In an earlier blogpost I discussed the target of marriage and of the man-woman criterion of marriage statutes.
The target of marriage is sex integration and contingency for responsible procreation. It is the nature, the essentials, or the core of the social institution of marriage that is at stake in the defense of the man-woman basis of marital status and eligibility for marriage.
The target of gay union is ... ?
Well, it is not favorably aimed at sex integration nor responsible procreation nor even the social institution of marriage. SSMers have persistently disparaged that stuff when it comes to marriage law and marriage culture.
Maybe if SSMers can answer the question, they might try to grope their way to plainly stating the core meaning of gay union such that boundaries can be drawn around whatever makes it distinctive from other types of relationships and other kinds of arrangements.
And, maybe, THEN, society can fairly weigh the merits and the demerits of enacting a relationship status, at law, based on such a core meaning.
Until then, SSM argumentation is an example of circular thinking and a hollow proposition for all of society -- including those who'd be the supposed members of the targeted class, as Justice Cady of the Iowa Supreme Court would describe it in his pro-SSM opinion.
At the core of marriage should be committing yourself to another and also showing to the world your love to them. If marriage was mainly for procreation then what would the fun be in getting married. Love is at it's core and always should be. Love comes first.
ReplyDeleteKim, is there a love requirement in the marriage law? Or a fun requirement? Of course not.
ReplyDeleteAs for commitment, commitment to what?
In addition to the bride and groom, society is present at each marriage because this is a public relationship.
At root, marriage is distinguishable from other types of relationships and other kinds of arrangements. If it was not, then, there would be no point in marital status.
What legal requirements make marriage distinctive such that 1) it merits a special status and 2) its boundaries can be drawn justly?
While exchanging class rings and declaring undying love for one another is a serious thing, there is only one kind of marriage that regularly involved a shotgun. The kind where kids were at risk.
ReplyDeleteFeel free to committ yourself and show the world how in love you are Kim. But it's not a marriage -- not a family -- unless it includes those 2 complementary elements that are essential to creating a family.
What kind of love, Kim? Come on, be more specific. What kind of love do you mean, and what kind don't you mean? And how is the line to be drawn?
ReplyDeleteI'm not aware of any marriage license application that even asks if the 2 parties are "in love"...
ReplyDeleteThe day that I can visit my girlfriend in the hospital, perhaps to be with her at her last, with no questions asked, the day that if I am her chosen heir and no one else can challenge that in a court of law and win because we were not married, though have loved and cherished each other until death did us part, without a marriage certificate, until that day SSM is a civil right.
ReplyDeleteMy friend Karma just lost the love of her life of the past 24 years, Stormy's son and daughter have challenged the will as rightful heirs. They were not there when she developed cancer, nor at her bedside when she died. But while it has not been decided yet, they do have the right to challenge it.
24 years together...and Karma, all along the way after the illness was treated as "non-family". Stormy opted to go home rather than be treated so she could be close to her one true love.
Why is it that all you can think of is the sexual side?
You may Opine all you wish, but the reason's I have stated above and a number of others is why the anti-love side is losing.
Interesting...
ReplyDelete> "The day that I can visit my girlfriend in the hospital, perhaps to be with her at her last, with no questions asked, the day that if I am her chosen heir and no one else can challenge that in a court of law and win because we were not married, though have loved and cherished each other until death did us part, without a marriage certificate, until that day SSM is a civil right."
I'm not sure that day is here even for marriages that already do exist.
truthandlovebylandr said: Why is it that all you can think of is the sexual side?
ReplyDeleteMy blogpost, and the various links within it, do not dwell solely on the "sexual side".
I have discussed protection equality in other blogposts. If you seek a protective status, that's not marriage which is a preferential status due to the core meaning of marriage.
Since you insist, let's not bother with the "sexual side", and instead focus on the nonsexual side.
What is the target of (gay) union?
Assuming, as per your request, that it has zilch to do with the "sexual side", and everything to do with hospital visitation, then, the solution to that problem, if indeed that is your aim, lies not with marriage but with visitation policies in general.
If people want to name a designated beneficiary for such things as you named in your comment, then, marriage law is not the problem that needs to be solved.
truthandlovebylandr, would you have society treat some other types of nonsexual relationships differently than the type you have in mind? I mean for visitation and so forth?
Why?
Kim: Love is at it's core and always should be. Love comes first.
ReplyDeleteQuoth the Gorilla, many years ago:
"In order for same-sex couples to marry they have to make the definition all about the feelings of the two people involved and not about children. They have to remove the very social responsibility that warrants state notice of marriage to begin with. Because their unions will not result in offspring any consideration for children that is allowed to stay in the definition of marriage makes same-sex unions wholly unqualified. As you yourself have noted, once children are taken out of the picture, the state has no more interest in marriage.
"Same-sex partners want to marginalize the commitment to my children with a definition of marriage as simply an acknowledgement that my wife and I love each other. Inviting government to take an interest in my feelings for my wife opens up a Pandora's box of unprecedented government intrusiveness. The fact that government has had no interest in feelings to date is reflected by the fact that the word 'love' is not in current marriage law anywhere. Even when two people are divorcing they cannot use a lack of love as grounds."
landr: The day that I can visit my girlfriend in the hospital... with no questions asked, the day that if I am her chosen heir and no one else can challenge that in a court of law...
ReplyDeleteLandr exposes a deep naivete about what marriage law addresses. Hospitals are not mentioned in marriage law anywhere. Hospitals are not required to let married people "be together at the last," nor are they required to keep unmarried people apart "at the last." Married people are often separated when one is in the hospital just as unmarried people are often together in the hospital. Hospital visitation is controlled by hospital policy, not government.
Likewise, marriage law has nothing to do with how a will is interpreted or implemented. It does factor in when one is dying intestate, i.e., without a "chosen heir," but if there is a will, it does not factor.
Even if we grant Landr's conception of marriage as simply a basket of legal incidents doled out by government, her argument falls flat. The fight by neutered marriage activists in California against Prop 8 proves this debate has nothing to do with legal incidents, all of which were granted to same-sex couples in California long before the supreme court ruling neutered marriage there and now after Prop 8 reversed that court's activism. The granting of this basket of legal incidents did nothing to placate the neutered marriage crowd.
Lastly, even if Landr weren't mistaken about the legal incidents of marriage and even if she weren't wrong about same-sex couples' access to these incidents, her argument still falls flat. Arguing that some legal incident needs to be provided and therefore marriage should be redefined rather than adjust the legal incident itself is like arguing that earth and sky should be redefined so we can all fly.
Marriage is not about children. We can see that fact through the example of people who are not having children or can't have children still getting married. To some marriage is what it was in the past, a social contract for life between two people to share their belongings and lives together. There are few restricitons on marriage, and in four of the United States marriage is not restricted between a man and a woman because they know this restriction unnecessarily restricts the pursuit of happiness for GLBT people.
ReplyDeleteIt is obvious that no matter what talking points are spun from the radical right the moderate middle is not buying the misrepresentations, otherwise we would be going in the other direction. We will hear from NH, ME, CA, NJ, HI, and NY all in short time, are they all fooled too?
Identity politics may fool some of the people some of the time, and maybe even all of the people some of the time, but it can't fool all of the people all of the time.
ReplyDeleteIt is true of racist identity politics; it is true of gay identity politics.
* * *
JHG what is the target of gay union? That's the question put to SSMers in the original blogpost at the top of this comment section.
Your reaction is to say, "the happiness of GLBT people".
There is no gayness criterion for SSM anyplace it has been imposed. No legal requirement for same-sex sexual attraction; none for same-sex sexual behavior; none for identity based on gayness.
So how is gay happiness the target?
As SSMers are wont to declare, if your private relationshp depends on a government license for public affirmation and "happiness", then, its not much of a relationship, afterall.
Now, in my books, such a relationship may be highly meritorious even if it, like the rest of the nonmarital category, it does not fit the core of marriage.
Even if, like the vast majority of the one-sexed arrangements (including those that raise children) it is not a type of sexualized relationship and thus not outside the lines due to sexual orientation -- hetero or homo or otherwise.
* * *
We've covered this ground with you before, JHG. Perhaps it has slipped your memory because you inexplicably and unilaterally deleted your side of that discussion. But it remains on the record, nonetheless.
Still, for the sake of refreshsing the record, I'll ask you once again to plainly state the core around which the boundaries of marriage would be drawn under the merger of SSM with marriage.
Feel free to use the laws of the states you prefer to tout here.
Given your intense fear of appearing to be anything but indiscriminate , what few restrictions would your argumentation actually sustain? I expect you will depend on arbitrary power rather than the meaning of a public relationship and of its special status. Your comment above illustrates how SSMers are not interested in justice but "in just us".
Go ahead and distinguish between marriage and nonmarriage so that society won't be fooled by arbitrary lines that the rules of SSM arugmentation have persistently attacked.
For example, don't rely on what has always been the case as you suggested in your comment above: " marriage is what it was in the past." Don't rely on tradition, such as with romance, or even the legislating of public morality. In the recent past, you failed at this basic task of the reformer but maybe you can do better this time.
"Marriage is not about children."
ReplyDeleteClassic Hosty - so the majority suffers at the expense of the minority -classic liberal BS
Kind of like how my kid can't have a fluffernutter to rot his teeth because one kid in a thousand may have a "peanut allergy"
Go away and stop your hatred Hosty. Marriage is about children - the human bodies were created for it - how can you make a ridiculous statement like that. Oh, I know, you will say anything to push your hateful agenda.
JHG: There are few restricitons on marriage...
ReplyDeleteYou're right. There are really only 4 restrictions on marriage, 3 of which have varied widely over the centuries and culture:
1. Age. You must be of age to marry. This age varies by state, in the USA.
2. Relation. You can't marry your sister, but maybe you can marry your first cousin -- depending on which state you live in.
3. Marital status. You can't marry someone if you or they are already married. This is true in all 50 states of the USA, but other nations treat things differently.
Of the four requirements for a valid Marriage, only one has remained constant over the centuries and cultures:
4. Sex. You have to marry a member of the opposite sex. This has been the case around the world, since time immorial. (The tiny few exceptions that are usually brought up right about here only serve to prove the rule.)
For JHG to go on about the "radical right" and "moderate middle" is simply a smokescreen -- an attempt to obscure the fact that of all the radical ideas about marriage, his is among the most radical of all.
When it comes to marriage, JHG is an extremist radical. No ifs and or buts about it.
pbxnip, JHG thinks girls are icky so he CAN'T let marriage be about what only boys and girls can do together. Because that would mean... ewww... its just too yucky to think about!
ReplyDelete"Juris praecepta sunt haec: honeste vivere; alterum non laedere; suum cuique tribuere"
ReplyDelete(These are the precepts of the law: To live honorably; to hurt nobody; to render to every one his due.)
Marty, your comment is juvenile. It's a shame you will lower yourself like this.
"4. Sex. You have to marry a member of the opposite sex."
ReplyDeleteThis is untrue and everybody knows that.
Hosty-G: Marriage is not about children.
ReplyDeleteThank you, Hosty-G, for proving exactly my point.
Quoth the Gorilla: "In order for same-sex couples to marry they have to make the definition all about the feelings of the two people involved and not about children. They have to remove the very social responsibility that warrants state notice of marriage to begin with."
You'll notice Hosty-G doesn't state what institution in our society is about children, just that marriage isn't it. One surmises in Mr. Hosty's world adults have no responsibilities to children, only to "happiness for GLBT people." "GLBT people," it follows, can't be happy if there is an institution tailored to tying mothers and fathers together to their children.
We will hear from NH, ME, CA, NJ, HI, and NY all in short time, are they all fooled too?
The future is what it is and debating it does not change it. However, Mr. Hosty's world view is clearly so far divorced from reality there is no reason to give his particular view of the future any credence.
True, it seems that people who claim they are right and "everybody knows it" ... period ... is as good as declaring their own naiveté.
ReplyDeleteFor instance, we know better. We know how marriage is about children. Children know how marriage is important to them. Grandparents know, as well as every good marriage and parent out there.
What crowd is Mr H-G running in that claims marriage absolutely is not about children? Sounds like a pretty narrow, and narrow minded crowd.
Marty,
ReplyDeleteI don't think we should try to read into why Mr H-G feels that someone of the opposite sex is not good enough for him to marry. No doubt the possibilities are vast.
But, no doubt. if he understood what marriage unlocks in the humanity in all of us, he would. Equal gender representation unlocks the equality inherent in the integration of each gender, and it encourages the responsible treatment of the children naturally occurring from the relationship.
I'm not mocking his choice, no doubt it is a noble pursuit of relationship and mutual trust. Naturally he does not see it as selling himself or his potential relationships short.
When we say it falls short of the standard that we set for marriage, it is not to say his relationship is not loving or committed. It is just saying it is not the same as the humanitarian relevance of equality that is expected in integrating the sexes in marriage. It may be equitable for him, but it is not marriage equality.
JHG, the fact that you have not responded substantively has signaled your lack of a substantive response.
ReplyDeleteYou quoted the precepts of law and yet your remarks are not about justice but about "just us". Each time you say something you end-up shooting yourself in the foot.
To live honorably;
And yet SSMers depend on a littany of falsehoods as you attack the foundational social institution of marriage.
to hurt nobody;
And yet SSMers would impose your peculair sectarianism, your identity politics, at the cost of corrupting governance, villifying responsible procreation, and disparaging the most pro-child social institution we have.
to render to every one his due.
And yet you'd deny the centrality of procreative justice in the preferential status that society accords the public relationship of husband and wife.
Three strikes.
Nothing honorable, harmless, nor just has come from pressing identity politics into marriage law and into constitutional jurisprudence.
Just as the core of marriage -- sex integration and responsible procreation -- have legal requirements that have been vigorously enforced through the honoring of civil society's universal social institution, if SSM were to be imposed society can expect to see the core of SSM -- gay identity politics -- to be vigorously pressed into the law, social policy, and the culture through the hyper emotivism of adult desires.
On the other hand, vulnerable families outside of marriage are due protection, not preference. Justice is served by reaffirming the special place of marriage in society based on the core meaning of the conjugal relationship. This is how to live honorably, hurt nobody, and to render what is owed the children of this and future generations.