John Hosty-Grinnell: It seems to stand logically that if children are a requirement of marriage, and that requirement is the reason for denying marriage to same sex couples, then other couples who also cannot have children cannot get married.
Michael: Thus, to say that men and women are alone privileged to marry because they are a class of people that can procreate, takes a general link between procreation and marriage and makes it mandatory. Except that our society and our laws illustrate that that is not the case.
Well, since Michael wants to know what the law says, we turn to Standhardt v Superior Court, AZ which deals directly with The Sterility Strawman:
[Update: Added paragraph 38 from the opinion]P35. Petitioners more persuasively argue that the State's attempt to link marriage to procreation and child-rearing is not reasonable because (1) opposite-sex couples are not required to procreate in order to marry, and (2) same-sex couples also raise children, who would benefit from the stability provided by marriage within the family.[...] However, as the State notes, "[a] perfect fit is not required" under the rational basis test, and we will not overturn a statute "merely because it is not made with 'mathematical nicety, or because in practice it results in some inequality.'" Big D Constr. Corp., 163 Ariz. at 566, 789 P.2d at 1067 (citations omitted).
P36. Allowing all opposite-sex couples to enter marriage under Arizona law, regardless of their willingness or ability to procreate, does not defeat the reasonableness of the link between opposite-sex marriage, procreation, and child-rearing. First, if the State excluded opposite-sex couples from marriage based on their intention or ability to procreate, the State would have to inquire about that subject before issuing a license, thereby implicating constitutionally rooted privacy concerns. See Griswold, 381 U.S. at 485-86; Eisenstadt, 405 U.S. at 453-54; Adams, 486 F. Supp. at 1124-25 (recognizing government inquiry about couples' procreation plans or requiring sterility tests before issuing marriage licenses would "raise serious constitutional questions"). Second, in light of medical advances affecting sterility, the ability to adopt, and the fact that intentionally childless couples may eventually choose to have a child or have an unplanned pregnancy, the State would have a difficult, if not impossible, task in identifying couples who will never bear and/or raise children. Third, because opposite-sex couples have a fundamental right to marry, Loving, 388 U.S. at 12, excluding such couples from marriage could only be justified by a compelling state interest, narrowly tailored to achieve that interest, Glucksberg, 521 U.S. at 721, which is not readily apparent.
P37. For these reasons, the State's decision to permit all qualified opposite-sex couples to marry does not defeat the reasonableness of the link between opposite-sex marriage, procreation, and child-rearing. See Adams, 486 F. Supp. at 1124-25 (rejecting challenge to same-sex marriage prohibition on basis that opposite-sex couples not required to prove or declare willingness to procreate in order to marry); Baker, 291 Minn. at 313-14, 191 N.W.2d at 187 (same).
P38. Likewise, although some same-sex couples also raise children, exclusion of these couples from the marriage relationship does not defeat the reasonableness of the link between opposite-sex marriage, procreation, and child-rearing. Indisputably, the only sexual relationship capable of producing children is one between a man and a woman. The State could reasonably decide that by encouraging opposite-sex couples to marry, thereby assuming legal and financial obligations, the children born from such relationships will have better opportunities to be nurtured and raised by two parents within long-term, committed relationships, which society has traditionally viewed as advantageous for children. Because same-sex couples cannot by themselves procreate, the State could also reasonably decide that sanctioning same-sex marriages would do little to advance the State's interest in ensuring responsible procreation within committed, long-term relationships.
Lawmaking is about drawing lines.
ReplyDeleteMarriageability is about drawing lines around the core of marriage.
If the state made premarital sexual intercourse and premarital childbearing a prerequisite for marriageability, it would actually undermine responsible procreation.
If it excluded based on fertility it would do so arbitrarily and many exceptions would have to be listed and enforced. Typically, men remain potent much longer than women. Women can reach menopause very early, in early twenties, or very late, in early fifties, so testing for ovulation would be a "necessary" requirement of state recognition of the foundational social institution. The variability of fertilty (with the other sex) exists within marriage where the husband-wife duo is infertile, and subfertile, for most of each month of their chidbearing years.
Would the state revoke marital status based on some arbitrary age limit, to treat eldery newlyweds the same as long-married older couples?
The government does not own marriage. It protects the core of marriage by drawing fair lines aroundn that core.
Besides, marriage is recognized, not for this or that instance of a happily married and procreative couple. It is a foundational social institution, among other institutions of civil society, and it is recognized rather than created by government. The marriage idea, the coherent set of principles, practices, and customs, is marriage, the social institution.
The marriage law is not written for this or that particular individual or couple. It is written for the sake of the protection, promotion, and preference of the nature of marriage.
The state does not have the lightest of touches when it comes to just about anything it does. Micromanaging marriages is certainly not something that would promote competent self-governance, much less the formation of a virtuous citizenary. That road is the road to hyper-dependancy of supposedly free citizens on a supposedly benign and super-comeptent government.
The Sterility Strawman reveals a totalitarian streak in SSM argumentationi, I think.
There ought to be much better arugments to make on behalf of the type of relationship, and drawing lines around the core of that type, than the misrepresentation of the disagreement over procreation.
What lines would protect the core of the relationship type the SSMers have in mind? What arrangements would be excluded as part of the inclusion of other arrangements? How would that exclusion benefit the included arrangements?
"Well, since Michael wants to know what the law says...[Op-Ed goes on to quote an Arizona state court opinion]"
ReplyDeleteAs a related aside, for the sake of accuracy and clarity, may I remind all that a state court opinion is not binding "law" on any other state.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteFannie: state court opinion is not binding "law" on any other state.
ReplyDeleteIrrelevant. Supreme Court opinion, which is cited in the Arizona decision, is legally binding and is what bound the Arizona court in its finding.
The question is not what is and what is not legally binding, however, it is what is rational. This case makes short and logically compelling work of the sterility strawman raised of late repeatedly in the comment thread. Your aside isn't even an attempt to refute it.
Hosty-G: If the denial of marriage for Adam and Steve is based on their inability to produce children between themselves, it seems reasonable to expect our government to explain why other childless marriages are held to a different standard.
ReplyDeleteFair question, and answered specifically by P36 in the above opinion.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe answer lies in the part of the sentence excluded from your question:
ReplyDelete"Third, because opposite-sex couples have a fundamental right to marry, Loving, 388 U.S. at 12, excluding such couples from marriage..."
In short, where there is a right to procreate, there is a right to procreate responsibly.
I have also added P38 to the post because it may add a little more information on the difference between man-woman sexual relationships and all other relationships including same-sex relationships.
Responsible procreation. Not just any and all kinds of procreation. Not procreation minus the responsible part.
ReplyDeleteContingency for responsible procreation. Not enforced, mandatory, procreation of any and all kinds.
No one-sex short arrangement, homosexual, gay, lesbian, whatever, is capable of providing the contingency for responsible procreation.
I can see why SSM argumentation emphasizes a very deep discount of this central aspect of the conjugal relationship.
More, the contingency for responsible procreation comes as part of a combination.
It is not just responsible procreation, alone, but this interweaved with the integration of the sexes. And this integration has multiple levels that, again, SSM argumentation is either dismissive of or just clueless about.
When a society's marriage culture erodes, or unravels, there are trends toward greater segregation of the sexes and towards less responsible procreation.
Before SSM took all the oxygen out of the room, our society was experiencing and ever so slight strengthening of marriage across the board. But the social institution has been battered about. Now we have a full-fledged national effort to attack the core, the nature, of marriage itself.
The Sterility Strawman says that procreation would be mandatory, by government coercion, IF marriage was, at is core, a union of man and woman for the sake of responsible procreation.
That is obviously a misrepresentation. Anyone who says they stand for SSM because they stand for freedom and equality should re-examine the source of our liberty. It is not the government roaming the countryside and peering into the bedrooms of married couples.
The Sterility Strawman says that all married people must be presumed sterile until proven fertile; otherwise there is no good reason to recognize marriage as the pro-child social institution which, at its core, provides the contingency for responsible procreation and integration of the sexes. This combination is disparaged by the misrepresentation of the importance of procreation in our society.
Then look at the SSM claim about 'love' and such. There is no legal requirement for love. If there was, how would government test for it? What type of love. How much love? What if love becomes impaired or grows absent -- does the government inspector revoke marital status?
No, the Sterility Strawman is something the SSMers ought to abandon and instead focus on the type of relationshp they have in mind.
That means going further than the mistaken assumption that the core of that type of relationship is one and the same as the core of the conjugal relationship.
And it means going further in your thought proces than trying to marginalize the disagreement to one of "religious marriage" versus "civil marriage". The core of marriage does not depend on a religious belief.
What is the core of the one-sexed arrangement such that society could identify it? What are the definitive legal requriements?
For marriage we have the man-woman criterion -- standing for sex integration; we have the marriage presumption of paternity -- standing for contingency for responsible procreation. None of that applies to the one-sexed combination.
So what is it, SSMers, that you really have in mind? The thing you want society to recognize as worthy of some sort of special treatment?
Is it a sexualized relationship involving only persons of the same sex, perhaps? Is it the sexual activity that is the core? And, if so, is there a legal requirement that makes certain behavior mandatory?
Hidden behind the Sterility Strawman is another misrepresentation of the purpose of government in recognizing the social institution of marriage.
Let's see how you would prepare the government to single out the type of relationship you have in mind.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteNo such denial is at issue. You assume, mistakenly far too much.
ReplyDeleteWhat is the compelling state interest in a relationship status, at law, which is one-sexed?
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteMr Howard,
ReplyDeleteYour rules have not be laxed, not at Opine and not in this thread.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAll of us are created equal, of a man and a woman.
ReplyDeleteNo individual is barred from marriage on the basis of homosexuality or even gay identity. There is no such criterion.
When an individual chooses nonmarital alternative, then, that person has exercised a liberty. No right is denied.
There is a very broad nonmarital category. But the SSM campaign emphasizes just the same-sex sub-category. Only a tiny subset of that sub-category could be classified as gay or lesbian arrangements.
SSM is more exclusive than SSMers portray it to be.
But JHG you make the mistaken assumption that the one-sexed arrangement is a form of marriage.
ReplyDeleteIt is not.
Now, what is the public interest in the type of relationship you have in mind? Please idenntify the definitive features of that type of relationship.
If you cannot identify it, then, you cannot demand some principle of inclusion be applied to it.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteMr H-G,
ReplyDeleteThe posture of assuming first that there needs to be a reason to allow first and then deny, was discussed by Paragraph 38. It references the rational test that all inequality must pass.
But your post points to another interesting dilemma. Does the government extend benefits, short of any reason not to, or does it require a reason first? You have an opinion on this matter, but it will conflict with people who believe in minimal government. As the above ruling notes, extending benefits carries an amount of authentication -- which invites the government intrusion of privacy (which is also a constitutional right).
Op-Ed, and many many others have noted that replacing responsible procreation, which moves the state hand to promote and protect children rights, to romance regulation (and as Fannie notes regulated dissolution of that romance) makes us legislate about feelings. Making for a far more Orwellian totalitarian government.
I deleted that last comment of Chairm's not for offensive content but because I thought it was better taken up in a meta-topical thread.
ReplyDeleteHosty-G: Does the government have a responsibility to have a "compelling state interest" before denying same sex marriages?
ReplyDeleteOn Lawn's answer is sufficient. The only thing I would add is that you should read the opinion. It deals with the question of why a strict scrutiny analysis applies to man-woman marriage with its potential to procreate and not to any other kind of relationship, including same-sex relationships in paragraphs 7-31. In particular see:
"P25 We are mindful of the Supreme Court's admonition to 'exercise the utmost care' in conferring fundamental-right status on a newly asserted interest lest we transform the liberty protected by due process into judicial policy preferences rather than principles born of public debate and legislative action. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. at 720"
Note that the pel-mel generation of new "fundamental rights" of which it is caretaker gives the courts totalitarian power over all of government and over all of the governed.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteJHG, you might read some of our archived blogposts on the subject. If you need assistance in finding relevant blogposts, ask for assistance.
ReplyDeleteI'll very briefly reiterate for you, here, but I'd rather not repeat in detail the entire argument. You could do a google search of this blog for various phrases used, but the archives are your best bet.
* * *
We begin with the most significant "givens" that we cannot deny.
1. The nature of humankind is two-sexed.
2. The nature of human generativity is both-sexed.
3. The nature of human community is both-sexed.
When I speak of the nature of something, I am not committing the naturalistic fallacy. I refer to the essence, the core, of the thing.
These are givens and essentials to our humanity. This has not changed over the course of human history.
Marriage arises from the two-sexed nature of humankind. We are sexually embodied beings. And highly social beings, as well, with our children being among the most helpless and dependant and vulnerable creatures on this earth.
Human culture is how we adopt to the basics of human physiology and biology.
Marriage arises from this.
Now, you could look up blogposts on sexual ecology, the nature of marriage, and so forth. Look to the categories on the rightmost column of our homepage. Stroll through the archives. The material is there for readers who agree with me and other Opiners and for those who disagree or are undecided.
Since you point to places where SSM has been merged with marriage recognition, could you please identify the core of the relationship type that is now recognized in those places?
ReplyDeleteWhat are the definitive legal requirements?
If you look for love as a requirement, you will not find it. Look for some sort of same-sex sexual behavior, you will not find it.
A relationship status cannot sustain itself if its core, its nature, its essence remains unidentified and unidentifiable.
No, I am not asking for some definition that says two adults. I am asking for more than that.
You have here repeated your misunderstanding of the significance of procreation in marriage recognnition.
I have pointed to the legal requirement that you attack: the man-woman criterion. It stands for sex integration and throughout the history of human civilization it has united communities rather than segregated them along sex lines.
I have pointed to the legal requirement that the man and woman consent to what marriage entails. Marriage is the most pro-child social institution we have. The marriage presumption of paternity is intrinsic to it. The principles of responsible procreation are evident even in our now much eroded family law system. Look at the inverse: how much more intrusive and ham-fisted can a government be than when it tries to sort out parental status without the marriage presumption.
This is just the tip of the iceberg.
Marriage does not exclude based on gayness or lesbianism. There is no such criterion.
What you are really claiming is that the core of the relationship type you have in mind (whatever that core is you may eventually make the effort to explain) is one and the same as the core of marriage.
If so, identify it. And, if you depend on legal requirements, point to those that define that core.
I've provided you as much as you should need to identify marriage.
Please do as much for me to identify what you think society should single out as deserving a special status.
Well, I might back up, and ask you if you think marriage should be a preferential status in our society or if you would rather it be mrerely a protective status with no sense of endorsement and approval by society, through its state authorities?
Mr H-G,
ReplyDeleteWell, the weekend is half over, but it has been fun. I hope you are enjoying yours too. I do enjoy these little chats of ours (and I mean that sincerely).
Where benefits are extended to a portion of society, but not all of society, I see the government's responsibility to explain that exclusion.
That, you will find, is the exact function of the heading post, and the most recent post of Op-Ed. Perhaps you didn't recognize it as the answer because you have yet to learn the legal doctrine of scrutiny. I can't say I understand it 100% myself, but Op-Ed is perfectly right. These judges do, and discuss it very well. I think when you read the decision, you will gain quite a bit of the insight you are seeking.
The question for the reformer is always, why?
ReplyDeleteAsking, why not? is not the starting place.
So, suppose there is a blank slate. No law that has ever recognized marriage.
We look at humankind, human generativity, and human community, and shrug-off the obvious two-sexed and both-sexed natures of each.
Blank page. What is the reason to elevate any kind of relationship to a special status?
Maybe there is none. Maybe all we should do is protect? Or maybe even less, just tolerate?
Toleration means leaving it alone. But we still would need to draw a line to exclude the list of situations we would not tolerate justly. So from toleration we would also assess harm and so forth. Otherwise, everything is treated the same -- largely left alone and benignly neglected.
Protection is a signficant step beyond toleration.
It means sheltering or guarding something against known hazards. Protection means more attention is given both in identifying the vulnerable, or delicate, situations and in expending resources to shield those situations from dangers. But beyond that, no special treatment. The vulnerable are given just enough assistance to get by, based only on the dangers considered relevant to survival.
At this point, I guess, SSMers might rest and say their work is done.
So would the Beyonders who are steadfastly against preference for marriage. So they'd also push to adjourn and go home.
Right?
But civilizations have not stopped there. Preference is shown for a certain kind of relationship that has been idealized and, yes, sanctified, and not just in terms of religous belief.
So when we talk of marriage today, we are not talking of a merely tolerative status nor even a merey protective status.
Society is not neutral about marriage. And marriage is not neutral about sex and procreatoin.
I did not read most of this post nor its comments. But here're my thoughts anyway.
ReplyDeleteChairm, I have already explained to you twice why gay marriages are not gender segregationist, and why your obession with defining people by their gender is. You can't have forgotten, but if you have, I'll take my valuable time to seek out these instances and link them here.
The other part of your argument is about responsible procreation. While the "gender segregationist" part of your argument is irrelevant to gay marriage and in fact points to your own flawed thinking, this other criteria I believe gay couples can meet.
Procreating is easy. You can say that any male over 14 is naturally called to attempt it every day. The resposible thing is to not give in to this call of Nature. Acting responsible is about not procreating at the wrong time and with the wrong person. That is the hard part, what responsible procreation is most importantly about. Because heterosexuals are so bad at responsible procreation, sometimes it is best (the responsible thing to do) for straight couples forego procreation and instead adopt. Gay couples can do that. They can meet this very important criteria, really the defining criteria, or responsible procreation. They can meet it very, very well. Easy. They don't even have to try.
The only times when responsible procreation would be principally about making babies, instead of not making them, is if the human race was becoming extinct, or if all children were being procreated resposibly.
Those are my thoughts.
Yes, of course, how could it have gone unnoticed until now?
ReplyDeleteWhat arturo calls, gay marriage, is the voluntary union of two indivdiuals to the exclusion of either the male or female sex.
This cannot be sex-segregative, obviously, because at least one sex is included (more than once) and the other sex is excluded (duh).
The flawed thinking behind sex integration has been exposed!
I did not refer to Nature but arturo has shown that I should have done so. How could I have missed this vital detail? The naturalistic fallacy is very useful in the right hands.
Irresponsible heterosexuals should adopt children instead of procreating. That would make them less irresponsible.
Gay couples are incapable of procreating so they are just like irresponsible heterosexuals who should choose not to procreate. This is how gay couples can practice responsible procreation.
By not procreating. Because they can't.
Afterall, the defining criteria of responsible procreation is not procreation but adoption! And not procreating!
This brilliant theory depends on kids growing in cabbage patches, but if we all close our eyes, and arturuo clicks his heels, anything can be made possible.
Marriage is superfluous to procreation as procreation is supefluous to marriage.
Obviously.
1. Responsible procreation is not principally about making babies.
Well, with only a couple of exceptions.
2. It would be about making babies if the human race was on the verge of extinction. Then we'd have to figure out how to make babies and to do it responsiblely.
3. It would be about making babies if 100 percent of baby making was irresponsible.
4. Therefore responsible procreation is adoption and it applies only to those who do not procreate.
Is is so easy.
So sex integration is alien to the union of a man and a woman; and responsible procreation is actually about not procreating and doing it responsibly; and this incoherent mish-mash is superior to the now obviously flawed coherency of a social institution once known as marriage.
Who woulda known it was this simple?
Arturo, I kid because, despite our disagreements, you provide much entertainment. And I mean to say that with affection.
Cheers,
Chairm
Chairm, that's just a poetically brilliant analysis.
ReplyDeleteSo you believe it cannot be responsible for a couple who can procreate to not do so and instead adopt a child who needs a good home? I guess I gave you too much credit. My bad.
ReplyDeleteAnd of course you're still getting the whole "gender segregation" thing wrong. I'll go seek our my comments explaining it to you, but you must first ask.
ReplyDeleteCheers Jose!
ReplyDeleteI read your comments about sex integration when you first wrote them, arturo, and their relevance has not improved with time. No need to trouble yourself to copy-paste again.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the praise, Jose.
ReplyDeleteImprovement in its relevance is not what's needed.
ReplyDeleteIt's your reading comprehesion that needs improvement. And, we're now finding out, some basic humanity on your part.
Cheers Jose!
JHG said: "I can only speak for myself, but it [same-sex attraction] certainly does not feel like a choice to me."
ReplyDeleteYou said that in response to my pointing out that to choose a nonmarital alternative is a liberty exercised, not a right denied.
I was not referring to attraction.
Okay, I think it is becoming more clear that for you, JHG, the core of the type of relationship you have in mind is sexual attraction, right?
Adoption is not procreation. It depends state intervention and on parental reqlinquishment (or loss). This is so even when embryos are adopted.
ReplyDeleteAs meritorious as adoptions is, it is not the core of marriage. See the very effective and useful presumption of paternity within marriage.
That's not to say that adoption is incompatable with the practice of responsible procreation.
Husband and wife unions, as a category of prospective adoptors, form a natural priority for the adoption of children in need.
Besides, couples who already have children are disproportionately interested in adoption; and more than half who adopt fit this category. Adoption is not limited to those who cannot procreate; nor to those, as arturo would put it, who would be irresponsible to procreate.
Attitude surveys show that we are not doing enough, as adoption agencies and as a society, to remove obstacles to more adoption by married couples. Extinction of the human race doesn't even enter into it.
The lack of relevance is a shortfall that you haven't eliminated, arturo.
Re: Adoption
ReplyDeleteWhen encountering such debates it is important to note….
“According to statistics provided by both the National Survey of Family Growth and the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute there are approximately 120,000 children in the United States waiting to be adopted each year. About half of these children are adopted by family members, leaving about 60,000 children who are waiting to be adopted by non-related adoptive parents. By contrast, each year there are anywhere between 70,000 and 162,000 married couples in the United States who have either filed for adoption or in process of filing. That means that in any given year, there are between 1.2 and 2.7 married couples per waiting child. In other words, there is no child-centered need to open up adoption to homosexual couples.”
If would certainly be more responsible for a couple who would procreate responsibly to not do so, and instead adopt a child who needs a good home. So responsible procreation can mean adopting instead.
ReplyDeleteFitz, there some gay couples who would be better parents than some straight couples, so if we want the best parents for the child, yes, there is a child-centered need that adoption be open to gay couples. Children should not become victims to your straight identity politics.
When referencing the Adoption Institute it is important to note their support for adoption by gay parents.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.adoptioninstitute.org/policy/2006_Expanding_Resources_for_Children.php
"The latest available count, by the U.S. Children's Bureau for 2003, estimated there were 119,000 children awaiting adoption from the child welfare system, only 20,000 of whom were in pre-adoptive homes. Many prospective parents are interested in adoption, but the significant majority of them are interested in adopting infants or young children without histories of maltreatment and without physical or mental disabilities. In short, the number of waiting children in foster care far exceeds the supply of parents seeking to adopt them."
I am curious as to where Fitz got his quote (he did not include a link).
Sorry about the link cut-off:
ReplyDeleteTry this
The first principle of responsible procreation is that each of us, as part of the procreative duo of man and woman, is directly responsible for the children we create, barring dire or tragic circumstances.
ReplyDeleteAdoption depends on parental reqlinquishment (or loss) and clearly not responsible procreation. It is not even procreation.
Non-procreation is not responsible procreation.
To be charitable, the effect of what you are saying, arturo, is that it can be responsible to seek to adopt. Responsible adoption is not responsible procreation. Two. Different. Things.
Foster homes, orphanages, and legal custodians are all viable, and often superior, options for the most-difficult-to-place children in need. Adoption is not the only solution. But even at that, more can be done to recruit married couples as prospective adoptors.
ReplyDeleteAdoption does not bestow marital status; indeed, marital status is a legitimate basis for prioritizing prospective adoptors over other both-sexed scenarios.
That "the creative duo" is responsible for their offspring doesn't make them responsible parents and their act responsible procreation. Responsible procreation means that sometimes, most of the time, some people always, some single and some married, you should not procreate. Responsible procreation can mean (it usually does) not procreating.
ReplyDeleteYour comments have convinced me that you just might believe what you say, arturo, even if it is wide of the point.
ReplyDeletePoet Chairm, you know I'm right.
ReplyDeleteArturo, if I knew that I'd say that. I don't and I haven't. Because you aren't.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWell, since Michael wants to know what the law says, we turn to Standhardt v Superior Court, AZ which deals directly with The Sterility Strawman
ReplyDeleteExcept that this decision doesn't address what I consider a key factor in the law reflecting sterility: In Arizona state law, under the section involving marriages that are void and prohibited, first cousin marriage is prohibited except they "may marry if both are sixty-five years of age or older or if one or both first cousins are under sixty-five years of age, upon approval of any superior court judge in the state if proof has been presented to the judge that one of the cousins is unable to reproduce."
Thus some marriages, which would otherwise be forbidden, are allowed if and only if they are proven sterile.
Therefore, one of the main reasons this website proposes, namely that intentionally infertile same-sex couples marrying would sever a link between procreation, has already happened in Arizona (and a handful of other states). Since, as Chairm says above, "Non-procreation is not responsible procreation", these couples are not responsibly procreative.
That leaves marriage in Arizona as "sex-integrative". But sex integration is not a purpose of marriage alone, since sex integration happens regardless of state encouragement, and I can see little rational reason to want to integrate the sexes into a monogamous relationship if procreation is impossible. Obviously there must be some underlying reason that Arizona allows deliberately sterile first-cousins to marry that has nothing to do with responsible procreation.
Marriage is not about procreation or "sex-integration". It is about choosing a family.
JHG you were not asked about your private life.
ReplyDeleteYou were asked about the type of relationship you have in mind.
Earlier you said that to choose a nonmarital alternative is not a choice. You equated the lack of choice about such an arrangement with your subjective feeling about a lack of choice regarding sexual attraction.
Now you say that sexual attraction is not the root of the type of relationship you have in mind.
That would mean that the type you have in mind would be among the category of nonsexual relationships or arrangements, correct?
That established, then, what is your answer to the question as asked previously?
Michael, you have been present in discussions about cousin-marriages and that particular Arizona compromise, which is a flawed zig-zag.
ReplyDeleteBesides, on what basis would you say the compromise was forged, if not something significant about the potency of the man-woman combination? Why did they redraw the line rather than eraise it?
What would you add to those discussions, now, that you think was missing earlier? Please be specific.
Also, you have been present in discussion of legal requirements, absolutely enforced, as per SSM argumentation and your recent comment.
Your thinking would eraise all lines between marriage and nonmarriage.
You say it is about choosing a family; but to choose a nonmarital alternative is a liberty exercised, not a right denied.
Do you have something new to add to these already-discussed subjects?
Because if you do, I welcome it, as I have in the past, and would gladly dedicate another blogpost to your idea of how society should organize itself for family formation.
Just say, yes there is more to add, and I'll get a new blogpost up as soon as I can.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteJHG for the sake of clarity, let's take several small steps together.
ReplyDelete1. In your opinion, is the word marriage meant to identify a type of relationship that is set apart from other types of relationships?
A simple yes or no (or dunno) will suffice at this point.
My answer is, yes. What is yours?
Note: I am treating your request for clarity as a sincere request. My effort to clarify is sincere. We can proceed on this basis.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteJHG
ReplyDelete"I believe that marriage first and foremost is a contract between two people. The terms of that contract depend upon the two involved, and that contract is usually for life."
So I made a "marriage" with my lawn guy to cut my yard in exchange for a weekly cash allotment?
JHG, okay, next small step.
ReplyDelete2. Is sexual attraction a requirement?
I realize that given your comments in the past, that this question may be misconstrued.
ReplyDeleteI am not referring to this or that particular relationship.
We are discussing marriage as a relationship type.
And, yes, given your first answer, this 2nd step may be of no consequence to you one way or the other.
May answer is, no, what is yours?
Hosty-G: I believe that marriage first and foremost is a contract between two people.
ReplyDeleteBut we already have private contracts between two people. Why do we need to turn marriage into one?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSo I made a "marriage" with my lawn guy to cut my yard in exchange for a weekly cash allotment?
ReplyDeleteHey, lawn guys should be able to get married too ;)
Hosty-G: How do you differentiate between the love you have for the job your lawn guy does, and the love you have for the love of your life?
ReplyDeleteThe question to you is, how does the government differentiate between them? That's what Chairm has been asking you. Should you have to take a "love" test to get married? Should the government mandate a particular love? Those are your own arguments against the procreative purpose of marriage.
Op-ed, did you not know that marriage is a contract?
Nope. A contract is just a contract between two people. Marriage is more. If marriage were just a contract between two people, what purpose would the state have in recognizing it beyond what it currently recognizes other contracts?
Small steps.
ReplyDeleteTo reiterate: Together we are walking your path, JHG, so that we can both understand your opinion. I am following your footprints.
I make a statement or ask a question and then I ask you to agree or disagree or indicate that you don't know.
As part of each question, I state what I think your opinion is, based on your previous comments and remarks in our varius discussions. I might misstep so I ask and your nod yes or no. You've been adding a very short clarification, which is okay, as long as we keep the small steps short.
In tracing your footprints, I am not disputing what is and is not your opinon. I am trying to see what your opinion is and what that opinion is based on.
We are moving one small step at a time, together, so that we don't lose track of one another in the forest.
* * *
3. Is marriage is a contractual relationship.
My answer is yes, what is yours?
And, of course, others are very welcome to make observations and the like as you watch JHG and I take these small steps.
ReplyDeleteThere are no cards up our sleeves. JHG and I have assumed that each is making a sincere effort to clarify.
3. Is marriage is a contractual relationship.
ReplyDeleteMy answer is yes, what is yours?
Next... I'm assuming is what is the expectation in marriage, once it is formed.
I wonder if all ethical issues regarding no-fault divorce, high out of wedlock births, and third party procreation were settled, would people have a problem if homosexual couples used marriage laws for reasons I mention in a previous thread. On the other hand, if those issues were cleared up it would be much clearer on the intent and meaning of marriage serves, and other forms of adult relationships would be more consider affrerements.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete"Were I straight and getting married to someone of the opposite sex government intrusion into my intents is unheard of."
ReplyDeleteCan you depress me anymore?
"I would be free to abuse the institution at will, so long as I am marrying someone of the opposite sex."
I guess you can.
----
“If one of us isn’t happy for whatever reason we want the government to sort out our mess.”
-- Stephen Safranek
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe minority is deserving of their equality, indeed.
ReplyDeleteI only wish people really understood what that meant. Especially those who assume excluding an entire gender from their household governance was a government given entitlement.
JHG, we are discussing your view, not someone else's. You'll need to explain what you mean when you refer to the relationship as a contract.
ReplyDeleteIt appeared to me that you said that marriage is the type of relationship that is first and foremost a contract. Hence, I thought you meant it was a contractual type of relationship.
But we can try, together, to clarify what you do mean by taking further small steps.
4. This kind of relationship exists as an agreement. Without the agreement, there is no relationship.
My answer is yes, what's yours?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteNo problem, JHG.
ReplyDeleteI don't want to over-complicate the next small step so I'll incude a pair of additional steps along with it. Think of this as keeping balance while moving forward. We don't want to find ourselves standing interminably on one foot.
5. Marriage is a contract but the relationship of the individuals is not a contract.
6. The relationship of the individuals is a private arrangement; marriage is public arrangement.
7. Entering marriage (i.e. the contract of marriage) neither adds nor subtracts from the relationship of the individuals.
My answer is yes, this is what I think you mean.
And you?
I'm going to be away from the computer for sometime.
ReplyDeleteThere is no hurry, I think, because we aren't just shooting snap answers back and forth. We are trying to faithfully walk forward with your understanding of marriage.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteOk, next small step.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, in case anyone is wondering, the numbering doesn't signify anything special. It is just to provide an easy means to note the steps and missteps, as JHG just did.
8. Marriage varies according to the needs of the individuals. It is an contract (or agreement) negotiated by the individuals to meet their needs. The relationship exists with marriage or without marriage. Marriage and the relationship are seperate things.
I think, yes, this is what you mean.
Is it?
I'm going to quickly jump into these questions while I have second today.
ReplyDelete1. Yes, marriage is (and is meant to) identify a type of relationship that is set apart from other relationships. However, as is with "common law", that relationship can exist apart from any legal or ceremonal "marriage".
2. Sexual attraction is not a requirement, per se, but it is very much presumed. The type of relationship that lends itself to marriage (permenant companionship to the exclusion of all others) usually requires the emotional bond that comes with a sexual relationship.
3. Yes, marriage is a contractual relationship.
4. Yes, marriage exists as an agreement.
5. Marriage is a contract but the relationship between two individuals is not a contract. But given 4 and 5, that makes marriage more of a covenant.
6. Yes the relationship of the individuals is a private arrangement and marriage is a public arrangement.
7. No, entering marriage adds to the relationship. It adds societal expectation. If my best friend and I get into a fight, no one expects us to try to work it out at all costs; that expectation is much greater of spouses.
Michael and JHG, I am going to pause for a moment.
ReplyDeleteThere appears to be divergent paths and I've been following JHG's understanding of marriage.
It will be difficult to split myself into two and follow both of your paths at the same time.
So, at least for awhile, could the two of you clarify your agreement and disagreement, specifically, with each other here?
Thanks.
Hosty-G: ...so why would it start now?
ReplyDeleteYour requirement, not mine. Reread.
I would be free to abuse the institution at will, so long as I am marrying someone of the opposite sex.
False. The government prosecutes fraudulent marriages all the time.
To better follow the divergent paths of JHG and Michael, please discuss the points of agreement (and disagreement) in the comment section under the blogpost, Following the Meaning of SSMers.
ReplyDeleteSSM argumentation has embraced various viewpoints regarding the nature of marriage. It is a "big tent" in which some prominent viewpoints are fundamentally opposed.
So to it becomes difficiult to follow the divergent paths of JHG and Michael, each of whom do express viewpoints that are very common (JHG's more common than Michael's I think) among SSMers (i.e. people who support or advocate for SSM).
This is not unusual when reforms are put forward in society. It is not in itself a sign of hypocrisy of this or that individual. However, we are trying to understand what JHG and Michael mean when they speak of certain things here.
If they can understand each other, and agree on what constitutes their disagreements, and their agreements, then, this would help others who are either undecided or opposed to the SSM project. It would help clarify the various pros and cons of the proposed reform.
Just wanted to get back to an assertion made by JHG about adoption.
ReplyDeleteJHG: even the Catholic Church has given adoptions to same sex partners, a little known or spoken of fact.
This is false on multiple levels.
1. The Catholic Church does not give adoptions.
2. Catholic Charities has been the leading force in Massachusetts in arranging adoptions for needy children; including those who would have been aborted for any number of reasons, including Downs Syndrome.
3. A few people who have served Catholic Charities may not have been upfront with their Bishops when arranging adoptions contrary to the clear teachings of the Catholic Church.
4. Such adoptions were rare, perhaps a handful, and done under the radar, transgressing the Catholic mission of Catholic Charities.
5. If by "same sex partners" JHG meant gay or lesbian twosomes, who openly transgress Catholic teachings, then his statement is false in its suggestion of endorsement by the Catholic Church.
6. It is doublely false if he meant to assert that openly and unrepentantly engaging in same-sex sexual behavior would not be a firm impediment to such an adoption whether by an individual or partners. To the contrary, it would be stand as a disqualification.
That a handful of such adoptions may have slipped under the radar via Catholic Charities in Massachusetts does not imply an endorsement by the Catholic Church. In fact, when this came out the Bishop made it very clear that no adoption agency, under the auspices of the Catholic Church, would place children in homes contrary to the teachings of the Catholic Church.
That's what the problem was when the government forced Catholic Charities out of adoptions in Massachusetts. The SSMers, in particular, insisted either that the government impose anti-Catholic policies on Catholic agencies, or that Catholic teachings be the basis for revoking the license to arrange any kind of arrange adoption.
Maybe it was just a throwaway line by JHG based on ignorance of the facts or perhaps based on his accepting whole the propaganda of the SSM campaign in Massachusetts.
The assertion above by JHG is a falsehood, whether or not he uttered it by mistake.
For past discussion of this subject, see the tags on the righthand side of the homepage: adoption, Catholic Charities, and Chairm's other posts.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIf you had bothered to read the blogposts in our archives, which I pointed readers to, JHG, you would not imagine that you are introducing us to that article.
ReplyDeleteFeel free to read what we have already documented about this issue.
Nonetheless, your previous assertion remains a blatant falsehood. Repetition of it does not change that.
The "content" of your latest comment is more of the same, be it out of ignorance (or something else) on your part.
And yet you are not alone. This is the all-too-commmon combination of misrepresentation and animus that reflects very poorly on the SSM argumentation and on the SSM campaign in Massachusetts, and elsewhere.
Its facade is very transparent and very brittle.
The specific issue of Catholic Charities and adoption can be discussed, on-topic, under the blowpost:
ReplyDelete"Catholic Charities: Quotables from past blogposts"
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteRead the blogpost I just linked above and if you want to discuss that topic, you can do so there.
ReplyDeleteHere, you seemed to have abandoned the step-by-step clarification of your viewpoint on SSM. You are welcome to pick up where you left off, here.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteJohn,
ReplyDeleteThis thread's topic is about the requirement for procreation as a test for the purpose of procreation.
Discussion with Chairm has branched off two divergent topics. That is a good thing, and Chairm has acted warmly to each invited new topic. He has even wished to keep the topic alive by creating new posts, and leaving links here for people to follow. It is his request, his posts, and his invitation, but it is conversations between the two of you. Please show the courtesy of following the invitations given, and do not mock them.
I too will leave a response to the issues of this thread about Catholic Charities, over in the Catholic Charities thread.
As always feel free to continue commenting about the topic presented here also. These branches are to accommodate specific branches in the discussion here.
Deletions of this comment and your preceding comment will follow in within a full day. As will any comments discussing the fact that you have been invited to continue conversations in threads made to accommodate those conversations.
Thanks you, and it is good to see you active :)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI only asked that this thread have these comments followed up on here
ReplyDeleteThe are, but fleetingly so. Thanks for asking. The only comments scheduled for deletion are my own, and yours pleading for Chairm to reconsider his decision. That would be all the comments made after this one by Chairm...
When you delete these comments could you direct anyone interested to the appropriate threads so they can continue reading?
I looked and the links to both branches were provided already. Chairm is very good at doing this kind of thing.
but please don't suggest I am mocking anyone
Its not a suggestion. It is a very forward statement of my observation.
But since you have replied in at least one of the other threads appropriately, I offer my thanks. Disrespect for Chairm's wishes to organize the discussion is, as I see it, mockery of his good wishes and purview in doing so.
I felt you deserved an explanation of why I used those words. And I put it that way because I know you mean no mockery, and would no doubt want to correct such actions when pointed out to you on your own accord, without administrative enforcement.
Because I am impressed with your comments of late.