The cultural, traditional, and legal presumption of marital paternity is based on the sexual relationship of husband and wife.
The criteria for rebutal of the presumption are based on the opposite-sexed nature of human procreation and conjugal relations.
However, this does not apply to same-sexed sexual behavior from which there arises no possible presumption of paternity to rebut nor to recognize.
If society were to treat the sexualized male-female relationship the same as the sexualized male-male and the female-female relationship types, how could the marital presumption of paternity be sustained without discriminating (justly or unjustly) on the basis of sexual behavior?
When it comes to the presumption of paternity, must society be shackled by a fear of being anything but indiscriminate? If yes, why? Does that mean abolishing this presumption?
If not, then, what, if anything, could be the alternative nonsexual and non-behavioral basis for this presumption, at law?
Perhaps the marital presumption of paternity (which is aimed at the class of sexual relationships which are male-female) could survive the imposition of SSM, if it ever came to that, through the reanimation of the once disputed doctrine of seperate but equal.
Abolish it or retain it, the marital presumption of paternity is a knot that SSM arugmentation has yet to resolve.
This is what I think makes marriage a marriage and a union of same sex couples something else. Even a married couple who have been unable to conceive are still orientated towards the possibility of children even if it gets down to a symbolic gesture. A same sex couple will never conceive anything, there is not even the remote possibility of it, not even a symbolic gesture of it.
ReplyDeleteThe possibility of conceiving children is likely to be the essence of what marriage is or at least a dominant component of it. To introduce a single sexed arrangement and call it marriage is an attack on marriage.
"To introduce a single sexed arrangement and call it marriage is an attack on marriage."
ReplyDeleteCan you explain your logic here? I cannot understand how my marriage is an "attack" on anyone's liberty. If fact, I've never been given a satisfactory explanation to how my marriage causes any of the fears that are accused. Is it the example my freedom that brings confusion to unforged minds? That would require the original beliefs to be either loosely instilled or not soundly founded for them to be so easily swept away by my mere example, do you think?
Whether married or not my example would still exist, so I don't see how my marriage alters that course of events.
It is an attack on marriage because it alters the core meaning of marriage from a both sexed arrangement to a single sexed arrangement.
ReplyDeleteFrom a child centric institution to an adult centric one. It tells us adults are weak, and children are resilient and therefore that children's needs are subservient to the wants of adults.
ReplyDeleteJust in case you're interested in resolving your ignorance rather than bragging about it, you can read all about it under: Where's the Threat?
I see no child centric institution in marriage, only a civil contract between two individuals who promise to share their lives and belongings together exclusively. No where in Massachusetts state law do I see any supporting evidence to your claims.
ReplyDeleteHosty-G: I see no child centric institution in marriage...
ReplyDeleteThere you have it. The damage they would do.
Counterfeits devalue the authentic.
ReplyDeleteHow would it harm John Hosty-Grinnell if I started posting under your name or handle?
Even a married couple who have been unable to conceive are still orientated towards the possibility of children even if it gets down to a symbolic gesture. A same sex couple will never conceive anything, there is not even the remote possibility of it, not even a symbolic gesture of it.
ReplyDeleteClose, Secular Heretic, but not quite right. First of all, it is not true that a same sex couple will never conceive anything, the mouse Kaguya has proven that it is possible, and there are many researchers working on ways to create "female sperm" and "male eggs" to allow same-sex couples to conceive together. In England, they are having a debate in Parliament about whether to allow same-sex couples to attempt to conceive. I would think you'd be aware of all this, being a regular poster here.
So the key thing about a married couple is allowed to attempt to conceive children, not that they definitely will or that they want to or that they might - the key thing is that they are allowed to try. Same-sex couples should not be allowed to try. We need a law like they have in England that forbids labs from trying to create children from anything other than a man and a woman. This law is all we need to stop same-sex marriage (though it would be stronger if we also exlicitly codified the right of every marriage to attempt to conceive together with their own genes, which is also under attack).
As to the presumption of paternity, it comes from a time when marriage really meant something, when donor gametes were considered adultery, and when there were no reliable paternity tests. Now, family courts are free to ignore automatic presumption of paternity and try to sort out each mess individually, according to the "best interest of the child". They would hopefully still respect a husband's desire to be named the father of his wife's children by another man, but they don't have to, and they certainly shouldn't automatically force him to be the father. They'd take into account all the other people involved and their wishes and their obligations, just as they'd do with a child born to a same-sex couple, whether by same-sex conception or by gamete donation.
John Howard, I wasn't aware of the current efforts of scientist to manipulate human reproduction. My thinking was more along the lines of a natural sexual intimacy between people which makes it impossible for people of the same sex to conceive. When serious science intervention is used I guess anything is possible. Perhaps if they tried hard enough my wife might give birth to a rabbit one day. Lets hope our political Jedi knights get their laws in order before the clone wars really begins.
ReplyDeleteThe marital presumption of paternity is based on the opportunity of the husband to have impregnated his wife. It is a both-sexed presumption and is not based on the manufacture of human beings through cloning or genetic engineering.
ReplyDeleteAlso, the presumption remains one of the strongest legal aspects of marriage in our laws.
Outside of marriage there is a more weak presumption unwed of paternity and that intrinsically requires more government intrusions. This, in practice, is fitting since the reliability of an unwed presumption of paternity is far lower than the marital presumption. So the outside of marriage there have been attempts, in some places, to mimic the core of marriage.
Likewise with the rather weakened version of a presumption of "parentage" that some places have enacted for same-sex scenarios. But that presupmtion is explicity NOT based on sexual relations. It is another attempt to mimic the core of marriage -- but by removing the sexual aspect.
If we are to replace the marital presumption of paternity with these weaker and NONsexual approaches to "parentage", then, society ought to weigh the merits and demerits. It is no good just trying to pretend that false equivalencies suffice when imposing Government intervention into family formation.
For instance, as we've discussed John, there is no such thing as same-sex conception or same-sex procreation. There may be human manufacture through asexual reproduction and genetic engineering -- both of which are NOT subsets of conception and certainly are outside the bounds of the principled basis for the marital presumption of paternity -- even if the adults (prospective parents) are married.
Lets hope our political Jedi knights get their laws in order before the clone wars really begins.SH, They're not going to do it on their own, they need people to tell them to.
ReplyDeleteThe marital presumption of paternity is based on the opportunity of the husband to have impregnated his wife.And the presumption that no one else impregnated his wife, because only the husband is allowed to impregnate his wife. If we don't link conception rights with marriage, then there is no reason to have a presumption of paternity.
For instance, as we've discussed John, there is no such thing as same-sex conception or same-sex procreation.Who cares what we call it Chairm? I never understand why you keep insisting that it matters, and that I don't call it "conception". Why is it important?
What matters if you intend to stand there and allow same-sex couples to try "human manufacture" to create offspring together?
Nope, John, as you know, I oppose human manufacture regardless of the motivation or the political claims of those who would keep the option open or use it if it were available. For humanitarian and ethical reasons I oppose this being available. And I've made my case, such as it is, to my elected representatives and to other relevant decision-making authorities and advisors. The opposition to genetic engineering is well fortified and human manufacture via "same-sex procreation", as you'd put it, is a subset of what is well-opposed.
ReplyDeleteCalling things by accurate names is important, John. Procreation is not a subset of human manufacture; human manufacture is a seperate category beyond the pale. This is significant in the argumens about cloning where conception does not occur. You know enough about the basic science that I think the distinctions should be something you'd put front and center in your own remarks about the problems with any crack in the door that would permit people to attempt to manufacture children with same-sex gametes.
Now, I realize you might think that using words like "procreation" and "conception" might help jog people because they can at least relate to the creation of babies. Thus your concerns about the fate of those babies, should it come to that. And that is understandable, John. However, the distinction remains -- in the cloning topic for example -- especially because a cloned human embryo is a human being just as we all are. Some people have resigned themselves to the cloning not for the purposes of reproduction, but that's the crack in the door, as I think you have acknowledged in other discussions.
Human manufacture, John, is distinctively unethical. Blurring the lines with procreation and conception may actually do more harm to your strong argument than even the enactment of a civil union status that is implicitly merged with marital status. Indeed, it would undermine the logic of your appeal for a compromise based on civil union status. But making it clear that you are opposed to manufacture, rather than responsible procreation, there is no way for SSMers to claim that a "marriage" license or a "civil union" license enables them to attempt to manufacture human beings.
It is more than rheoric or semantics. The words have meaning. And we must be clear on meaning especially because of the word-games that SSMers have been playing all along.
The marital presumption of paternity works to dissuade some men from marrying.
ReplyDeleteWhether or not the child is your biological child, the state will charge you with child support if you married the child's mother prior to childbirth (or perhaps even afterwards - I am not a lawyer).
If you and the child's mother do not marry, however, you can dodge child support if the child is not your biological child.
Such men probably should not marry if they cannot consent to what marriage entails.
ReplyDeleteThe marital presumpition of paternity can be rebutted, Peter. The criteria for that are based on the same thing that the presumption is based, of course.
Unwed paternity can be established in a more cumbersome, and a more governmentally-intrusive, way. Dodging responsible procreation can be a deadend for "deadbeat dads".
But, more importantly, this shows the public signficance in society encouraging a special status for responsible procreation whereby the father and the mother are united -- for one another's sake -- but primarily for the sake of their children.
Unwed procreation doesn't seem to do this very well, across society, especially in the more vulnerable segments of society.
there is no way for SSMers to claim that a "marriage" license or a "civil union" license enables them to attempt to manufacture human beings.Merely because you use the word "manufacture" is not going to stop them from saying it is "procreation" is it? They'd still claim the right to do it no matter what you call it.
ReplyDeleteAnd I think they'd win in the battle for wording, because "manufacture" implies a Frankenstein approach that takes DNA from unidentified sources, perhaps sequencing it from scratch and incorporating the best DNA from a composite of thousands of people, where there are no parents or progenitors, and manufacturing people by the hundreds from an assembly line. Sure, everyone is against that, but no one is about to do that. Whereas "same-sex procreation" implies two people of the same sex combining their DNA to be the parents of a child. So expressing opposition to only "human manufacture" is tilting at a very far away and unlikely windmill while seemingly approving of the very real scenario of someone procreating responsibly with someone of the same sex, using the latest and best technology to have a child together. So we have to oppose same-sex procreation, using the same term that they'd use in defending it.
Blurring the lines with procreation and conception may actually do more harm to your strong argument than even the enactment of a civil union status that is implicitly merged with marital status.My proposed CU's are not implicitly merged with marital status, they explicitly are distinct from marital status, they explicitly do not allow the couple to attempt human manufacture using their own genes, and my Compromise proposal makes explicit the right of all marriages to use their own genes to procreate together, as well as prohibit human manufacture.
Chairm, when my Egg and Sperm Civil Union Compromise is before Congress finally, are you going to support it? It will end same-sex marriage and civil unions that are merged with marriage in every state, and preserve marriage for a man and a woman. It will stop human manufacture, which is legal now. Yes it will give federal recognition to state Civil Unions, but only if those CU's are explicitly defined as not being marriage, as not giving the couple the right to create or manufacture offspring.
The marital presumption of paternity works to dissuade some men from marrying.
ReplyDeleteYes it does! There are many "men's rights" leaders who advise men not to marry, and the presumption of paternity, with no penalty for adultery, is one of the reasons.
Such men probably should not marry if they cannot consent to what marriage entails.
Right, millions of us don't consent to the one-sided obligations of marriage. Sure, paternity is "rebuttable", but that requires hiring lawyers, buying one of those home paternity test kits, and you'll probably still wind up with alimony, and child support if you spent more than a week acting as a father for the child.
John, do you agree that what you would call "same-sex procreation" is NOT responsible procreation?
ReplyDeleteDo you agree that it would be the manufacture of human beings through genetic engineering?
I think you would agree on both counts.
John said: "Merely because you use the word "manufacture" is not going to stop them from saying it is 'procreation' is it? They'd still claim the right to do it no matter what you call it."Call it what it actually is, let them make the case for redefinition.
Don't make the case for them, John, in conceding the meaning of words before the substantive issue is clearly established. For that would just blur the lines, as I said previously.
You said: "my Compromise proposal makes explicit the right of all marriages to use their own genes to procreate together, as well as prohibit human manufacture".Why are these used as negotiation chips?
There is still no good reason to create a new relationship status, call it civil union or whatever, that is supposed to be marriage in all but name.
The part about human manufacture should apply regardless of marital status and regardless of nonmarital status. Right?
So what are you actually negotiating? A compromise whereby nonmarriage is treated as marriage and whereby the liberty to procreate is put up for negotiation against a supposed right to manufacture human beings?
If Civil Union is meritorious, it should stand on its own two feet front and center. Its purpose should be explicit since it would be an explicitly government-created thing.
Now, in your proposed compromise, what is the purpose and meaning of Civil Union as a public relationship status? To what does society consent when issuing licenses for this?
If the compromise is supposed to be with gay identity politics, then, no, I would not support it. That's not a sustainable comprommise, politically nor legally.
My position is not a hardline position, John. Compromise for the sake of conceding ground and gaining nothing is retreat and surrender, not problem-solving.
Of course I don't think it is responsible procreation, yes it is manufacture, but I don't think anyone is going to ask me what I think; if they want to do it they will do it.
ReplyDeleteCall it what it actually is, let them make the case for redefinition.
It's not about semantics, it is about getting the laws passed. I think that calling it "human manufacture" makes opposition to it sound hysterical, and also makes it seem as if I am objecting to something other than what they are wanting to do, which they call procreation. I want people to know that I am objecting to two people of the same sex trying to have a child together. I object to it even if it is called "loving parents smoochingly conceiving beautiful happy snuggly baby with rainbows and bells and birds chirping". I don't need images of smokestacks and assembly lines to scare people, because if we use those, then the reality seems benign by comparison.
Why are these used as negotiation chips?Huh? They're not negotiation chips, if by that you mean something we offer up. They're the essential outcome that must be enacted! If we don't protect the right of marriage to conceive children with their own genes, then people can be forced to use donor gametes or have their genes modified and prohibited from using their own genes! And if we don't stop genetic engineering, then we quickly go down a slippery slope to where all people have to use it to keep up, our children would all be expected or even required to use genetic engineering, and the taxpayer has to pay for it all. Preserving the right of marriage to conceive with the couple's own gametes and stopping genetic engineering aren't "negotiation chips", not for our side anyway! They are what we win and what we need to win.
There is still no good reason to create a new relationship status, call it civil union or whatever, that is supposed to be marriage in all but name.
It wouldn't create a new relationship status that is marriage in all but name. It would end SSM and CU's that are marriage in all but name. You got that? It would END them!
The part about human manufacture should apply regardless of marital status and regardless of nonmarital status. Right?
Of course. Have you even read the Egg and Sperm Civil Union Compromise? Part One stops human manufacture, period.
So what are you actually negotiating?
I'm offering a trade, giving same-sex couples federal recognition for state Civil Unions that are defined as "marriage minus conception rights", in exchange for ending same-sex marriage in every state (including ending CU's that are "marriage in all but name"), which happens as a result of enacting the law against human manufacture and preserving the right of marriage to create children together. All the same-sex marriages would have to be changed to CU's that are defined as "marriage minus conception rights", because no state could give conception rights to same-sex couples or strip conception rights from marriage. SSM would be over.
A compromise whereby nonmarriage is treated as marriage and whereby the liberty to procreate is put up for negotiation against a supposed right to manufacture human beings?My CU's (non-marriages) would indeed be treated as marriage for all purposes except they wouldn't protect the couple's right to create offspring together. But they wouldn't BE marriages, so no church or school or individual would have to teach that they were marriages or that same-sex couples had equal rights, because they wouldn't. Right now, we have same-sex marriages, and we have CU's that are marriages in all but name, and schools and churches and individuals have to live under that law. That would end. SSM would end. CU's that are marriage in all but name would end. The lie that same-sex couples were equal would end.
The liberty to procreate would be elevated above and completely contrasted to the supposed right to manufacture human beings. Right now, they are considered equal. That would end. The right to procreate would be preserved, explicitly, and the idea that there is a right to manufacture would be quashed, explicitly. Without my Compromise, that will not happen.
If Civil Union is meritorious, it should stand on its own two feet front and center. Its purpose should be explicit since it would be an explicitly government-created thing.Well, the purpose (apart from being a bargaining chip necessary to preserve marriage and stop human manufacture) is to provide security and stability to relationships that exist already, and which suffer from a lack of security, and that suffering is felt as a cost by society, which would benefit from relationships being stable and secure, just like it does with heterosexual relationships.
Society consents to them committing to each other to the same extent it consents to a man and a woman committing to each other, except when a man and woman marry society consents to them conceiving children together also. It doesn't affirm gay identity, as the CU's would be available to any couple that wanted them, but didn't want or have conception rights.
Compromise for the sake of conceding ground and gaining nothing is retreat and surrender, not problem-solving.Conceding ground? We'd retake ground, we'd end same-sex marriage permanently. We'd stop having to teach children that it didn't matter if they were gay or straight. We'd stop human manufacture, which is currently legal. We'd preserve everyone's conception rights, which are currently being equated to a same-sex couple's right to manufacture children. All we'd concede is the relatively minor cost of social security benefits, which I'd pay to preserve marraige.
Chairm, did I respond to your concerns?
ReplyDeleteChairm, show some good faith by noting that I addressed some very major misconceptions you had about my proposal. For example, your idea that I was "conceding ground" - do you see that I am reclaiming marriage? Do you see that I am elevating responsible procreation of marriage far far above human manufacture? Why do you accept the status quo, where human manufacture is equated to procreation and many states allow same-sex marriage and CU's with all the rights of marriage? And don't try and tell me that you don't accept the status quo, Chairm, you personify the status quo. Tell me what your plan is to win back marriage and elevate procreation above manufacture? What's your estimate on when SSM will end in Massachusetts and when human manufacture will be prohibited?
ReplyDeleteJohn, in your rhetoric "human manufacture is equated to procreation" and you asked me what's the point of using accurate language. You just repeated your misperception that I'm concerned only about semantics.
ReplyDeleteWe've discussed human manufacture before, John, and I described to you the processes and the terminology that accuratey describes these processes that are intrinsic to the abuse of the fertility industry today. Your own description of genetic engineering does indeed fit the smoke stack metaphor. The distinction between manufacture and procreaton is not something to obscure with the abuse of words that already have useful and plain meanings.
That's my view, based on the truth, and it is my view, based on the politics of convincing people of the actual distinction at stake.
You disagree with how to word the message, I guess. That seems to be one of the difficulties of a substantive compromise -- fudging by compromising accurate language as well. I don't think your point on this score has proven correct in the recent past; it has proven to undo significant distinctions in the public's imagination. So I'm okay if you disagree with what I believe is a reasonable and accurate assessment.
Make the clear distinction in your rhetoric, John, and that would be progress. Because it seems to me you recognize the substantive distinction as central to your own thinking on the nonpolitical side of the topic.
And, no, I do not think you have justified a civil union status based on gayness.
Provision for designated beneficiaries is the model, not marriage, that would meet the needs of nonmarital families based on the key vulnerabilities. It has zilch to do with gayness or whateverness. And such provision is clearly not "marriage minus".
What about "conceding ground" - do you see that my proposal would reclaim ground? Do you care about reclaiming ground? What's your plan, Chairm?
ReplyDeleteThese CU's are not based on gayness, as I said any couple can get one if they don't want their procreation rights protected, or if they are prohibited from procreating. That is not based on gayness, it is based on not having conception rights.
And we can call creating genetically-related children for same-sex couples human manufacture if you want. OK? Now, what is your plan to elevate and distinguish sexual reproduction from human manufacture? My plan is the Egg And Sperm Civil Union Compromise, so that attempting human manufacture is completely prohibited and the right to procrate is guaranteed. See? I alone am making the distinction - you are taking absolutely no action to make a distinction, you're just being an obstructionist to the only plan that has any chance of working to make the distinction and stop human manufacture.
Okay, if it is not based on gayness, what is civil union based on?
ReplyDeleteSpecial status for what?
The right to manufacture is not the right to conception.
The manufacture of human beings is not a human right, not a civil right, not a right that arises from marriage.
It is no right at all.
What is at stake is the liberty to procreate together within marriage. The merger with SSM would interfere with that liberty if a non-right to human manufacture is fought over as a right to conception or to procreation.
I think I've made myself very clear on this point with my elected representatives and with other associations and organizations involved in fertility issues and with embryonic stem cell research and so forth.
My plan is to be clear on what we are really defending. Rushing to compromise the language is conceding ground.
Rushing to compromise special status based on identity politics (as your compromise is a reaction is a political response to gay identity politics) is conceding ground.
Your plan is conceding ground because it is implausible that there is any middle ground where human manufacture and marriage meet at a crossroad.
Affirming the core meaning of marriage reasserts the societal significance and societal preference for responsible procreation COMBINED with sex integration. It does so by distinguishing marriage from nonmarriage.
Apparently we must respond to the anti-marriage side by encoding this preferential status in the highlest laws of our states and country. That we must do is compromise enough for the marriage movement which has been working on the real marriage issues in our society.
Yes, outlawing the manufacture of human beings also affirms the preference for responsible procreation. It does so by negating human manufacture. It supports, but does not define, the affirmation of marriage.
And I think that is where we differ most, John. I think we agree on the two issues but not on how they might intersect.
There is NO political will among the leaders of the pro-SSM side, nor is there appetite among the grassroot pro-SSMers, to give-up human manufacture in exchange for giving-up their goal of merging SSM with marital status.
Look at how SSMers have greet the liberal Democrat and very mild David Blankenhorn when he floated his own tentative political compromise.
Marriage defenders showed some interest but we now understand that politically civil union is marriage in all but name, anyway, and that it is a ruse to gain a complete merger with marriage in every aspect.
Even if that means dropping marital status andn replacing it with civil union status. Even if that means upending judicial restraint and constitutionalism. Especially if that means gutting marriage of its core.
Human manufacture is not at the core of marriage. So clarifying that is essential to marriage, not to civil union nor to gay identity politics. For civil union and gay identity politics it is essential to deny that marriage has a core meaning that merits special status.
Flatten marriage and all bets are off even if human manufacture was outlawed in our statutes.
Your compromise, John, looks to me like a retreat well behind the defensible ground for marriage.
Okay, if it is not based on gayness, what is civil union based on?
ReplyDeleteOn two people committing the obligations of support for each other.
Special status for what?
Commitment.
The right to manufacture is not the right to conception.
Absolutely true, that's what my proposal establishes as federal law. Right now it is considered an equal right, it is not illegal to manufacture a baby from the genes of a same-sex couple.
The manufacture of human beings is not a human right, not a civil right, not a right that arises from marriage.
Yet, it is legal. I am asking you to help get it prohibited. I don't see any other way to stop it other then force the issue via the compromise deal. If you can convince me you've got a better way to turn your words into reality, let's hear it.
It is no right at all.
Right, and it shouldn't be legal. Obama needs to be corrected when he says same-sex couples should have equal rights - will you start correcting him regarding the right to have children together?
What is at stake is the liberty to procreate together within marriage. The merger with SSM would interfere with that liberty if a non-right to human manufacture is fought over as a right to conception or to procreation.
Correct, the right to procreate together within marriage must be explicitly protected. My proposal does that. You don't do that, you leave marriage's right to procreate together unmentioned and unprotected, all the time. That wouldn't be possible after my Compromise is enacted.
I think I've made myself very clear on this point with my elected representatives and with other associations and organizations involved in fertility issues and with embryonic stem cell research and so forth.
I don't think you have. You don't make it clear here, what do you say to your reps that's different?
My plan is to be clear on what we are really defending. Rushing to compromise the language is conceding ground.
You are not clear on what you are really defending. My compromise is clear, it is specific.
Rushing to compromise special status based on identity politics (as your compromise is a reaction is a political response to gay identity politics) is conceding ground.
My compromise is a reaction to the political reality all around us, but the only ground it concedes is a trivial amount of money for social security benefits. Again Chairm - what is your plan to stop same-sex marriage in Massachusetts? What is your plan to enact a law against human manufacture? What is your plan to avoid having to soon pay those social security benefits anyway?
Your plan is conceding ground because it is implausible that there is any middle ground where human manufacture and marriage meet at a crossroad.
Right, there's no middle ground, there is an absolute right of marriage to conceive children together, and absolutely no right to do human manufacture, and same-sex conception is human manufacture, so therefore there is no right to same-sex marriage. My plan is the first plan to establish that as law, it does not concede anything, it stops things from being conceded by you, you have never lifted a finger to stop those things from being conceded, you just write words on a blog that have no strategy or plan or objective besides obstructing real ideas at re-taking ground.
Affirming the core meaning of marriage reasserts the societal significance and societal preference for responsible procreation COMBINED with sex integration. It does so by distinguishing marriage from nonmarriage.
Yeah, that's what I am doing. I am distinguishing marriage from non-marriage by legally establishing the sex integration of responsible procreation, and legally establishing the right to responsible procreation within marriage. Laws would get signed Chairm! Things would get done, it wouldn't just be words anymore!
Apparently we must respond to the anti-marriage side by encoding this preferential status in the highest laws of our states and country. That we must do is compromise enough for the marriage movement which has been working on the real marriage issues in our society.
I don't understand what you mean here.
Yes, outlawing the manufacture of human beings also affirms the preference for responsible procreation. It does so by negating human manufacture. It supports, but does not define, the affirmation of marriage.
I don't disagree, but don't get your point here.
And I think that is where we differ most, John. I think we agree on the two issues but not on how they might intersect.
Or what can be achieved by separating them so that they don't intersect.
There is NO political will among the leaders of the pro-SSM side, nor is there appetite among the grassroot pro-SSMers, to give-up human manufacture in exchange for giving-up their goal of merging SSM with marital status.
Right, the pro-SSM side is doing fine, and they don't want to give up marriage or talk about same-sex human manufacture. They don't want to hear about the proposal, that's why I am asking you guys to make them face it.
Look at how SSMers have greet the liberal Democrat and very mild David Blankenhorn when he floated his own tentative political compromise.
I think they liked it, who didn't like it? They didn't mind it because it left in place SSM and didn't stop human manufacture.
Marriage defenders showed some interest but we now understand that politically civil union is marriage in all but name, anyway, and that it is a ruse to gain a complete merger with marriage in every aspect.
Not all versions of CU's are marriage in all but name, Chairm. The ones in the Egg and Sperm Civil Union Compromise explicitly are not marriage in all but name, they don't have the right of all marriages to make a baby together. That'd be permanent. Why do you refuse to see this fact of my proposal? It is not marriage in all but name.
Even if that means dropping marital status and replacing it with civil union status. Even if that means upending judicial restraint and constitutionalism. Especially if that means gutting marriage of its core.
That's what NH CU's do, yes, but not what my CU's do. My CU's affirm the core of marriage, and the sex integration of marriage.
Human manufacture is not at the core of marriage. So clarifying that is essential to marriage, not to civil union nor to gay identity politics. For civil union and gay identity politics it is essential to deny that marriage has a core meaning that merits special status.
Being allowed to have children together is at the core of marriage. My proposal clarifies that. My CU's clarify that.
Flatten marriage and all bets are off even if human manufacture was outlawed in our statutes.
Correct. I am not flattening marriage. Same-sex couples should never have equal rights to a married couple, and my proposal makes that clear.
Your compromise, John, looks to me like a retreat well behind the defensible ground for marriage.
The only thing you give up is money, Chairm. And we stop same-sex marriage. Why don't you want to do that? Seriously.
You have the last word, John Howard.
ReplyDeleteIf you have a plan on how to stop same-sex marriage in my state, or a plan on how to stop human manufacture and make sure it is not considered an equal right to sexual reproduction in marriage, now would be a good time to let the world know what your plan is. I think you have no plan, and you actually don't want to end SSM or stop GE.
ReplyDelete