemed neither wholly F nor wholly M.
¿Huh? I wouldn’t know where to start discussing such one-in-a-million occurrence, and certainly not by changing marriage laws for the whole country because of it. If anything illustrates the absurdity of arguing the exception and not the rule, this is it. To make an exception for these folks seems more prudent than to create a loophole and then driving gay marriage through it in the name of “fairness.”
Heavens. I guess that’s inferior me told. I better get to the back of the bus. BTW: To infinity and beyond! Isn’t what Buzz Lightyear says in Toy Story?
ZB>”…the 1M1F model of marriage prohibits the biological children of couples, one of whom is Intersex, from having married parents…”
—–
You could make a similar claim that monogamous marriage law,”prohibits the biological children of some couples from having married parents…” where one parent is already married.
Although the principle of monogamy could be eliminated to benefit the children in those families, it would also pose harm to children on a scale much larger, because it would forever facilitate bigamy in the general population.
From that perspective we see how marriage is designed for the good of the child population, and how normative harm cumulates over infinity for the child population if an inferior marriage concept was generalized into a norm.
It should be asked whether a marriage concept is superior or inferior as a norm for all generations to follow to infinity, therefore, before its legalized as a norm.
We also want law to bias the population-level-behavior of adults around children toward what is best for children today, and best for today’s children to model upon adulthood to their children, into infinity.
If we enact laws that facilitate inferior adult behavior around children, we can expect the child population would be harmed into infinity as each generation of children models the inferior behavior to their children upon reaching adulthood.
That’s what we don’t want.
By default, anything that poses normative harm to the fabric of society, or erodes the best norms, also implies cumulative long term harm to the child population to infinity.
In sum, the case you describe calls for compassion, but it doesn’t call for a solution that would harm the norm that men and women marry, as that would pose long term normative harm to children into infinity.
Tom Van Dyke – the 1M1F model of marriage prohibits the biological children of couples, one of whom is Intersex, from having married parents.
This is not a hypothetical, it’s a reality, not possible may-or-may-not-be, but actual and real.
You claim that allowing SSM might possibly lead to an increase in children whose biological parents are not married. You make a case that this is a possibility, however remote, though I note that there is zero evidence this has ever actually happened in jurisdictions that have SSM. Well, perhaps the evidence hasn’t been gathered, though if not, we only have the AFA, NARTH, etc etc, all well-funded groups to blame for not gathering it. As of now, there’s exactly as much evidence for your contention as there is for the existence of unicorns in the White House Garden, and rather less than for the existence of Santa Claus.
But compared to these phantasmagoria, we have actual recorded examples of children’s parents not being allowed to marry each other. Not because they can’t consent, neither are they barred from marrying because of incest. But because they are deemed neither wholly F nor wholly M.
It’s one thing to say a chimerical conjecture of possible harm is a “rational basis” all other things being equal, but they’re manifestly not. We have actual, well- evidenced, genuine harm on one hand, vs mere unevidenced and unquantifiable supposition of possible harm on the other.
As for your “exceptions”
The idea that a minority that is being legally persecuted, denied basic human rights, is perfectly fine if the minority is small enough is morally and intellectually bankrupt.
What would you do if one of these people, who you have stated are negligible, that it’s OK to treat them as non-human, came up to you and objected? What would you say to them?
That’s not a hypothetical, BTW.
Tom Van Dyke# ~ Sep 8, 2013 at 6:44 pm
“If someone wants to inject themselves into the discussion, they should read the discussion, rather than disrupt it with misunderstandings of what has been said. Sir.”
She wasn’t disrupting it. She was pointing out that once again you are basing your arguments on factually incorrect information.
“That they are exceptions and not the rule is sufficient.”
No it isn’t. the AZ law to allow sterile 1st cousins to marry clearly demonstrates that the state has a significant interest in marriage besides procreation. You keep claiming (without any proof) that the examples I gave are “exceptions” so you can ignore facts that are inconvenient to your arguments about marriage.
“Until you address this directly”
fine:
“Indeed, if the man’s impotent, that’s not grounds for divorce, it’s grounds for annulment.”
In some cases this is true (ex. the husband was impotent before the marriage and didn’t disclose this to the spouse), because sex is an expectation of marriage. However, infertility is NOT grounds for annulment. Because having children is NOT a requirement of marriage.
“If there was no consummation, there never was a marriage.”
Totally false, there is NO consummation requirement for a civil marriage in this country. A marriage exists as soon as there is a validly signed marriage license (or in some cases when it has been filed with the appropriate state office after being signed).
“because biologically speaking, there’s no difference between non-procreative “sex” and a backrub.”
Wrong again Tom. For example you can contract a lot more diseases from non-procreative sex than you can from a backrub. That is why the state is interested in both non-procreative and procreative sex (as I mentioned previously).
“if there were no such thing as children, it’s unlikely there would be any such thing as marriage.”
probably not, but I fail to see how that is relevant to the marriage discussion of today. Once again Tom we are discussing marriage in the 21st century, not from 5000 of years ago.
I believe I’ve addressed all of your “issues.” Now your turn how about you actually answer my question. I’ll repeat it again:
If the State’s primary (only?) interest in marriage is procreation (child-rearing?), then why is it okay to make “exceptions” for infertile straight couples (or other couples from whom it is NOT desirable that they raise children), but not for gay couples?
It was nitpicking because Zoe didn’t read the whole discussion, where the more concise phrasing was
If someone wants to inject themselves into the discussion, they should read the discussion, rather than disrupt it with misunderstandings of what has been said. Sir.
Secondly, In Vitro Fertilization therefore> “create gay marriage” does not follow. Unless you want to argue that this scientific development requires that we rewrite the marriage laws, in which case that will at least be a unique discussion–although one more suited to making policy than “rights talk.”
______
ken# ~ Sep 8, 2013 at 4:40 pm
Tom Van Dyke# ~ Sep 8, 2013 at 2:21 pm
“Because you [and Ms Brain above] argue backwards—from the exceptions to the rule. ”
No, I am arguing from what the law says marriage is and not from your beliefs about what you think marriage should be. Your claims about the government’s interest in marriage do not fit the facts about marriage.
You claim my examples that run counter to your notion of marriage are “exceptions” yet you give no rational explanation as to why the government should make these exceptions.
That they are exceptions and not the rule is sufficient. A, E, I, O, U and sometimes Y doesn’t mean you start with Y in a discussion of vowels. If YOU want to explain Y then please do so. Until you address this directly
you have abandoned your end of the discussion. Society has no more interest in banning “sex play” than it does in institutionalizing it, because biologically speaking, there’s no difference between non-procreative “sex” and a backrub.
To return to my very initial remarks, which have never been addressed, if there were no such thing as children, it’s unlikely there would be any such thing as marriage. The rest is opinion and emotion, and that’s a big Like, Whatever.
Tom Van Dyke# ~ Sep 8, 2013 at 2:21 pm
“Because you [and Ms Brain above] argue backwards—from the exceptions to the rule. ”
No, I am arguing from what the law says marriage is and not from your beliefs about what you think marriage should be. Your claims about the government’s interest in marriage do not fit the facts about marriage.
You claim my examples that run counter to your notion of marriage are “exceptions” yet you give no rational explanation as to why the government should make these exceptions. And also why the government should make exceptions for those cases, but not for gay couples.
Zoe Brain# ~ Sep 8, 2013 at 8:22 am
Tom Van Dyke wrote:
Only sex between men and women makes babies.
Factually incorrect, as a moment’s thought would have told you. IVF is the most obvious example.
Nitpicking, irrelevant to the discussion. The more proper formulation was earlier in the discussion
Tom – IVF is hardly nitpicking, especially as the technology advances. Ignoring something doesn’t make it go away.
It was nitpicking because Zoe didn’t read the whole discussion, where the more concise phrasing was
If someone wants to inject themselves into the discussion, they should read the discussion, rather than disrupt it with misunderstandings of what has been said. Sir.
Secondly, In Vitro Fertilization therefore> “create gay marriage” does not follow. Unless you want to argue that this scientific development requires that we rewrite the marriage laws, in which case that will at least be a unique discussion–although one more suited to making policy than “rights talk.”
______
ken# ~ Sep 8, 2013 at 4:40 pm
Tom Van Dyke# ~ Sep 8, 2013 at 2:21 pm
“Because you [and Ms Brain above] argue backwards—from the exceptions to the rule. ”
No, I am arguing from what the law says marriage is and not from your beliefs about what you think marriage should be. Your claims about the government’s interest in marriage do not fit the facts about marriage.
You claim my examples that run counter to your notion of marriage are “exceptions” yet you give no rational explanation as to why the government should make these exceptions.
That they are exceptions and not the rule is sufficient. A, E, I, O, U and sometimes Y doesn’t mean you start with Y in a discussion of vowels. If YOU want to explain Y then please do so. Until you address this directly
you have abandoned your end of the discussion. Society has no more interest in banning “sex play” than it does in institutionalizing it, because biologically speaking, there’s no difference between non-procreative “sex” and a backrub.
To return to my very initial remarks, which have never been addressed, if there were no such thing as children, it’s unlikely there would be any such thing as marriage. The rest is opinion and emotion, and that’s a big Like, Whatever.
Again, this claim isn’t supported by the current laws/court rulings regarding marriage. And you still haven’t addressed my question about why the state makes “exceptions” for non-procreative marriages (and marriages where child-rearing by the married couple isn’t desirable – ex. the elderly or child abusers).
Because you [and Ms Brain above] argue backwards—from the exceptions to the rule. One cannot get anywhere doing that. That we have made a mess of marriage is indisputable, but that doesn’t [shouldn’t] require doubling down.
Tom Van Dyke# ~ Sep 8, 2013 at 2:21 pm
“Because you [and Ms Brain above] argue backwards—from the exceptions to the rule. ”
No, I am arguing from what the law says marriage is and not from your beliefs about what you think marriage should be. Your claims about the government’s interest in marriage do not fit the facts about marriage.
You claim my examples that run counter to your notion of marriage are “exceptions” yet you give no rational explanation as to why the government should make these exceptions. And also why the government should make exceptions for those cases, but not for gay couples.
Zoe Brain# ~ Sep 8, 2013 at 8:22 am
Tom Van Dyke wrote:
Only sex between men and women makes babies.
Factually incorrect, as a moment’s thought would have told you. IVF is the most obvious example.
Nitpicking, irrelevant to the discussion. The more proper formulation was earlier in the discussion
Tom – IVF is hardly nitpicking, especially as the technology advances. Ignoring something doesn’t make it go away.
Again, this claim isn’t supported by the current laws/court rulings regarding marriage. And you still haven’t addressed my question about why the state makes “exceptions” for non-procreative marriages (and marriages where child-rearing by the married couple isn’t desirable – ex. the elderly or child abusers).
Because you [and Ms Brain above] argue backwards—from the exceptions to the rule. One cannot get anywhere doing that. That we have made a mess of marriage is indisputable, but that doesn’t [shouldn’t] require doubling down.
In the marriage of C and D (falsely called C). 1979
Tom Van Dyke wrote:
Factually incorrect, as a moment’s thought would have told you. IVF is the most obvious example.
When a man has 47,XXY chromosomes, the only way he can father a child with his wife is not through sex. It requires punch-biopsy of the testes, then dissection of the few viable spermatozoa from the testicular tissue, then IVF.
In other Intersex situations, as with cases of men who have lost their penis but not testes, other less invasive techniques may be used, as sexual intercourse is impossible.
Intersex people are regarded in some jurisdictions as neither male nor female, so are precluded from marrying anyone of either sex, contrary to the recognised right of all consenting adults not otherwise disqualified by consanguinuity to marry. This has become a genuine problem in some jurisdictions where both 1M1F, 1M1M and 1F1F marriages are allowed, as without careful wording, Intersex people still are excluded.
Tom Van Dyke# ~ Sep 8, 2013 at 12:45 am
““Relationships” is a post-20th century concept.”
No, I would say the concept is a little older than that, but it certain isn’t the same as it was 1000s of years ago. However, we are also talking about 21st century marriage concepts, not marriage of a 1000 years ago or even 50 years ago. Despite what “traditional marriage” supporters like to claim, civil marriage has changed significantly (both in concept and in law) over the centuries.
“Society has no interest in the parents’ “relationship” other than that they raise the kids ”
This is actually a more recent concept, not an old one. Previously, fathers had no legal responsibility for raising (or even providing for) illegitimate children (i.e. children not produced within a marriage). it was only within the last century (possibly last few decades, don’t remember the case, and right now I don’t feel like looking it up), the SCOTUS recognized that US family law was punishing illegitimate children by denying them any paternal claims. And today, marriage has little to no bearing on parental rights/responsibilities. Although, it is correct the state still would prefer child-rearing occur within marriage and encourages that, it is no longer a requirement. Time for you marriage “traditionalists” to wake up, turn on your smart phones and realize you are in the 21st century, not the 1st.
“Feed, clothe and house them, keep them from becoming juvenile delinquents, and society’s compelling interest in “relationships” begins and ends with the fact that heterosexual lovers tend to become what we call “parents.” ”
Again, this claim isn’t supported by the current laws/court rulings regarding marriage. And you still haven’t addressed my question about why the state makes “exceptions” for non-procreative marriages (and marriages where child-rearing by the married couple isn’t desirable – ex. the elderly or child abusers).
“The proof that gay marriage will be a net positive for society is lacking, and may be unprovable until it’s too late to roll it back if it proves bad for society.”
It isn’t up to a discriminated class to prove they are entitled to a right, it is up to the state to prove they aren’t entitled. And paranoia about unspecified or unreasonable “dire consequences” isn’t sufficient proof.
“Basically, because there is so little solid empirical evidence one way or the other, the argument for SSM is and can only be: “What harm can it do?” ”
No, the argument for SSM is that denying gays the right to marry IS doing harm to those couples and their children. And to a lesser extent harming gays in general by supporting discrimination in the law.
“However, he’s also correct that tides rush in, but they also recede.”
This isn’t a “tide” and if you (and bman) had been paying attention you would see that it isn’t receding. Back in 1996 (when the issue was before the hawaii supreme court) polling was like 70% against 25% for gay marriage. Today it is about 55% FOR 40% against. the overall trend has been an increase in support over the last 15 years. Even some republicans have come out in favor of gay marriage. Granted they are politicians so you have to take what they say with a grain of salt (or better a teaspoon of salt and a margarita 🙂 )
In the marriage of C and D (falsely called C). 1979
Tom Van Dyke wrote:
Factually incorrect, as a moment’s thought would have told you. IVF is the most obvious example.
When a man has 47,XXY chromosomes, the only way he can father a child with his wife is not through sex. It requires punch-biopsy of the testes, then dissection of the few viable spermatozoa from the testicular tissue, then IVF.
In other Intersex situations, as with cases of men who have lost their penis but not testes, other less invasive techniques may be used, as sexual intercourse is impossible.
Intersex people are regarded in some jurisdictions as neither male nor female, so are precluded from marrying anyone of either sex, contrary to the recognised right of all consenting adults not otherwise disqualified by consanguinuity to marry. This has become a genuine problem in some jurisdictions where both 1M1F, 1M1M and 1F1F marriages are allowed, as without careful wording, Intersex people still are excluded.
Tom Van Dyke# ~ Sep 8, 2013 at 12:45 am
“”Relationships” is a post-20th century concept.”
No, I would say the concept is a little older than that, but it certain isn’t the same as it was 1000s of years ago. However, we are also talking about 21st century marriage concepts, not marriage of a 1000 years ago or even 50 years ago. Despite what “traditional marriage” supporters like to claim, civil marriage has changed significantly (both in concept and in law) over the centuries.
“Society has no interest in the parents’ “relationship” other than that they raise the kids ”
This is actually a more recent concept, not an old one. Previously, fathers had no legal responsibility for raising (or even providing for) illegitimate children (i.e. children not produced within a marriage). it was only within the last century (possibly last few decades, don’t remember the case, and right now I don’t feel like looking it up), the SCOTUS recognized that US family law was punishing illegitimate children by denying them any paternal claims. And today, marriage has little to no bearing on parental rights/responsibilities. Although, it is correct the state still would prefer child-rearing occur within marriage and encourages that, it is no longer a requirement. Time for you marriage “traditionalists” to wake up, turn on your smart phones and realize you are in the 21st century, not the 1st.
“Feed, clothe and house them, keep them from becoming juvenile delinquents, and society’s compelling interest in “relationships” begins and ends with the fact that heterosexual lovers tend to become what we call “parents.” ”
Again, this claim isn’t supported by the current laws/court rulings regarding marriage. And you still haven’t addressed my question about why the state makes “exceptions” for non-procreative marriages (and marriages where child-rearing by the married couple isn’t desirable – ex. the elderly or child abusers).
“The proof that gay marriage will be a net positive for society is lacking, and may be unprovable until it’s too late to roll it back if it proves bad for society.”
It isn’t up to a discriminated class to prove they are entitled to a right, it is up to the state to prove they aren’t entitled. And paranoia about unspecified or unreasonable “dire consequences” isn’t sufficient proof.
“Basically, because there is so little solid empirical evidence one way or the other, the argument for SSM is and can only be: “What harm can it do?” ”
No, the argument for SSM is that denying gays the right to marry IS doing harm to those couples and their children. And to a lesser extent harming gays in general by supporting discrimination in the law.
“However, he’s also correct that tides rush in, but they also recede.”
This isn’t a “tide” and if you (and bman) had been paying attention you would see that it isn’t receding. Back in 1996 (when the issue was before the hawaii supreme court) polling was like 70% against 25% for gay marriage. Today it is about 55% FOR 40% against. the overall trend has been an increase in support over the last 15 years. Even some republicans have come out in favor of gay marriage. Granted they are politicians so you have to take what they say with a grain of salt (or better a teaspoon of salt and a margarita 🙂 )
Civil marriage exists because it is in the governments interest to promote and support long-term stable relationships.
Saying that over and over won’t make it true, Ken. “Relationships” is a post-20th century concept. Society has no interest in the parents’ “relationship” other than that they raise the kids. Feed, clothe and house them, keep them from becoming juvenile delinquents, and society’s compelling interest in “relationships” begins and ends with the fact that heterosexual lovers tend to become what we call “parents.”
Now, if you want to argue in the 21st century that society should use the power of government to create an institution of “gay marriage”—something that historically existed neither legally or even culturally—then that’s a valid argument of course, subject to persuasive proof. The proof that gay marriage will be a net positive for society is lacking, and may be unprovable until it’s too late to roll it back if it proves bad for society.
Basically, because there is so little solid empirical evidence one way or the other, the argument for SSM is and can only be: “What harm can it do?”
By shifting the burden of proof onto opponents of SSM–and there is no conclusive evidence one way or the other, nobody knows—whoever gets to shift the burden proof onto the other side wins. I disagree with Mr. “B’man” that there isn’t a tide in favor of SSM at the moment. However, he’s also correct that tides rush in, but they also recede.
At this point, there is no principled argument on gay marriage. I just wanted to see what a clever fellow such as yourself could come up with besides assertions. SSM has become a question of political will and political power—a small handful of states have democratically/constitutionally–legitimately!– created it, specifically New York state, Maryland, and a few others. California played the legal game [and won] by overturning the popular vote. Most of the rest had gay marriage imposed on them by their state Supreme Courts.
At this point, I expect an armistice—some states approving SSM, the rest resisting it. Like the Designated Hitter rule, eh?
If it’s good enough for baseball, it’s good enough for marriage, I make it. Why, it’s the American Way.
Tom Van Dyke# ~ Sep 7, 2013 at 7:15 pm
“Actually, they don’t. They demonstrate the law makes exceptions for men and women who otherwise would be able to procreate”
and why would the state make these exceptions if procreation is such an important part of marriage?
I note, you never did address my question about the AZ law for 1st cousins marrying. You just avoided it by saying you didn’t think it was a good idea.
These facts demonstrate that the state’s primary interest in marriage is not procreation.
Actually, they don’t. They demonstrate the law makes exceptions for men and women who otherwise would be able to procreate, but can’t because of medical conditions or in the case of women, menopause. There is no analogy to couples of the same gender here, who are by nature unable to procreate as a couple.
Tom Van Dyke# ~ Sep 7, 2013 at 7:15 pm
“Actually, they don’t. They demonstrate the law makes exceptions for men and women who otherwise would be able to procreate”
and why would the state make these exceptions if procreation is such an important part of marriage?
I note, you never did address my question about the AZ law for 1st cousins marrying. You just avoided it by saying you didn’t think it was a good idea.
bman# ~ Sep 7, 2013 at 3:23 pm
“If you want to say there is no rational basis for subordinating a specific interest you would at least need to identify that interest with some kind of explanation attached.”
You are the one who claimed interests other than procreation were subordinate to the procreative interests without proof, not me. I.e. you are the one saying “I assert this, prove me wrong.”
However, as I have said MANY, MANY times, there is no procreation requirement to marriage. The state allows marriages where procreation is not possible or desirable (in one case specifically carved an exception for when procreation was not possible). These facts demonstrate that the state’s primary interest in marriage is not procreation. Although, they do not preclude procreation from being an important interest.
Tom Van Dyke# ~ Sep 7, 2013 at 2:08 pm
“There are many loopholes, such as “permitting” women past menopause to marry, that now we are driving gay marriage through. ”
These are not “loopholes.” These marriages are allowed because marriage is about more than “making babies” or even raising children.
“But we’re really not getting to the core issue, which is “why does marriage exist in the first place?” ”
Civil marriage exists because it is in the governments interest to promote and support long-term stable relationships. regardless of whether those relationships include producing and/or raising children.
“Sex as disease? Interesting argument.”
Sex is not a disease and I never said any such thing. What I said was that your assertion that the states’ only interest in sex was the procreation aspect of it was wrong, and I gave some examples to demonstrate.
“One could say that society has a compelling interest in monogamy on those grounds, I suppose. ”
Monogamy is not a requirement of marriage, although, it can be said to be an expectation of it (unless otherwise specified). As for your implication that gays aren’t (can’t be?) as monogamous as straights, I suggest you look up what the primary reason for divorce is.
Its more a question of whether a rational subordination of interest would exist.
If you want to say there is no rational basis for subordinating a specific interest you would at least need to identify that interest with some kind of explanation attached.
These facts demonstrate that the state’s primary interest in marriage is not procreation.
Actually, they don’t. They demonstrate the law makes exceptions for men and women who otherwise would be able to procreate, but can’t because of medical conditions or in the case of women, menopause. There is no analogy to couples of the same gender here, who are by nature unable to procreate as a couple.
The two trial cases I cited are recent and they opposed SSM. By contrast, you have not shown a single recent trial case for SSM.
For that matter, you claimed a “tsunami” was on your side. Even if you found a matching number of recent cases on your side, it would not be enough to show “a tsunami.”
So far, then, you have not even matched the two I cited, let alone show “a tsunami” of such cases.
bman# ~ Sep 7, 2013 at 3:23 pm
“If you want to say there is no rational basis for subordinating a specific interest you would at least need to identify that interest with some kind of explanation attached.”
You are the one who claimed interests other than procreation were subordinate to the procreative interests without proof, not me. I.e. you are the one saying “I assert this, prove me wrong.”
However, as I have said MANY, MANY times, there is no procreation requirement to marriage. The state allows marriages where procreation is not possible or desirable (in one case specifically carved an exception for when procreation was not possible). These facts demonstrate that the state’s primary interest in marriage is not procreation. Although, they do not preclude procreation from being an important interest.
ken# ~ Sep 7, 2013 at 11:11 am
Tom Van Dyke# ~ Sep 7, 2013 at 4:32 am
“Marriage is to have a family structure in place for raising them if and when the babies show up, and they sure do.”
then why does AZ (and a few other states I think) have a law saying 1st cousins can only marry if they PROVE they CANNOT PROCREATE?
It’s not a great idea regardless. There are social reasons against incest beyond birth defects.
There are many loopholes, such as “permitting” women past menopause to marry, that now we are driving gay marriage through. Make one exception on behalf of the historic vulnerability of the woman, and eventually everybody wants their piece.
But we’re really not getting to the core issue, which is “why does marriage exist in the first place?” To have a family structure in place for children, when eventually they are procreated. Indeed, if the man’s impotent, that’s not grounds for divorce, it’s grounds for annulment.
If there was no consummation, there never was a marriage.
It’s a shame these elemental points about human society and sexuality are so alien in these discussions. we’re so used to beating on the loopholes and exceptions [if we have X, then it’s only “fair” we have exception Y as well”]. We lose total sight of what marriage was even created as an institution.
“Society and the state have no truly compelling interest in “sex” that doesn’t make babies one way or the other.”
Not true at all. In fact CA has a law (currently being challenged) requiring that porn actors have to wear condoms. And federal and state governments have had “safe-sex” programs for decades. These are just a couple of examples where the state has a compelling interest in sex that doesn’t produce babies.
Sex as disease? Interesting argument. One could say that society has a compelling interest in monogamy on those grounds, I suppose. But gay marriage ain’t it.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2013/06/26/most_gay_couples_aren_t_monogamous_will_straight_couples_go_monogamish.html
Not a compelling argument either way, since there’s little indication that creating an institution of gay “marriage” would have much relation to monogamy either way. Unless you have some evidence of that.
Its more a question of whether a rational subordination of interest would exist.
If you want to say there is no rational basis for subordinating a specific interest you would at least need to identify that interest with some kind of explanation attached.
Tom Van Dyke# ~ Sep 7, 2013 at 4:32 am
“Marriage is to have a family structure in place for raising them if and when the babies show up, and they sure do.”
then why does AZ (and a few other states I think) have a law saying 1st cousins can only marry if they PROVE they CANNOT PROCREATE?
“Society and the state have no truly compelling interest in “sex” that doesn’t make babies one way or the other.”
Not true at all. In fact CA has a law (currently being challenged) requiring that porn actors have to wear condoms. And federal and state governments have had “safe-sex” programs for decades. These are just a couple of examples where the state has a compelling interest in sex that doesn’t produce babies.
bman# ~ Sep 7, 2013 at 1:02 am
“My view is that civil marriage is designed to facilitate responsible procreation between men and women,”
and how does allowing gay couples, just like any other infertile couples, interfere with that “design”?
“However, that does not mean government can’t also have additional interests in civil marriage that are ancillary, complimentary, and/or subordinate to that purpose.”
there is nothing in the civil laws of the US that indicate these “additional interests” are “subordinate” to any procreation interests.
The two trial cases I cited are recent and they opposed SSM. By contrast, you have not shown a single recent trial case for SSM.
For that matter, you claimed a “tsunami” was on your side. Even if you found a matching number of recent cases on your side, it would not be enough to show “a tsunami.”
So far, then, you have not even matched the two I cited, let alone show “a tsunami” of such cases.
ken# ~ Sep 7, 2013 at 11:11 am
Tom Van Dyke# ~ Sep 7, 2013 at 4:32 am
“Marriage is to have a family structure in place for raising them if and when the babies show up, and they sure do.”
then why does AZ (and a few other states I think) have a law saying 1st cousins can only marry if they PROVE they CANNOT PROCREATE?
It’s not a great idea regardless. There are social reasons against incest beyond birth defects.
There are many loopholes, such as “permitting” women past menopause to marry, that now we are driving gay marriage through. Make one exception on behalf of the historic vulnerability of the woman, and eventually everybody wants their piece.
But we’re really not getting to the core issue, which is “why does marriage exist in the first place?” To have a family structure in place for children, when eventually they are procreated. Indeed, if the man’s impotent, that’s not grounds for divorce, it’s grounds for annulment.
If there was no consummation, there never was a marriage.
It’s a shame these elemental points about human society and sexuality are so alien in these discussions. we’re so used to beating on the loopholes and exceptions [if we have X, then it’s only “fair” we have exception Y as well”]. We lose total sight of what marriage was even created as an institution.
“Society and the state have no truly compelling interest in “sex” that doesn’t make babies one way or the other.”
Not true at all. In fact CA has a law (currently being challenged) requiring that porn actors have to wear condoms. And federal and state governments have had “safe-sex” programs for decades. These are just a couple of examples where the state has a compelling interest in sex that doesn’t produce babies.
Sex as disease? Interesting argument. One could say that society has a compelling interest in monogamy on those grounds, I suppose. But gay marriage ain’t it.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2013/06/26/most_gay_couples_aren_t_monogamous_will_straight_couples_go_monogamish.html
Not a compelling argument either way, since there’s little indication that creating an institution of gay “marriage” would have much relation to monogamy either way. Unless you have some evidence of that.
(I always thought, Tom, that it was just ‘one way’ that ‘made babies!)
(Sorry – I couldn’t resist that.)
(I would add to Warren’s comment by reminding people that single people can and do have foster children – so the ‘compelling interest’ is perhaps broader even than we often assume it is. Furthermore, the ‘compelling interest’ is ultimately centred on the child, rather than the adults who – ‘one way or another’ – wind up caring for them.)
I also like how bman and Tom seem to think that making the child is the important part. Because, of course, if you acknowledged that *raising* the child just might have something to do with why the legal structure of marriage is needed, you’d inadvertently make an argument for marriage equality. So best not to.
“….tsunamis always recede….fevers always fade. Hurricanes always die down.That’s why this issue is so urgent right now: Proponents know that the aura of fairness and equity associated with the same-sex marriage movement will soon dissipate..”
Ah, that must be why we reinstated segregation and repealed women’s suffrage. And going from all courts ruling your way to a few courts ruling your way sure shows us!
Tom Van Dyke# ~ Sep 7, 2013 at 4:32 am
“Marriage is to have a family structure in place for raising them if and when the babies show up, and they sure do.”
then why does AZ (and a few other states I think) have a law saying 1st cousins can only marry if they PROVE they CANNOT PROCREATE?
“Society and the state have no truly compelling interest in “sex” that doesn’t make babies one way or the other.”
Not true at all. In fact CA has a law (currently being challenged) requiring that porn actors have to wear condoms. And federal and state governments have had “safe-sex” programs for decades. These are just a couple of examples where the state has a compelling interest in sex that doesn’t produce babies.
bman# ~ Sep 7, 2013 at 1:02 am
“My view is that civil marriage is designed to facilitate responsible procreation between men and women,”
and how does allowing gay couples, just like any other infertile couples, interfere with that “design”?
“However, that does not mean government can’t also have additional interests in civil marriage that are ancillary, complimentary, and/or subordinate to that purpose.”
there is nothing in the civil laws of the US that indicate these “additional interests” are “subordinate” to any procreation interests.
(I always thought, Tom, that it was just ‘one way’ that ‘made babies!)
(Sorry – I couldn’t resist that.)
(I would add to Warren’s comment by reminding people that single people can and do have foster children – so the ‘compelling interest’ is perhaps broader even than we often assume it is. Furthermore, the ‘compelling interest’ is ultimately centred on the child, rather than the adults who – ‘one way or another’ – wind up caring for them.)
I also like how bman and Tom seem to think that making the child is the important part. Because, of course, if you acknowledged that *raising* the child just might have something to do with why the legal structure of marriage is needed, you’d inadvertently make an argument for marriage equality. So best not to.
“….tsunamis always recede….fevers always fade. Hurricanes always die down.That’s why this issue is so urgent right now: Proponents know that the aura of fairness and equity associated with the same-sex marriage movement will soon dissipate..”
Ah, that must be why we reinstated segregation and repealed women’s suffrage. And going from all courts ruling your way to a few courts ruling your way sure shows us!
My previous post should have started:
My assertion about laws and court rulings were to point out that civil marriage was NOT only designed to “facilitate procreation.”
“Facilitate” is completely inaccurate here. manipulating the words buries the truth, not clarifies it.
Only sex between men and women makes babies. Marriage is to have a family structure in place for raising them if and when the babies show up, and they sure do.
Society and the state have no truly compelling interest in “sex” that doesn’t make babies one way or the other.
Tom said, “Society and the state have no truly compelling interest in “sex” that doesn’t make babies one way or the other.”
Generally, I agree. However, what must be added is that it is legal to secure children without sex. Since children may be cared for by same-sex couples then the state does have interest in the resulting families.
You suppose a false dilemma, it seems.
My view is that civil marriage is designed to facilitate responsible procreation between men and women, which allows gay persons to marry an opposite sex partner, but not a same sex partner.
However, that does not mean government can’t also have additional interests in civil marriage that are ancillary, complimentary, and/or subordinate to that purpose. Nor do I recall ever saying otherwise.
Here, you essentially repeat the “tsunami” claim from before.
Doug Mainwaring (a gay man who opposes gay marriage) has an insightful comment on that,
Besides, you haven’t yet answered my previous response to your “tsunami” court claim.
As recently as Nov 2012 a case ruled against SSM, and one in August just a few months before.
bman# ~ Sep 6, 2013 at 9:24 pm
“And so, the law and the courts do indeed support my claim. What they don’t support is your misinterpretation of my claim that inserted the word “only.””
You entire argument has been predicated on the fact that gays can’t procreate and that procreation is the reason for marriage. The “only” is implied. Do you now acknowledge that the government has other interests in supporting civil marriage besides procreation?
OK on the clarification. Had you said that before I would have responded differently.
Even so, your statement about law and the courts was false as originally stated. Here is a replay, “The laws and court rulings regarding civil marriage do not support your claim.”
What was my claim? It was, “Civil marriage is a legal environment designed to facilitate responsible sex and procreation in society between men and women.”
Notice, the word “only” does not occur in my claim but you added it later, “…civil marriage was only designed to “facilitate procreation…”
And so, the law and the courts do indeed support my claim. What they don’t support is your misinterpretation of my claim that inserted the word “only.”
You suppose a false dilemma, it seems.
My view is that civil marriage is designed to facilitate responsible procreation between men and women, which allows gay persons to marry an opposite sex partner, but not a same sex partner.
However, that does not mean government can’t also have additional interests in civil marriage that are ancillary, complimentary, and/or subordinate to that purpose. Nor do I recall ever saying otherwise.
Here, you essentially repeat the “tsunami” claim from before.
Doug Mainwaring (a gay man who opposes gay marriage) has an insightful comment on that,
Besides, you haven’t yet answered my previous response to your “tsunami” court claim.
As recently as Nov 2012 a case ruled against SSM, and one in August just a few months before.
My previous post should have started:
My assertion about laws and court rulings were to point out that civil marriage was NOT only designed to “facilitate procreation.”
bman# ~ Sep 6, 2013 at 9:24 pm
“And so, the law and the courts do indeed support my claim. What they don’t support is your misinterpretation of my claim that inserted the word “only.””
You entire argument has been predicated on the fact that gays can’t procreate and that procreation is the reason for marriage. The “only” is implied. Do you now acknowledge that the government has other interests in supporting civil marriage besides procreation?
You seem to say its OK for someone to vote for 1M1W in the privacy of the voting booth, but you view “campaigning against an issue or individual” as impeding the rights of others.
bman,
I guess what I am saying is that if campaigning is used to impart knowledge and the virtues of an issue in contention, then that is great. If it is used to actively smear the opposing view, without acknowledging it’s own failings, then I don’t see the value in it – on either side of the issue. As to the issue of marriage – it is pretty simple and straightforward, either you believe in traditional marriage or you believe it should be expanded to include other kinds of relationships. There is no additional information needed for a voter to make up their mind.
OK on the clarification. Had you said that before I would have responded differently.
Even so, your statement about law and the courts was false as originally stated. Here is a replay, “The laws and court rulings regarding civil marriage do not support your claim.”
What was my claim? It was, “Civil marriage is a legal environment designed to facilitate responsible sex and procreation in society between men and women.”
Notice, the word “only” does not occur in my claim but you added it later, “…civil marriage was only designed to “facilitate procreation…”
And so, the law and the courts do indeed support my claim. What they don’t support is your misinterpretation of my claim that inserted the word “only.”
My assertion about laws and court rulings were to point out that civil marriage was only designed to “facilitate procreation.” they show there are other reasons, besides procreation, why the government has an interest in civil marriage
Not really. If there were no such thing as children, it’s unlikely there would be any such thing as marriage.
My previous post should have started:
My assertion about laws and court rulings were to point out that civil marriage was NOT only designed to “facilitate procreation.”
bman# ~ Sep 6, 2013 at 11:50 am
My assertion about laws and court rulings were to point out that civil marriage was only designed to “facilitate procreation.” they show there are other reasons, besides procreation, why the government has an interest in civil marriage.
Regarding your constant “majority of court rulings” claims, you clearly don’t seem to understand how the court systems work. It isn’t a democracy, it is a hierarchy. Ultimately, leading to the decision of a single court that trumps all other court decisions. And that single court has already signaled in the DOMA ruling that it is unlikely to support your stance on this matter.
You seem to say its OK for someone to vote for 1M1W in the privacy of the voting booth, but you view “campaigning against an issue or individual” as impeding the rights of others.
bman,
I guess what I am saying is that if campaigning is used to impart knowledge and the virtues of an issue in contention, then that is great. If it is used to actively smear the opposing view, without acknowledging it’s own failings, then I don’t see the value in it – on either side of the issue. As to the issue of marriage – it is pretty simple and straightforward, either you believe in traditional marriage or you believe it should be expanded to include other kinds of relationships. There is no additional information needed for a voter to make up their mind.
You seem to say its OK for someone to vote for 1M1W in the privacy of the voting booth, but you view “campaigning against an issue or individual” as impeding the rights of others.
I generally agree that “campaigning against an individual” is improper. I also think public speech should be measured carefully so as not to offend unnecessarily. It should be noted, however, that some gays use “jamming,” which purposely takes offense regardless.
It sounds we may disagree, however, on “campaigning against an issue.” I think its OK in a public forum designed for open discussion to do that provided the arguments are logical and not personal.
I find it incredible that bman doesn’t recognize that the courts are rapidly overturning those laws and public opinion isn’t on his side. Well, no I don’t.
The loudest and most active tend to get their way, regardless of the issue, especially if one side can be successfully cowed into silence. That’s just the way it is.
My assertion about laws and court rulings were to point out that civil marriage was only designed to “facilitate procreation.” they show there are other reasons, besides procreation, why the government has an interest in civil marriage
Not really. If there were no such thing as children, it’s unlikely there would be any such thing as marriage.
OK, gays sometimes argue that anyone who votes for 1M1W impedes the “right” of gays to marry. It seemed you were expressing that idea.
What would be an example of the idea you meant, if I may ask?
bman,
An example would be this: My personal opinion of marriage might differ from another opinion of marriage. I am unwavering in my opinion, however would not use that opinion to actively campaign against another individual who has a different view of marriage than I do. Campaigning for or against an issue or candidate is very public – voting for or against an issue or candidate is private. I think it should stay that way.
I find it incredible that you would assert “laws and court rulings” are on your side when you know the majority of final rulings across the nation have ruled against SSM from 2003-2010, and you know the vast majority states have enacted laws or constitutional amendments that clarify marriage is between one man and one woman.
You are using the same faulty logic the Goodridge court used, which was also rejected by the majority of courts in final case rulings across the nation from 2003-2010.
You propose its generally better for society to promote long term relationships.
There is a logical disconnect, however, between “long term relationships are generally better for society” and the legalization of a marriage concept that is contrary to the religion, morality, and culture of the American people.
At most, you make an argument for recognizing civil unions and attaching some benefits to them. Its certainly not an argument for all long term relationships to be recognized as marriages.
Furthermore, society needs to promote responsible procreation between men and women to maintain the civil order. How do you propose it do that?
You seem to think it can best promote responsible procreation between men and woman by dismissing any logical link between procreation and marriage!
As if that ‘s sound logic!
bman# ~ Sep 6, 2013 at 10:44 am
“Civil marriage is a legal environment designed to facilitate responsible sex and procreation in society between men and women. ”
You can claim that all you like, it doesn’t make it true. The laws and court rulings regarding civil marriage do not support your claim. While ONE aspect of civil marriage may be to facilitate responsible procreation it is certainly not the only aspect of civil marriage. There are MANY reasons that the government is involved in supporting civil marriage. Most of which have little to nothing to do with procreation.
Civil marriage is a legal environment designed to facilitate responsible sex and procreation in society between men and women.
Its about procreation without requiring procreation, therefore.
It follows logically that civil marriage was not designed to facilitate responsible procreation between two men, as that would make the law irrational.
bman# ~ Sep 6, 2013 at 11:50 am
My assertion about laws and court rulings were to point out that civil marriage was only designed to “facilitate procreation.” they show there are other reasons, besides procreation, why the government has an interest in civil marriage.
Regarding your constant “majority of court rulings” claims, you clearly don’t seem to understand how the court systems work. It isn’t a democracy, it is a hierarchy. Ultimately, leading to the decision of a single court that trumps all other court decisions. And that single court has already signaled in the DOMA ruling that it is unlikely to support your stance on this matter.
You seem to say its OK for someone to vote for 1M1W in the privacy of the voting booth, but you view “campaigning against an issue or individual” as impeding the rights of others.
I generally agree that “campaigning against an individual” is improper. I also think public speech should be measured carefully so as not to offend unnecessarily. It should be noted, however, that some gays use “jamming,” which purposely takes offense regardless.
It sounds we may disagree, however, on “campaigning against an issue.” I think its OK in a public forum designed for open discussion to do that provided the arguments are logical and not personal.
I find it incredible that bman doesn’t recognize that the courts are rapidly overturning those laws and public opinion isn’t on his side. Well, no I don’t.
The loudest and most active tend to get their way, regardless of the issue, especially if one side can be successfully cowed into silence. That’s just the way it is.
OK, gays sometimes argue that anyone who votes for 1M1W impedes the “right” of gays to marry. It seemed you were expressing that idea.
What would be an example of the idea you meant, if I may ask?
bman,
An example would be this: My personal opinion of marriage might differ from another opinion of marriage. I am unwavering in my opinion, however would not use that opinion to actively campaign against another individual who has a different view of marriage than I do. Campaigning for or against an issue or candidate is very public – voting for or against an issue or candidate is private. I think it should stay that way.
I find it incredible that you would assert “laws and court rulings” are on your side when you know the majority of final rulings across the nation have ruled against SSM from 2003-2010, and you know the vast majority states have enacted laws or constitutional amendments that clarify marriage is between one man and one woman.
You are using the same faulty logic the Goodridge court used, which was also rejected by the majority of courts in final case rulings across the nation from 2003-2010.
You propose its generally better for society to promote long term relationships.
There is a logical disconnect, however, between “long term relationships are generally better for society” and the legalization of a marriage concept that is contrary to the religion, morality, and culture of the American people.
At most, you make an argument for recognizing civil unions and attaching some benefits to them. Its certainly not an argument for all long term relationships to be recognized as marriages.
Furthermore, society needs to promote responsible procreation between men and women to maintain the civil order. How do you propose it do that?
You seem to think it can best promote responsible procreation between men and woman by dismissing any logical link between procreation and marriage!
As if that ‘s sound logic!
bman# ~ Sep 6, 2013 at 10:44 am
“Civil marriage is a legal environment designed to facilitate responsible sex and procreation in society between men and women. ”
You can claim that all you like, it doesn’t make it true. The laws and court rulings regarding civil marriage do not support your claim. While ONE aspect of civil marriage may be to facilitate responsible procreation it is certainly not the only aspect of civil marriage. There are MANY reasons that the government is involved in supporting civil marriage. Most of which have little to nothing to do with procreation.
Civil marriage is a legal environment designed to facilitate responsible sex and procreation in society between men and women.
Its about procreation without requiring procreation, therefore.
It follows logically that civil marriage was not designed to facilitate responsible procreation between two men, as that would make the law irrational.
bman# ~ Sep 5, 2013 at 7:31 pm
Your fantasy of what marriage is has nothing to do with the reality of civil marriage. Civil marriage in the US has never required the couple be able or intend to procreate. Nor, as your latest assertion, that penile/vaginal intercourse is required, as couples who are incapable of such sexual activities are not barred from marriage.
Civil marriage is about forming new family units, and confers a host of rights, privileges, benefits and responsibilities on those new family units. Sometimes they may involve children (even in cases of gay marriage), but the intention nor the ability to have children (either through procreation or adoption or other means) is NOT a requirement of marriage. The government is involved in Civil marriage because promoting long-term stable relationships, in general, is better better for the couple involved (and any children they may have) AND society as a whole. And that is true regardless of whether the couple is opposite or same sex.
In my view, I addressed that several times. Here is one example,
Additionally, a good article regarding your question is Marriage and Procreation: The Intrinsic Connection by Patrick Lee, Robert P. George and Gerard V. Bradley.
Excerpts:
OK, gays sometimes argue that anyone who votes for 1M1W impedes the “right” of gays to marry. It seemed you were expressing that idea.
What would be an example of the idea you meant, if I may ask?
bman# ~ Sep 5, 2013 at 7:31 pm
Your fantasy of what marriage is has nothing to do with the reality of civil marriage. Civil marriage in the US has never required the couple be able or intend to procreate. Nor, as your latest assertion, that penile/vaginal intercourse is required, as couples who are incapable of such sexual activities are not barred from marriage.
Civil marriage is about forming new family units, and confers a host of rights, privileges, benefits and responsibilities on those new family units. Sometimes they may involve children (even in cases of gay marriage), but the intention nor the ability to have children (either through procreation or adoption or other means) is NOT a requirement of marriage. The government is involved in Civil marriage because promoting long-term stable relationships, in general, is better better for the couple involved (and any children they may have) AND society as a whole. And that is true regardless of whether the couple is opposite or same sex.
In my view, I addressed that several times. Here is one example,
Additionally, a good article regarding your question is Marriage and Procreation: The Intrinsic Connection by Patrick Lee, Robert P. George and Gerard V. Bradley.
Excerpts:
You suggest that 1M1W marriage law impedes the “rights” of others.
bman,
I said I would not use my personal opinion on marriage to impede the rights of others, I did not say that one man/one woman marriage law impedes the “rights” of others.
ken>”Why not? The Goodridge court believed they do.”
——
I offered explanations as to “why not” in my previous post that you seem to have overlooked or dismissed.
As for your comment, “Goodridge believed they do,” the majority of final court rulings from 2003 -2010 across the nation disagreed with Goodridge. Goodridge does not repreesnt the consensus, therefore.
Besides, the Goodridge “logic” you quoted is faulty.
Even if we supposed for the sake of argument that SS unions were primarily stable (though research seems to indicate otherwise), it would not follow logically that a marriage concept alien to the religion, morality, and culture of American society would bring stability to American society, contra Goodridge.
OK, gays sometimes argue that anyone who votes for 1M1W impedes the “right” of gays to marry. It seemed you were expressing that idea.
What would be an example of the idea you meant, if I may ask?
You suggest that 1M1W marriage law impedes the “rights” of others.
bman,
I said I would not use my personal opinion on marriage to impede the rights of others, I did not say that one man/one woman marriage law impedes the “rights” of others.
ken>”Why not? The Goodridge court believed they do.”
——
I offered explanations as to “why not” in my previous post that you seem to have overlooked or dismissed.
As for your comment, “Goodridge believed they do,” the majority of final court rulings from 2003 -2010 across the nation disagreed with Goodridge. Goodridge does not repreesnt the consensus, therefore.
Besides, the Goodridge “logic” you quoted is faulty.
Even if we supposed for the sake of argument that SS unions were primarily stable (though research seems to indicate otherwise), it would not follow logically that a marriage concept alien to the religion, morality, and culture of American society would bring stability to American society, contra Goodridge.
bman# ~ Sep 4, 2013 at 11:53 pm
“I said lifelong same sex sexual unions do not have the natural capacity to be a vital social institution. ”
Why not? The Goodridge court believed they do.
However, once again you are incorrectly implying that marriage is ONLY for procreation it isn’t. Civil marriage is for reasons other than just procreation. And the “family units” you refer to are not always created via procreation. And same sex couples can (and to) form these “family units”, just as many opposite sex couples do.
Even if procreation where the primary interest (it isn’t) government has in marriage, you have yet to explain how allowing non-procreative same-sex couples would be any different than allowing non-procreative opposite sex couples to marry.
“This link between marriage and religion across societies is what SSMers seek to remove/”
the issues is about CIVIL marriage, not religious marriage. This link is a fiction. And in fact not even allowed under US law.
“Any stability provided to society by SSM could not possibly compensate for the large scale, long term, destabilizing effect on the moral and religious fabric of society produced by SSM.”
Yes it does. it more than compensates for it. Because this “destabilizing effect on moral and religious fabric” doesn’t exist. it is a fantasy you made up. This claim is no more valid than claiming “if gay marriage is allowed god will swat the earth into the sun.”
bman# ~ Sep 4, 2013 at 11:53 pm
“I said lifelong same sex sexual unions do not have the natural capacity to be a vital social institution. ”
Why not? The Goodridge court believed they do.
However, once again you are incorrectly implying that marriage is ONLY for procreation it isn’t. Civil marriage is for reasons other than just procreation. And the “family units” you refer to are not always created via procreation. And same sex couples can (and to) form these “family units”, just as many opposite sex couples do.
Even if procreation where the primary interest (it isn’t) government has in marriage, you have yet to explain how allowing non-procreative same-sex couples would be any different than allowing non-procreative opposite sex couples to marry.
“This link between marriage and religion across societies is what SSMers seek to remove/”
the issues is about CIVIL marriage, not religious marriage. This link is a fiction. And in fact not even allowed under US law.
“Any stability provided to society by SSM could not possibly compensate for the large scale, long term, destabilizing effect on the moral and religious fabric of society produced by SSM.”
Yes it does. it more than compensates for it. Because this “destabilizing effect on moral and religious fabric” doesn’t exist. it is a fantasy you made up. This claim is no more valid than claiming “if gay marriage is allowed god will swat the earth into the sun.”
To clarify, I did not say there was no capacity for stable same sex unions as you seem to imply.
Rather, I said lifelong same sex sexual unions do not have the natural capacity to be a vital social institution.
As the US Supreme Court stated in Skinner v. Oklahoma:
The court’s statement makes sense only for marriage between a man and woman.
If “stable same sex marriages” was inserted into the court’s statement instead, it would not be a coherent statement.
Whatever may be said about the capacity of SS unions for stability, that does not make them fundamental or vital to the very survival and existence of the race any more than “stable” non-sexual civil unions would be.
I also think the capacity of marriage to serve the vital needs of society depends on marriage rates being robust between men and women, which depends on society having a moral and religious view of marriage.
The New Funk and Wagnall’s Encyclopedia of 1955, which is unaffected by today’s marriage politics, states:
This link between marriage and religion across societies is what SSMers seek to remove. If removed, however, it would logically result in less robust marriage rates over time between men and women.
Instead of marriage being linked to God, morality, and responsible procreation as in the past, it would be linked to personal gratification in the mind of future generations.
The change in moral perspective sought by SSmers points to marriage having little moral or religious importance for future generations, therefore.
In turn, that points to marriage becoming less important, with unwed childbirths becoming more the norm. That is not in the best interest of children or society.
And if marriage rates decline substantially because of these reasons, what is the plan to undo the damage? How would society restore a robust and sustainable public interest in marriage apart from a religious and moral perspective? Are we looking at the creation of some new state religion to accommodate SSM?
I said all that to reach this key point. Any stability provided to society by SSM could not possibly compensate for the large scale, long term, destabilizing effect on the moral and religious fabric of society produced by SSM.
Given that gays are about n% of the population, and only a very small percent of gays in that n% want to marry, and only a smaller percent would have a stable relationship, any capacity of SS unions to provide stability to society would be small indeed compared to the large scale and long term instability it created.
The moral and religious fabric of society is too vital to tamper with, especially since it can’t easily be restored once lost.
In sum, the Goodridge court acted way outside its level of competency when it redefined marriage, as do those who advocate SSM and delinking marriage from religion, morality, and responsible procreation. They have no proposed plan to undo the potential damage, and can’t possibly understand the full ramifications of what they are doing.
To clarify, I did not say there was no capacity for stable same sex unions as you seem to imply.
Rather, I said lifelong same sex sexual unions do not have the natural capacity to be a vital social institution.
As the US Supreme Court stated in Skinner v. Oklahoma:
The court’s statement makes sense only for marriage between a man and woman.
If “stable same sex marriages” was inserted into the court’s statement instead, it would not be a coherent statement.
Whatever may be said about the capacity of SS unions for stability, that does not make them fundamental or vital to the very survival and existence of the race any more than “stable” non-sexual civil unions would be.
I also think the capacity of marriage to serve the vital needs of society depends on marriage rates being robust between men and women, which depends on society having a moral and religious view of marriage.
The New Funk and Wagnall’s Encyclopedia of 1955, which is unaffected by today’s marriage politics, states:
This link between marriage and religion across societies is what SSMers seek to remove. If removed, however, it would logically result in less robust marriage rates over time between men and women.
Instead of marriage being linked to God, morality, and responsible procreation as in the past, it would be linked to personal gratification in the mind of future generations.
The change in moral perspective sought by SSmers points to marriage having little moral or religious importance for future generations, therefore.
In turn, that points to marriage becoming less important, with unwed childbirths becoming more the norm. That is not in the best interest of children or society.
And if marriage rates decline substantially because of these reasons, what is the plan to undo the damage? How would society restore a robust and sustainable public interest in marriage apart from a religious and moral perspective? Are we looking at the creation of some new state religion to accommodate SSM?
I said all that to reach this key point. Any stability provided to society by SSM could not possibly compensate for the large scale, long term, destabilizing effect on the moral and religious fabric of society produced by SSM.
Given that gays are about n% of the population, and only a very small percent of gays in that n% want to marry, and only a smaller percent would have a stable relationship, any capacity of SS unions to provide stability to society would be small indeed compared to the large scale and long term instability it created.
The moral and religious fabric of society is too vital to tamper with, especially since it can’t easily be restored once lost.
In sum, the Goodridge court acted way outside its level of competency when it redefined marriage, as do those who advocate SSM and delinking marriage from religion, morality, and responsible procreation. They have no proposed plan to undo the potential damage, and can’t possibly understand the full ramifications of what they are doing.
Turn it round for a moment, bman.
In too many places, people are being criminalized and/or persecuted because they express support for the idea that gay people should be treated fairly under law, including criminal law.
I understand your concerns about ‘freedom of expression’, but those concerns should ‘cut both ways’. My view is that people should be free to express their opinions, as long as they do not do so in a manner that causes material harm to others. And when it comes to ‘law’, I fail to see how providing for same-sex couples the rights and responsibilities of marriage causes material harm to heterosexual couples.
Here in Britain, a certain Stephen Green. the leader of a small extremist organization called ‘Christian Voice’, still has his freedom despite saying (and I quote), “The Bible calls for the ultimate penalty for sodomy… A Parliamentarian in Uganda is trying to protect his nation’s children. The House of Commons of the United Kingdom is trying to corrupt ours.” One could argue that he is effectively advocating state-sponsored murder, but the law here (rightly, in my view) is clear that such speech is criminal only if it can be deemed likely to lead to material harm to a LGB person.
Of course, many employers (like my own) will have more stringent rules, and some of these are required by employment and other law. My first duty as an educator is to do my job (teaching Chemistry or providing general academic, and sometimes pastoral, support) to whomever is admitted to the classes I teach. Anything that might interfere with that is clearly (to me) inappropriate, and I would expect to be disciplined if such ‘inappropriateness’ was of a sufficiently serious nature.
And if you are genuinely worried about this thing you call ‘homosexualism’, your best ‘first move’ would probably be to sort out the Stephen Greens of this world.
You suggest that 1M1W marriage law impedes the “rights” of others.
in my view, there is no individual civil “right” to define the public meaning of marriage in the first place, whether it be SSM, 3-way marriage, or some other marriage concept alien to the tradition and values of the American people.
We appear to differ on the boundary between individual rights and community rights, therefore.
In practical terms, I don’t think the question can be confined to SSM “in itself.”
I think we must ask the broader question whether Homosexualism viewed as an ideology poses harm to our society, which is like asking whether any ideology (Marxism etc) would pose harm to society.
Compelled speech is just one example of the emerging harm. Already, we see people getting fired, threatened, fined, censored, or excluded from the public arena if they ever disapproved of homosexuality,
The potential for adverse consequences from Homosexualism seems considerable in my opinion.
Turn it round for a moment, bman.
In too many places, people are being criminalized and/or persecuted because they express support for the idea that gay people should be treated fairly under law, including criminal law.
I understand your concerns about ‘freedom of expression’, but those concerns should ‘cut both ways’. My view is that people should be free to express their opinions, as long as they do not do so in a manner that causes material harm to others. And when it comes to ‘law’, I fail to see how providing for same-sex couples the rights and responsibilities of marriage causes material harm to heterosexual couples.
Here in Britain, a certain Stephen Green. the leader of a small extremist organization called ‘Christian Voice’, still has his freedom despite saying (and I quote), “The Bible calls for the ultimate penalty for sodomy… A Parliamentarian in Uganda is trying to protect his nation’s children. The House of Commons of the United Kingdom is trying to corrupt ours.” One could argue that he is effectively advocating state-sponsored murder, but the law here (rightly, in my view) is clear that such speech is criminal only if it can be deemed likely to lead to material harm to a LGB person.
Of course, many employers (like my own) will have more stringent rules, and some of these are required by employment and other law. My first duty as an educator is to do my job (teaching Chemistry or providing general academic, and sometimes pastoral, support) to whomever is admitted to the classes I teach. Anything that might interfere with that is clearly (to me) inappropriate, and I would expect to be disciplined if such ‘inappropriateness’ was of a sufficiently serious nature.
And if you are genuinely worried about this thing you call ‘homosexualism’, your best ‘first move’ would probably be to sort out the Stephen Greens of this world.
You suggest that 1M1W marriage law impedes the “rights” of others.
in my view, there is no individual civil “right” to define the public meaning of marriage in the first place, whether it be SSM, 3-way marriage, or some other marriage concept alien to the tradition and values of the American people.
We appear to differ on the boundary between individual rights and community rights, therefore.
In practical terms, I don’t think the question can be confined to SSM “in itself.”
I think we must ask the broader question whether Homosexualism viewed as an ideology poses harm to our society, which is like asking whether any ideology (Marxism etc) would pose harm to society.
Compelled speech is just one example of the emerging harm. Already, we see people getting fired, threatened, fined, censored, or excluded from the public arena if they ever disapproved of homosexuality,
The potential for adverse consequences from Homosexualism seems considerable in my opinion.
bman# ~ Sep 4, 2013 at 12:17 pm
” Since a same-sex-sexual-union for life lacks the natural capacity to be “a vital social institution” SSM cannot meet our proposed standard, but marriage between a man and woman can and does meet that standard.”
And the next line in the Goodridge decision:
“The exclusive commitment of two individuals to each other nurtures love and mutual support; it brings stability to our society”
And same sex unions do have the capacity to form such stable unions.
bman,
I have a personal opinion about marriage, however, mine is based on the sanctity of marriage rather than the secular view of marriage, so it remains my opinion and I do not impose it on others, nor do I use it to impede on the rights of others.
I know you were distinguishing which marriage concept was better for society, however, do you think that SSM, in itself, diminishes or takes away from society?
Here is a rational argument against SSM I am currently working on that seems to refute the “no rational basis” claim made by Boo and others here.
—–
“Marriage is a vital social institution“ – That is the opening statement of the Goodridge court that ruled in favor of SSM. It honors marriage by placing a crown upon it, as it were. Indeed, if we use that statement as a standard, only one definition of marriage measures up to it, marriage between a man and woman. Since a same-sex-sexual-union for life lacks the natural capacity to be “a vital social institution” SSM cannot meet our proposed standard, but marriage between a man and woman can and does meet that standard.
Not all marriage concepts are equal, therefore, and by this standard SSM is not equal to marriage between a man and woman.
The proper comparison is not between gay rights and straight rights. Rather, it’s a comparison between the merits of one marriage concept to that of another. There are many marriage concepts in the world and some are better for children and society than others, and one can be (and is) superior to the rest. The question, then, is which marriage concept is best for society.
Equality under law does not mean all marriage concepts must be treated equal, but it means the marriage concept that is rationally best for the preservation and order of society is made equally accessible to all.
Equal access to marriage is a right. Marriage equality is not a right, however, since not all marriage concepts are equal.
bman# ~ Sep 4, 2013 at 12:17 pm
” Since a same-sex-sexual-union for life lacks the natural capacity to be “a vital social institution” SSM cannot meet our proposed standard, but marriage between a man and woman can and does meet that standard.”
And the next line in the Goodridge decision:
“The exclusive commitment of two individuals to each other nurtures love and mutual support; it brings stability to our society”
And same sex unions do have the capacity to form such stable unions.
Here is a rational argument against SSM I am currently working on that seems to refute the “no rational basis” claim made by Boo and others here.
—–
“Marriage is a vital social institution” – That is the opening statement of the Goodridge court that ruled in favor of SSM. It honors marriage by placing a crown upon it, as it were. Indeed, if we use that statement as a standard, only one definition of marriage measures up to it, marriage between a man and woman. Since a same-sex-sexual-union for life lacks the natural capacity to be “a vital social institution” SSM cannot meet our proposed standard, but marriage between a man and woman can and does meet that standard.
Not all marriage concepts are equal, therefore, and by this standard SSM is not equal to marriage between a man and woman.
The proper comparison is not between gay rights and straight rights. Rather, it’s a comparison between the merits of one marriage concept to that of another. There are many marriage concepts in the world and some are better for children and society than others, and one can be (and is) superior to the rest. The question, then, is which marriage concept is best for society.
Equality under law does not mean all marriage concepts must be treated equal, but it means the marriage concept that is rationally best for the preservation and order of society is made equally accessible to all.
Equal access to marriage is a right. Marriage equality is not a right, however, since not all marriage concepts are equal.
You are referring to the majority of “state high courts” but my claim did not say “the majority of state high courts.”
I used the phrase “the majority of high courts” in a loose sense that meant “upper level courts” to contrast the courts in the article from lower level courts.
In light of your objection, however, the term “upper level courts” is definitely clearer, which I intend to use in the future.
As for “old dissents,” you did not show why the date of Justice Cordy’s dissent is relevant.
I referenced Justice Cordy to refute Boo’s claim that, “no rational basis argument had ever been made” contra SSM. Your objection to the date seems moot with regard to that point.
As for your calling it “old” that seems biased since the same general approach was used recently in the JvA and SvS 2012 cases. Additionally, the majority of courts in the article from 2003-2010 are relatively similar to Justice Cordy’s approach. Its not as “old” as you infer.
Regarding your claim, “Ken was right” you did not include a quotation. Its nothing more than an unsupported claim at this point, therefore.
@bman:
Your assertion in many of your posts above — that “most” or “the majority of high courts to consider the issue from 2003 thru 2010” have “ruled against SSM” — is simply incorrect. It appears you misread the article you linked. Read the first sentence of your linked article again and then compare it to what you are asserting here. You seem to have morphed “the majority of courts” into “the majority of HIGH courts.” (Emphasis added.)
As the article reports, a total of eight states’ highest courts have ruled on marriage equality. Only three (NY-2006, WA-2006, and MD-2007) have ruled against marriage equality (SSM). But, four (Mass.-2003, Conn.-2008, CA-2008, and Iowa-2009) have ruled in favor of marriage equality. One (NJ-2006) ruled the state had to provide same-sex couples all the rights and obligations of marriage but could call it whatever it chose. No new state high court cases have come down since then.
But, since 2010, ALL three states whose high courts ruled against marriage equality have now rejected those rulings by enacting marriage equality either legislatively (NY) or by popular vote/referendum (MD and WA). Similarly, since 2009, NH, VT, DE, Minn., Maine, RI, and DC have all enacted marriage equality laws (for a total of 13 states plus DC).
The two federal trial court cases you mention, Jackson and Sevcik, are both on appeal to the 9th Circuit, which was waiting for the SCOTUS decisions in the Prop 8 and DOMA cases before it ruled. In any event, as trial court opinions, they are not binding precedents on any other court.
Ken was right. You have your facts wrong. And Boo was also right. You can stick your head in the sand and quote as many old dissents as you’d like, but the tide is inexorably moving in favor of marriage equality.
@bman:
Your assertion in many of your posts above — that “most” or “the majority of high courts to consider the issue from 2003 thru 2010” have “ruled against SSM” — is simply incorrect. It appears you misread the article you linked. Read the first sentence of your linked article again and then compare it to what you are asserting here. You seem to have morphed “the majority of courts” into “the majority of HIGH courts.” (Emphasis added.)
As the article reports, a total of eight states’ highest courts have ruled on marriage equality. Only three (NY-2006, WA-2006, and MD-2007) have ruled against marriage equality (SSM). But, four (Mass.-2003, Conn.-2008, CA-2008, and Iowa-2009) have ruled in favor of marriage equality. One (NJ-2006) ruled the state had to provide same-sex couples all the rights and obligations of marriage but could call it whatever it chose. No new state high court cases have come down since then.
But, since 2010, ALL three states whose high courts ruled against marriage equality have now rejected those rulings by enacting marriage equality either legislatively (NY) or by popular vote/referendum (MD and WA). Similarly, since 2009, NH, VT, DE, Minn., Maine, RI, and DC have all enacted marriage equality laws (for a total of 13 states plus DC).
The two federal trial court cases you mention, Jackson and Sevcik, are both on appeal to the 9th Circuit, which was waiting for the SCOTUS decisions in the Prop 8 and DOMA cases before it ruled. In any event, as trial court opinions, they are not binding precedents on any other court.
Ken was right. You have your facts wrong. And Boo was also right. You can stick your head in the sand and quote as many old dissents as you’d like, but the tide is inexorably moving in favor of marriage equality.
The Nevada case is Sevcik v. Sandoval (not Sandova ).
Correction: A widespread belief among heterosexuals that marriage is not linked to [procreation] could make unwed childbirth the norm, which is not in the best interest of children or society.
Addendum:
Your tsunami claim seems to dismiss two cases in 2012 (August and November), that ruled against SSM, which is only a year or less ago.
Jackson v. Abercrombie, Hawaii.
Sevcik v. Sandova, Nevada.
Both cases are awaiting appeal to the 9th circuit.
The JvA ruling addressed your comment on parenting by saying it was a debatable point, similar to what Justice Cordy had said.
The SvS case argued that SSM could adversely impact society’s beliefs that link marriage to procreation and cause severe consequences.
A widespread belief among heterosexuals that marriage is not linked to marriage could make unwed childbirth the norm, which is not in the best interest of children or society.
The majority of high courts from 2003 thru 2010 have already been persuaded.
See http://www.marriagedebate.com/pdf/iMAPP.Jan2011-2-american-courts.pdf
You appeal to a disputed point that is still undergoing public debate.
Also, you ignore Justice Cordy’s point that its rational to let “an individualized determination of the best environment for a particular child” to occur “where the normative social structure–a home with both the child’s biological father and mother–is not an option.”
The link I provided shows most high courts ruled against SSM from 2003 -2010.
Your claim, therefore, must refer to the period 2011 – 2013.
What cases during that period are you referring to?
If you mean the DOMA cases, they were dealing with whether federal government must recognize SSM where a state had legalized it.
The points raised by Justice Cordy would apply to a state that has not previously legalized SSM, which is a different kind of case than DOMA.
A red herring/strawman.
I am addressing your original claim, “And what exactly is the rational basis for forbidding marriage to same sex couples? No one on the anti-marriage side has ever been able to demonstrate one. no rational basis argument had ever been made. “
The points raised by Justice Cordy’s show why you need to modify that claim.
The Nevada case is Sevcik v. Sandoval (not Sandova ).
Correction: A widespread belief among heterosexuals that marriage is not linked to [procreation] could make unwed childbirth the norm, which is not in the best interest of children or society.
The majority of high courts from 2003 thru 2010 have already been persuaded.
See http://www.marriagedebate.com/pdf/iMAPP.Jan2011-2-american-courts.pdf
You appeal to a disputed point that is still undergoing public debate.
Also, you ignore Justice Cordy’s point that its rational to let “an individualized determination of the best environment for a particular child” to occur “where the normative social structure–a home with both the child’s biological father and mother–is not an option.”
The link I provided shows most high courts ruled against SSM from 2003 -2010.
Your claim, therefore, must refer to the period 2011 – 2013.
What cases during that period are you referring to?
If you mean the DOMA cases, they were dealing with whether federal government must recognize SSM where a state had legalized it.
The points raised by Justice Cordy would apply to a state that has not previously legalized SSM, which is a different kind of case than DOMA.
A red herring/strawman.
I am addressing your original claim, “And what exactly is the rational basis for forbidding marriage to same sex couples? No one on the anti-marriage side has ever been able to demonstrate one. no rational basis argument had ever been made. “
The points raised by Justice Cordy’s show why you need to modify that claim.
I think you’re deluding yourself if you think the majority of courts would be persuaded by that argument, especially as the claim that opposite sex couples are superior for raising children has fallen under the weight of evidence. We’re in the middle of a tsunami of court rulings striking down these anti-gay statutes, and an increasing number of them are doing so on rational basis grounds. If you want to pretend the wind is blowing your way when it clearly isn’t, on judicial, legislative, or popular support grounds, be my guest.
I think you’re deluding yourself if you think the majority of courts would be persuaded by that argument, especially as the claim that opposite sex couples are superior for raising children has fallen under the weight of evidence. We’re in the middle of a tsunami of court rulings striking down these anti-gay statutes, and an increasing number of them are doing so on rational basis grounds. If you want to pretend the wind is blowing your way when it clearly isn’t, on judicial, legislative, or popular support grounds, be my guest.
Correction: ” ….Justice [Cordy’s ]dissent in the Goodridge case is an example….”
In addition to my earlier responses, Justice Cody’s dissent in the Goodridge case is an example of a rational basis argument that the majority of courts would accept.
If you download the ruling, the argument starts at the words, “The question we must turn to next is whether the statute, construed as limiting marriage to couples of the opposite sex, remains a rational way to further that purpose.”
From there, the argument continues to the end of the document.
Correction: ” ….Justice [Cordy’s ]dissent in the Goodridge case is an example….”
Some here asked how ex gay rights are being denied.
Here are some excerpts from an article on CitizenLink just this week that shows an example of how the rights of ex-gays are being violated.
Um…Bman,
Rescinding an invitation may be rude, but it is not a violation of anyone’s rights.
Assuming such events are attended ‘by invitation only’, requesting he not attend at all, (I suspect this isn’t the case) it would still be a stretch to tie that to some sort of civil rights violation.
Mr. McClurkin has already demonstrated he will commandeer an event to make it his own private platform. That’s inappropriate in itself, but not surprising since he intends to ‘wage war’ between the ‘Christian’ community, and the ‘gay agenda’. He likely sees it as imperative. However, such a move at a Civil Rights celebration would only be more of an insult since he’s labeled GLBT advocates as ‘child killers’,
McClurkin, likely sees this as an infringement of his first amendment rights, which would only make sense if he intended to speak out during the concert. I suspect as much given what he said in his statement regarding the ‘dis-invitation’; “There should be freedom of speech as long as it’s done in love,”
That’s an interesting statement. ‘… as long as it’s done in love.” Unfortunately, actions done in ‘love’ are often nebulous and relative. In this case McClurkin would nearly have a captive audience to express his version of ‘love’ upon.
C.S. Lewis spoke on such love.
“Of all tyrannies,” he wrote, “a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. … You start being ‘kind’ to people before you have considered their rights, and then force upon them supposed kindnesses which they in fact had a right to refuse, and finally kindnesses which no one but you will recognize as kindnesses and which the recipient will feel as abominable cruelties.”
To claim an injustice was done upon Mr. McClurkin, one must reconcile his ‘righteous indignation’ in this statement;
“…a black man, a black artist is uninvited from a civil rights movement depicting the love, the unity, the peace, the tolerance.”
…with his earlier statements.
Speaking to his critics in the GLBT community:
“I’m not in the mood to play with those who are trying to kill our children.”
And the gay civil rights movement in general:
“The gloves are off,” he says. “And if there’s going to be a war, there’s going to be a war. But it will be a war with a purpose.”…”There is not enough being said. There are no Christian programs telling the news like it is. It’s time for Christians to stand up and fight”.
Does instinct have anything to do with sexual orientation?
Does instinct have anything to do with sexual orientation?
Since this seems to have become a discussion of same-sex marriage, I’ll throw in my own twopennyworth: abolish civil marriage; civil partnerships for everyone.
The concept of ‘civil marriage’ (gay, straight or anything in between) is a nonsense and a farce.
RW: “The concept of ‘civil marriage’ (gay, straight or anything in between) is a nonsense and a farce.”
—–
Because?
It’s IMO a confused concept.
What do you understand by ‘civil marriage’, bman? What is the function of legislation pertaining to it?
RW: “What is the function of legislation pertaining to it?”
—–
I believe the state needs marriage to provide a legal environment that accommodates and facilitates responsible sex and procreation between men and women.
Can’t that be covered by civil partnerships? (There is no mention of procreation in ‘civil marriage’ ceremonies – at least here in the UK – as far as I know.)
Civil partnerships could also cover responsible sex between a man and a man, or a woman and a woman.
RW: “Civil partnerships could also cover responsible sex between a man and a man, or a woman and a woman.”
—
You previously spoke of wanting to correct “a confused concept,” but you did not state where the confusion was that needed correction.
Now, you offer a solution that would confuse different things as though they were the same.
The US. Supreme Court stated, “The Constitution does not require things which are different in fact or opinion to be treated in law as though they were the same.” (Plyler v. Doe).
The problem with your solution is that it meets that description.
then why do states allow marriages where procreation cannot occur (and in some obscure cases require the couple to prove it cannot occur)?
ken “then why do states allow marriages where procreation cannot occur (and in some obscure cases require the couple to prove it cannot occur?”
——
Since the obscure cases do not represent the main stream they should be treated as experimentation by a particular state.
Even those cases, however, imply that marriage grants legal approval for a couple to procreate.
Why, for example, is marriage denied in Arizona to 1st cousins who are fertile?
The state apparently denies marriage to fertile 1st cousins to deter procreation by 1st cousins.
That is, to prevent procreation by 1st cousins the state denies marriage, which implies the state links marriage to procreation.
As for main stream cases that allow infertile couples to marry, the infertility is a private matter that is invisible to the state.
In effect, the state “presumes” all opposite sex couples are fertile or potentially fertile, and wants the act of even “trying” to procreate to occur only within marriage, and to not occur outside marriage.
The courts have also answered your point numerous times by saying its rational for public policy to have a small degree of over-inclusiveness where it helps manage public policy.
Allowing the marriage of infertile couples, therefore, does not show the state as being “disinterested” in procreation.
“Since the obscure cases do not represent the main stream they should be treated as experimentation by a particular state.”
No they should be treated as what they are, proof that procreation isn’t the only reason the state is interested in promoting marriage.
“Even those cases, however, imply that marriage grants legal approval for a couple to procreate. ”
Not following your logic here. While the state does have an interest in promoting that procreation occur within marriage, couples do not require state approval to procreate. Nor is procreation the only interest the state has in promoting marriage.
“That is, to prevent procreation by 1st cousins the state denies marriage, which implies the state links marriage to procreation.”
Yes, procreation is linked to marriage. I never disputed that. However you are incorrect when you say that the state denies marriage to 1st cousins to prevent procreation. The state prevents procreation by making it illegal (i.e. via laws against incest.)
“In effect, the state “presumes” all opposite sex couples are fertile or potentially fertile”
No this is just false. The state does not “presume” that 70-year-olds are fertile. Nor is the state attempting to promote procreation when it allows such a couple to marry. There are several cases where the state allows marriage where procreation cannot (nor would be desirable even if it could) occur.
“The courts have also answered your point numerous times by saying its rational for public policy to have a small degree of over-inclusiveness where it helps manage public policy.”
Then you should have no trouble citing the cases and court ruling to prove this claim.
“Allowing the marriage of infertile couples, therefore, does not show the state as being “disinterested” in procreation.”
I never said the state was “disinterested.” I said the examples of non-procreative marriage demonstrate that the state has other interests in promoting marriage beside procreation.
Re. Plyler v. Doe etc: in this case it would depend on how the law in questions. What difference does it make to a woman who has just lost her partner and needs to inherit that partner’s real estate in order to have a place to live, if the partner was male or female.
If the law on partnerships is framed to cover these kinds of practical matters which are of genuine ‘public moment’, we will not have a “Plyler v. Doe problem.”
——-
I have a post online at nomblog that provides several quotations from various courts.
If this link does not take you to the exact post, its post #15 there.
Here is an excerpt:
Notice, also, that I am providing quotations because my claim depends on my interpretation of a court statement.
This is not the same situation as before where I appealed to probability and did not need to provide quotations.
“It’s IMO a confused concept.
What do you understand by ‘civil marriage’, bman? What is the function of legislation pertaining to it?”
I suspect Richard you may have fallen into the trap of assuming marriage is a religions construct, (or that religious marriage came 1st). There is no evidence about which came 1st religious or civil marriage. While there are reasonable arguments supporting both cases as being 1st, marriage predates the historical record, which makes it impossible to determine which was 1st.
@ ken
You are on the right lines, except you have drawn completely the wrong inference re. my ‘understanding’ from my comments. My point is in fact yours: ‘marriage’ is NOT anything that is predicated on Christianity (or some other religion); it is, in our culture and our day, in terms of civil law, really a civil partnership – an agreement** (contract) between two people ‘before society’. The term ‘marriage’ causes confusion because people do indeed fall into the ‘trap’ you cite. My view is: “let’s stop ‘pretending’, and, in the context of civil law, call this thing what it really is!”
The Sacrament of Holy Matrimony (‘Christian Marriage’) is something quite other: it is not simply a contract and does not involve only the two people and ‘society’ … State law is not required to make this sacrament efficacious.
My contention is that the state should stick to civil partnerships (for everyone); those who believe in the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony can partake of it as part of their Christian life and vocation, on whatever basis a particular church decides to administer it.
I would add that ‘love’ is not a contractual matter either!
then why are you suggesting changing the name from “civil marriage” to “civil partnership”? that seems to imply that religion has “ownership” of the word marriage when it does not.
I suppose that one could call it either, as long as one is clear on what ‘it’ is, though it wouldn’t be merely a name change – it would, in a sense, ‘get the state out of the bedroom’.
” it would, in a sense, ‘get the state out of the bedroom’.”
How is the state currently “in the bedroom” wrt to marriage?
My understanding is that, here in England and Wales, and in Scotland, there’s no concept of ‘consummation’ in respect of a civil partnership. (Maybe it’s different in your jurisdiction.)
(It might interest you to know that the rubric issued by the London Borough of Haringey for the ceremonies for both ‘civil marriages’ and civil partnerships stipulates that [and I quote] “[Y]our ceremony must not have any religious content …”)
Since this seems to have become a discussion of same-sex marriage, I’ll throw in my own twopennyworth: abolish civil marriage; civil partnerships for everyone.
The concept of ‘civil marriage’ (gay, straight or anything in between) is a nonsense and a farce.
RW: “The concept of ‘civil marriage’ (gay, straight or anything in between) is a nonsense and a farce.”
—–
Because?
It’s IMO a confused concept.
What do you understand by ‘civil marriage’, bman? What is the function of legislation pertaining to it?
“It’s IMO a confused concept.
What do you understand by ‘civil marriage’, bman? What is the function of legislation pertaining to it?”
I suspect Richard you may have fallen into the trap of assuming marriage is a religions construct, (or that religious marriage came 1st). There is no evidence about which came 1st religious or civil marriage. While there are reasonable arguments supporting both cases as being 1st, marriage predates the historical record, which makes it impossible to determine which was 1st.
I would add that ‘love’ is not a contractual matter either!
I suppose that one could call it either, as long as one is clear on what ‘it’ is, though it wouldn’t be merely a name change – it would, in a sense, ‘get the state out of the bedroom’.
” it would, in a sense, ‘get the state out of the bedroom’.”
How is the state currently “in the bedroom” wrt to marriage?
@ ken
You are on the right lines, except you have drawn completely the wrong inference re. my ‘understanding’ from my comments. My point is in fact yours: ‘marriage’ is NOT anything that is predicated on Christianity (or some other religion); it is, in our culture and our day, in terms of civil law, really a civil partnership – an agreement** (contract) between two people ‘before society’. The term ‘marriage’ causes confusion because people do indeed fall into the ‘trap’ you cite. My view is: “let’s stop ‘pretending’, and, in the context of civil law, call this thing what it really is!”
The Sacrament of Holy Matrimony (‘Christian Marriage’) is something quite other: it is not simply a contract and does not involve only the two people and ‘society’ … State law is not required to make this sacrament efficacious.
My contention is that the state should stick to civil partnerships (for everyone); those who believe in the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony can partake of it as part of their Christian life and vocation, on whatever basis a particular church decides to administer it.
then why are you suggesting changing the name from “civil marriage” to “civil partnership”? that seems to imply that religion has “ownership” of the word marriage when it does not.
My understanding is that, here in England and Wales, and in Scotland, there’s no concept of ‘consummation’ in respect of a civil partnership. (Maybe it’s different in your jurisdiction.)
RW: “What is the function of legislation pertaining to it?”
—–
I believe the state needs marriage to provide a legal environment that accommodates and facilitates responsible sex and procreation between men and women.
——-
I have a post online at nomblog that provides several quotations from various courts.
If this link does not take you to the exact post, its post #15 there.
Here is an excerpt:
Notice, also, that I am providing quotations because my claim depends on my interpretation of a court statement.
This is not the same situation as before where I appealed to probability and did not need to provide quotations.
Can’t that be covered by civil partnerships? (There is no mention of procreation in ‘civil marriage’ ceremonies – at least here in the UK – as far as I know.)
Civil partnerships could also cover responsible sex between a man and a man, or a woman and a woman.
ken “then why do states allow marriages where procreation cannot occur (and in some obscure cases require the couple to prove it cannot occur?”
——
Since the obscure cases do not represent the main stream they should be treated as experimentation by a particular state.
Even those cases, however, imply that marriage grants legal approval for a couple to procreate.
Why, for example, is marriage denied in Arizona to 1st cousins who are fertile?
The state apparently denies marriage to fertile 1st cousins to deter procreation by 1st cousins.
That is, to prevent procreation by 1st cousins the state denies marriage, which implies the state links marriage to procreation.
As for main stream cases that allow infertile couples to marry, the infertility is a private matter that is invisible to the state.
In effect, the state “presumes” all opposite sex couples are fertile or potentially fertile, and wants the act of even “trying” to procreate to occur only within marriage, and to not occur outside marriage.
The courts have also answered your point numerous times by saying its rational for public policy to have a small degree of over-inclusiveness where it helps manage public policy.
Allowing the marriage of infertile couples, therefore, does not show the state as being “disinterested” in procreation.
RW: “Civil partnerships could also cover responsible sex between a man and a man, or a woman and a woman.”
—
You previously spoke of wanting to correct “a confused concept,” but you did not state where the confusion was that needed correction.
Now, you offer a solution that would confuse different things as though they were the same.
The US. Supreme Court stated, “The Constitution does not require things which are different in fact or opinion to be treated in law as though they were the same.” (Plyler v. Doe).
The problem with your solution is that it meets that description.
Re. Plyler v. Doe etc: in this case it would depend on how the law in questions. What difference does it make to a woman who has just lost her partner and needs to inherit that partner’s real estate in order to have a place to live, if the partner was male or female.
If the law on partnerships is framed to cover these kinds of practical matters which are of genuine ‘public moment’, we will not have a “Plyler v. Doe problem.”
then why do states allow marriages where procreation cannot occur (and in some obscure cases require the couple to prove it cannot occur)?
(It might interest you to know that the rubric issued by the London Borough of Haringey for the ceremonies for both ‘civil marriages’ and civil partnerships stipulates that [and I quote] “[Y]our ceremony must not have any religious content …”)
——-
My previous arguments about procreation entailed sexual intercourse also.
Indeed, how could I have not argued that?
And, where I argue that marriage is socially approved “sexual intercourse” between a man and woman, procreation is included by default, not excluded.
You presume a false dichotomy, it seems.
I view that comment as an appeal to abstraction and ambiguity.
Given a choice between a policy that says “sex outside of marriage is OK for men and women if they are infertile,” and one that says, “all sex between men and women should occur within marriage,” which of those two shows the most interest in deterring unwed child births in society?
Clearly, the latter.
I view SSM as a paradigm shift or a separate kind of marriage concept that is connected to different principles, practices, and products than marriage between a man and woman.
When two different marriage concepts are based on opposing principles, they are not the same thing, and should not be treated as the same thing.
As for your no impact claim, I refer to my earlier comment that SSM points in the direction of high cost, not low cost.
But again Bman, no one is required to share your views about paradigm shifts. And the fact that you went through an enormous amount of verbal contortions to avoid giving any rational basis for not allowing SSM is rather telling. You can’t seriously think this kind of specious reasoning is going to hold sway at the Supreme Court, can you?
Boo: “…the fact that you went through an enormous amount of verbal contortions to avoid giving any rational basis for not allowing SSM is rather telling..”
——
My post on tradition seemed strong to me. (see link)
So far there has been no counter reply to it.
“My post on tradition seemed strong to me. ”
Tradition is not a rational basis argument.
ken: “Tradition is not a rational basis argument.”
—-
You merely repeat what you said before I quoted Griswald.
Explain the Griswald statements, please.
“Explain the Griswald statements, please.”
Apparently not what you think they do. 1st, you quoted from a concurring opinion, not the majority opinion. The significant point of Griswold was in establishing a “right to privacy” (for married couples but was extended later). Further it does NOT establish that the courts are “required” to consider only traditions in determining if something is a right. Certainly it should be considered to determine if a right is “fundamental.” And you left out an important sentence (immediately after your 1st quote)
(… is part of the original text).
what you quoted was about how to determine if something is a fundamental right (ex. right to privacy) NOT if something is a rational basis for denying a right. And it was from a concurring opinion, NOT the majority opinion, which means it doesn’t have the same weight on the lower courts.
Your turn, how about you explain what you think rational basis actually means and why you thought what you quoted could be considered a “rational basis” argument?
—–
The concurring opinion described established protocol based on prior rulings, which all courts are obliged to recognize.
In the Griswald excerpt below, the phrase, “many years ago,” plus the use of quotation marks, confirms my point.
The court from “many years ago” (Snyder v. Massachusetts) also referenced numerous SCOTUS cases to verify the principle.
In sum, its required that all courts examine tradition to determine whether a fundamental right was infringed upon by the state, or not.
Based on that standard, the majority of high courts from 2003 thru 2010 ruled that SSM is not a fundamental right.
——
You employ the word “only” but it seems to be a new modifier that you just now introduced.
I don’t recall having used it before, and I don’t think you represent my position by using it now.
The quotation I provided from Griswald said, “…liberties that are “so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people..”
The words, “and conscience of our people “show I was not arguing for tradition “only.”
In my view, tradition also serves as a proxy for how the people have historically viewed principles of justice.
We can pin this down, however, if you simply provide the quotations on tradition from the courts that you objected to.
I refer to your earlier comment, “Mostly the courts relied on “tradition” arguments (i.e. that is the way it has always been)…
the “tradition” argument is not a valid “rational basis” defense. ”
So, please quote from those courts where you think they misapplied tradition.
“So, please quote from those courts where you think they misapplied tradition.”
So you are asking me to quote from the court decisions, after you have refused to do the same thing with regards to rational basis decisions?
Be happy to give you some quotes, after you have done the same. and answered my question about what you think “rational basis” means and why you think your previous quotes represent a “rational basis” argument?
ken: “So you are asking me to quote from the court decisions, after you have refused to do the same thing with regards to rational basis decisions?”
—-
Yes, because different reasons apply.
As explained before, I used an inductive argument, which is an appeal to probability, and it did not require a specific quotation.
Its far more reasonable for a jury to presume the majority of high courts, across seven years, would have had a rational basis for ruling against SSM than to presume they didn’t have a rational basis.
That does not mean the courts necessarily did have one, but I am not claiming they necessarily did, but only that its more probable they did than did not.
And so, I don’t need to quote actual court statements because I am appealing to general probability.
You, however, need to quote actual court statements because your argument depends on whether your interpretation of actual court statements is correct.
——-
My previous arguments about procreation entailed sexual intercourse also.
Indeed, how could I have not argued that?
And, where I argue that marriage is socially approved “sexual intercourse” between a man and woman, procreation is included by default, not excluded.
You presume a false dichotomy, it seems.
I view that comment as an appeal to abstraction and ambiguity.
Given a choice between a policy that says “sex outside of marriage is OK for men and women if they are infertile,” and one that says, “all sex between men and women should occur within marriage,” which of those two shows the most interest in deterring unwed child births in society?
Clearly, the latter.
I view SSM as a paradigm shift or a separate kind of marriage concept that is connected to different principles, practices, and products than marriage between a man and woman.
When two different marriage concepts are based on opposing principles, they are not the same thing, and should not be treated as the same thing.
As for your no impact claim, I refer to my earlier comment that SSM points in the direction of high cost, not low cost.
But again Bman, no one is required to share your views about paradigm shifts. And the fact that you went through an enormous amount of verbal contortions to avoid giving any rational basis for not allowing SSM is rather telling. You can’t seriously think this kind of specious reasoning is going to hold sway at the Supreme Court, can you?
Boo: “…the fact that you went through an enormous amount of verbal contortions to avoid giving any rational basis for not allowing SSM is rather telling..”
——
My post on tradition seemed strong to me. (see link)
So far there has been no counter reply to it.
“My post on tradition seemed strong to me. ”
Tradition is not a rational basis argument.
ken: “Tradition is not a rational basis argument.”
—-
You merely repeat what you said before I quoted Griswald.
Explain the Griswald statements, please.
“Explain the Griswald statements, please.”
Apparently not what you think they do. 1st, you quoted from a concurring opinion, not the majority opinion. The significant point of Griswold was in establishing a “right to privacy” (for married couples but was extended later). Further it does NOT establish that the courts are “required” to consider only traditions in determining if something is a right. Certainly it should be considered to determine if a right is “fundamental.” And you left out an important sentence (immediately after your 1st quote)
(… is part of the original text).
what you quoted was about how to determine if something is a fundamental right (ex. right to privacy) NOT if something is a rational basis for denying a right. And it was from a concurring opinion, NOT the majority opinion, which means it doesn’t have the same weight on the lower courts.
Your turn, how about you explain what you think rational basis actually means and why you thought what you quoted could be considered a “rational basis” argument?
ken: “So you are asking me to quote from the court decisions, after you have refused to do the same thing with regards to rational basis decisions?”
—-
Yes, because different reasons apply.
As explained before, I used an inductive argument, which is an appeal to probability, and it did not require a specific quotation.
Its far more reasonable for a jury to presume the majority of high courts, across seven years, would have had a rational basis for ruling against SSM than to presume they didn’t have a rational basis.
That does not mean the courts necessarily did have one, but I am not claiming they necessarily did, but only that its more probable they did than did not.
And so, I don’t need to quote actual court statements because I am appealing to general probability.
You, however, need to quote actual court statements because your argument depends on whether your interpretation of actual court statements is correct.
——
You employ the word “only” but it seems to be a new modifier that you just now introduced.
I don’t recall having used it before, and I don’t think you represent my position by using it now.
The quotation I provided from Griswald said, “…liberties that are “so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people..”
The words, “and conscience of our people “show I was not arguing for tradition “only.”
In my view, tradition also serves as a proxy for how the people have historically viewed principles of justice.
We can pin this down, however, if you simply provide the quotations on tradition from the courts that you objected to.
I refer to your earlier comment, “Mostly the courts relied on “tradition” arguments (i.e. that is the way it has always been)…
the “tradition” argument is not a valid “rational basis” defense. ”
So, please quote from those courts where you think they misapplied tradition.
“So, please quote from those courts where you think they misapplied tradition.”
So you are asking me to quote from the court decisions, after you have refused to do the same thing with regards to rational basis decisions?
Be happy to give you some quotes, after you have done the same. and answered my question about what you think “rational basis” means and why you think your previous quotes represent a “rational basis” argument?
—–
The concurring opinion described established protocol based on prior rulings, which all courts are obliged to recognize.
In the Griswald excerpt below, the phrase, “many years ago,” plus the use of quotation marks, confirms my point.
The court from “many years ago” (Snyder v. Massachusetts) also referenced numerous SCOTUS cases to verify the principle.
In sum, its required that all courts examine tradition to determine whether a fundamental right was infringed upon by the state, or not.
Based on that standard, the majority of high courts from 2003 thru 2010 ruled that SSM is not a fundamental right.
They want the right for the siencific faith 🙂 to say that everyone who life out the same sex attraction has a bad binding to his father. They want to say that everyone should go to therapy (not “must” only because then the therapy ins not functioning) and with god help can everyone “leave the homosexuality” (wich is not equal Same Sex Attraction, more equal homosexual lifestyle).
They want to say that everyone who is not lusting after the genital parts of the other sex has a Gender Identity Disorer.
They want have the right that every parent can take his child to reparative therapyst, where it was told the above.
Until there is a gay gene, because only genetic things are inborn. All other things are changable. Every left hander can be beaten to use the right hand (it is only unethical) and every musical human can be changed to be unmusical.
They want the right for the siencific faith 🙂 to say that everyone who life out the same sex attraction has a bad binding to his father. They want to say that everyone should go to therapy (not “must” only because then the therapy ins not functioning) and with god help can everyone “leave the homosexuality” (wich is not equal Same Sex Attraction, more equal homosexual lifestyle).
They want to say that everyone who is not lusting after the genital parts of the other sex has a Gender Identity Disorer.
They want have the right that every parent can take his child to reparative therapyst, where it was told the above.
Until there is a gay gene, because only genetic things are inborn. All other things are changable. Every left hander can be beaten to use the right hand (it is only unethical) and every musical human can be changed to be unmusical.
bman: .”..unless it infringed on a fundamental right, and that question must be answered first.”
ken: that question has been answered. Marriage is a fundamental right. The SCOTUS ruled it was in “Skinner v. Oklahoma”, and re-affirmed that ruling in several cases since then (most notably, “Loving v. Virginia”).
——–
The Baker v. Nelson case as reviewed by SCOTUS in 1972 and rulings by the majority of high courts from 2003 thru 2010 mean SSM is something distinct and different from the fundamental right to marriage.
Besides, your logic seems to reduce to the absurdity that any new marriage concept that comes along after those cases were decided would also be a fundamental right!
“The Baker v. Nelson case as reviewed by SCOTUS in 1972”
SCOTUS dismissed Bakver v. Nelson for want of a federal question. However, in 1972, the state did have a reason to deny gay marriage, because back then the law treated the sexes differently in a marriage. Therefore, in order to properly apply the law, the state needed to know who was the husband and who was the wife. That is not true today though. The spouses are treated equally under the law today, so that rational is no longer valid.
“your logic seems to reduce to the absurdity that any new marriage concept that comes along after those cases were decided would also be a fundamental right!”
Not quite. Any new marriage concept has the right to challenge a state’s ban on it and require that the state provide a sufficent reason for not allowing the marriage.
bman: .”..unless it infringed on a fundamental right, and that question must be answered first.”
ken: that question has been answered. Marriage is a fundamental right. The SCOTUS ruled it was in “Skinner v. Oklahoma”, and re-affirmed that ruling in several cases since then (most notably, “Loving v. Virginia”).
——–
The Baker v. Nelson case as reviewed by SCOTUS in 1972 and rulings by the majority of high courts from 2003 thru 2010 mean SSM is something distinct and different from the fundamental right to marriage.
Besides, your logic seems to reduce to the absurdity that any new marriage concept that comes along after those cases were decided would also be a fundamental right!
“The Baker v. Nelson case as reviewed by SCOTUS in 1972”
SCOTUS dismissed Bakver v. Nelson for want of a federal question. However, in 1972, the state did have a reason to deny gay marriage, because back then the law treated the sexes differently in a marriage. Therefore, in order to properly apply the law, the state needed to know who was the husband and who was the wife. That is not true today though. The spouses are treated equally under the law today, so that rational is no longer valid.
“your logic seems to reduce to the absurdity that any new marriage concept that comes along after those cases were decided would also be a fundamental right!”
Not quite. Any new marriage concept has the right to challenge a state’s ban on it and require that the state provide a sufficent reason for not allowing the marriage.
bman says:
August 3, 2013 at 8:57 am
“unless it infringed on a fundamental right, and that question must be answered first.”
that question has been answered. Marriage is a fundamental right. The SCOTUS ruled it was in “Skinner v. Oklahoma”, and re-affirmed that ruling in several cases since then (most notably, “Loving v. Virginia”).
bman says:
August 3, 2013 at 12:02 pm
“The Loving case, by contrast, did not change the definition of marriage inherited from the common law. In fact, it restored the right of mixed race couples to marry that had been temporarily taken away.”
However, Loving did change the definition of marriage in US Law (which always takes precedence over common law). Further, the right had not been “temporarily taken away.” It was never allowed in the US, until some states changed laws to allow it (and ultimately the SCOTUS ruling required it for those states that did not change their laws).
bman says:
August 3, 2013 at 12:40 pm
“For you to say no one, “has ever been able” to demonstrate a rational basis contra SSM suggests you haven’t read the majority of high court cases that ruled against SSM.”
I’m familiar with quite a few of those rulings. Mostly the courts relied on “tradition” arguments (i.e. that is the way it has always been), the “for the children argument” which incorrectly claimed same-sex marriage would somehow be harmful to children. The majority of research shows children are NOT harmed by being raised by same-sex couples. Also, the “procreation argument” i.e. that the states interest in marriage is to regulate procreation.
the “tradition” argument is not a valid “rational basis” defense. and the “for the children” argument does not stand up to scientific scrutiny, which is why the Prop 8 defenses own “expert” (Blankenhorn) testified under oath that children would be helped (not hurt) by allowing same-sex marriage. For the “procreation argument” laws regarding marriage demonstrate that the state has an interest in marriage beyond procreation, further allowing non-procreative couples to marry doesn’t interfere in any measurable way with procreative marriages. The idea that allowing gay couples to marry will somehow stop straight couples from procreating is certainly not rational.
“In short, there is preponderance of material available that refutes your claim.”
Not from what I’ve read of these cases. Perhaps you can cite some more specific examples of what you are talking about (i.e. the actual argument and reference).
An excerpt from the Loving case states, “Virginia is now one of 16 States which prohibit and punish marriages on the basis of racial classifications.”
That means before Loving was even decided, every state, except 16, allowed mixed race marriage.
In other words, Loving federalized the definition of marriage held by a majority of states at that time. It did not “change” the definition to something that never before existed.
Where you say US law, “always takes precedence over common law,” it amounts to this, “Loving’s agreement with common law takes precedence over common law!” A distinction without a difference, for sure!
You also confidently assert this false statement, “It was never allowed in the US, until some states changed laws to allow it.”
Contra your claim, mixed race marriage was always allowed in the US in some states.
The Wikipedia states:
My point also stands that the right was “temporarily taken away” [by some states] and restored.
That is so because mixed race marriage was allowed in common law before any state made a law against it.
Thus, the right would have been “taken away” by some states until those states lifted the restriction or until Loving restored that right.
The bottom line is that Loving did not create a new definition of marriage that never before existed in law.
“My point also stands that the right was “temporarily taken away” [by some states] and restored.”
Really, which states “temporarily” took away the right of inter-racial marriage then restored it?
ken: “Really, which states “temporarily” took away the right of inter-racial marriage then restored it?”
—-
I actually answered that so you must of stopped reading before you reached that line.
Here is the statement again with some added clarification in bold.
“That is so because mixed race marriage was allowed in common law before any state made a law against it.
Thus, the right would have been “taken away” by some states [the states that enacted a law against mixed race marriage]”
Again what state(s) (i.e. I’m asking for SPECIFIC names of states), allowed inter-racial marriages, then passed a law forbidding them?
ken: Again what state(s) (i.e. I’m asking for SPECIFIC names of states), allowed inter-racial marriages, then passed a law forbidding them?”
—–
That sounds like you want me to do your homework for you.
You can visit the Wikipedia page I linked to see which states enacted such a law and then repealed it before Loving.
ken: “…the “tradition” argument is not a valid “rational basis” defense…”
——-
Actually, the court is required to examine tradition to determine if a right would be a fundamental right that is deeply rooted.
Here are some excerpts from the 1965 Griswald case on the role of tradition:
Since same sex marriage is not rooted in this nation’s tradition or conscience, the majority of high courts from 2003 thru 2010 have ruled there is no fundamental right to SSM.
Also, even a court thought a better policy should exist, its not the court’s role to create it.
That is a matter reserved to the legislature and the democratic process by the Constitution.
bman says:
August 3, 2013 at 8:57 am
“unless it infringed on a fundamental right, and that question must be answered first.”
that question has been answered. Marriage is a fundamental right. The SCOTUS ruled it was in “Skinner v. Oklahoma”, and re-affirmed that ruling in several cases since then (most notably, “Loving v. Virginia”).
bman says:
August 3, 2013 at 12:02 pm
“The Loving case, by contrast, did not change the definition of marriage inherited from the common law. In fact, it restored the right of mixed race couples to marry that had been temporarily taken away.”
However, Loving did change the definition of marriage in US Law (which always takes precedence over common law). Further, the right had not been “temporarily taken away.” It was never allowed in the US, until some states changed laws to allow it (and ultimately the SCOTUS ruling required it for those states that did not change their laws).
bman says:
August 3, 2013 at 12:40 pm
“For you to say no one, “has ever been able” to demonstrate a rational basis contra SSM suggests you haven’t read the majority of high court cases that ruled against SSM.”
I’m familiar with quite a few of those rulings. Mostly the courts relied on “tradition” arguments (i.e. that is the way it has always been), the “for the children argument” which incorrectly claimed same-sex marriage would somehow be harmful to children. The majority of research shows children are NOT harmed by being raised by same-sex couples. Also, the “procreation argument” i.e. that the states interest in marriage is to regulate procreation.
the “tradition” argument is not a valid “rational basis” defense. and the “for the children” argument does not stand up to scientific scrutiny, which is why the Prop 8 defenses own “expert” (Blankenhorn) testified under oath that children would be helped (not hurt) by allowing same-sex marriage. For the “procreation argument” laws regarding marriage demonstrate that the state has an interest in marriage beyond procreation, further allowing non-procreative couples to marry doesn’t interfere in any measurable way with procreative marriages. The idea that allowing gay couples to marry will somehow stop straight couples from procreating is certainly not rational.
“In short, there is preponderance of material available that refutes your claim.”
Not from what I’ve read of these cases. Perhaps you can cite some more specific examples of what you are talking about (i.e. the actual argument and reference).
An excerpt from the Loving case states, “Virginia is now one of 16 States which prohibit and punish marriages on the basis of racial classifications.”
That means before Loving was even decided, every state, except 16, allowed mixed race marriage.
In other words, Loving federalized the definition of marriage held by a majority of states at that time. It did not “change” the definition to something that never before existed.
Where you say US law, “always takes precedence over common law,” it amounts to this, “Loving’s agreement with common law takes precedence over common law!” A distinction without a difference, for sure!
You also confidently assert this false statement, “It was never allowed in the US, until some states changed laws to allow it.”
Contra your claim, mixed race marriage was always allowed in the US in some states.
The Wikipedia states:
My point also stands that the right was “temporarily taken away” [by some states] and restored.
That is so because mixed race marriage was allowed in common law before any state made a law against it.
Thus, the right would have been “taken away” by some states until those states lifted the restriction or until Loving restored that right.
The bottom line is that Loving did not create a new definition of marriage that never before existed in law.
“My point also stands that the right was “temporarily taken away” [by some states] and restored.”
Really, which states “temporarily” took away the right of inter-racial marriage then restored it?
ken: “Really, which states “temporarily” took away the right of inter-racial marriage then restored it?”
—-
I actually answered that so you must of stopped reading before you reached that line.
Here is the statement again with some added clarification in bold.
“That is so because mixed race marriage was allowed in common law before any state made a law against it.
Thus, the right would have been “taken away” by some states [the states that enacted a law against mixed race marriage]”
Again what state(s) (i.e. I’m asking for SPECIFIC names of states), allowed inter-racial marriages, then passed a law forbidding them?
ken: Again what state(s) (i.e. I’m asking for SPECIFIC names of states), allowed inter-racial marriages, then passed a law forbidding them?”
—–
That sounds like you want me to do your homework for you.
You can visit the Wikipedia page I linked to see which states enacted such a law and then repealed it before Loving.
ken: “…the “tradition” argument is not a valid “rational basis” defense…”
——-
Actually, the court is required to examine tradition to determine if a right would be a fundamental right that is deeply rooted.
Here are some excerpts from the 1965 Griswald case on the role of tradition:
Since same sex marriage is not rooted in this nation’s tradition or conscience, the majority of high courts from 2003 thru 2010 have ruled there is no fundamental right to SSM.
Also, even a court thought a better policy should exist, its not the court’s role to create it.
That is a matter reserved to the legislature and the democratic process by the Constitution.
Tom Van Dyke says:
August 2, 2013 at 10:49 pm
“Black = gay = 5 wives = 6 husbands = one of each = six of one and half-dozen of the other. It’s a calculator, it’s a coloring book!”
Are you really that stupid or are you just a troll?
It’s just the way Tom is. He usually isn’t capable of responding to a comment on the merits so he tries to change the subject and/or put words in your mouth. I don’t think anyone here takes him very seriously.
Well, Boo, I think Tom is actually very capable of making interesting points (though not ones I generally agree with, I must admit). But he does like to use ‘interesting’ dialectic … sometimes to the detriment of his own arguments in my view.
This is maybe off-topic but tomorrow Robert Gagnon is going to appear on Christian radio talking about Christianity and homosexuality. I’m sure he’ll defend the ex-gay ideology and conversion therapy in the light of Exodus International’s demise. If you want to tell him something, here’s the link:
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/grok558/2013/08/03/deeper-waters-homosexuality-and-the-bible
Well he didn’t show up but the host was sure to defend conversion therapy despite the lack of proof that it works. Also, the Regnerus “study.”
Tom Van Dyke says:
August 2, 2013 at 10:49 pm
“Black = gay = 5 wives = 6 husbands = one of each = six of one and half-dozen of the other. It’s a calculator, it’s a coloring book!”
Are you really that stupid or are you just a troll?
It’s just the way Tom is. He usually isn’t capable of responding to a comment on the merits so he tries to change the subject and/or put words in your mouth. I don’t think anyone here takes him very seriously.
Well, Boo, I think Tom is actually very capable of making interesting points (though not ones I generally agree with, I must admit). But he does like to use ‘interesting’ dialectic … sometimes to the detriment of his own arguments in my view.
This is maybe off-topic but tomorrow Robert Gagnon is going to appear on Christian radio talking about Christianity and homosexuality. I’m sure he’ll defend the ex-gay ideology and conversion therapy in the light of Exodus International’s demise. If you want to tell him something, here’s the link:
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/grok558/2013/08/03/deeper-waters-homosexuality-and-the-bible
Well he didn’t show up but the host was sure to defend conversion therapy despite the lack of proof that it works. Also, the Regnerus “study.”
“Pursuit of happiness” means for most of us (gay and “ex-gay”) that we want to be respected or accepted (AND believed AND not be ridiculed – AND not be spied after, etc.) We humans are not so much different.
I agree that some of these aims can collide with the justified interests of other people. I agree, too, that.most of these aims cannot be achieved by legal means, but as I said, this error is shared by many others.
“Pursuit of happiness” means for most of us (gay and “ex-gay”) that we want to be respected or accepted (AND believed AND not be ridiculed – AND not be spied after, etc.) We humans are not so much different.
I agree that some of these aims can collide with the justified interests of other people. I agree, too, that.most of these aims cannot be achieved by legal means, but as I said, this error is shared by many others.
Does any of us have the ‘right to be believed’? Maybe this is what they really want? Maybe we all want it (I certainly often want ‘to be believed’)? Perhaps that’s what this is really about … If so, I can understand and sympathize with that.
Patrocles,
The lack of marriage recognition has quantifiable damages that can easily be referenced and confirmed.
The word marriage does mean something, not a ‘heterosexual union’ or a ‘homosexual union’, but a union period. Moreover, it’s the type of union that transcends all other unions. So its reputation precedes it. There is no having to explain what it means.
Artificial substitutions always need clarification. And in the case of Civil Unions et el, mountains of additional paperwork and costs to ‘mostly’ mirror what ‘Marriage’ encompasses legally. But that’s another topic.
So while you are correct that *some* gays see marriage recognition by the state/gov as a validation of their relationships. The vast majority of gays just want the legal protections, both material and fringe, that marriage provides.
So going back to my original statement, until ex-gays can demonstrate some genuine damages, the public will be hard pressed to see them as an oppressed group.
***
Another obstacle to ‘civil rights’ for ex-gays is they can’t even decide amongst themselves what makes them a minority.
If they are truly ex-gay, then they are now part of the majority of heterosexuals and already have protections.
If they are gays that just abstain, (something that they, as a rule, deny) then they would benefit from the same rights GLBTs are fighting for. But the Ex-Gay movement has largely been against recognitions for gays and lesbians. So, perhaps like many other aspects of the ‘ex’-gay movement, their actions are self defeating.
Interestingly enough, one group from whom both ex-gays and gays might face the SAME kind of (extreme) unjust discrimination are religious fundamentalists. After all, if one takes that stuff in Leviticus literally and takes seriously the context in which it was written (the post-Exile attempt to ‘purify’ the religion and society, and so ‘please God’, and therefore avoid further ‘Exile-type disasters’), the fact of ever having been a sexually-active gay means big trouble. And I’ve seen it: some guy from Africa posted something that basically said it didn’t matter if someone was ‘gay’ or ‘ex-gay’, their ‘fate’ should be the same.
(Of course, all ex-gays should be totally against criminalizing gays; if they are not, they are effectively asking to be criminalized themselves. If something is deemed to a criminal offence, one who has done that ‘something’ is liable under criminal law regardless of whether one ‘repents’ of what one has done.)
Patrocles,
The lack of marriage recognition has quantifiable damages that can easily be referenced and confirmed.
The word marriage does mean something, not a ‘heterosexual union’ or a ‘homosexual union’, but a union period. Moreover, it’s the type of union that transcends all other unions. So its reputation precedes it. There is no having to explain what it means.
Artificial substitutions always need clarification. And in the case of Civil Unions et el, mountains of additional paperwork and costs to ‘mostly’ mirror what ‘Marriage’ encompasses legally. But that’s another topic.
So while you are correct that *some* gays see marriage recognition by the state/gov as a validation of their relationships. The vast majority of gays just want the legal protections, both material and fringe, that marriage provides.
So going back to my original statement, until ex-gays can demonstrate some genuine damages, the public will be hard pressed to see them as an oppressed group.
***
Another obstacle to ‘civil rights’ for ex-gays is they can’t even decide amongst themselves what makes them a minority.
If they are truly ex-gay, then they are now part of the majority of heterosexuals and already have protections.
If they are gays that just abstain, (something that they, as a rule, deny) then they would benefit from the same rights GLBTs are fighting for. But the Ex-Gay movement has largely been against recognitions for gays and lesbians. So, perhaps like many other aspects of the ‘ex’-gay movement, their actions are self defeating.
Interestingly enough, one group from whom both ex-gays and gays might face the SAME kind of (extreme) unjust discrimination are religious fundamentalists. After all, if one takes that stuff in Leviticus literally and takes seriously the context in which it was written (the post-Exile attempt to ‘purify’ the religion and society, and so ‘please God’, and therefore avoid further ‘Exile-type disasters’), the fact of ever having been a sexually-active gay means big trouble. And I’ve seen it: some guy from Africa posted something that basically said it didn’t matter if someone was ‘gay’ or ‘ex-gay’, their ‘fate’ should be the same.
(Of course, all ex-gays should be totally against criminalizing gays; if they are not, they are effectively asking to be criminalized themselves. If something is deemed to a criminal offence, one who has done that ‘something’ is liable under criminal law regardless of whether one ‘repents’ of what one has done.)
The wish for “gay marriage”, for example, is to a great part a wish for official acknowledgment, not for real material advantages. (At least in those European countries, where there’s the alternative of legalized “partnership” – I don’t know about the U.S.).
I admit that the SCOTUS, or the state in general, are not the best instrument to get public acceptance. But if that’s an error, it is an error, which the ex-gays share with a lot of other minorities.
I think you do have a point here, Patrocles.
The Marriage (Same-sex Couples) Act 2013 (which has just received Royal Assent, and become law in England & Wales – the Scottish legislature has just started to consider a similar draft law) does appear to be more about ‘official acknowledgement’ than ‘material fairness’, given that the latter aspect was ENTIRELY covered in the Civil Partnerships Act 2004.
(The new law is rather odd, as it happens, because it is, I believe, different from that for [heterosexual] marriage in one key respect: one person of a same-sex married couple cannot file for divorce on grounds of infidelity alone. My view is that this is a key defect in the new law if the concept of marriage is to taken seriously. On this whole issue, I am something of a ‘radical’: my view was that civil partnerships [with the law amended to make the ‘ceremony’ a public event] should be extended to everyone, and civil marriage abolished – with IMO two advantages: 1. the concept of ‘informed consent’ would have absolute primacy in the matter of sexual relations, and 2. there could be no ‘grey areas’ with regard to the rights of transgendered and intersex persons when it came to forming partnerships, as the sex[ual identity] of each of the two ‘high contracting parties’ could be deemed effectively irrelevant. Churches, and other religions, would be left free to decide to whom they would offer the facility of a ‘marriage’ ceremony.)
(And that sneeky Willmer sees a ‘church opportunity’ here! If people want a ‘church wedding’ [and plenty do], they will have to make the choice to come [back] to church! At the moment, simply living in a CofE parish means that one has the right to be married at the Parish Church. Isn’t that sneeky Willmer naughty!!! 🙂 )
I suppose that they want to be officially acknowledged and not be harassed and publicly ridiculed and denigrated by their enemies (the anti-ex-gay-movement). Just as a lot of other minorities.
There is no right not to be publically ridiculed, and they already have the same protections against harassment that everyone else has.
Boo is correct, no group has such a right. If indeed anyone is being harmed over their beliefs or self-declaration, the remedy is available to that person. In the past, PFOX has demanded hate crimes laws cover ex-gays. However, the biggest resistance to hate crimes laws which include sexual orientation (which would cover ex-gays) has been the religious right. So really, they should have been marching outside FRC or some such group.
there also seems to be some misunderstanding about what freedom of speech does, and does not mean. Freedom of speech does NOT mean the news has to cover your speech. nor does it mean “freedom from the consequences” of speech. If people don’t like what you have to say they are free to boycott you, ridicule you, or point out that what you said is factually incorrect.
This effort to create a parallel movement of ex-gays – a PFOX to counter PFLAG, Ex-Gay Pride to counter Gay Pride – is truly a fiasco on many levels. Most obviously, their efforts expose how few people claim to be ex-gay . When the gays put on their Gay Pride events, love them or hate them, they are huge. There is a real community gathering and tens of thousands of people, and in some cases hundreds of thousands of people, participate.
The ex-gays? They are going to celebrate Ex-Gay Pride month with one small dinner in one room. And 2/3 of the speakers listed on their event notice are not ex-gay. And they cancelled it. When they conducted a public protest in front of the Supreme Court building, fewer than 10 people showed up, including non-ex-gays like Richard Cohen’s wife. If you got the Ex-Gay community together in one place, you might have enough people for a good game of poker.
Moreover, the parallel movement effort accomplishes nothing. I think they are hoping that if “ex gay” is covered under antidiscrimination laws, that would be an implicit admission that “ex-gays” actually exist. But that isn’t the way anti-discrimination laws work. “Ex-gay” – whether or not it exists – would be covered under sexual orientation anti-discrimination laws, in precisely the same way that a Jewish convert to Christianity (i.e., an ex-Jew) would be protected by antidiscrimination provisions covering religion. In fact, the ex-Jew would be covered whether his conversion were genuine or whether it was all an act or even in the event that he was neither a Jew nor a convert, but was merely mistaken by his employer for one or the other and discriminated against on that basis.
All PFOX/IHF have accomplished is to undermine the argument the Religious Right has been touting for 40 years, which is that sexuality is not the proper basis for civil rights protections. Any time the Family Research Council makes that argument, we should now cite PFOX and IHF back to them.
Excellent, David! Very clearly and logically expressed. I agree 100%
“If you got the Ex-Gay community together in one place, you might have enough people for a good game of poker.”
Yeah, but I bet they would be really good at bluffing 🙂
The wish for “gay marriage”, for example, is to a great part a wish for official acknowledgment, not for real material advantages. (At least in those European countries, where there’s the alternative of legalized “partnership” – I don’t know about the U.S.).
I admit that the SCOTUS, or the state in general, are not the best instrument to get public acceptance. But if that’s an error, it is an error, which the ex-gays share with a lot of other minorities.
I think you do have a point here, Patrocles.
The Marriage (Same-sex Couples) Act 2013 (which has just received Royal Assent, and become law in England & Wales – the Scottish legislature has just started to consider a similar draft law) does appear to be more about ‘official acknowledgement’ than ‘material fairness’, given that the latter aspect was ENTIRELY covered in the Civil Partnerships Act 2004.
(The new law is rather odd, as it happens, because it is, I believe, different from that for [heterosexual] marriage in one key respect: one person of a same-sex married couple cannot file for divorce on grounds of infidelity alone. My view is that this is a key defect in the new law if the concept of marriage is to taken seriously. On this whole issue, I am something of a ‘radical’: my view was that civil partnerships [with the law amended to make the ‘ceremony’ a public event] should be extended to everyone, and civil marriage abolished – with IMO two advantages: 1. the concept of ‘informed consent’ would have absolute primacy in the matter of sexual relations, and 2. there could be no ‘grey areas’ with regard to the rights of transgendered and intersex persons when it came to forming partnerships, as the sex[ual identity] of each of the two ‘high contracting parties’ could be deemed effectively irrelevant. Churches, and other religions, would be left free to decide to whom they would offer the facility of a ‘marriage’ ceremony.)
(And that sneeky Willmer sees a ‘church opportunity’ here! If people want a ‘church wedding’ [and plenty do], they will have to make the choice to come [back] to church! At the moment, simply living in a CofE parish means that one has the right to be married at the Parish Church. Isn’t that sneeky Willmer naughty!!! 🙂 )
I suppose that they want to be officially acknowledged and not be harassed and publicly ridiculed and denigrated by their enemies (the anti-ex-gay-movement). Just as a lot of other minorities.
there also seems to be some misunderstanding about what freedom of speech does, and does not mean. Freedom of speech does NOT mean the news has to cover your speech. nor does it mean “freedom from the consequences” of speech. If people don’t like what you have to say they are free to boycott you, ridicule you, or point out that what you said is factually incorrect.
There is no right not to be publically ridiculed, and they already have the same protections against harassment that everyone else has.
Boo is correct, no group has such a right. If indeed anyone is being harmed over their beliefs or self-declaration, the remedy is available to that person. In the past, PFOX has demanded hate crimes laws cover ex-gays. However, the biggest resistance to hate crimes laws which include sexual orientation (which would cover ex-gays) has been the religious right. So really, they should have been marching outside FRC or some such group.
This effort to create a parallel movement of ex-gays – a PFOX to counter PFLAG, Ex-Gay Pride to counter Gay Pride – is truly a fiasco on many levels. Most obviously, their efforts expose how few people claim to be ex-gay . When the gays put on their Gay Pride events, love them or hate them, they are huge. There is a real community gathering and tens of thousands of people, and in some cases hundreds of thousands of people, participate.
The ex-gays? They are going to celebrate Ex-Gay Pride month with one small dinner in one room. And 2/3 of the speakers listed on their event notice are not ex-gay. And they cancelled it. When they conducted a public protest in front of the Supreme Court building, fewer than 10 people showed up, including non-ex-gays like Richard Cohen’s wife. If you got the Ex-Gay community together in one place, you might have enough people for a good game of poker.
Moreover, the parallel movement effort accomplishes nothing. I think they are hoping that if “ex gay” is covered under antidiscrimination laws, that would be an implicit admission that “ex-gays” actually exist. But that isn’t the way anti-discrimination laws work. “Ex-gay” – whether or not it exists – would be covered under sexual orientation anti-discrimination laws, in precisely the same way that a Jewish convert to Christianity (i.e., an ex-Jew) would be protected by antidiscrimination provisions covering religion. In fact, the ex-Jew would be covered whether his conversion were genuine or whether it was all an act or even in the event that he was neither a Jew nor a convert, but was merely mistaken by his employer for one or the other and discriminated against on that basis.
All PFOX/IHF have accomplished is to undermine the argument the Religious Right has been touting for 40 years, which is that sexuality is not the proper basis for civil rights protections. Any time the Family Research Council makes that argument, we should now cite PFOX and IHF back to them.
Excellent, David! Very clearly and logically expressed. I agree 100%
“If you got the Ex-Gay community together in one place, you might have enough people for a good game of poker.”
Yeah, but I bet they would be really good at bluffing 🙂
Didn’t anyone tell them that the SCOTUS is in recess right now? I’d say there “lack of media coverage” has more to do with very poor planning rather than any concerted effort to “silence them.”
Poor planning and nothing really to cover. If there was some actual discrimination or deprivation of rights, then there would be a story.
Yes, this whole argument/approach is highly problematic. I blogged recently about how it is a very illogical approach to not only the hard fought gains of the legitimate Civil Rights legacy. Ex-gays, as a protected class, meet a grand total of ZERO criteria required for such a status.
This also misses the point altogether when it comes to who we are as Christians. Sure not everyone involved in that realm are Christians but Christians will do themselves a disservice if they adopt this “cause.” Our identity as Christians and our concern is the Gospel; not ex-gay identity politics clamoring for a seat at a table we have already feasted off of.
Ex-gays are heterosexual. Oh, the oppression.
Except, of course, they (generally) are not – and that’s perhaps the problem …
They should, of course, have the same rights as everyone else: fair treatment under the law and the right of freedom of expression (so long as others are not harmed by the exercise of that right).
Well when they start passing State Constitutional Amendments denying ex-gays the right to a Civil Marriage maybe he will have a point.
SG: ” when they start passing State Constitutional Amendments denying ex-gays the right to a Civil Marriage maybe he will have a point.”
—–
In my view, that’s a biased framing of the issue.
The amendments are not a denial of civil marriage to gays any more than bigamy is a denial of civil marriage to those who want that legalized.
The amendments are a clarification as to what civil marriage is.
Correction: The amendments are not a denial of civil marriage to gays any more than [denying] bigamy is a denial of civil marriage to those who want that legalized.
Right, and anti-miscegenation laws were not a denial of civil marriage either. That argument didn’t work 50 years ago, why do you think it somehow works now?
bman says:
August 2, 2013 at 7:00 pm
Correction: The amendments are not a denial of civil marriage to gays any more than [denying] bigamy is a denial of civil marriage to those who want that legalized.
Reply
Boo says:
August 2, 2013 at 9:46 pm
Right, and anti-miscegenation laws were not a denial of civil marriage either. That argument didn’t work 50 years ago, why do you think it somehow works now?
Hilarious. Black = gay = 5 wives = 6 husbands = one of each = six of one and half-dozen of the other. It’s a calculator, it’s a coloring book!
Nice tower of Babel you have here, Dr. Throckmorton. Everything this is equal to everything that. 😉
“…anti-miscegenation laws were not a denial of civil marriage either. That argument didn’t work 50 years ago, why do you think it somehow works now?”
——
You are conflating different things.
The majority of high courts to consider the issue from 2003 thru 2010 ruled that the denial of same sex marriage was a different issue than the denial of mixed race marriage addressed by Loving v. Virgina.
The basic distinction is that the marriage paradigm for mixed race couples would be the same as already allowed to same race couples, but to allow gays to marry a same sex partner would require a different marriage paradigm altogether.
The bottom line, then, is that gays have access to the same marriage paradigm as everyone else, while mixed race couples, unlike gays, were once denied the same marriage paradigm as everyone else.
Tom, Boo’s comment is argument by analogy, not argument by equation. If one wishes to debate an argument by analogy, one usually says why the elements are dissimilar. There are certainly dissimilarities between marrying someone of the same sex and marrying multiple people. For one thing, marrying one person makes for clarity on issues of inheritance, rights to make medical decisions, etc., while polygamy and polyandry leave many ambiguities.
Now the question you haven’t addressed is why it is unfair to prohibit a black person and a white person from marrying, but fair to prohibit a same-sex couple from marrying? Or do you think both should be illegal? Is there a compelling state interest in prohibiting same-sex marriage? If so, what is it? State your case.
DM: “Why it is unfair to prohibit a black person and a white person from marrying, but fair to prohibit a same-sex couple from marrying?”
——
Your question uses the word “marrying”ambiguously, which hides the fact two different kinds of marriage are involved in your question.
As noted by the Texas 5th District Court of Appeals, “Many courts in other jurisdictions have… concluded that the right being claimed should be defined and analyzed precisely as the right to marry a person of the same sex, not as the right to marry whomever one chooses.”
And so, the kind of marriage allowed to gay persons is the same that is allowed to everyone else, and the kind of marriage denied to everyone else is denied to gay persons also.
DM: “Is there a compelling state interest in prohibiting same-sex marriage? If so, what is it? State your case.”
—–
Your question begs the question because the state would not need to show a compelling interest unless it infringed on a fundamental right, and that question must be answered first.
The majority of high courts in the link found that same sex marriage is not a fundamental right, and so the state would not be required to have a compelling interest, but to have a rational basis.
Tom- let’s see, we have deflection and refusal to answer the question, plus putting words in my mouth, so another typical Tom post. Do you ever get tired of your silly tricks Tom?
bman- you proved my point. Those who argued against interracial marriage also considered it a different paradigm. Why should the government defer to your understanding of “paradigms” but not theirs?
“And so, the kind of marriage allowed to gay persons is the same that is allowed to everyone else, and the kind of marriage denied to everyone else is denied to gay persons also.”
Right. And before Loving, everyone had the right to the same kind of marriage as everyone else- marrying someone of your own race. And what exactly is the rational basis for forbidding marriage to same sex couples? No one on the anti-marriage side has ever been able to demonstrate one.
“bman- you proved my point. Those who argued against interracial marriage also considered it a different paradigm. Why should the government defer to your understanding of “paradigms” but not theirs?”
—–
Perhaps this excerpt from the 2003 Goodridge case will help clarify, “…our decision today [in favor of SSM] marks a significant change in the definition of marriage as it has been inherited from the common law, and understood by many societies for centuries…”
The Loving case, by contrast, did not change the definition of marriage inherited from the common law. In fact, it restored the right of mixed race couples to marry that had been temporarily taken away.
“And what exactly is the rational basis for forbidding marriage to same sex couples? No one on the anti-marriage side has ever been able to demonstrate one.”
——
For you to say no one, “has ever been able” to demonstrate a rational basis contra SSM suggests you haven’t read the majority of high court cases that ruled against SSM.
Also, numerous legal briefs were submitted to SCOTUS in support of Prop 8 (and opposed), which readers can access here.
Many will find the online debates and articles by Ryan T Anderson persuasive.
In short, there is preponderance of material available that refutes your claim.
Ah, so you’re going with that old standby, the literature bluff. Sorry, that won’t cut it. I looked through your articles, and your side’s arguments seemed to be:
1. Marriage between a man and a woman is really good, but allowing same sex couples to marry does nothing to marriage between a man and a woman, so this doesn’t work.
2. Marriage is good for kids. This is an argument in favor of letting same sex couples marry, so their kids can have the benefit of married parents, so this doesn’t work.
3. Allowing same sex couples to marry will encourage straight people to have kids out of wedlock. This argument is completely nonsensical, so this argument too fails.
So no, as far as I can see no one has been able to demonstrate how forbidding gay couples from marrying advances any legitimate purpose. If you know where an actual such argument can be found, as opposed to more literature bluffs, please let me know.
PS Goodridge was not a marriage case.
Oh wait, my bad Goodridge was the Massachusetts case. But the trial judge in the Prop 8 case was right. Forbidding same sex couples from marrying only made sense when the sexes had different statuses in law, as forbidding interracial marriage depended on races having different statuses in law. The paradigm you’re referring to shifted decades ago.
bman, you prefer to make your arguments based on case law and finely tuned legal arguments. Perhaps that is appropriate in a court of law, or on a legal blog. This is not a legal blog. I believe we are not debating here what the law is, but what the law ought to be. In other words, the concerns here are those of legal laypersons. You seem to be wanting to intimidate us with your legal acumen. I will gladly stipulate that you know much more about the law than I do. Now, can we move on to talk about fairness (which is a much broader concept) and ethics?
“Ah, so you’re going with that old standby, the literature bluff. Sorry, that won’t cut it.”
——
Why would similar rulings coming from a majority of high courts over 7 years be “a literature bluff, ” or why would they not “cut it?”
By default, they should have more authority than an opinion statement based on your authority.
That’s not to say you can’t have a better logical argument, but the burden would be on you to show that, especially when going against the courts.
You also paraphrased some arguments contra SSM but they seem to be weaker than the literature I referenced. It would be better if you quoted actual arguments from the literature, therefore.
“You also paraphrased some arguments contra SSM but they seem to be weaker than the literature I referenced. ”
You didn’t really reference any literature, basically you core-dumped a lot of info, but no actual quotes to show what you are referring to or how it supports your claims. You may as well have said “my claims are true and the proof is in some of the books in this library”
“It would be better if you quoted actual arguments from the literature, therefore.”
my thoughts exactly.
“…. basically you core-dumped a lot of info, but no actual quotes to show what you are referring to or how it supports your claims.”
——
In my view, DM’s three points required that he provide specific quotes, but his “no one ever” claim did not require a specific quote for me to counter it.
In effect, I countered his claim by showing,”someone at sometime” found a rational basis to forbid SSM, namely, the majority of high courts that ruled against SSM from 2003 thru 2010 (along with others I listed).
The mere fact the majority of high courts ruled against SSM over those seven years was proof “someone at sometime” made a rational basis argument to forbid SSM, as viewed from the courts’ perspective.
And so, DM’s claim was rebutted without needing a specific quote.
“but his (her) “no one ever” claim did not require a specific quote for me to counter it.”
Yeah actually it does. If you claim such an argument exists, it is up to you to provide it. Simply saying “there are courts that ruled against gay marriage” isn’t proof that a rational basis argument exists. There were courts that ruled in favor of Virginia in the Loving v. Virginia case as well.
“I countered his claim by showing,”someone at sometime” found a rational basis to forbid SSM, namely, the majority of high courts that ruled against SSM from 2003 thru 2010 (along with others I listed). ”
But you never actually read any of the rulings did you? You just assumed their decisions were based on a rational basis argument, and that isn’t necessarily true. In fact it isn’t true for any of the decisions I read (which admittedly wasn’t all of them). See my post here.
Correction: Boo made the “no one ever” claim rather than DM.
DM: Perhaps that is appropriate in a court of law, or on a legal blog. This is not a legal blog.
——
Basic legal concepts should be appropriate here, while complex legal discussion would belong to a legal blog, perhaps.
DM:”I believe we are not debating here what the law is, but what the law ought to be.”
It sounds like you actually want to discuss law, but you want to limit it to the “ought” aspect only.
This thread is based on SG’s claim that state amendments [what the law is] deny civil marriage to gays.
In turn, her claim implies she thinks the law [ought to be] different .
Both aspects of law [is and ought] are being discussed, therefore.
With regard to, “what the law is,” my point has been that gays are not denied civil marriage, but they have the same access to it as everyone else.
I also think that is what the law ought to be.
DM: “Now, can we move on to talk about fairness (which is a much broader concept) and ethics?”
Certainly, law “ought to be” based on ethical principles and fairness.
That is, law should be based on the unwritten moral laws that exist in the heart of mankind.
In general, however, whenever that approach is tried, gays retort, “that’s your opinion, not mine,” which is why I have focused here on what the law is.
Ken:”You just assumed their decisions were based on a rational basis argument, and that isn’t necessarily true.”
——
Its not necessarily true, but its still a stronger argument than you or Boo have made to the contrary.
I also explained this before where I said
My appeal to the majority of courts over seven years as having a rational basis is an inductive argument.
Arguments that are “necessarily true” are called deductive arguments.
A good inductive argument, however, is never necessarily true. Instead, it has a greater probability of being true than of being false.
Its far more rational to think the majority of high courts had a rational basis for its rulings than to think it had no rational basis.
My argument, then, has a greater weight of being true than false, which means the preponderance of the evidence at this point is against Boo’s “no one ever” claim.
“A good inductive argument, however, is never necessarily true. Instead, it has a greater probability of being true than of being false.”
No, that isn’t induction. Inductive proofs are given case N is true (and assumption), you can prove that means case N+1 is true, then if you can prove case 0 (or any base case less than N), you have proven your argument. Induction is not a probability based argument.
Further you are basing your argument on an unproven assumption (“court rulings, w/ respect to marriage are always decided based on a rational basis argument”) . I can demonstrate how your assumption is incorrect, using the Prop 8 case. The original trial court ruled the defense did not meet the rational basis criteria for banning gay marriage. I.e. it ruled on a rational basis argument. However, the SCOTUS, ruled that the petitioners (prop 8 proponents) did not have standing to appeal the ruling. So although the SCOTUS decision allows gays to marry in CA, their decision was not a rational basis argument (and it would be incorrect to claim the SCOTUS has ruled there is no rational basis for denying gay marriage).
Now you claim, without evidence, that all the court cases that upheld gay marriage bans, had a rational basis argument to them. If that were true, it would be quite simple for you to cite such a case, yet you do not.
For example here is a citation for a case (prop 8) that says there was no rational basis for banning gay marriage in CA:
“Perry v. Schwarzenegger” No C 09-2292 VRW
p. 122 lines 24-26.
“Here, however, strict scrutiny is unnecessary. Proposition 8 fails to
survive even rational basis review.”
bman: “A good inductive argument, however, is never necessarily true. Instead, it has a greater probability of being true than of being false.”
ken: No, that isn’t induction…. Induction is not a probability based argument.
——-
My statement can be verified by a web search on “inductive argument.”
An excerpt:
ken: “you claim, without evidence, that all the court cases that upheld gay marriage bans, had a rational basis argument to them.”
——
That does not represent my claim.
I’m saying its more reasonable to presume, by default, that seven years of agreement among the majority of high courts across different states and regions would have had a rational basis.
ken: “your…unproven assumption [is that] court rulings, w/ respect to marriage are always decided based on a rational basis argument.”
Again, that does not represent my position.
Contra your claim, I am not saying all courts that ruled against SSM would necessarily,or always, have a rational basis.
I am saying its more reasonable to presume they would have a rational basis than to presume they didn’t.
“I am saying its more reasonable to presume they would have a rational basis than to presume they didn’t.”
Presumption is not proof. and you claimed the court cases refuted Boo’s assertion about the rational basis argument. None of the court cases I read (btw, you never answered my question, did you read any of those rulings?) were based on a rational basis argument.
However, this is all just a diversion from Boo’s main point, that the government doesn’t not have a valid reason for denying same-sex couples the right of marriage.
ken: “….you are not legally required to have a marriage license to procreate or raise children. Which is why a fishing license is based on catching fish, while civil marriage is not based on child-rearing/procreation.”
——-
You overstate your claim. Some states still have laws that forbid unmarried sex between a single man and woman, such as this one from Minnesota:
And this one from Illinois,
Even if we suppose these are no longer Constitutional laws, they prove that marriage legally recognizes a couple’s right to have sex and procreate with each other, just the same.
The only difference would be that the penalty was removed.
Don’t the prohibitions against bigamy point to the true historical purpose of marriage: clear lines of property and inheritance?
Speaking only for myself the final arrival of most of marriage equality in my home state has been a great benefit. My spouse and I have made our lives together for 44 years. We took advantage of the ability to marry in Canada ten years ago. When I was a young man it never crossed my mind that one day I’d be able to marry the man with whom I’ve made my life. But then we didn’t have cell phones or computers; the internet or ATM machines; and we’ve all managed to get used to them. So even if marriage equality is a new thing why is that necessarily bad? It’s not as if matrimony hasn’t been dramatically reordered many times over in the past. Just one example: women are no longer required to swear to ‘love, honor, and obey,’ their new husband.
I can think of very few pieces of legislation that would grant so much well-being to so many people at so little cost as marriage equality. Unfortunately a whole industry has sprung up which supplies handsome livings to people like Ryan Anderson and Robby George. I don’t much care what their faith tells them to think about my life, I only care that they don’t use their faith to legislate against my well-being.
I would also like to point out that young people today are entering a very different world. And that’s a very good thing. One only has to look at the ex-gay industry to see what internalized shame does to people. I think the decent thing to do is to try to welcome out into the fresh air those still trapped in darkness, let them see they have a future, let them know they can live decently and openly, that they can marry if they want the person they want. The poisonous lie put about by the ex-gay industry (as well as most of the bishops, unfortunately) is that being gay is all about sex. So that instead of being a whole organic person, being homosexual means that one is merely afflicted by same-sex attractions. By spreading this lie they deliberately diminish our lives and cheapen our affections. I’m not suggesting that this is what you mean to do but I would urge you to look at this from a more personal perspective which is where I think the truth of the matter lies.
I think, Stephen, that you have hit on a reason why some kind of ‘special consideration of rights’ for ‘ex-gays’ is something that make many of us feel very uncomfortable: namely that the ‘ex-gay industry’ appears not to be helping many of those it is claimed it will help, and is perhaps something that is really designed to serve ‘other agendas’, such as the maintenance of some kind of ‘traditionalist-religious party line’.
stephen: “I can think of very few pieces of legislation that would grant so much well-being to so many people at so little cost as marriage equality:
—–
The cost should not be viewed in terms of short term cost, but as the cumulative cost over time.
No one can foresee the actual future, of course, but we can make a rational prediction on the direction of cost based on whether an abstract principle would tend toward cumulative wellbeing or harm to society over the long term
Following are two abstract and opposing principles, 1 and 2.
Principle 1: Children need a married mother and father.
Principle 2: Children do not need a married mother and father.
By promoting principle “1” in law we bias behavior toward the well being of children and society collectively for the long term future.
In contrast, if we promote principle “2” in law, we bias behavior toward cumulative harm to children and to society for the long term future.
A simple question. Are principles 1 and 2 equal?
Clearly, they are not.
Well, it follows logically, that a marriage concept based on Principle 1 would not be equal to a marriage concept based on Principle 2, either!
They differ in principle, in practice, and what they would produce and cost over the long term.
So much for “marriage equality.”
While I am not libertarian, I recommend the excellent 2005 article by libertarian Jane Galt about the unintended consequences of same sex marriage .
I think most people would find it persuasive.
Her basic point is that liberals have typically dismissed the possibility of unintended consequences in order to push through social changes in the past.
When the time came, however, the consequences happened worse than had been predicted.
Apparently, the article is no longer published, but its available via the Wayback machine at this link.
“Principle 1: Children need a married mother and father.”
This isn’t a “principle” it is an incorrect statement of fact. Your entire argument is based on a false premise, i.e. gay parents aren’t as capable of raising children as straight parents. To date, the research on this has disproven that claim.
further problems with your argument are that in the US marriage is not based on child rearing (or procreation). Neither of these have ever been a requirement for marriage. And as has been pointed out over and over, even if there is a government interest in promoting procreation (via marriage), that interest is not effected by allowing non-procreative gay couples to marry any more than allowing other non-procreative couples to marry.
Finally, lets examine your argument a little further. 1st, lets assume that research shows straight couples are better at child rearing than gay couples (again I don’t agree with this, but assume). You argue that this is a valid reason to deny gays marriage. Given that logic, if research shows white couples are better at child rearing than african-american couples, then by your logic african-american couples should not be allowed to marry. Or any other group that can be shown to not be the best at child-rearing (ex. minority groups, religious groups, elderly etc).
To reply to bman:
I was addressing marriage, not children.
However, civil marriage is not about fantasy children but about real breathing adults. Of course I’ve seen this ‘Think of the children!’ argument before, it’s become the main thrust of the anti-gay industry as all their other arguments have crumbled in the face of reality. They imagine this one can still move voters. What I never see addressed by such lovers of as yet unborn children are measures that might actually help already living children: paid sick-leave for their parents, raising the minimum wage, paid maternity leave, paid paternity leave, universal health care, universal pre K education, government-managed day care, reducing the income gap that puts us behind any other developed country in terms of social mobility, and so on. These are real measures that might help real children and their families as compared to imaginary children of an imaginary future. You’ll pardon me if I don’t bother to read some self-professed libertarian writing in 2005. Much has happened since.
Your stated opinions can only suggest that you believe that your fellow citizens who happen to be gay are so cursed, so toxic, that we cannot be allowed to be full participants in the rights and benefits enjoyed by the rest of society. In which case I can’t do much more than to wish you a long and happy life.
ken: “Your entire argument is based on a false premise, i.e. gay parents aren’t as capable of raising children as straight parents. To date, the research on this has disproven that claim.”
—-
My statement, “children need a married mother and father” said nothing about the orientation of the mother and father.
If, for example, the child has married biological parents, where one biological parent is also homosexual, nothing was said to imply that parent could not be an effective and loving parent.
Furthermore, you changed the context, and stephen did also.
My post was about the cumulative cost of a law that would bias the behavior of [all] society towards, “Children do not need a married father and mother.”
There is much more involved than just gay marriage there.
Such a bias in law would, by default, move society in a direction where fathers or mothers are more absent, divorce more frequent, sperm donor dads more prevalent, marriage between men and woman less important, sexual promiscuity more prevalent, welfare more necessary, all because the child can “do fine” without a married father and mother.
“My statement, “children need a married mother and father” said nothing about the orientation of the mother and father. ”
And my statement about gay and straight parents meant same sex and opposite sex parents.
“My post was about the cumulative cost of a law that would bias the behavior of [all] society towards, “Children do not need a married father and mother.” ”
No I didn’t change the context of this. Marriage laws in the US do not address issue of whether children need a married father and mother. While marriage recognizes that having children be raised by married parents is better than by unmarried parents (and that is true for both opposite sex and same sex parents) , that is not the only reason the state is involved in promoting marriage. And once again, allowing gays to marry will have no effect on straight marriages.
“Such a bias in law would, by default, move society in a direction where fathers or mothers are more absent, divorce more frequent, sperm donor dads more prevalent, marriage between men and woman less important, sexual promiscuity more prevalent, welfare more necessary, all because the child can “do fine” without a married father and mother.”
You have no evidence to support any of the nonsense you claimed in this statement. It is pure speculation on your part. Once again, allowing gays to marry says nothing about child-rearing.
In effect, stephen claimed gay marriage would be at low cost to society .
Just as he had no evidence for his claim, I had no evidence for my counter claim, but my claim is the more rational one by comparison.
By default, any principle voted into law today will cause trend variations in the future.
It doesn’t make sense that society can vote a bad principle into law today, such as “Children do not need a mother and father” and think it won’t cause cumulative harm over time.
We can rationally predict the direction of future cost even if we can’t predict the actual cost.
I am saying the future cost of SSM points toward high cost, not low cost.
ken: “….in the US marriage is not based on child rearing (or procreation). Neither of these have ever been a requirement for marriage.”
——–
Faulty logic. Its like saying a fishing license is not based on catching fish because “there has never been a requirement to catch fish.”
A fishing license is clearly about catching fish, however.
In a similar manner, marriage is about procreation without requiring it to occur.
For example, marriage legally ties the sex and procreation rights of a man and woman together, to the exclusion of all others.
Marriage law is designed to accommodate and facilitate responsible procreation in society, and that means marriage is about procreation “without requiring a couple to procreate.”
ken: “….even if there is a government interest in promoting procreation (via marriage), that interest is not effected by allowing non-procreative gay couples to marry any more than allowing other non-procreative couples to marry.”
It would be irrational for marriage law to tie the sexual and procreation rights of two men together so they could procreate responsibly.
Nuff said.
“Faulty logic. Its like saying a fishing license is not based on catching fish because “there has never been a requirement to catch fish.” ”
What is faulty is your analogy. While you are not required to catch fish you are legally required to have a license if you do catch fish. However, you are not legally required to have a marriage license to procreate or raise children. Which is why a fishing license is based on catching fish, while civil marriage is not based on child-rearing/procreation.
while the government does have in interest in promoting “responsible procreation” and that is certainly one of the reasons the government is involved in civil marriage, it is certainly not the only one. And these other reasons are why the government promotes marriage even for those who cannot procreate. And the best proof of the governments non-procreative interests is the AZ law that states 1st cousins can marry only if they proved they cannot procreate.
ken: ” What is faulty is your analogy. While you are not required to catch fish you are legally required to have a license if you do catch fish. However, you are not legally required to have a marriage license to procreate or raise children.”
——-
My analogy fits the point I was making.
A fishing license legally recognizes the right to catch fish, without requiring one to catch fish.
Marriage is similar because it legally recognizes the right of a couple to have sex and procreate together, to the exclusion of all others, without requiring them to procreate.
You counter by saying, in effect, that people are required to have a fishing license to catch fish or they face a penalty and claim there is no legal penalty if people have sex or procreate outside marriage.
However, the New Funk and Wagnalls (1955 edition) states
This quotation from David Blankenhorn’s, “The Future of Marriage,” confirms the point,
In sum, men and women are required to marry to have “socially approved sexual intercourse,” which they can obtain only by legal marriage.
“In sum, men and women are required to marry to have “socially approved sexual intercourse,” which they can obtain only by legal marriage.”
Your argument was about child-rearing and procreation not sexual intercourse. Gay couples are quite capable of having sexual intercourse. Further you seem to argue that the state has no interest in marriages where procreation is not possibly (or that it would some how be bad for the state to do so). this isn’t true. No state in the US has ever forbade couples who couldn’t procreate from marrying nor have they ever required couples to specify they intended to procreate (or just raise children) .
While the concept marriage was originally formed because of procreation, it has changed significantly over the centuries. So although the state does have an interest in promoting “responsible procreation” it has other reasons to promote marriage as well. Which is why allowing gay couples to marry will have no more impact on procreate couples than all the other non-procreative couples that the state allows to civilly marry.
“And so, the kind of marriage allowed to gay persons is the same that is allowed to everyone else, and the kind of marriage denied to everyone else is denied to gay persons also.”
This “logic” also works in a theocracy. For example: Let’s say in a Middle Eastern Islamic State, you can be a Sunni Muslim or a Shi’a Muslim. See? All Christians have religious freedom there – the same religious freedom that everyone else has.
Oh, what’s that? Christians should be allowed to practice their religion and not forced to live the life someone else picked out for them out of societal pressures? How interesting.
emilyk: “This “logic” also works in a theocracy….
—–
How do you apply your argument to a Sheik with a harem?
Do you say we must legalize harems or we become a theocracy?
Nope, I was only using it as an analogy for when you say “Gays already have the right to marry, equal to everyone else.”
they have the right to marry someone they do not have love and attraction to. that is why marriage is unequal for gays – because straights have the right to marry the person they love and are attracted to; gays do not (in most parts of the world).
emilyk: “Nope, I was only using it as an analogy for when you say “Gays already have the right to marry, equal to everyone else.”
—-
Your analogy argues for more than you intended, then.
Despite one’s religion or orientation, our laws limit marriage to one man and one woman, for everyone.
emilyk: “….that is why marriage is unequal for gays – because straights have the right to marry the person they love and are attracted to; gays do not (in most parts of the world).”
Equality under the law does not mean all persons must be equally advantaged by law, but it means rational law must be equally applied to all.
Marriage law is rationally based on sexual biology (not love or orientation), and its applied equally to all on the same biological basis.
Furthermore, what is denied is formal legal recognition of same sex marriage.
Gays remain free to enter a private marriage contract between themselves that is not formally recognized by public law.
“Despite one’s religion or orientation, our laws limit marriage to one man and one woman, for everyone.”
this was the same logic used (and rejected by the SCOTUS) in the Loving case. The law was limited to one man/one woman of the same race and equally applied to both whites and blacks.
“Furthermore, what is denied is formal legal recognition of same sex marriage. ”
And all of the rights, privileges, benefits and responsibilities that go with civil marriage.
“Gays remain free to enter a private marriage contract between themselves that is not formally recognized by public law.”
However, these private contracts cannot bestow all of the benefits of marriage.
bman, your basic argument is circular. The law should maintain the prejudices that the law has had in the past. Now, being circular doesn’t make an argument wrong. But when new insight comes — such as has come regarding gays in the past 40-some years — the circle has to be expanded to include the new insight.
In this case, you do not accept the new insight. OK. It is your right to refuse it. But you are in the minority. Our society as a whole has moved on. We’ve expanded the circle. The law just needs to catch up at this point.
By your logic, it seems to me, the world is still flat, because that is the way it was always thought to be. There is no arguing with such willful refusal to see things in a new way.
DM: “bman, your basic argument is circular. The law should maintain the prejudices that the law has had in the past.”
——
Please quote where I allegedly did that. It seems you are reading something into my comments not actually there.
—–
Two points.
First, you totally ignored my reference to religion, which is important because it shows why emilyk’s analogy to religion is flawed.
Does Loving entitle US citizens from other religions and cultures to become newly married under our laws using forms and concepts of marriage that are alien to our laws? Clearly not.
Second, your reference to Loving begs the question because it ignores my earlier post on Loving linked here .
The key point there is, ” Loving federalized the definition of marriage held by a majority of states at that time. It did not “change” the definition to something that never before existed.”
Loving does not support legalization of marriage concepts that are alien to our laws, therefore, whether it be SSM or a concept unique to another culture.
—–
Correct, but that is because the purpose for granting marriage benefits is to promote married sexual relationships between men and women, not same sex sexual relationships.
If persons from another culture want to legalize a marriage concept that is alien to our laws, the fact they would be helped by the benefits is not a valid basis to change our marriage laws.
Or, if Mr. Smith chose to not become a police officer because his temperament was not suitable to law enforcement, then “all of the rights, privileges, benefits and responsibilities that go with” being a public police officer would be denied him.
The city, however, does not owe Mr. Smith benefits to do something else they are not promoting, simply because he can’t change his temperament.
bman says:
August 12, 2013 at 10:16 am
“First, you totally ignored my reference to religion, which is important because it shows why emilyk’s analogy to religion is flawed. ”
Emily’s argument wasn’t about religion, it was to point out how your argument about how marriage was applied the same to straights and gays was anything but fair. She chose to use an example regarding religion (being able to select a religion from a government approved list is not the same as being able to choose the religion you prefer). I simply pointed out the same argument you used was also used and rejected in the Loving decision.
Further, your claim that marriage is made available in the same way to gays and straights is wrong. If a gay man marries a straight woman, she could sue for divorce on the basis of fraud (a fault divorce), which would give her the advantage in the divorce settlement. And I do believe that some states still allow for “for fault” divorces which puts the faulting spouse at a disadvantage in any settlements.
” Loving federalized the definition of marriage held by a majority of states at that time. It did not “change” the definition to something that never before existed.”
Same sex marriage currently exists in 13 states (and DC) and approx. 15 other countries. furthermore, the concept of same-sex marriage is not “alien to our laws”, it is simply a logical extension to the changes in marriage that have happened throughout US history.
“the purpose for granting marriage benefits is to promote married sexual relationships between men and women, not same sex sexual relationships. ”
the government interest in civil marriage is to promote long-term stable family relationships, esp. for (but not exclusive to) relationships that include children. Promoting such relationships (through marriage) in general is better for the couples (or families) involved and society as a whole.
“f persons from another culture want to legalize a marriage concept that is alien to our laws,the fact they would be helped by the benefits is not a valid basis to change our marriage laws.”
yes it would, unless the governement had a sufficient reason to deny that concept.
“Or, if Mr. Smith chose to not become a police officer because his temperament was not suitable to law enforcement”
if Mr. Smith chose not to become a police officer (or join the military or marry) then that would be his choice and he is free to do so. However, if he were refused the opportunity to become a police officer because he was gay, black, muslim etc then that would be a violation of his rights, and the government would need to provide evidence that allowing people of Mr. Smith’s class to become police officer (or join the military or marry) would cause sufficient harm to Mr. Smith or other individuals or society as a whole.
ken: “Emily’s argument wasn’t about religion, it was [an attempt] to point out how your argument about how marriage was applied the same to straights and gays was anything but fair.”
—–
You seem to ignore my comment that emilyk’s analogy argued for [more] than she intended.
Sure, she meant to focus solely on the denial of SSM.
However, I am saying the principle of “fairness” in her analogy requires legal recognition of all religious based marriage concepts also, unless she modifies her argument to avoid that.
I think you also provided that modifier where you say,”…unless the government had a sufficient reason to deny that concept.”
Thus, it seems the principle you and emilyk advocate amounts to this:
“Fairness requires legal recognition of all marriage concepts, religious or otherwise, except for those concepts which government has a sufficient [compelling] reason to deny.”
If that is indeed your position, it amounts to the legalization of all marriage concepts by default, and it puts a heavy burden of proof on government to exclude any.
Back to you for clarification or verification on that.
“If that is indeed your position, it amounts to the legalization of all marriage concepts by default, and it puts a heavy burden of proof on government to exclude any.
Back to you for clarification or verification on that.”
Yes.
“In that case, your “fairness” principle seems contrary to the principles of representative government, among other things. ”
If the US were a pure democracy (i.e. majority rule in all cases), you would correct. However, the US is not such a democracy. It has a constitutional democracy. With a constitution designed to protect individual rights. And in the US citizens are not required to prove they deserve rights, it is the government’s responsibility to prove they do not deserve rights.
In that case, your “fairness” principle seems contrary to the principles of representative government, among other things.
In effect, your “fairness” principle would excessively burden the ability of government to uphold the will of the people regarding the meaning of marriage.
The proper method, however, is to place the burden of proof on the plaintiffs to provide compelling argument as to why government must recognize a different marriage concept, and if plaintiffs don’t meet that standard, the will of the people remains standing, by default.
That is essentially how the majority of high courts from 2003 thru 2010 approached the matter, also, when they ruled against SSM.
There are cases where government would have to show a compelling reason for this or that policy, but that occurs when a fundamental right has been infringed upon by government, as was the case in Loving v. Virginia.
The majoriity of high courts from 2003-2010 found that SSM is not a fundamental right, however, and so the burden of proof was on the plaintiff and not on government.
——-
My argument had nothing to do with “majority rule in all cases,” nor does that idea represent my view of government.
Where I mention “the will of the people,” I do not mean majority rule applies “In all cases,” but I mean majority rule applies “by default.”
Your appeal to “individual rights” and who has the burden of proof was also answered in principle where I said, “The majoriity of high courts from 2003-2010 found that SSM is not a fundamental right, and so the burden of proof was on the plaintiff and not on government.”
““The majoriity of high courts from 2003-2010 found that SSM is not a fundamental right, ”
I don’t believe this statement is true, even taking into account that you chose the cut-off year to exclude 2 very important state cases: Hawaii and Vermont.
Since the Hawaii ruling (in 1996) there have been 6 state rulings that marriage laws unconstitutionally discriminated against gay couples:
HI, VT*, MA, NJ*, CA, IA
(*while the vt and nj ruling were in favor of gay couples they did allow the states to pass civil union laws. VT later allowed ssm and NJ is currently revisiting the status of civil unions vs. marriage).
and I only know of 4 states that ruled marriage could exclude gay couples:
AZ, MD, MN, and NY.
If you know of any court cases I’ve missed feel free to post them.
——
My claim is based on the report located at <a href="this link.
Didn’t anyone tell them that the SCOTUS is in recess right now? I’d say there “lack of media coverage” has more to do with very poor planning rather than any concerted effort to “silence them.”
Poor planning and nothing really to cover. If there was some actual discrimination or deprivation of rights, then there would be a story.
Well when they start passing State Constitutional Amendments denying ex-gays the right to a Civil Marriage maybe he will have a point.
SG: ” when they start passing State Constitutional Amendments denying ex-gays the right to a Civil Marriage maybe he will have a point.”
—–
In my view, that’s a biased framing of the issue.
The amendments are not a denial of civil marriage to gays any more than bigamy is a denial of civil marriage to those who want that legalized.
The amendments are a clarification as to what civil marriage is.
Correction: The amendments are not a denial of civil marriage to gays any more than [denying] bigamy is a denial of civil marriage to those who want that legalized.
ken: ” What is faulty is your analogy. While you are not required to catch fish you are legally required to have a license if you do catch fish. However, you are not legally required to have a marriage license to procreate or raise children.”
——-
My analogy fits the point I was making.
A fishing license legally recognizes the right to catch fish, without requiring one to catch fish.
Marriage is similar because it legally recognizes the right of a couple to have sex and procreate together, to the exclusion of all others, without requiring them to procreate.
You counter by saying, in effect, that people are required to have a fishing license to catch fish or they face a penalty and claim there is no legal penalty if people have sex or procreate outside marriage.
However, the New Funk and Wagnalls (1955 edition) states
This quotation from David Blankenhorn’s, “The Future of Marriage,” confirms the point,
In sum, men and women are required to marry to have “socially approved sexual intercourse,” which they can obtain only by legal marriage.
“In sum, men and women are required to marry to have “socially approved sexual intercourse,” which they can obtain only by legal marriage.”
Your argument was about child-rearing and procreation not sexual intercourse. Gay couples are quite capable of having sexual intercourse. Further you seem to argue that the state has no interest in marriages where procreation is not possibly (or that it would some how be bad for the state to do so). this isn’t true. No state in the US has ever forbade couples who couldn’t procreate from marrying nor have they ever required couples to specify they intended to procreate (or just raise children) .
While the concept marriage was originally formed because of procreation, it has changed significantly over the centuries. So although the state does have an interest in promoting “responsible procreation” it has other reasons to promote marriage as well. Which is why allowing gay couples to marry will have no more impact on procreate couples than all the other non-procreative couples that the state allows to civilly marry.
Right, and anti-miscegenation laws were not a denial of civil marriage either. That argument didn’t work 50 years ago, why do you think it somehow works now?
Tom- let’s see, we have deflection and refusal to answer the question, plus putting words in my mouth, so another typical Tom post. Do you ever get tired of your silly tricks Tom?
bman- you proved my point. Those who argued against interracial marriage also considered it a different paradigm. Why should the government defer to your understanding of “paradigms” but not theirs?
“And so, the kind of marriage allowed to gay persons is the same that is allowed to everyone else, and the kind of marriage denied to everyone else is denied to gay persons also.”
Right. And before Loving, everyone had the right to the same kind of marriage as everyone else- marrying someone of your own race. And what exactly is the rational basis for forbidding marriage to same sex couples? No one on the anti-marriage side has ever been able to demonstrate one.
Oh wait, my bad Goodridge was the Massachusetts case. But the trial judge in the Prop 8 case was right. Forbidding same sex couples from marrying only made sense when the sexes had different statuses in law, as forbidding interracial marriage depended on races having different statuses in law. The paradigm you’re referring to shifted decades ago.
Ah, so you’re going with that old standby, the literature bluff. Sorry, that won’t cut it. I looked through your articles, and your side’s arguments seemed to be:
1. Marriage between a man and a woman is really good, but allowing same sex couples to marry does nothing to marriage between a man and a woman, so this doesn’t work.
2. Marriage is good for kids. This is an argument in favor of letting same sex couples marry, so their kids can have the benefit of married parents, so this doesn’t work.
3. Allowing same sex couples to marry will encourage straight people to have kids out of wedlock. This argument is completely nonsensical, so this argument too fails.
So no, as far as I can see no one has been able to demonstrate how forbidding gay couples from marrying advances any legitimate purpose. If you know where an actual such argument can be found, as opposed to more literature bluffs, please let me know.
PS Goodridge was not a marriage case.
“bman- you proved my point. Those who argued against interracial marriage also considered it a different paradigm. Why should the government defer to your understanding of “paradigms” but not theirs?”
—–
Perhaps this excerpt from the 2003 Goodridge case will help clarify, “…our decision today [in favor of SSM] marks a significant change in the definition of marriage as it has been inherited from the common law, and understood by many societies for centuries…”
The Loving case, by contrast, did not change the definition of marriage inherited from the common law. In fact, it restored the right of mixed race couples to marry that had been temporarily taken away.
“And what exactly is the rational basis for forbidding marriage to same sex couples? No one on the anti-marriage side has ever been able to demonstrate one.”
——
For you to say no one, “has ever been able” to demonstrate a rational basis contra SSM suggests you haven’t read the majority of high court cases that ruled against SSM.
Also, numerous legal briefs were submitted to SCOTUS in support of Prop 8 (and opposed), which readers can access here.
Many will find the online debates and articles by Ryan T Anderson persuasive.
In short, there is preponderance of material available that refutes your claim.
“…. basically you core-dumped a lot of info, but no actual quotes to show what you are referring to or how it supports your claims.”
——
In my view, DM’s three points required that he provide specific quotes, but his “no one ever” claim did not require a specific quote for me to counter it.
In effect, I countered his claim by showing,”someone at sometime” found a rational basis to forbid SSM, namely, the majority of high courts that ruled against SSM from 2003 thru 2010 (along with others I listed).
The mere fact the majority of high courts ruled against SSM over those seven years was proof “someone at sometime” made a rational basis argument to forbid SSM, as viewed from the courts’ perspective.
And so, DM’s claim was rebutted without needing a specific quote.
“but his (her) “no one ever” claim did not require a specific quote for me to counter it.”
Yeah actually it does. If you claim such an argument exists, it is up to you to provide it. Simply saying “there are courts that ruled against gay marriage” isn’t proof that a rational basis argument exists. There were courts that ruled in favor of Virginia in the Loving v. Virginia case as well.
“I countered his claim by showing,”someone at sometime” found a rational basis to forbid SSM, namely, the majority of high courts that ruled against SSM from 2003 thru 2010 (along with others I listed). ”
But you never actually read any of the rulings did you? You just assumed their decisions were based on a rational basis argument, and that isn’t necessarily true. In fact it isn’t true for any of the decisions I read (which admittedly wasn’t all of them). See my post here.
bman, you prefer to make your arguments based on case law and finely tuned legal arguments. Perhaps that is appropriate in a court of law, or on a legal blog. This is not a legal blog. I believe we are not debating here what the law is, but what the law ought to be. In other words, the concerns here are those of legal laypersons. You seem to be wanting to intimidate us with your legal acumen. I will gladly stipulate that you know much more about the law than I do. Now, can we move on to talk about fairness (which is a much broader concept) and ethics?
Tom, Boo’s comment is argument by analogy, not argument by equation. If one wishes to debate an argument by analogy, one usually says why the elements are dissimilar. There are certainly dissimilarities between marrying someone of the same sex and marrying multiple people. For one thing, marrying one person makes for clarity on issues of inheritance, rights to make medical decisions, etc., while polygamy and polyandry leave many ambiguities.
Now the question you haven’t addressed is why it is unfair to prohibit a black person and a white person from marrying, but fair to prohibit a same-sex couple from marrying? Or do you think both should be illegal? Is there a compelling state interest in prohibiting same-sex marriage? If so, what is it? State your case.
bman says:
August 2, 2013 at 7:00 pm
Correction: The amendments are not a denial of civil marriage to gays any more than [denying] bigamy is a denial of civil marriage to those who want that legalized.
Reply
Boo says:
August 2, 2013 at 9:46 pm
Right, and anti-miscegenation laws were not a denial of civil marriage either. That argument didn’t work 50 years ago, why do you think it somehow works now?
Hilarious. Black = gay = 5 wives = 6 husbands = one of each = six of one and half-dozen of the other. It’s a calculator, it’s a coloring book!
Nice tower of Babel you have here, Dr. Throckmorton. Everything this is equal to everything that. 😉
“…anti-miscegenation laws were not a denial of civil marriage either. That argument didn’t work 50 years ago, why do you think it somehow works now?”
——
You are conflating different things.
The majority of high courts to consider the issue from 2003 thru 2010 ruled that the denial of same sex marriage was a different issue than the denial of mixed race marriage addressed by Loving v. Virgina.
The basic distinction is that the marriage paradigm for mixed race couples would be the same as already allowed to same race couples, but to allow gays to marry a same sex partner would require a different marriage paradigm altogether.
The bottom line, then, is that gays have access to the same marriage paradigm as everyone else, while mixed race couples, unlike gays, were once denied the same marriage paradigm as everyone else.
DM: “Why it is unfair to prohibit a black person and a white person from marrying, but fair to prohibit a same-sex couple from marrying?”
——
Your question uses the word “marrying”ambiguously, which hides the fact two different kinds of marriage are involved in your question.
As noted by the Texas 5th District Court of Appeals, “Many courts in other jurisdictions have… concluded that the right being claimed should be defined and analyzed precisely as the right to marry a person of the same sex, not as the right to marry whomever one chooses.”
And so, the kind of marriage allowed to gay persons is the same that is allowed to everyone else, and the kind of marriage denied to everyone else is denied to gay persons also.
DM: “Is there a compelling state interest in prohibiting same-sex marriage? If so, what is it? State your case.”
—–
Your question begs the question because the state would not need to show a compelling interest unless it infringed on a fundamental right, and that question must be answered first.
The majority of high courts in the link found that same sex marriage is not a fundamental right, and so the state would not be required to have a compelling interest, but to have a rational basis.
ken: “….you are not legally required to have a marriage license to procreate or raise children. Which is why a fishing license is based on catching fish, while civil marriage is not based on child-rearing/procreation.”
——-
You overstate your claim. Some states still have laws that forbid unmarried sex between a single man and woman, such as this one from Minnesota:
And this one from Illinois,
Even if we suppose these are no longer Constitutional laws, they prove that marriage legally recognizes a couple’s right to have sex and procreate with each other, just the same.
The only difference would be that the penalty was removed.
ken: “you claim, without evidence, that all the court cases that upheld gay marriage bans, had a rational basis argument to them.”
——
That does not represent my claim.
I’m saying its more reasonable to presume, by default, that seven years of agreement among the majority of high courts across different states and regions would have had a rational basis.
ken: “your…unproven assumption [is that] court rulings, w/ respect to marriage are always decided based on a rational basis argument.”
Again, that does not represent my position.
Contra your claim, I am not saying all courts that ruled against SSM would necessarily,or always, have a rational basis.
I am saying its more reasonable to presume they would have a rational basis than to presume they didn’t.
Correction: Boo made the “no one ever” claim rather than DM.
“Ah, so you’re going with that old standby, the literature bluff. Sorry, that won’t cut it.”
——
Why would similar rulings coming from a majority of high courts over 7 years be “a literature bluff, ” or why would they not “cut it?”
By default, they should have more authority than an opinion statement based on your authority.
That’s not to say you can’t have a better logical argument, but the burden would be on you to show that, especially when going against the courts.
You also paraphrased some arguments contra SSM but they seem to be weaker than the literature I referenced. It would be better if you quoted actual arguments from the literature, therefore.
“You also paraphrased some arguments contra SSM but they seem to be weaker than the literature I referenced. ”
You didn’t really reference any literature, basically you core-dumped a lot of info, but no actual quotes to show what you are referring to or how it supports your claims. You may as well have said “my claims are true and the proof is in some of the books in this library”
“It would be better if you quoted actual arguments from the literature, therefore.”
my thoughts exactly.
DM: Perhaps that is appropriate in a court of law, or on a legal blog. This is not a legal blog.
——
Basic legal concepts should be appropriate here, while complex legal discussion would belong to a legal blog, perhaps.
DM:”I believe we are not debating here what the law is, but what the law ought to be.”
It sounds like you actually want to discuss law, but you want to limit it to the “ought” aspect only.
This thread is based on SG’s claim that state amendments [what the law is] deny civil marriage to gays.
In turn, her claim implies she thinks the law [ought to be] different .
Both aspects of law [is and ought] are being discussed, therefore.
With regard to, “what the law is,” my point has been that gays are not denied civil marriage, but they have the same access to it as everyone else.
I also think that is what the law ought to be.
DM: “Now, can we move on to talk about fairness (which is a much broader concept) and ethics?”
Certainly, law “ought to be” based on ethical principles and fairness.
That is, law should be based on the unwritten moral laws that exist in the heart of mankind.
In general, however, whenever that approach is tried, gays retort, “that’s your opinion, not mine,” which is why I have focused here on what the law is.
Ken:”You just assumed their decisions were based on a rational basis argument, and that isn’t necessarily true.”
——
Its not necessarily true, but its still a stronger argument than you or Boo have made to the contrary.
I also explained this before where I said
My appeal to the majority of courts over seven years as having a rational basis is an inductive argument.
Arguments that are “necessarily true” are called deductive arguments.
A good inductive argument, however, is never necessarily true. Instead, it has a greater probability of being true than of being false.
Its far more rational to think the majority of high courts had a rational basis for its rulings than to think it had no rational basis.
My argument, then, has a greater weight of being true than false, which means the preponderance of the evidence at this point is against Boo’s “no one ever” claim.
“A good inductive argument, however, is never necessarily true. Instead, it has a greater probability of being true than of being false.”
No, that isn’t induction. Inductive proofs are given case N is true (and assumption), you can prove that means case N+1 is true, then if you can prove case 0 (or any base case less than N), you have proven your argument. Induction is not a probability based argument.
Further you are basing your argument on an unproven assumption (“court rulings, w/ respect to marriage are always decided based on a rational basis argument”) . I can demonstrate how your assumption is incorrect, using the Prop 8 case. The original trial court ruled the defense did not meet the rational basis criteria for banning gay marriage. I.e. it ruled on a rational basis argument. However, the SCOTUS, ruled that the petitioners (prop 8 proponents) did not have standing to appeal the ruling. So although the SCOTUS decision allows gays to marry in CA, their decision was not a rational basis argument (and it would be incorrect to claim the SCOTUS has ruled there is no rational basis for denying gay marriage).
Now you claim, without evidence, that all the court cases that upheld gay marriage bans, had a rational basis argument to them. If that were true, it would be quite simple for you to cite such a case, yet you do not.
For example here is a citation for a case (prop 8) that says there was no rational basis for banning gay marriage in CA:
“Perry v. Schwarzenegger” No C 09-2292 VRW
p. 122 lines 24-26.
“Here, however, strict scrutiny is unnecessary. Proposition 8 fails to
survive even rational basis review.”
bman: “A good inductive argument, however, is never necessarily true. Instead, it has a greater probability of being true than of being false.”
ken: No, that isn’t induction…. Induction is not a probability based argument.
——-
My statement can be verified by a web search on “inductive argument.”
An excerpt:
“I am saying its more reasonable to presume they would have a rational basis than to presume they didn’t.”
Presumption is not proof. and you claimed the court cases refuted Boo’s assertion about the rational basis argument. None of the court cases I read (btw, you never answered my question, did you read any of those rulings?) were based on a rational basis argument.
However, this is all just a diversion from Boo’s main point, that the government doesn’t not have a valid reason for denying same-sex couples the right of marriage.
Don’t the prohibitions against bigamy point to the true historical purpose of marriage: clear lines of property and inheritance?
Speaking only for myself the final arrival of most of marriage equality in my home state has been a great benefit. My spouse and I have made our lives together for 44 years. We took advantage of the ability to marry in Canada ten years ago. When I was a young man it never crossed my mind that one day I’d be able to marry the man with whom I’ve made my life. But then we didn’t have cell phones or computers; the internet or ATM machines; and we’ve all managed to get used to them. So even if marriage equality is a new thing why is that necessarily bad? It’s not as if matrimony hasn’t been dramatically reordered many times over in the past. Just one example: women are no longer required to swear to ‘love, honor, and obey,’ their new husband.
I can think of very few pieces of legislation that would grant so much well-being to so many people at so little cost as marriage equality. Unfortunately a whole industry has sprung up which supplies handsome livings to people like Ryan Anderson and Robby George. I don’t much care what their faith tells them to think about my life, I only care that they don’t use their faith to legislate against my well-being.
I would also like to point out that young people today are entering a very different world. And that’s a very good thing. One only has to look at the ex-gay industry to see what internalized shame does to people. I think the decent thing to do is to try to welcome out into the fresh air those still trapped in darkness, let them see they have a future, let them know they can live decently and openly, that they can marry if they want the person they want. The poisonous lie put about by the ex-gay industry (as well as most of the bishops, unfortunately) is that being gay is all about sex. So that instead of being a whole organic person, being homosexual means that one is merely afflicted by same-sex attractions. By spreading this lie they deliberately diminish our lives and cheapen our affections. I’m not suggesting that this is what you mean to do but I would urge you to look at this from a more personal perspective which is where I think the truth of the matter lies.
I think, Stephen, that you have hit on a reason why some kind of ‘special consideration of rights’ for ‘ex-gays’ is something that make many of us feel very uncomfortable: namely that the ‘ex-gay industry’ appears not to be helping many of those it is claimed it will help, and is perhaps something that is really designed to serve ‘other agendas’, such as the maintenance of some kind of ‘traditionalist-religious party line’.
In effect, stephen claimed gay marriage would be at low cost to society .
Just as he had no evidence for his claim, I had no evidence for my counter claim, but my claim is the more rational one by comparison.
By default, any principle voted into law today will cause trend variations in the future.
It doesn’t make sense that society can vote a bad principle into law today, such as “Children do not need a mother and father” and think it won’t cause cumulative harm over time.
We can rationally predict the direction of future cost even if we can’t predict the actual cost.
I am saying the future cost of SSM points toward high cost, not low cost.
ken: “….in the US marriage is not based on child rearing (or procreation). Neither of these have ever been a requirement for marriage.”
——–
Faulty logic. Its like saying a fishing license is not based on catching fish because “there has never been a requirement to catch fish.”
A fishing license is clearly about catching fish, however.
In a similar manner, marriage is about procreation without requiring it to occur.
For example, marriage legally ties the sex and procreation rights of a man and woman together, to the exclusion of all others.
Marriage law is designed to accommodate and facilitate responsible procreation in society, and that means marriage is about procreation “without requiring a couple to procreate.”
ken: “….even if there is a government interest in promoting procreation (via marriage), that interest is not effected by allowing non-procreative gay couples to marry any more than allowing other non-procreative couples to marry.”
It would be irrational for marriage law to tie the sexual and procreation rights of two men together so they could procreate responsibly.
Nuff said.
“Faulty logic. Its like saying a fishing license is not based on catching fish because “there has never been a requirement to catch fish.” ”
What is faulty is your analogy. While you are not required to catch fish you are legally required to have a license if you do catch fish. However, you are not legally required to have a marriage license to procreate or raise children. Which is why a fishing license is based on catching fish, while civil marriage is not based on child-rearing/procreation.
while the government does have in interest in promoting “responsible procreation” and that is certainly one of the reasons the government is involved in civil marriage, it is certainly not the only one. And these other reasons are why the government promotes marriage even for those who cannot procreate. And the best proof of the governments non-procreative interests is the AZ law that states 1st cousins can marry only if they proved they cannot procreate.
To reply to bman:
I was addressing marriage, not children.
However, civil marriage is not about fantasy children but about real breathing adults. Of course I’ve seen this ‘Think of the children!’ argument before, it’s become the main thrust of the anti-gay industry as all their other arguments have crumbled in the face of reality. They imagine this one can still move voters. What I never see addressed by such lovers of as yet unborn children are measures that might actually help already living children: paid sick-leave for their parents, raising the minimum wage, paid maternity leave, paid paternity leave, universal health care, universal pre K education, government-managed day care, reducing the income gap that puts us behind any other developed country in terms of social mobility, and so on. These are real measures that might help real children and their families as compared to imaginary children of an imaginary future. You’ll pardon me if I don’t bother to read some self-professed libertarian writing in 2005. Much has happened since.
Your stated opinions can only suggest that you believe that your fellow citizens who happen to be gay are so cursed, so toxic, that we cannot be allowed to be full participants in the rights and benefits enjoyed by the rest of society. In which case I can’t do much more than to wish you a long and happy life.
ken: “Your entire argument is based on a false premise, i.e. gay parents aren’t as capable of raising children as straight parents. To date, the research on this has disproven that claim.”
—-
My statement, “children need a married mother and father” said nothing about the orientation of the mother and father.
If, for example, the child has married biological parents, where one biological parent is also homosexual, nothing was said to imply that parent could not be an effective and loving parent.
Furthermore, you changed the context, and stephen did also.
My post was about the cumulative cost of a law that would bias the behavior of [all] society towards, “Children do not need a married father and mother.”
There is much more involved than just gay marriage there.
Such a bias in law would, by default, move society in a direction where fathers or mothers are more absent, divorce more frequent, sperm donor dads more prevalent, marriage between men and woman less important, sexual promiscuity more prevalent, welfare more necessary, all because the child can “do fine” without a married father and mother.
“My statement, “children need a married mother and father” said nothing about the orientation of the mother and father. ”
And my statement about gay and straight parents meant same sex and opposite sex parents.
“My post was about the cumulative cost of a law that would bias the behavior of [all] society towards, “Children do not need a married father and mother.” ”
No I didn’t change the context of this. Marriage laws in the US do not address issue of whether children need a married father and mother. While marriage recognizes that having children be raised by married parents is better than by unmarried parents (and that is true for both opposite sex and same sex parents) , that is not the only reason the state is involved in promoting marriage. And once again, allowing gays to marry will have no effect on straight marriages.
“Such a bias in law would, by default, move society in a direction where fathers or mothers are more absent, divorce more frequent, sperm donor dads more prevalent, marriage between men and woman less important, sexual promiscuity more prevalent, welfare more necessary, all because the child can “do fine” without a married father and mother.”
You have no evidence to support any of the nonsense you claimed in this statement. It is pure speculation on your part. Once again, allowing gays to marry says nothing about child-rearing.
stephen: “I can think of very few pieces of legislation that would grant so much well-being to so many people at so little cost as marriage equality:
—–
The cost should not be viewed in terms of short term cost, but as the cumulative cost over time.
No one can foresee the actual future, of course, but we can make a rational prediction on the direction of cost based on whether an abstract principle would tend toward cumulative wellbeing or harm to society over the long term
Following are two abstract and opposing principles, 1 and 2.
Principle 1: Children need a married mother and father.
Principle 2: Children do not need a married mother and father.
By promoting principle “1” in law we bias behavior toward the well being of children and society collectively for the long term future.
In contrast, if we promote principle “2” in law, we bias behavior toward cumulative harm to children and to society for the long term future.
A simple question. Are principles 1 and 2 equal?
Clearly, they are not.
Well, it follows logically, that a marriage concept based on Principle 1 would not be equal to a marriage concept based on Principle 2, either!
They differ in principle, in practice, and what they would produce and cost over the long term.
So much for “marriage equality.”
While I am not libertarian, I recommend the excellent 2005 article by libertarian Jane Galt about the unintended consequences of same sex marriage .
I think most people would find it persuasive.
Her basic point is that liberals have typically dismissed the possibility of unintended consequences in order to push through social changes in the past.
When the time came, however, the consequences happened worse than had been predicted.
Apparently, the article is no longer published, but its available via the Wayback machine at this link.
“Principle 1: Children need a married mother and father.”
This isn’t a “principle” it is an incorrect statement of fact. Your entire argument is based on a false premise, i.e. gay parents aren’t as capable of raising children as straight parents. To date, the research on this has disproven that claim.
further problems with your argument are that in the US marriage is not based on child rearing (or procreation). Neither of these have ever been a requirement for marriage. And as has been pointed out over and over, even if there is a government interest in promoting procreation (via marriage), that interest is not effected by allowing non-procreative gay couples to marry any more than allowing other non-procreative couples to marry.
Finally, lets examine your argument a little further. 1st, lets assume that research shows straight couples are better at child rearing than gay couples (again I don’t agree with this, but assume). You argue that this is a valid reason to deny gays marriage. Given that logic, if research shows white couples are better at child rearing than african-american couples, then by your logic african-american couples should not be allowed to marry. Or any other group that can be shown to not be the best at child-rearing (ex. minority groups, religious groups, elderly etc).
“And so, the kind of marriage allowed to gay persons is the same that is allowed to everyone else, and the kind of marriage denied to everyone else is denied to gay persons also.”
This “logic” also works in a theocracy. For example: Let’s say in a Middle Eastern Islamic State, you can be a Sunni Muslim or a Shi’a Muslim. See? All Christians have religious freedom there – the same religious freedom that everyone else has.
Oh, what’s that? Christians should be allowed to practice their religion and not forced to live the life someone else picked out for them out of societal pressures? How interesting.
——
My claim is based on the report located at <a href="this link.
——-
My argument had nothing to do with “majority rule in all cases,” nor does that idea represent my view of government.
Where I mention “the will of the people,” I do not mean majority rule applies “In all cases,” but I mean majority rule applies “by default.”
Your appeal to “individual rights” and who has the burden of proof was also answered in principle where I said, “The majoriity of high courts from 2003-2010 found that SSM is not a fundamental right, and so the burden of proof was on the plaintiff and not on government.”
“”The majoriity of high courts from 2003-2010 found that SSM is not a fundamental right, ”
I don’t believe this statement is true, even taking into account that you chose the cut-off year to exclude 2 very important state cases: Hawaii and Vermont.
Since the Hawaii ruling (in 1996) there have been 6 state rulings that marriage laws unconstitutionally discriminated against gay couples:
HI, VT*, MA, NJ*, CA, IA
(*while the vt and nj ruling were in favor of gay couples they did allow the states to pass civil union laws. VT later allowed ssm and NJ is currently revisiting the status of civil unions vs. marriage).
and I only know of 4 states that ruled marriage could exclude gay couples:
AZ, MD, MN, and NY.
If you know of any court cases I’ve missed feel free to post them.
DM: “bman, your basic argument is circular. The law should maintain the prejudices that the law has had in the past.”
——
Please quote where I allegedly did that. It seems you are reading something into my comments not actually there.
—–
Two points.
First, you totally ignored my reference to religion, which is important because it shows why emilyk’s analogy to religion is flawed.
Does Loving entitle US citizens from other religions and cultures to become newly married under our laws using forms and concepts of marriage that are alien to our laws? Clearly not.
Second, your reference to Loving begs the question because it ignores my earlier post on Loving linked here .
The key point there is, ” Loving federalized the definition of marriage held by a majority of states at that time. It did not “change” the definition to something that never before existed.”
Loving does not support legalization of marriage concepts that are alien to our laws, therefore, whether it be SSM or a concept unique to another culture.
emilyk: “Nope, I was only using it as an analogy for when you say “Gays already have the right to marry, equal to everyone else.”
—-
Your analogy argues for more than you intended, then.
Despite one’s religion or orientation, our laws limit marriage to one man and one woman, for everyone.
emilyk: “….that is why marriage is unequal for gays – because straights have the right to marry the person they love and are attracted to; gays do not (in most parts of the world).”
Equality under the law does not mean all persons must be equally advantaged by law, but it means rational law must be equally applied to all.
Marriage law is rationally based on sexual biology (not love or orientation), and its applied equally to all on the same biological basis.
Furthermore, what is denied is formal legal recognition of same sex marriage.
Gays remain free to enter a private marriage contract between themselves that is not formally recognized by public law.
Nope, I was only using it as an analogy for when you say “Gays already have the right to marry, equal to everyone else.”
they have the right to marry someone they do not have love and attraction to. that is why marriage is unequal for gays – because straights have the right to marry the person they love and are attracted to; gays do not (in most parts of the world).
emilyk: “This “logic” also works in a theocracy….
—–
How do you apply your argument to a Sheik with a harem?
Do you say we must legalize harems or we become a theocracy?
bman, your basic argument is circular. The law should maintain the prejudices that the law has had in the past. Now, being circular doesn’t make an argument wrong. But when new insight comes — such as has come regarding gays in the past 40-some years — the circle has to be expanded to include the new insight.
In this case, you do not accept the new insight. OK. It is your right to refuse it. But you are in the minority. Our society as a whole has moved on. We’ve expanded the circle. The law just needs to catch up at this point.
By your logic, it seems to me, the world is still flat, because that is the way it was always thought to be. There is no arguing with such willful refusal to see things in a new way.
ken: “Emily’s argument wasn’t about religion, it was [an attempt] to point out how your argument about how marriage was applied the same to straights and gays was anything but fair.”
—–
You seem to ignore my comment that emilyk’s analogy argued for [more] than she intended.
Sure, she meant to focus solely on the denial of SSM.
However, I am saying the principle of “fairness” in her analogy requires legal recognition of all religious based marriage concepts also, unless she modifies her argument to avoid that.
I think you also provided that modifier where you say,”…unless the government had a sufficient reason to deny that concept.”
Thus, it seems the principle you and emilyk advocate amounts to this:
“Fairness requires legal recognition of all marriage concepts, religious or otherwise, except for those concepts which government has a sufficient [compelling] reason to deny.”
If that is indeed your position, it amounts to the legalization of all marriage concepts by default, and it puts a heavy burden of proof on government to exclude any.
Back to you for clarification or verification on that.
In that case, your “fairness” principle seems contrary to the principles of representative government, among other things.
In effect, your “fairness” principle would excessively burden the ability of government to uphold the will of the people regarding the meaning of marriage.
The proper method, however, is to place the burden of proof on the plaintiffs to provide compelling argument as to why government must recognize a different marriage concept, and if plaintiffs don’t meet that standard, the will of the people remains standing, by default.
That is essentially how the majority of high courts from 2003 thru 2010 approached the matter, also, when they ruled against SSM.
There are cases where government would have to show a compelling reason for this or that policy, but that occurs when a fundamental right has been infringed upon by government, as was the case in Loving v. Virginia.
The majoriity of high courts from 2003-2010 found that SSM is not a fundamental right, however, and so the burden of proof was on the plaintiff and not on government.
—–
Correct, but that is because the purpose for granting marriage benefits is to promote married sexual relationships between men and women, not same sex sexual relationships.
If persons from another culture want to legalize a marriage concept that is alien to our laws, the fact they would be helped by the benefits is not a valid basis to change our marriage laws.
Or, if Mr. Smith chose to not become a police officer because his temperament was not suitable to law enforcement, then “all of the rights, privileges, benefits and responsibilities that go with” being a public police officer would be denied him.
The city, however, does not owe Mr. Smith benefits to do something else they are not promoting, simply because he can’t change his temperament.
bman says:
August 12, 2013 at 10:16 am
“First, you totally ignored my reference to religion, which is important because it shows why emilyk’s analogy to religion is flawed. ”
Emily’s argument wasn’t about religion, it was to point out how your argument about how marriage was applied the same to straights and gays was anything but fair. She chose to use an example regarding religion (being able to select a religion from a government approved list is not the same as being able to choose the religion you prefer). I simply pointed out the same argument you used was also used and rejected in the Loving decision.
Further, your claim that marriage is made available in the same way to gays and straights is wrong. If a gay man marries a straight woman, she could sue for divorce on the basis of fraud (a fault divorce), which would give her the advantage in the divorce settlement. And I do believe that some states still allow for “for fault” divorces which puts the faulting spouse at a disadvantage in any settlements.
” Loving federalized the definition of marriage held by a majority of states at that time. It did not “change” the definition to something that never before existed.”
Same sex marriage currently exists in 13 states (and DC) and approx. 15 other countries. furthermore, the concept of same-sex marriage is not “alien to our laws”, it is simply a logical extension to the changes in marriage that have happened throughout US history.
“the purpose for granting marriage benefits is to promote married sexual relationships between men and women, not same sex sexual relationships. ”
the government interest in civil marriage is to promote long-term stable family relationships, esp. for (but not exclusive to) relationships that include children. Promoting such relationships (through marriage) in general is better for the couples (or families) involved and society as a whole.
“f persons from another culture want to legalize a marriage concept that is alien to our laws,the fact they would be helped by the benefits is not a valid basis to change our marriage laws.”
yes it would, unless the governement had a sufficient reason to deny that concept.
“Or, if Mr. Smith chose to not become a police officer because his temperament was not suitable to law enforcement”
if Mr. Smith chose not to become a police officer (or join the military or marry) then that would be his choice and he is free to do so. However, if he were refused the opportunity to become a police officer because he was gay, black, muslim etc then that would be a violation of his rights, and the government would need to provide evidence that allowing people of Mr. Smith’s class to become police officer (or join the military or marry) would cause sufficient harm to Mr. Smith or other individuals or society as a whole.