Colorful Marriage

Courtesy of Secular Heretic, a diligent pro-marriage blogger.

Winning Eight

Here is a very interesting account of the Yes-on-8 campaign -- from within the leadership of that campaign -- which appeared at Politics.com:

Passing Prop 8 -- by Frank Schubert and Jeff Flint.

Earth is Round, Children Need a Mother and Father

Dr. Amy Tuteur, a Harvard and Boston University-educated obstetrician-gynecologist, wrote a piece on Salon.com entitled "Are Fathers Optional?" Since she answers in the negative, affirming the importance of fathers, there have been some very passionate responses that you can click through to see. It seems like it should be self-evident that both mother and fathers are necessary for children, and thus, raising the next generation in the best social conditions possible. Sadly, because this is not affirming of some of the desires and choices of some adults (especially some unilateralists, feminists, male hedonists, and some homosexual people) it is treated as a controversial idea.

[continued below the fold]

Judging by their behavior, American women appear to think that fathers are optional. According to the recently published birth statistics (Births: Final Data for 2006), the proportion of births to unmarried women has reached 38.5%, the highest rate ever recorded.

That's an average. Some groups often portrayed as disadvantaged have a much higher rate, unfortunately, which helps perpetuate disadvantages in those populations.

Women are actively conceiving and bearing children in the knowledge that their fathers will almost certainly not be living with them throughout childhood. Simply put, women are behaving as if fathers are optional. Nothing could be further from the truth. Having an active, involved, resident father is the birth right of every child. It is not the birth right of every mother to have children simply because she wants them.

I urge you to click through and read the whole piece. It isn't very long. The M.D. does participate in the comments thread, responding to objections and challenges – most of which are typical. Some examples of some of her replies to the critics:

Actually I believe that women should we stigmatized if they want to have children without marriage, because it is a self indulgent, selfish choice... Hetero is normative. That doesn't mean the gay is unacceptable, but let's not get ridiculous... I can understand why a woman would want a child, but I cannot understand a woman putting what she wants ahead of what a child needs... We can debate the research findings and they are important, but my argument is primarily a moral argument. All children have a mother and father, but in the case of gay couples the biological parent substitutes someone he or she likes better. That may be nice for the biological parent, but it is not fair to the child... I realize that placing children's needs above parents' wants is not politically correct. That's because, in our society, children are treated like accessories, not like actual human beings... Sorry, the fact that some people are horrible parents does not give you the moral right to be a mediocre parent, or, indeed, anything except the best parent that you can be... If the mother and father cannot commit to being permanently resident in that child's life, they shouldn't have a child.

And that's just a small sampling. I wonder if she'd like to join this blog? ;-) H/T: Glenn Sacks

Re-shaping The Family: What Happens When Parents Seek Siblings Of Their Donor-conceived Children

More over at Science Daily:

Parents who have conceived children with the help of sperm or egg donors and then try to find the donors and also other children conceived with the donors' help, often end up creating new forms of extended families, according to new research.

Feeling the Love - Another Critic Responds to Me

With my recent entry found here, I touched a nerve with PersonalFailure, as you can see in this blog posting. We at this blog are all "sociopathic monsters", according to PF.

Apparently, someone was both shocked and dismayed to unwittingly witness a- gasp!- a wedding that wasn't legally sanctioned.)

Unfortunately, it has been lost on many people that, traditionally, when someone is invited to attend a wedding and they do in fact attend, their witnessing the wedding is supposed to morally obligate them to support the marriage. People may not want to commit to that – or financially celebrate the event with a gift – if the marriage party is deliberately avoiding state licensing.

[continued below the fold]

First of all, nobody gets married to "stand up for their faith".

Actually, some people do. If it weren't for their faith, they'd simply shack up and fornicate, or just fornicate. Furthermore, getting married in a religious ceremony is supposed to involve the participants entering into a covenant before and with God. Hence "holy matrimony."

Mostly it's about love, romance, societal expectations, and that really great party you get afterwards.

Why do these people bother to get involved if they think so little of marriage? I agree that there are people who do treat it that way, and that's sad and they shouldn't bother getting married if they think so little of it. The majority of marriages throughout history were arranged, so it wasn't about romance or love (at least not in the sense being invoked here). The state does not care if the marriage is full of love and romance or not.

Secondly, [expletive deleted – such a clever debater], being married does not cure poverty.

Marriage does not cure all poverty, but it reduces poverty. Husbands, in general, do earn more money than men who aren't husbands, and wives are less likely to be in poverty than unmarried women. Children raised within marriage are also less likely to live in poverty than children living with unmarried parents. So there is less likely to be a "need" for government assistance. Perhaps guys who are already making more money or have the potential to are more likely to get married. But the financial reality is that marriage corresponds to lower poverty rates. Morally, people should rely on family before government.

Keep in mind, the Opiners are violently opposed to birth control and abortion, as well as premarital sex.

I am not opposed to the use of contraception – I can't speak for anyone else here. I am opposed to anything that kills an innocent human being, regardless of age or stage of growth. Bizarre, I know - being against homicide. I do not think fornication is the end of the world, but I do not support it. The fact is, without fornication, illegitimacy (which brings many problems to society) would be reduced to just about zero, and STDs wouldn't spread very fast at all. That would be just terrible, wouldn't it? The entry goes on to imply that people can't help but have sex – as if we all have no control over our bodies (which is why we are all constantly defecating in the streets, right? I mean we can't be expected to wait until we reach the bathroom.) Then a charge of racism is made out of nowhere, with the implication being that I don't want "brown" people to ever "breed". You see, according to PF, "brown" people are poor, and I don't want poor people to have kids. There are "brown" people at all levels of society, and I don't care what someone's skin color is – I care about people making the most of their potential, and if they want children, giving those children the best environment possible in which to be raised. I care about marriage, and I don't like it being devalued and weakened. I wouldn't discourage a poor person from having children if they want children and will be able to raise them – but I would encourage them to be married in every sense of the word before they do.

What assets are a couple too poor to afford marriage likely to have, [same expletive deleted]?

This blogger makes the assumption that someone who is poor now will always be poor. Historically, in the U.S., people have been able to climb out of poverty.

IF YOU'RE TOO POOR TO GET MARRIED, YOU'RE BOTH WORKING.

You're not making the same income, most likely. The fact remains that if a spouse does agree to cut back for the sake of tending to the children and home, a legal marriage allows for that person to be materially compensated in the event of a split. Or maybe the blogger thinks it is a good idea to say, "Don't worry about it, babe! Quit your job and take care of the home" and then to leave that person with nothing and a big gap in work experience. In response to my question about paternity defaults, the blogger responds with...

Oh, I see, poor women are immoral sluts.

I never implied that anywhere. I'd like to see paternity tests a birth become standard (with only the presumed father and mother being entitled to the results), with people able to opt out if they choose. Women anywhere on the scale of poverty to affluence are capable of having affairs and encounters with someone other than the man with whom they are living. (So are men, but it is difficult for a man to perpetuate matertinity fraud). Studies have shown 10% to as high as 20% of children are not the biological offspring of the presumed father. Legal marriage assigns default paternity to the husband – to protect the child (and keep the state from having to eat the child support). I wrote:

"Again, everyone already has equal access. If these people REALLY meant what they were saying, they'd sponsor constitutional amendments letting any person get a marriage license with any other person, regardless of the marital status of either party, and regardless of how closely they are related." The old "homosexuality is exactly the same as pedophilia" argument.

I didn't imply pedophilia anywhere. I said if someone is saying anyone has a "right" to get a marriage license "with any person they love", then that also includes bigamy, polygamy, sibling marriages, etc. These people would be much more accurate if they said "I do believe in limiting the 'right' to licensed marriage to just two unmarried people, who are not closely related." But that's not what they say. I wrote: "Do these people have driver’s licenses? What about people who 'can't' get one of those?" To which there was this incredibly clever counter:

what the [expletive deleted] is walrus talking about?

I can't say it any more slowly. Driver's licenses are state-issued, just like marriage licenses. Not everyone is interested in driving on public roads, but a driver's license is generally more prestigious in our society than a simple ID card. If these people claim they are not getting state licenses for their marriage because some people "can't" get them, they should, by their own logic, refuse to obtain state driver's licenses because some people "can't" get them, either.

If all marriages were civil, this wouldn't be a problem.

I was responding to someone who was calling for no state marriages.

not allowing gays to marry is causing problems in the courts with child custody and support and inheritance issues that allowing them to marry would instantly solve.

Neutering state marriage licensing causes more problems then it solves - and most, if not all of the "problems" cited in claiming a need for a neutered marriage license can be addressed another way. I believe there is more of a right for a child to have both a mother and a father looking after her than there is a right for two people of the same sex to get a state-issued marriage license. No same sex couple conceives children together naturally. At least one third party of the opposite sex is always involved.

if she had lots of money that she earned herself, and his financial situation was resulting in legal judgments right and left, why should she lose all her money just to avoid "shacking up"?

There are things called pre-nups, but more importantly, what is the attraction to someone who is being hit with "legal judgments right and left"?

does every commitment need to be "enforced"?

It's not a commitment if someone can walk away with no consequences. It is a decision to be there "for right now." The blogger says my use of "marriage neutering" really means "gay marriage", implying that the blogger is too close-minded to consider that two heterosexual people of the same sex may want a marriage license together. What a bigot. Regarding my referral to "no-fault divorce"...

those damn feminists, acting like they have the right to live their own lives!

You live your own life when you are unmarried. Married people share a life. I don't think feminists or anyone else of either sex should be able to commit adultery or otherwise break marital vows and walk away with half of everything (or more), especially when they have insisted on state licensing of their relationship. I'm a knuckle-dragger that way. Besides, feminists who claim they "don't need a man" shouldn't need his money, either.

so the children of unmarried couples shouldn't get birth certificates?

No, they should, but someone saying that they want to keep the state of out their relationship will find it impossible if they do have children.

unmarried couples aren't allowed money

Again, I was pointing out the absurdity of these people claiming they are going to keep the state out of their relationship – especially if they are getting state (taxpayer) aid.

i'm glad you're not poor, Walrus, but lots of people are.

Yes, somehow I magically avoided being poor at my age. I guess I just won life's lottery. It has nothing to do with me avoiding having children out of wedlock, avoiding substance abuse, avoiding crime, completing school, working hard, and being careful about my spending and finances in general, and certainly nothing to do with attending church (or having a mother and father who were married to each other). It has nothing to do with never shacking up, and only getting married when I found the right person to marry and was able to financially handle marriage. It is all just coincidence. No poor people ever make it out of poverty. They are just doomed to be poor and there's nothing they can do about it but throw themselves on the mercy of people who are so caring as to forcibly take money from one person who is acting responsibly and give it to another person who isn't. But gosh darn it, if I had been a financial mess with judgments against me left and right, and relying on welfare, then I should still have been encouraged to let people believe that I am entering a state-licensed marriage when I'd be deliberately avoiding it so as to keep getting welfare. Nobody should have a problem with that.

stone the adulterers!

No, but hold church members who break their marital vows (adultery being just one way, but we see where your mind is) accountable. That doesn't mean stoning. It means, oh, refusing to marry them to someone else unless there has been repentance and reconciliation of the previous marriage is not possible. It means not giving them positions of authority in the church, not administering some sacraments, etc. That is a legitimate function of the church – holding members accountable. Don't like it? Don't get married there or be a member there. As an atheist, that shouldn't be too hard. So what do we have here? Atheists tend to believe there is no higher authority than the state, and this seems consistent with what we see in this response to my posting. People should look to the state as their god and their family. Marriage isn't all that important anyway. It doesn't really mean anything other than what we say it means in our laws. It doesn't or shouldn't obligate someone to take care of anyone else, or be true to them. Conversely, I'm convinced there is objective truth. I do believe that marriage has a universal and historical meaning that the state has traditionally recognized. I do not believe the state is obligated to license anything but a bride-groom union as marriage, nor do I believe it is the place of courts to tell the voting citizenry that they must accept court-imposed neutered marriage licensing. I am convinced that private, voluntary charity, especially in and between families and congregations, is preferable to forcible redistribution by government from one stranger to another, and I know that when a man and a woman get married before God and the state, they are going to be less likely to need taxpayer money.

We Are Your Family and Neighbors

Two of the statements we often hear from marriage neutering activists and homosexuality advocates in general are some variations of... 1) "We're your family, your neighbors, your friends, your coworkers, your teachers, your firefighters, your police officers, and your doctors." and 2) "We have contributed to providing products and services that you have used." While such statements might make the ignorant more aware that they have encountered homosexual people in the ordinary course of their lives, whether they know it or not, such statements are not good arguments for homosexual behavior or the necessity of neutering marriage licensing.

[continued below the fold]

The first statement is a curious appeal to popularity - as if the popularity of something makes it good or true or necessitates action. I say "curious" because even the most strident homosexuality advocates know that people who identify as homosexuals, or consistently feel strong homosexual feelings are in the minority. So heterosexuality is more popular. Just because I have a family member or friend or professional associate who wants something doesn't mean I am obligated to give to them. While appealing to my concern for them as a fellow human being, the activist for change really is asking me to set aside my own convictions and feelings and to give up my vote to their cause. They are claiming to rest their happiness on my actions. If someone is relying on a marriage license to make them happy, they will be sorely disappointed, as many people have discovered. Our government is there to allow us to pursue happiness in an orderly society, not make us happy. Regarding statement number 2: Since I, and most other people who recognize that marriage licensing should not be neutered, especially by courts, have never expressed a desire that homosexual people disappear, then I can only conclude that we are being asked to believe that because we make an exchange with someone for a good or service they provide, they believe we are obligated to offer moral, social, and political support for everything they do or want. But if that is the case, then why doesn't it work the other way around? It matters not to me if a famous person is history or someone making great contributions to society today was or is a homosexual person. Homosexual behavior had little to no part in their societal contribution. What have they contributed to society that they couldn't if they have been completely celibate? Or engaged only in heterosexual behavior? As much as it rankles some people to hear, homosexual behavior, while it may be enjoyable for the individuals participating, contributes nothing positive to general society, but some forms of it are especially susceptible to spreading disease. Meanwhile, heterosexual behavior is how all of us got here – even test tube babies wouldn't be here if their ancestors hadn't engaged in heterosexual behavior. Which brings me to another reason those arguments aren't compelling. The same statements could be made of any number of other groups of people with a common cause or trait, including Bible-believers, marriage defenders, and people who value judicial restraint. I dare say, to the "gay" or "lesbian" who is reading this and believes their relationship with their partner should be licensed as marriage by the state – that there are people in your life you enjoy, love, respect, or count on in some way who believe that your relationship should not be licensed as marriage by the state, or even be called marriage on a social level. They may even think homosexual behavior is wrong. You may have no idea they feel this way – they are "in the closet", so to speak, at least around you. And if this is the case, it could be because you have demonstrated intolerance, and have loudly championed using the force of the courts to overturn their votes. If they have been civil enough to carry on their relationships with you, perhaps you should be civil enough not to cut them off if you discover they don’t agree with you.

Diane Medved Responds to Sean Penn

Diane Medved, a longtime proponent of marriage, wrote about the Academy Awards broadcast, specifically about the comments made by "Milk" actor Sean Penn and screenwriter Dustin Lance Black, and ties their comments together with some print items from the last few months.

Now comes the question: "But the difference between platonic and romantic cross-sex relationships is sexual expression, too. Why should straights get the perks of marriage, and gays not?" Answer: because straights had the word 'marriage' first--and always used it to mean the combining of physiologically opposite genders sexually, the outcome of which can be vastly consequential. Note two aspects to that answer: 1) "...physiologically opposite genders..." Men and women are different in every cell of their bodies. They fit together in a way suggested by anatomy. 2) "...the outcome of which can be vastly consequential." Male-female sexuality enables the creation of new human beings who require nurturing and support until adulthood. The permanent joining of parents for the upbringing of offspring is of crucial importance to society.

Her entire blog entry is worth a read. Click through to read it.

More on "The Compromise" of Blankenhorn & Rauch

Continuing the Discussion Below

Ryan T. Anderson and Sherif Girgis offer a cogent retort to the "civil unions compromise" offered by Jonathan Rauch and David Blankenhorn in their op-ed in the New York Times this past Sunday.

From The Witherspoon Institute's journal The Public Discourse

"A recent compromise on the same-sex ‘marriage’ debate granted too much to revisionists and too little to traditionalists. A better compromise will respect the societal importance of marriage while also providing for the real needs of domestic partners."

Anglican Mainstream has a post up also.

Marriage debate is not about practical legal benefits, says Gallagher

Maggie Gallagher's realistic response to Blankenhorn and Rauch is to ask two basic questions.

Maggie:

[read more below the fold]

1. Can Congress provide effective religious-liberty protections?

And:

2. Is anyone over at Human Rights Campaign and Marriage Equality seriously interested in this compromise?

She added a word of warning:

At the state level, civil unions have not proved part of any compromise; gay rights groups turn around and use the civil union laws in courts to argue that gay marriage laws are unconstitutional, and two state supreme courts (California and Connecticut) have now accepted this line of legal reasoning. A federal civil-unions law would surely be used the same way in federal court: to endanger DOMA and state marriage laws. I don't personally believe a civil-union law should be used in this way (that is, I don't believe the legal argument is valid) but two state supreme courts are a lot more persuasive than I am.

If it were easy, it would have happened by now.

* * *

In effect, I think Maggie recognizes that the pro-SSM side of the debate is about identity politics and not marriage and not legal benefits.

She noted that the actual debate we find ourselves in is with the pro-SSM position which declares: "If you believe marriage means a husband and wife, you are not just wrong, you are downright wicked and deserve to have your home address put up on the internet so strangers can harass you."

Maggie has nailed it.

Dear Abby On Weddings That Aren't Legally Sanctioned - Part 2

The "Dear Abby" column ran some more responses from readers to a letter complaining about being the unwitting witnesses to a wedding that was not beginning a legal marriage. My entry on the previous column is here. REV. M.N.R. IN NEW YORK

In this day and age, especially with jobs so scarce, a lot of young couples are finding that by becoming legally married they disqualify themselves from things like prenatal care, health care for their children and government assistance programs.

I see. Make your commitment public and stand up for your faith – unless it costs you a government hand-out. Did it ever occur to these people that married people are supposed to take care of each other, instead of relying on the state to take care of them as individuals?

[continued below the fold]

In order to survive, many couples now opt to have the ceremony without the paperwork.

And what happens to the assets if there is a split? What about support for the spouse who agreed to spend more time taking care of the home instead of earning income? What happens if the woman gets pregnant by someone she barely knows and her "husband" wisely insists on a DNA test before he supports the pregnancy or the child, thus leaving the child without a financial father? If they refuse to get legally married to protect their access to my tax money, then I should know so that I do not do the redundant thing and buy a gift for them.

Another idea gaining in popularity is that unless everyone in this country has equal rights for marriage, no one should be getting married.

Again, everyone already has equal access. If these people REALLY meant what they were saying, they'd sponsor constitutional amendments letting any person get a marriage license with any other person, regardless of the marital status of either party, and regardless of how closely they are related.

Several couples I know have married without the paperwork because they regard the alternative the same as sitting at a segregated lunch counter, and they are unwilling to support segregation.

Do these people have driver’s licenses? What about people who "can't" get one of those?

Many people feel there is a blatant disregard for separation of church and state and that "legal" marriages are not at all legal, but an example of government recognizing those with faith while disregarding those who have a different point of view on what family is.

The government can't avoid getting involved in what family is or is not, considering child custody, child support, child guardianship, and inheritance issues. REBECCA IN SUNNYVALE, CALIF wrote:

My husband and I were married by a minister, but without a marriage license because his financial problems could have adversely affected me. "

For richer or poorer - well, not really." You shouldn't marry a financial disaster – whether you are male or female. You shouldn't shack up with one, either.

Because we did want to commit to each other, we called it a "Ceremony of Commitment."

And how much weight does that commitment have? Will the church enforce this commitment?

We view ourselves as being married, and I have a ring. When the ceremony was held, everyone knew what was going on.

That is all fine, as long as your guests are aware of this. GOD IS OUR WITNESS IN COLORADO wrote:

Nowhere in the Bible does a servant of God ask permission from the government to marry. The Father is more than good enough. And while there are references to "what God has joined together," there is no similar praise for what Caesar has blessed.

These are good points. The state did not create marriage. The state merely has recognized and licensed marriage. However, if that state licensing does not go against God’s teachings, I do not see a good reason to not register a marriage with the state. That's a big "if" these days, not only with marriage neutering but with no-fault divorce and other issues. It would make a little more sense if there was some consistency to "keeping the state out of it", such as somehow being able to avoid having birth certificates issued for any resulting children, and not using government currency in their acquiring of "community property". Certainly anyone avoiding licensing the marriage so as to keep getting government welfare isn't keeping the Caesar out of it. I do believe that churches should be putting more teeth into marriage. The state may not hold someone accountable for breaking their marital vows, but churches certainly can – if that person cares to be a member of that fellowship.

Merger is no compromise

David Blankenhorn and Jon Rauch, writing in the New York Times, have proposed a national deal on gay union:

Congress would bestow the status of federal civil unions on same-sex marriages and civil unions granted at the state level, thereby conferring upon them most or all of the federal benefits and rights of marriage. But there would be a condition: Washington would recognize only those unions licensed in states with robust religious-conscience exceptions, which provide that religious organizations need not recognize same-sex unions against their will. The federal government would also enact religious-conscience protections of its own. All of these changes would be enacted in the same bill.

They mean to use marriage as a template for civil union. However, these two different things would be attached at the hip in an outright merger -- at the state level and at the federal level. The difference would be in name alone.

Their article framed their proposed compromise as a reconcilliation of 1)the inevitability of government intervention in favor of homosexuality and 2) the need to reassure people with measures against intrusions on religious liberty.

They write:

[more below the fold]

Further sharpening the conflict is the potential interaction of same-sex marriage with antidiscrimination laws. The First Amendment may make it unlikely that a church, say, would ever be coerced by law into performing same-sex wedding rites in its sanctuary. But religious organizations are also involved in many activities outside the sanctuary. What if a church auxiliary or charity is told it must grant spousal benefits to a secretary who marries her same-sex partner or else face legal penalties for discrimination based on sexual orientation or marital status? What if a faith-based nonprofit is told it will lose its tax-exempt status if it refuses to allow a same-sex wedding on its property?

Cases of this sort are already arising in the courts, and religious organizations that oppose same-sex marriage are alarmed. Which brings us to what we think is another important fact: Our national conversation on this issue will be significantly less contentious if religious groups can be confident that they will not be forced to support or facilitate gay marriage.

Blankenhorn and Rauch assert:

A successful template already exists: laws that protect religious conscience in matters pertaining to abortion.

It is highly questionable whether that template has been successful in providing "robust religious-conscience exceptions".

Meanwhile the truth is that "religious freedom" does exist as per the US Constitution, but no human right is promoted by a merger of marriage and gay union.

This supposed deal would concede far too much. In principle and in practice it amounts to a call for an abject surrender to gay identity politics.

* * *

Shortly, I'll post more about the idea of using marriage as a model for civil union, the analogy with the abortion issue, and the way in which this compromise would embed identity politics into the law across the country.

In the meantime, the apt compromise is not based on a conflict of religious beliefs (and freedom of conscience) versus homosexuality (and identity politics).

There are millions of families outside of marriage that justly need protections based on certain vulnerabilities. Protection equality is the solution to those needs. And that does not require merging nonmarriage with marriage -- neither substantively nor in name.

Their vulnerabilities arise out of the decline in marriage, as a social institution, in our society. They are not answered by making marriage mean less via a merger with nonmarriage.

"Should We Support Gay Marriage? NO"

At the Opine Editorials we seldom offer posts opposing homosexual "marriage" from the religious perspective because there are so many solid reasons to provide from the secular and human nature perspective. Nevertheless, as within the churches there has risen a very weak but persistent rationale that threatens schism or has already undermined the moral teaching of certain denominations claiming to be Christian, I find it important to draw attention to an essay by the eminent theologian Wolfhart Pannenberg: "Should We Support Gay Marriage? NO"

I'm just becoming acquainted with Professor Pannenberg's writings. He has written prolifically, some 645 academic publications. He completed his three-volume Systematic Theology in 1994. Though a Lutheran he has done much to further ecumenism and is said to be a friend of the Pope. He has served on the faculties of numerous universities: Wuppertal, Mainz, Chicago, Harvard, Claremont School of Theology, and since 1968 he has been Professor of Systematic Theology at the University of Munich.

Pannenberg teaches:

"The biblical assessments of homosexual practice are unambiguous in their rejection, and all its statements on this subject agree without exception. The Holiness Code of Leviticus incontrovertibly affirms, “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination” (Lev. 18:22 NRSV). Leviticus 20 includes homosexual behavior among the crimes meriting capital punishment (Lev. 20:13; it is significant that the same applies to adultery in verse 10). On these matters, Judaism always knew itself to be distinct from other nations.

This same distinctiveness continued to determine the New Testament statement about homosexuality, in contrast to the Hellenistic culture that took no offense at homosexual relations. In Romans, Paul includes homosexual behavior among the consequences of turning away from God (1:27). In 1 Corinthians, homosexual practice belongs with fornication, adultery, idolatry, greed, drunkenness, theft, and robbery as behaviors that preclude participation in the kingdom of God (6:9-10); Paul affirms that through baptism Christians have become free from their entanglement in all these practices (6:11).

The New Testament contains not a single passage that might indicate a more positive assessment of homosexual activity to counterbalance these Pauline statements. Thus, the entire biblical witness includes practicing homosexuality, without exception among the kinds of behavior that give particularly striking expression to humanity’s turning away from God. This exegetical result places very narrow boundaries around the view of homosexuality in any church that is under the authority of Scripture."

Read the entire essay at http://www.elcf.net/pannenberg.html

Dear Abby On Weddings That Aren't Legally Sanctioned

The "Dear Abby" column is running some responses from readers to a letter complaining about being the unwitting witnesses to a wedding that was not beginning a legal marriage. Can you already see where this is going? BETHANY IN MINNEAPOLIS wrote:

I agree the couple shouldn't have misled their guests and should have let them know it wouldn't be a state-sanctioned wedding. But these days, many couples choose not to legally wed, and for others it is not a choice.

Any bride and groom (of age) can get legally married, provided they are not too closely related and neither of them is legally married to anybody else. If any of those things is preventing a legal marriage, should they really be having a ceremony and party? And if a couple can get a marriage license but choose not to, that is all the more reason for them to make it clear to those they are inviting. Some people do not want to be witnesses (and thus, traditionally, supporters) of a "wedding" that is deliberately avoiding legal sanction.

[continued below the fold]

Most gay and lesbian people do not have the opportunity to have a state-sanctioned marriage, and many progressive couples choose not to legally wed because of unequal marriage laws.

Were these "progressive couples" boycotting marriage twenty, fifteen, or even ten years ago? Probably not. What, they didnt care about homosexual people back then? And of course homosexual people have access to marriage licenses, though same-sex couples do not (in most places).

Other couples view marriage as oppressive and prefer not to invite the state into their relationship.

If marriage is "oppressive", then why have a ceremony and party celebrating it?

Also, some churches will no longer perform state-sanctioned marriages until marriage is available to all couples.

All couples? Really? Not all, I'm sure. Just couples missing a bride or a groom.

My advice to that stepmother: Get over it! Celebrate the fact that your stepdaughter found her lifelong companion and is happy. And be thankful your new grandchild will have loving, committed parents.

Committed in word, but not in action. Granted, with the ease of obtaining a divorce and no-fault divorce these days, state-licensed marriage isn't much of a commitment. It is a legal commitment that: 1) the spouse who earns more will be obligated to pay the other spouse money in the event of divorce, and 2) the husband will be, by default, responsible for any child the wife births or conceives during the marriage, whether or not they are biologically the husband's offspring. This may also extend to existing children brought into the marriage. BECKLEY, W.VA., LAWYER wrote:

Governments should allow the CIVIL marriage of any two individuals who want to take on the rights and responsibilities of marriage.

Why just two? And any two? Really? The next printing of the column will have more on the subject. I do lean towards the idea that a couple can be religiously married without actually getting a state license and that it can be legitimately called marriage. However, I am hesitant to support such an undertaking without better mechanisms in place to protect the rights of children first and foremost, and also parental rights. Either way, I am in favor of extensive pre-marital counseling and pre-nuptial agreements, since the state laws and courts essentially have a pre-nuptial agreement for us already, and I'd rather individual couples set more of the conditions themselves rather than leaving it up to one-size-fits-all conditions set up by lawmakers, judges, and attorneys.

Using the Law to Force Another Family Apart

We're told that if we start changing marriage licensing per the request of a tiny minority with a loud and powerful lobby, that it won't lead to things like incestuous marriage nor adults marrying children, because those are different things than marriage neutering. Yet it is often the justification being used for marriage neutering that can be applied to the other situations as well. Many of the people arguing for marriage neutering say "love is love" and that "families" (meaning anyone who chooses to live together, whether or not children are involved) should be recognized by law and have the kind of legal weight and social aura that comes with marriage. And while some people aren't comfortable arguing against age-of-consent laws when it comes to sex, they may support policies and programs and laws that tacitly recognize underage sex as consensual, or sex when one person is underage. For example - insisting that a minor girl can consent to surgical abortion without so much as parental notification, even though she can't consent to the sex that conceived the child. And for all of the talk about "reproductive rights", some of these people are uncomfortable with the idea of incestuous couples conceiving and birthing and raising children.

[continued below the fold]

Yes, there are laws against incest, and many mental health professionals and sociologists who argue it is unhealthy or damaging, and society in general is highly disapproving and often disgusted by the very idea. The same used to be true of homosexual behavior. If state marriage licensing can be neutered, thus recognizing something as marriage for the first time in history, then what is is justification for not changing the laws to license and an adult marrying an underage person (without parental consent), or license marriages between close relatives – the kind of marriages that have been historically recognized in the past? Yes, I know, the slippery slope doesn't necessarily happen, but why shouldn't it in this case? If "love is love", after all, and we "can't impose our morality" on one another, and if we need to "get with it" and support unmarried teenage sexuality? We have a bit of a test case, though certainly not ideal. Recently a family was torn apart by the authorities. From AFP via Google:

An Indiana maintenance man who had seven children with his half-sister faces up to 70 years in jail after the woman went to police with a story of abuse that began when she was 10 years old, court records show. Donald Medsker, 46, pleaded not guilty Thursday to seven counts of incest and one count of child solicitation.

Reading the stories, the guy sounds like a real piece of work. Yet, maybe we are all just being judgmental and intolerant of people different from us. From an Associated Press story via the Chicago Tribune:

State child welfare workers have removed five children from the home of a woman whom authorities say bore a total of seven children fathered by her half brother beginning when she was 14… The 30-year-old woman, who has not been accused of a crime and has not been publicly identified, had had custody of five of the children, who range in age from 1 to 10.

So she hasn't been charged with a crime, but the kids were taken anyway – from a biological mother. I don't see this happening with same-sex couples. Most marriage neutering activists agree that there should be limits on marriage licensing. They just disagree with us where that line should be drawn. Who decides where to draw that line? I contend that when it comes to state-issued licenses, it is up to the people of that state. For example, some states license marriage between first cousins, and some don't. As long as individuals are not being discriminated on the basis of their race, sex, and, in places like California, their sexual orientation in their access to marriage licensing, restrictions pass Constitutional muster. There is equal access, even if not everybody wants to exercise that access. Children do not consent to being brought into a relationship with a parent – which is why even most champions of limited government intervention prefer that laws protect children. Children are only created naturally through the uniting of a man and a woman. Perhaps that is some clue that human children should have both a mother and father? Marriage, as a religious, social, or legal institution has helped protect children and give them the best arrangement possible in which to be raised – with a female and male role model, cooperating with each other. (And yes, if one of the parents is abuser, then of course the child is better off without them – we're talking about "all things being equal".) Legally, we have sought to further protect children by restricting marriage licensing to exclude people who are too young or too closely related to each other from getting a state-licensed marriage, and barring marriage-like behavior in those cases. We no longer attempt to bar private same-sex behavior, but recognizing people should have the legal freedom to engage in private behavior is not the same thing as recognizing a right to a state-issued license that labels it marriage. Those of us who support marriage amendments such as California’' Proposition 8 are not attempting to pry families apart. However, as we have seen with this story, there are laws that do result in families being torn apart. The next time you see a same-sex couple in the media with a child in tow complaining that we have destroyed their family, realize how absurd their claim is when they will be returning to their home after the cameras have shut off to be with each other and that child, while a mother who made her children through natural means can have them taken away – even if it turns out to be only temporary – because of something her partner did to her. Previously: Heartbreaking Marriage Elimination Story

Inured to marital procreation

Ed Morrissey at the blog, Hot Air, asks:

Remember when motherhood wasn’t controversial?

It doesn’t seem that long ago that motherhood was as American as apple pie, hot dogs, and baseball, and more fun than at least two of the three. Now, though, while some people take it too far, others seem outright offended by human procreation. WNBA star Candace Parker discovered that having a child with her husband has suddenly become a controversial decision for a woman of 22 (via The Corner).

Read the rest plus the items to which he linked.

I share Morrissey's astonishment that Kathy Goodman, the owner of Parker's basketball team, made a public remark to the effect that she has become accustomed to the undesirable burden of players (such as this young healthy wife) becoming pregnant.

Was Goodman making a self-deprecating joke in light of Parker's good news? Nope. Goodman said it with a rueful shake of the head.

Morrissey noted the irony of the controversy over the hard-won modern privilege of sexual license: "that a woman should pursue the procreative act as much as possible during her twenties while avoiding actual procreation like the plague"

[Hat-tip, A Soft Answer]

Seek 'n Hide

From David at the blog "A Soft Answer":

EightMaps.com creator doesn’t want to be found.

I say “out” this person.

No, not hound, not harrass, not seek the loss of livelihood. Invite this person to step into the cleansing spotlight of public scrutiny.

Hey, thousands, if not millions, of pro-SSM fans will applaude and throw roses at this person’s feet.

It would be fitting that this person also take the good with the bad. Criticism, that is. And invite him to a press conference, too. Let's see him on “Dr. Phil” along with spokespeople for the Yes campaign. And a few of the people who have been harrassed, hounded, and lost their livelihood due to the reprisals and vengeance-seeking of people like the Map person.

Let’s put the test to the notion that transparency and accountablity applies to everybody's neighbors.

I said, “him”, but I’ve no idea if it is a him or not. Let’s find out.

This person ought to step forward and live the very thing that the big ole Map was supposed to promote. And we know that the intention was not beyond the pale, right?

It should all be good, right?

Given the fact that there have been no persecutions of indivdiual No-on-8 contributors, no door-to-door seek and destroy missions, it would be a very poor excuse for this Map person to claim to fear the criticism of those who disagree with the anti-8 Map and its use by protestors.

Apparently not. Maybe it feels a little too chilly. Better check the weather on the Map.

More Heat Today, Little Light

Publicity stunts by marriage neutering activists are getting a lot of attention today, and here's Associated Press writer Verena Dobnik’s story.

[My analysis is after the fold.]

Hundreds of same-sex couples seeking to wed were turned away from the city marriage bureau Thursday, part of a nationwide protest aimed at recent decisions restricting the right to marry to a man and a woman.

It isn't a right to marry. It is access to state marriage licensing. It is the people recognizing the nature of marriage and keeping state licensing in line with that. Why is there no news story about joggers demanding driver's licenses being turned away? Maybe some of those joggers have never ever had a desire to drive a car. Why should they be forced to settle for "identification cards" instead of more prestigious driver's licenses?

Matt Flanders, 37, of Brooklyn, participated with his 29-year-old partner, Will Jennings. Both wore gold engagement rings. When he was denied a marriage license, Flanders said he told officials: "'I should be able to marry the person I love.'

That line is so tired, but I'll deal with it yet again. We can love any number of people that we can't marry, such as children, family members, someone who is already married, or someone who is in a coma.

Micah Stanek, 23, stood outside in a floor-length wedding veil after he and his partner were rejected.

Yeah, that's going to win you points – mocking brides.

One man held a sign that read: "Love your husband? Let me love mine!"

You can’t love your same-sex partner without a state-issued marriage license? Of course you can. Where are the compelling arguments? This is nothing new, and yet the sympathetic news media will play it up.

"Gay Community" Intolerance Costing It Friends

From, of all places, the San Francisco Chronicle:

Out of the closet and out on the fence

I voted against Proposition 22, the same-sex marriage ban, in 2000. I figured that if same-sex couples want to marry, why not let them? I believe in marriage. I don't want gay people to feel marginalized. But 61 percent of California voters thought otherwise.

From this initial supportive position, Ms. Saunders goes on to chronicle her alienation.

A slow burn has been building since 2004, when San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom decided that he could flout the state marriage laws and authorize same-sex weddings in City Hall.

Worse, that prank threw the same-sex marriage issue to the courts - when it was clear that, within a matter of years, California voters would legalize same-sex marriage - and the issue would be settled for good. Instead, Newsom ensured same-sex marriage would remain a culture-war staple - while enraging many folks, who as mere citizens can't pick and choose which laws they follow.

Ms. Saunders takes note of something we have cited before. When the courts cut short public debate on an issue, as happened in Roe v. Wade, that issue becomes a permanent source of division among the electorate.

Most interestingly, the divisiveness engendered by the court-centric approach to neutering marriage is not the most imminent threat in Ms. Saunders's mind.

But here's the sticking point. There's a heavy-handedness to the true believers. They use public schools to push their political agenda with young kids. (I know people who were shocked they voted "yes" on Prop. 8, but they did so for that reason.) And the post-passage campaign to intimidate Prop. 8 supporters is chilling. Consider Scott Eckern, Richard Raddon and Marjorie Christofferson, who had to resign from their jobs after their private donations to Prop. 8 were outed. Others have been subjected to death threats and intimidation. I am writing this column because last week I saw Web sites publicize the names, addresses and employers of small donors, turned civilian targets.

Trying to indoctrinate children while simultaneously isolating and intimidating adults who disagree are very troubling tendencies, indeed. In both cases, activists for neutering marriage attempt to take advantage of the relatively defenseless. Historically, these tactics are associated only with bad outcomes. The example that springs first to my mind is the Cultural Revolution in China. It's like both movements are using the exact same playbook. Contrast with the ratification of the Constitution of the United States. The U.S. Constitution was not sold to children first or based on intimidating those who disagree. It was debated openly in the public square by adults of varying backgrounds.

Ms. Saunders summarizes excellently:

I couldn't vote against gay couples, but I also couldn't vote to create a new class of pariahs. The gay community's failure to show tolerance is costing it friends.

The comment thread on that article puts an exclamation point on that summary.

Dear Debra regarding your career as a writer, I suggest you try grocery shopping lists, visiting your kitchen more often, an essay on how to cook potatoes. - fern501

Debra Saunders, you are a homophobe, and you are (and likely never were) any kind of real friend to the LGBT community. I hope others don't give you more credit than you deserve. - bruno71

Debra, you are why I stopped my Chronicle subscription. Reading bigoted tripe like this ("The gay community's failure to show tolerance is costing it friends"???) makes me sick. - winewhore

Your talk in your most recent post of furthering the violence will undo all and send many more of the squishy-middle folks over to support the H8ers. STOP IT, YOU STUPID {#%! - hazumu

Yup, typical putrid swill from dumb, dumb Debbie. - P_T

She Changed Her Mind on Marriage Neutering

The Mysterious Mrs. B. Roth, a blogging wife and mother, has been struggling with the issue of marriage neutering because she leaned strongly towards the arguments made by marriage neutering proponents, but she is also trying to be a good member of the LDS church, in addition to being thoughtful and fair in general.

I spent all of my life, until just 2 weeks ago, knowing I was right and those that thought differently were ignorant bigots... I could see no good reason to prohibit homosexuals from being married. None. All the arguments from my religious friends, cohorts, mentors were wrong, wrong, wrong. Why pretend successful homosexual relationships don't exist?... Why deny people, who clearly love each other, the ability to protect themselves and their loved ones the way the law protects me and my husband - we are a unit. Denying gay couples the right to be married was WRONG.

And yet, upon further reflection, her views have changed.

We have with in us the capacity to love all people, regardless of gender, race, religion, anything. It's not so hard - look at any baby (mine is especially cute and sweet and easy to love, not to mention tricky to type with). For a gay person to say he/she CAN'T love a person of the opposite gender is as absurd as a heterosexual saying they could only love the opposite. We love lots of people, we don't ask to marry them all. Love is not the primary ingredient for marriage.

Her entire blog entry is worth a read. Click through to see what she has to say about marriage being a joining of the opposites. She ties it into God (not church – there is a difference), but as I've said before, one need not believe in God to believe that marriage inherently unites the sexes or that it is the people, not the courts, who should decided whether or not to make significant changes to state marriage licensing.

"Give The Devil Benefit Of Law"

“What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? And when the last law was down and the Devil turned ‘round on you, where would you hide, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws from coast to coast – man’s laws, not God’s – and if you cut them down, and you’re just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law for my own safety’s sake.”

– St. Thomas More, A Man for All Seasons

Quite simply the Supreme Court, lower federal courts and now multiple state supreme courts – routinely break the law and substitute their own policy preferences in their place.

This is what they have done (cut down all the laws) over the last 40 years. No one knows from case to case if something is unconstitutional or not – It all depends on the make-up of the court & the preferred policy preference’s of those “Justices”.

You have a situation were 30 states have a constitutional amendment defining marriage (one of the largest such drives in American history) – were more than half a dozen SCOTUS precedents define marriage as male/female & connect it inextricably to childbearing. Yet, any follower of the court would be at a complete loss to say how the court will rule.

This is precisely the situation that Thomas More refers to as “when the last law was down and the Devil turned ‘round on you, where would you hide, the laws all being flat?”

The Laws are all Flat now, the will of the people and statutory law is at the whims of a lawless court. I know people want to believe that the law has greater legitimacy than that, but it does not.

I could go on and cite example after example… (and will if asked) But, suffice to say this is not the system working as envisioned by its architect’s. The cold wind is certainly blowing and we have no protection against tyranny.

Assemblyman Defends AB 103

The Los Angeles Times ran some letters dealing with AB 103, prompted by their editorial, which I wrote about here. Kevin de Leon, California Assemblyman from Los Angeles and sponsor of AB 103, wrote in to defend the legislation.

I believe The Times' editorial misconstrues the intent of AB 103. This is a simple matter of tax equity that carries out the basic premise of Proposition 13 -- to prevent unexpected increases in property taxes for owners who choose to stay in their homes.

He's an elected California Democrat from Los Angeles. These people are rarely hesitant when it comes to increasing taxes. So I find this explanation suspect.

AB 103 is narrowly crafted. The exclusion is limited to two people who own a home for a minimum of one year as their principal place of residence, and only applies if one of the co-owners passes away and full ownership is granted to the survivor via trust or will. These criteria are not arbitrary; rather, they ensure fairness in the application of property reassessment.

Limiting it to two people is arbitrary. Why shouldn't my wife and I be able to make a deal with, say, six other couples so that if 13 of us die, the survivor can hold on to all of the houses without a property tax hit?

Whether by choice or because of the law, some individuals cannot or choose not to marry or enter into a domestic partnership, and I do not believe it is fair to discriminate against them.

Why not? Marriage and domestic partnerships are two kinds of voluntary associations in which people register their association with the state, for purposes that make it reasonable to allow the survivor to retain a home without a property tax hit. If people choose not to get a marriage license nor a domestic partnership, why should the state choose to treat them like they are spouses? And who are these people who can't get either by law? Siblings? Parent-Child? Do we need a third designation in California – "Civil Unions For People Who Would Be Married or Domestic Partners if They Could, But Can't and are Living Together Anyway."? Alice Kessler of Sacramento wrote:

Another reason [same-sex] couples do not register [as domestic partners] is concern for personal safety. Because domestic-partner records are centralized with the secretary of state, anyone can request a list of all registrants.

I wonder exactly how many people have been assaulted because someone got their name from a from the domestic partner records? My guess would be zero, unless we're talking about homosexual people assaulting each other in a "jealous ex" situation - but I they'd probably find out through other means. Sorry, I still think the bill undermines both marriage and domestic partnerships and should not be passed. Over on my blog, I discuss a featured Los Angeles Times story on the bond between a lesbian Episcopal priest and a "Mormon father of three" and how the Mormon came to be against the California Marriage Amendment. Here's a sampling:

"If as a straight man I find the tools for strengthening my marriage in the relationships of same-sex couples and of a dear friend, can I deny them a fundamental right that I benefit from and cherish?" he asked. "The answer is no."

This doesn't follow. There is no right for any two people to get a state-issued marriage license with each other. There is no right to a state-issued license in general. But for marriage, there are requirements such as neither party being currently married, both being of age (or emancipated/having parental consent), and not being too closely related, for some examples. Also, one can find the tools to strengthen their marriage from many sources, including penguins and perpetual bachelors and fictional characters. We don't issue marriage licenses to any of them.

Selfishness Thy Name is Single Upper Class Mothers & the NYT

Amongst my archives I have a diatribe saved were I say the following in an effort to refute the idea that marriage neuter’s ever cared about optimal family formation.

“The Blogosphere is replete with articles from the NYT and other sources of the cultural left about single women and men “choosing” to raise youngsters on their own. No moral condemnation is made or even suggested. Illegitimacy is not a problem in New Delhi. The correlation with a declining marriage culture is not income, couples live on a bowl of rice and stay together.”

Well – they have proved me right, & right on time. Look for moves toward same-sex marriage to be accompanied by “trend’ articles essentially encouraging upper-class single women to go ahead and raise a child without a father…intentionally.

The twisted thing about this article is they actually admit that the vast numbers of single Mothers are young, don’t “choose” to be Husband & Fatherless, and live in poverty because of this trend… Yet refuse to connect the obvious dots that standards effect behavior.

From the NYT Magazine 2 Kids + O Husbands = Family

“It’s true that most unmarried mothers are still in their 20s — and less often in their teens — and have no more than a high-school education. But as television’s Murphy Brown predicted in the 1990s, an increasing number of unmarried mothers look a lot more like Fran McElhill and Nancy Clark — they are college-educated, and they are in their 30s, 40s and 50s.”

Since they bring it up in the article I took the time to Link to Vice President Quayle’s speech about the moral rot Murphy Brown was encouraging. It short and is worth the read as it is timeless in it poignancy.

“It doesn’t help matters when prime time TV has Murphy Brown – a character who supposedly epitomizes today’s intelligent, highly paid, professional woman – mocking the importance of a father, by bearing a child alone, and calling it just another “lifestyle choice.”

The tireless Elizabeth Marquardt wrote a response letter that will undoubtedly never get published. Kudo’s to her for hitting the nail on the head like Vice President Quayle. And shame on these selfish mothers, shame on homosexuals who are equally as selfish and commit the further sin of pretending they are interested in supporting some mythical (new) “two parent” standard.

To the editor:

The piece “2 Kids + O Husbands = Family” conflates varying trends that make up the fast-rising rate of out-of-wedlock childbearing. Adoption is one thing, but having a baby by a sperm donor is quite different. While being raised by an educated single mother in New Jersey is surely better than growing up in a Chinese orphanage, intentionally conceiving a fatherless child (as in donor conception) visits unnecessary losses upon a child. In a new, large study I conducted with two colleagues, to be published next spring, we found that adult offspring of sperm donors were not spared the negative outcomes typically found among fatherless children, even though their mothers were generally more affluent.

The bottom line is that all children have fathers (if their mothers do not wish to tell them this, they will learn it soon enough in biology class). When children lose the ability to grow up with -- or even know the name of – their father, many mourn this loss profoundly. Sure, those of trying to raise children with their fathers in this complicated thing called “marriage” do sometimes daydream about all-female utopias. Sadly, such situations are not utopias for the children.

Sincerely,

Elizabeth Marquardt

Federal Judge Sides With Same-Sex Spouse on Healthcare Coverage

Supposedly, this is more of an internal government employment dispute and not a broad precedent. Carol J. Williams had this entry on a Los Angeles Times blog about this latest gem out of the "9th Circus" Court of Appeals.

A federal judge has deemed unconstitutional the government’s denial of healthcare coverage and other benefits to the same-sex spouse of a Los Angeles public defender, calling into question the validity of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act. 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Stephen Reinhardt said the federal government's refusal to grant spousal benefits to Tony Sears, the husband of deputy federal public defender Brad Levenson, amounted to unlawful discrimination on the basis of sex and sexual orientation.

How about employers pay employees higher salaries and the employees can then arrange for their own insurance instead? Private employers should have that option. We voters and taxpayers should encourage that for government employees. But IF they obtained a legal marriage license and IF they are legally married spouses, then the state can’t discriminate between a spouse of one sex and a spouse of the other. If it isn't a legal marriage or a domestic partnership where domestic partners are treated as spouses, then an employer should not be obligated to treat non-spouses as spouses.

"Because there is no rational basis for denying benefits to the same-sex spouses of [Federal Public Defender] employees while granting them to the opposite-sex spouses of FPD employees, I conclude that the application of [federal statutes] so as to reach that result is unconstitutional," Reinhardt wrote in an order to the U.S. Courts administration to submit Levenson's benefits election form.

No rational basis? Why have benefits been offered to spouses to begin with? The idea was a division of labor to foster family-building. One spouse (more often the husband) would be the primary breadwinner, while the other spouse would take more the responsibility for maintaining the home and raising children. When you have two people of the same sex, they aren't going to be naturally reproducing with each other. Perhaps the requirement for benefits coverage should be the involvement of pregnancy or minor children? Or, like I said before, why not just offer more salary instead and the employees can find their own insurance? That would make childless and unmarried employees just as well compensated (salary + benefits) as married employees with children - if they have negotiated the same compensation. In the case of government, salary is often determined by rank and years of service.

"The denial of federal benefits to same-sex spouses cannot be justified simply by a distaste for or disapproval of same-sex marriage or a desire to deprive same-sex spouses of benefits available to other spouses in order to discourage them from exercising a legal right afforded them by a state," Reinhardt wrote.

So if a state grants something, the federal government must grant it, too? That would be news to the slaveholders of the past. Let's try a little experiment:

"Because there is no rational basis for denying benefits to the second, third, or fourth spouses of [Federal Public Defender] employees while granting them to the first-married spouses of FPD employees, I conclude that the application of [federal statutes] so as to reach that result is unconstitutional,” Reinhardt wrote in an order to the U.S. Courts administration to submit Levenson’s benefits election form. "The denial of federal benefits to second, third, or fourth spouses cannot be justified simply by a distaste for or disapproval of polygamous marriage or a desire to deprive additional spouses of benefits available to original spouses in order to discourage them from exercising a legal right afforded them by a state," Reinhardt wrote.

It makes just as much sense, right?

Still, legal scholars see Reinhardt’s reading of the Defense of Marriage Act as a bellwether on the constitutionality of that law and potentially others that seek to discourage or discriminate against homosexual partnerships.

Recognizing the historical definition of marriage in no way discourages homosexual partnerships. After all, "how does someone else's marriage" impact homosexual partnerships? If it did, how did homosexual partnerships survive all of these years? "I'm sorry, we just can’t be partners because there's a federal law that restates the obvious, natural definition of marriage." Please.

Levenson, who married Sears on July 12 during last year’s five-month window when [neutered] marriage [licensing] was [court-imposed upon the people of] California, applied for spousal benefits three days later but was denied by the 9th Circuit Executive Office on grounds that the Defense of Marriage Act and the Federal Employee Health Benefits Act prohibit extending benefits to same-sex spouses.

I see. Is Sears unable to get a decent job himself?

[DOMA] identified three objectives: defending and nurturing the institution of traditional, heterosexual marriage; defending traditional notions of morality; and preserving scarce government resources. In his 15-page ruling, Reinhardt debunked the first two objectives, stating that "gay people will not be encouraged to enter into marriages with members of the opposite sex by the government’s denial of benefits to same-sex spouses."

Missing the point. When you try to remove the core element of what makes something what it is, you are essentially destroying it. When you try to tell us that other things are the same even though they aren't, you devalue the authentic and you devalue your own authority. And, of course, there are comments at the website and you can join in if you want.

Why Don't More Animals Change Their Sex?

Lets set the table for the question...

To test whether the biological costs of changing sex affect sex change actually occurs, the researchers built theoretical models of the hermaphrodite and separate-sex life histories. In their "game" models, sex change "players" vary the age of their sex change, while the separate-sex strategy responds by altering the number of male and female offspring it produces.

We were surprised to see that a hermaphrodite could spend 30 percent of its lifetime in the process of change sex, and still persist in a population," said Kazancıoğlu. "This suggests that only huge costs can disfavor sex change."

Punchline...

So, why is sex change so rare? And, why does one species of fish reproduce strictly as separate sexes, while another very closely related species flexibly changes sex? A comparative study of hermaphroditic and separate-sex mating systems, which the authors are currently performing, may provide a clue, according to Kazancıoğlu, "Reproductive behaviors such as parental care seem to disfavor sex change in some species. We are investigating whether general patterns like these may explain the rarity of hermaphroditism."

The ideals of responsible procreation that is the foundation of family and marriage trumps all other survival strategies.

LA Times Against AB 103

Believe it or not, today the Los Angeles Times ran an editorial against a bill being presented as a "gay rights" advancement, California AB 103, which I previously discussed here.

The motivation and goals are worthy: Same-sex couples whose marriages currently are not recognized by California because of Proposition 8 should in fact enjoy the same property tax benefits as other married couples.

Why is that a worthy goal? Why should same-sex couples of any status enjoy the same property tax benefits as a bride-groom couple? Yes, if a couple is licensed as married by the state, and the property tax law hinges on a licensed marriage, then of course the law must treat them the same. But otherwise, is the state obligated to treat same-sex couples identically to bride-groom couples in this area?

If one spouse dies and leaves a house to the other, it's not considered a transfer under the landmark Proposition 13 property tax initiative, and the home's value is not reassessed. The surviving spouse can continue paying property taxes based on the value at the time the home was bought. That's the way it is for married couples, and that's the way it should be for same-sex couples who would be deemed married but for the initiative's wrongheaded ban.

So it should be that way, because it would be that way if voters had acted as the editorial board wanted? That's some justification. But the paper goes on to point out...

But same-sex couples already get Proposition 13 benefits -- if they register as domestic partners.

Right – because domestic partners are treated by the state as spouses. So this bill is not a "gay rights" bill at all. It is designed to weaken marriage, and, one could argue, domestic partnerships, by giving a benefit of marriage/domestic partnerships to arrangements that are neither marriage nor domestic partnerships. If a couple is unwilling to make the publicly-licensed or registered commitment, why should the state give them this benefit?

Domestic partnership was a step forward for the civil rights of same-sex couples when California adopted it a decade ago, but it's now derided by some proponents of [neutered marriage] as an indignity, much like the racist separate-but-equal doctrine of the Jim Crow era.

First of all, the problem is "separate but unequal". If something is truly equal, it is allowed to continue to be separate. Hence the designation of "male" and "female" on birth certificates. Will we see someone argue that having to label a newborn as one or the other as an equality violation? Nothing would surprise me anymore. Secondly, same-sex couplings, by nature, are not equal to both-sex couplings. I am not speaking of the level of commitment or passion or love – I'm referring to the very nature of the coupling. The state is under no obligation to treat different kinds of voluntary associations the same.

The Times agrees that the state should not differentiate among couples based on the gender of the partners.

Why not?

But AB 103 proposes to accord marriage-like property tax protection to any two people, including those who do not consider themselves "couples" and make no commitments to one another, public or private -- a brother and sister, two co-workers, two business partners. They need only own a principal residence together and live there for at least a year.

So we agree that this is a problem?

California has repeatedly extended Proposition 13 to avoid reassessing homes for property tax purposes based on familial relationships between the deceased and the survivor…Each extension made it harder for the state to collect taxes, but each also made at least a certain amount of public policy sense.

Hmmm, is the paper's objection really about wanting more tax revenue?

This one doesn't. It would, for the first time, extend Proposition 13 to two people whose only relationship is that they both own a stake in the same property.

So here we have the editorial board passing judgment on the nature of someone's relationship. Yet they argue it is wrong for us to do the same thing when a brideless or groomless couple is demanding the state issue them a marriage license. Their "only relationship" is mutual attraction, or that they have agreed to live together, or that they have agreed to ask for a marriage license together. So what? We don't know how loving they are, or how committed they really are. What we do know is that they do not have both sexes represented, and they will not be naturally reproducing with each other.

If the goal is to protect property relationships rather than personal ones -- a notion worth studying -- there is no good reason to limit it to two co-owners, rather than three or four.

That sounds an awful lot like what we say when you argue to neuter marriage licensing, and yet you scoff at us. Also, on the paper's blog, there have been two recent items about the LDS church and the funding to advocate passage of the California Marriage Amendment. Add your comments there if you are so inclined. This entry is more fresh than this one.

Nanny State Politics...

I've been thinking a lot about home recently. What the family structure means to kids, and how best to preserve it. There are things that all of us can do to save our own families, small fields that we get to work on as our immediate responsibility. There are also large fields that need attention, large global and economic fields where there is a growing conflict with the political entity of the in-tact marriage ideal family, and the government's lack of trust in our own abilities to have them.

In that sobering mind set, I saw the following articles come across my desk. I've aligned them so the punch line (relevance) is at the very end.

• Nanny's in Your Kitchen: the Spice Wars Begin
• The UK: Smothered into Submission

[Update: Chris Muir brings up the same topic in this comic...]

The silence speaks volumes.

I don't remember ever hearing a straight guy introduce his fiance on a game show without the audience responding with an "awww" and an ain't-love-grand round of applause.

The American people are tolerant and even generous towards homosexuals. Even the gay couple next door will be treated with respect and acquiescence. They are also a lot smarter than the cultural left gives them credit for. They know how important marriage is and how important it is that the standard of intact married childbearing is to any society.

“The silence of this audience to the introduction of the “fiancée” will never substantially change. No matter how much they try and acclimate the American people to neutered “marriage,” the most there ever do is be able to force applause.”

Profound questions of the importance of marriage, family formation and adolescent sexual development will perennially plague the thinking mind. The obvious thinking of our adversaries is that they can force it down our thoughts until we (bigots) accept it.

The problem with this plan is that we are not bigots, are concerns are genuine, well grounded, and timeless. This is not a “bigoted” audience – this is a thinking, caring, tolerant America. If they were bigots they would have booed.