Comment Policy

Disputes of fact and of opinion are why we are here. We may disagree with you, just as we hope you share your disagreements with us. Being friendly will usually invite friendly replies. We can and will delete otherwise great posts for unseemly profanity.

Comments anywhere on the site -- no matter how old the post -- will show up on the front page as a recent comment and in the comment RSS feeds.

Thursday, April 30, 2009

Speaking Truth to Jeers

Here is the video of NOM's latest tv ad which is the second in their new series on religious liberty and marriage: "No offence"

And here is a rough transcription:

[More below the fold]

* * *

Subtitle: Carrie Prejean, Miss USA Pageant -- April 2009.

Voiceover: She's asked her opinion about marriage.

Carrie Prejean: I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offence to anybody out there.

Voiceover: Then she's attacked.

Perez Hilton: She's a dumb #%*&#! ... Okay?!

Voiceover: A pro-marriage group talks about how gay marriage impacts religious groups.

Subtitle: Is supporting marriage bigotry?

Joe Solmonese of HRC: It is not longer palatable or okay in this country to be an outright bigot.

Subtitle: Protect religious liberty.

Voiceover: They attack if you oppose gay marriage because they don't want to debate the consequences.

Subtitle: "... it will create legal conflicts for individuals, small businesses and religious organizations ..."

Voiceover: To read what scholars say about the legal conflicts gay marriage creates, go to NationForMarriage.org.

* * *

From NOM:

Over the protests of gay marriage advocates, a group of prominent religious liberty scholars (including scholars both for and against same-sex marriage) recently warned the Connecticut legislature that a bill codifying the state supreme court's ruling on same-sex marriage raised the potential of "widespread and devastating" effects for religious liberty, if robust exemptions were not provided for faith groups and religious organizations.

Here is a link to the letter [PDF]

* * *

Connecticut's legislation to merge nonmarriage (ie. SSM) with marriage includes religious exemptions which, I think, are inadequate. But they do confirm that NOM is correct about the inevitable conflicts; and that NOM is correct about the pro-SSM campaign's misleading characterizations of those who'd disagree with the merger.

The contrast is well illustrated: 1)Carrie Prejean's civil response to the question about marriage; 2) Perez Hilton's vulgar and demeaning rant against Carrie Prejean because he disagreed with her; and 3) Joe Solmonese's judgement that marriage is "unpalatable" and that exercising one's religious liberty and freedom of conscience is an act of bigotry.

Hilton's verbal attack was as tasteless as Solmonese's accusatory rhetoric was intolerant and bigoted.

But at least they showed their true colors. Their own inexcusable behavior serves as a mirror reflecting back onto the pro-SSM campaign's blatant assertion of supremacy via identity politics.

The SSMers in the ad illustrates that SSM proponents aim to impose their "morality" and to force people to submit to a peculiar sectarianism. They have dropped the benign pose of "live and let live".

Well done, NOM.

Wednesday, April 29, 2009

The Beauty of a Free Society

Here is a recent exchange that occured over at Pearl Diver.

Pearl said:

[click here to read more]

So Miss California got baited and reeled in at the Miss USA Pageant.

[...]

First, We the People speak our minds and establish that in California, marriage is between one man and one woman. Then, our “little Miss,” responds to a loaded question posed by gay blogger, Perez Hilton, with a very diplomatic, but firm response, “I think in my country, in my family, I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that's how I was raised.”

It makes me laugh that she’s receiving heat over this as if she wasn’t asked the question in the first place. What was she supposed to do, tell a lie? Or not respond? Or apologize for her opinion? Yeah that’s tolerance for you.

saz2k said:

Miss California answered a question honestly as she should. So ... What is the problem?

[...]

She was true to her values and morals and had the courage to state it. That's what America stands for and that's the kind of women that deserves to be MISS AMERICA.

A commenter who is against the CA Marriage Amendment said:

Let's go back 50 years ago... If I say to the TV audience: "Marriage is only between a white woman and a white man; and only a black man and a black woman; but never a white man and a black woman."

I am also expressing free speech. But we all know it is offensive and wrong. But 50 years ago, a black man and a white woman marrying was ILLEGAL.

Chairm said:

The racist analogy backfires on SSMers.

The identify filter of racism was repudiated. It had brought selective sex segregation under the auspices of marriage. It had affronted the principles of responsible procreation. White Supremacy used marriage as a shield and aggressively embedded identity politics into the law of the land and into the culture.

The gay identity filter is closely analogous with the racist identity filter. It too would bring selective sex segregation under the umbrella of a foundational social institution that unites the sexes. It too would affront the integration of fatherhood and motherhood. The SSM campaign would use marriage as a means to innoculate gay identity politics against opposition and dissent.

The behavior of Perez Hilton and the defense of his actions by SSMers far and wide serve to exemplify the vulgarity that identity politics brings to public discourse and, if pressed into the law, the injustice it foists on jurisprudence and, yes, the bigotry it seeps into the culture.

Fifty years ago where the anti-miscegenation system existed (for this was not universal) there was no flaw in marriage. The flaw was the identity politics that trumped the core meaning of marriage in the law and social policy. Today there is no flaw in marriage but identity politics of the gaycentric kind is presented as a trump card against sex integration and provision for responsible procreation.

The imposition of SSM may seem more benign in the eyes of the proponents of SSM, but it would be no less unjust than the anti-miscegenation system was.

Euripides said:

Interracial marriage laws were repealed because of race, not sex. Their repeal didn't try to redefine the institution of marriage as something it was not - it remained the union between a man and a woman. The laws were repealed on the grounds that they applied unequally to men and women because of race.

Gay activists now are trying to equate the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment (written to establish equal protection regardless of race) to a whole new class of individuals - homosexuals. This application is not based on any fundamental "gayness" but rather, on the outward expression of homosexuality. In other words, gay activists want to define a protected class status based on actions.

Gays, however, are not disfranchised from marriage as interracial couples were. Gays can get married according to both religious and civil law. No rights are infringed, only a perceived "unfairness" that gays cannot marry each other. Several other classes of people cannot marry each other: siblings, cousins, underage children, or more than two people.

Are these classes then not granted their civil rights? Of course not. And neither are gays.

And I'll add that domestic partnership is not illegal in California. The Marrige Amendment re-affirmed the same text that was approved as a statutory provision about 10 years ago by the voters of that state; shortly after that vote the Legislature enacted domestic partnership as a limited alternative to marital status.

However, the California gay lobby then pressed for a localized merger of domestic partnershp with marital status in all-but-name. The Legislature rushed to enact such a merger, against the affirmation that marriage is the union of a man and a woman.

The CA judiciary then used that localized merger as an excuse to overturn the affirmation of marriage as unconstitutional. It then mandated the merger of domestic partnershp with marriage in name as well.

In so doing, neither the gay lobby, the pro-SSM legislators, nor the CA high court managed to articulate a plausible basis for gay union, much less for the outright merger with marriage.

And the pro-marriage movement responded and won the election that ratified the California Marriage Amendment. This is the beauty of a Free Society, that marriage can be defended, that the constitution can be the repository of our highest principles, and that identity politics can be pushed back from its imposition as a peculair sectarianism.

Anti-8 Beauty Queen Speaks Against Marriage

Shanna Moakler, a former Miss USA, spoke frankly about her opposition to the California marriage amendment:

[click here to read more below the fold]

"I find most people have a problem with the word marriage. What I hope for is helping others understand 'civil union' and then one day helping people learn 'marriage' is something not God, not the state or country can solidify, but between two people who love each other". [sic]

If, in her view, civil union (aka gay union) does not need to be solidified by society, then, she must mean it would be redundant to issue licenses for it. Society, through the law and through our governments, need not do what two people can do on their own.

There is no love requirement for a license to form a domestic partnership in California so her point about gay union may be valid, or not.

Her remark is wrong about solidifying the social institution of marriage.

Anyway, to teach people her valuable lesson about gay union, Shanna Moakler will first instruct us that gay union lacks a core meaning and that society does not need to solidify gay union; then she will try to persuade people that marriage, too, lacks sufficient meaning to be accorded a preferential status.

She would hope to inform the public about gay union and then to misinform the public about marriage.

Her ambition is to teach people that her hollow concept of gay union is the equivalent of marriage. And that, in her view, gay union cannot be solidified by society -- the state or the country -- nor by God. For Shanna Moakler the people who'd form a gay union need go no further than to self-reference. They do not need extra validation of their private romance.

This appears to be yet another admission by an SSMer that there is no plausible basis for merging nonmarriage with marriage.

She says that the problem is the word, marriage, which shows that she has not understood the actual problem with discarding the core meaning of the social institution of marriage. I'm glad she spoke so frankly and plans to continue to do so on behalf of the anti-8ers.

Thank you, Shanna Moakler, and I hope your message about gay union reaches far and wide. Your ill-formed message about the anti-8 side's view of marriage will be debunked again and again.

See: NBC LA News.

Monday, April 27, 2009

California Senate More Concerned About Limiting the Definition of "Personal Trainer"

California State Senator Ron Calderon, and those who voted to approve his SB 374, are apparently "bigots" who are insensitive towards Personal Trainer Equality. Not even the California Marriage Amendment (voted in as Prop 8) prohibits anyone from presenting themselves as married, but Calderon's bill would prohibit some people from calling themselves personal trainers, thereby imposing limits on Californians according to the Senate's narrow views.
The measure would prohibit people from representing themselves as personal trainers without certification from a recognized national group or a bachelor's degree in exercise science, kinesiology, fitness science or a closely related field.
There are people out there who are not oriented towards taking tests. This is a clear violation of their equal access and equal protection. It's just not fair. How could legislators who believe so strongly in the "freedom to marry" and "marriage equality" be against freedom and equality here? Personal trainers come in a wide variety, after all. Maybe Calderon needs to spend some time with some personal trainers who don’t fit into those narrow, discriminatory limits?

I demand that all who want to be called personal trainers not only be allowed to call themselves personal trainers, but get licenses from the state upon demand declaring them personal trainers.

Teaching Conformity on Campus

As bad as it is to tell people what they can't say, it is worst to tell people what they must say. But worst still, and downright totalitarian, is to tell them what they must think and believe.

FIRE Video: Think What We Think...Or Else.

Among the terrible effects of this [orientation] program were 1) immediately to intimidate and humiliate students; 2) long term to teach conformity.

Saturday, April 25, 2009

The Story Of X: Evolution Of A Sex Chromosome

In our manuscript, we demonstrate for the first time the flip side of the sex chromosome evolution puzzle: The X chromosome undergoes periods of intense adaptation in the evolutionary process of creating new sections of the genome that govern sexual differentiation in many species, including our own," she said.

Not all animals and plants employ genes to determine if an embryo becomes male or female. Many reptiles, for example, rely on environmental cues such as temperature to specify male or female.

But in life forms that do set aside a pair of chromosomes to specify sex – from fruit flies to mammals and some plants – the two X chromosomes inherited by females look nearly identical to the other non-sex chromosomes, so-called autosomes, Bachtrog said. The Y chromosome, however, which is inherited by males in concert with one X chromosome, is a withered version of the X, having lost many genes since it stopped recombining with the X chromosome.

Very interesting, indeed.

Thursday, April 23, 2009

Advocacy Group Shamefully Ties Kid's Suicide to Pageant Answer

Here's a press release from "Equality California", an organization working to neuter marriage, announcing their successful publicity stunt of inviting Miss California Carrie Prejean to be used a pawn for an appeal to emotion.
Equality California (EQCA) has invited Miss California Carrie Prejean to meet with leaders from her home state lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender organization, LGBT students and a family headed by a same-sex couple to start a dialogue about who LGBT people are and the harm that is caused by denying LGBT community members equality.
What about eunuchs?

She did not advocate denying people equality. She simply stated the same opinion as the majority of California's voters, as codified in the California Marriage Amendment - that marriage unites the sexes.

[The rest is below the fold if you care to read it.]

Geoff Kors, executive director of EQCA, was prompted to extend the invitation to Miss California after learning about another suicide linked to anti-gay bullying in order to discuss how sentiments such as those expressed by Miss California can contribute to a climate that leads to harassment and bullying of LGBT youth.
Yes, you see, it was her answer during the Miss USA broadcast that caused someone to kill himself. Huh?!? Does anyone but the most agenda-blinded person actually believe that statements on a pageant broadcast like "marriage is between a man and a woman" are actually causing someone to kill themselves, or encouraging schoolyard bullies? She was actually very supportive of freedom in her answer.
Jaheem Herrera, an 11-year-old Georgia student, hung himself April 16th after enduring daily harassment and students calling him "gay and a snitch."
Well then, perhaps a snitch-rights group should be extending invitations to people who have not endorsed two snitches getting married? And how is anyone sure what Herrera was thinking? It is a sad situation, to be sure, but it is shameful the way these situation are exploited by these advocates.
This is the second suicide by a middle school or elementary school student in the last two weeks that has been linked to bullying, and the fourth this year.
How about we work on reducing bullying in general? Let's start with gossip bloggers.
"Miss California probably doesn't realize how hurtful her statements are, especially to LGBT youth," Kors said.
Are they as hurtful as hormone treatments to help one appear to be someone of the opposite sex, or removing healthy body parts for the same reason?
"But this is about something much bigger than the issue of marriage alone, and I have to believe that if she meets us, she will come to see our humanity, and at the very least, I hope she will understand that what she says as Miss California can either hurt people or bring them together."
She didn't say homosexual people aren't human. She supported their freedom of association, if I recall correctly. She did not disparage homosexual people, homosexual behavior, or same-sex couples. She didn't say they are bad people. If this isn't a cynical publicity stunt and is actually sincere, then it is another example of how these activists insist that anything less than praise of their behavior and wholehearted support of everything they want is akin to having disgust or hatred or misunderstanding of them as individuals. It simply isn't so.

She didn't say that homosexual people are unpleasant, either as individuals or as couples. Her view is not based on a bad experience with a same-sex couple. It is based on (as we later found out) her convictions about meaning, truth, and marriage.

Con-necti-cutting Marriage

Associated Press Writer Susan Haigh turns in a celebratory article on marriage neutering in Connecticut. This is how it starts:
A decade-long battle for marriage equality in Connecticut ended late Wednesday when the General Assembly voted to update the state's marriage laws to conform with a landmark court ruling allowing gay and lesbian couples to tie the knot.
"Marriage equality"? But tell us – how do you really feel about this issue?

[The rest is below the fold if you care to read it.]

"It feels so good. It really does feel like the book is closing," said Anne Stanback, president of Love Makes a Family, a gay-rights group that has led the fight for [neutered] marriage in the state.
"Love Makes a Family". Really? Actually, marriage, birth, and adoption makes family.
A spokesman for Gov. M. Jodi Rell said she will sign the bill, which passed 28-7 in the Senate and 100-44 in the House of Representatives, into law. While Rell, a Republican, signed the state's 2005 civil unions law, she has said she believes that marriage should be between a man and a woman.
They why sign the law, even if a veto can be overridden?
It redefines marriage in Connecticut as the legal union of two people. State law previously defined marriage as the union of a man and a woman.
Why just two? Isn't that bigotry? If not, how could it not be bigotry if "limiting" it to bride-groom couplings was bigotry?
The Connecticut bill transforms civil unions into marriages as of Oct. 1, 2010, unless they've been annulled or dissolved.
What if someone wants a civil union, but not marriage? Isn't that "destroying" their relationship, according to the reasoning we heard when the California Marriage Amendment passed in California? Clearly, this isn't about equality, freedom, choices, etc. It is about neutering marriage. "Civil unions" were nothing more than a tool for these people that have served their purpose, and so are now dismissed. Yet ten years ago, they would have told us how important civil unions are, and that they were vital socially and legally.
In an effort to appease some gay marriage foes, lawmakers amended the bill to show they want to protect religious liberties.
"Gay marriage foes"? That is a slanted misnomer. Yes, some people who are against court-forced neutering of state marriage licensing may be against gay "marriage", but not all. What of all of these homosexual men all of these years who have talked about their "husbands"? Is the reporter being so "bigoted" as to say those men weren't really in a marriage? The state did not create traditional marriage. But this state is fabricating "gay marriage", apparently.
For example, it says religious organizations and associations are not required to provide services, goods or facilities for same-sex wedding ceremonies.
So what? Your law means nothing if the court decides it doesn't like it. That's how we got to this point in the first place.
Wednesday's bill also strips language from a 1991 state anti-discrimination law that says Connecticut does not condone "homosexuality or bisexuality or any equivalent lifestyle," require the teaching of homosexuality or bisexuality "as an acceptable lifestyle," set quotas for hiring gay workers or authorize recognition of same-sex marriage.
Why do that unless they are planning to require the teaching of homosexual and bisexual behavior as "acceptable", or set quotas for hiring homosexual people?
McDonald, who is openly gay, said the language is outdated and offensive to gays, lesbians and bisexuals.
Oh, that's why. So, what we have to do if we want laws changed is to get a minority of people together to say they find those laws offensive, and that's justification for changing them? Or does equal access/protection not apply here? Some feelings are more equal than others?

Tuesday, April 21, 2009

Eliding the actual disagreement in Iowa

Posted by Chairm

The Iowa judiciary has produced two pro-SSM court opinions. The first is that of the trial judge and the second, on appeal, is that of the high court. A court's opinion consists of its reasoning on the case before it; where there is a conflict between a statute and the state constitution, an opinion describes the principles the court applied and explains how it weighed the conflict(s) at stake.

In Iowa the judicary imposed SSM just ten years after Iowans had expressly voted against it.

Jennifer Roback Morse writes:

[Click here to read the rest]

[T]he trial court refused to hear relevant evidence. When the case made its way to the Iowa Supreme Court, they didn’t behave much better.

This was a staged case. These couples went to the clerk’s office intending to be refused. They sued Timothy Brien, Polk County recorder and registrar, an ordinary county employee.

[...]

They had the backing of homosexual-rights establishment organizations. The Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund took in $20 million in 2007. Lambda Legal is a nonprofit devoted solely to bringing legal challenges like these.

[...]

Most citizens do not realize that this mismatch of legal resources is typical for advocacy cases.

[...]

The trial court refused to hear the testimony of Allan Carlson, author of five books on the history of marriage, Margaret Somerville, founding director of the McGill University Centre for Medicine, Ethics and Law, and Stephen Rhodes, political science professor at the University of Virginia. This is the very sort of evidence that courts in other states, such as New York, have found persuasive.

[...]

When this case went to the Supreme Court of Iowa, several friends of the court pleaded with them to reopen the admissibility of the evidence, to hear it, and to consider it. The Supreme Court said, “The error committed by the trial court in failing to do so is of no consequence” since they were going to review it themselves.

But their review didn’t amount to much. As for the parenting issue, surely one of the most significant issues under discussion, the court relegated it to a footnote.

[...]

Just realize that the Supreme Court of Iowa did not do the public the courtesy of citing a single source in support of [its own claim that "the traditional notion that children need a mother and a father to be raised into healthy, well-adjusted adults is based more on stereotype than anything else".

* * *

Also see:

Iowa Judge Excluded Expert Testimony.

Responsible Procreation in Iowa.

Iowa & beyond.

Iowa Decision point and counter point.

Societal Preference for Marriage

Posted by Chairm

[See Update at bottom of blogpost]

The unity of motherhood and fatherhood is advantageous for the parents, their children, our society today and the future generations who will inherit what we pass on to them. Our society's special status for marriage derives from the significance of 1) sex integration combined with 2) the provision for responsible procreation.

When we ask whether children of divorce are better off traveling between two worlds or losing one parent altogether, we enter the realm of rating and comparing childhood pain -- a sad exercise that yields no sense of victory. Unfortunately, when it comes to the arrangement of postdivorce family life there are no easy answers.

What is clear is that most people recognize the deep loss children feel when growing up without a father or mother.

Instead of trying to choose among the various, deeply flawed scenarios, we need to focus more energy on the larger question: How can fewer children grow up in divorced families and more children grow up in one secure home?

[...]

For years the most-asked question about children of divorce was this: Should unhappily married parents get divorced or stay put for the sake of the children? This is no longer the right question. For one thing, a marriage that is unhappy now might not be unhappy a few years later. For another, divorce is not a sure remedy for unhappiness.

[...]

If our society is to find a balance, one that recognizes the need for divorce while supporting healthy marriages, we need to make sweeping changes to our thinking about marriage. Currently many people across the country are involved in a growing grassroots "marriage movement" to do just that.

-- Elizabeth Marquardt, "Between Two Worlds: The Inner Lives of Children of Divorce," published 2006.

[UPDATE]

Podcast: Elizabeth Marquardt on Matt Cooper's TodayFM, Ireland’s popular national radio show. Jan 31, 2008 (mp3 file, 7 mb).

What's That You Say, Mr. Robinson?

Marriage-neutering advocate V. Gene Robinson, Episcopalian bishop, got way too much news coverage for offering a tired suggestion. Here's the Los Angeles Times story by Harriet Ryan.

[Analysis is below the fold if you care to read it.]

Nearly six years ago, Robinson became the first openly gay Episcopal bishop. His election was decried by some in the church and in the global Anglican Communion of which it is a part. Some 700 conservative U.S. parishes said last year that they were leaving the Episcopal Church in part because of his consecration, and last summer, Robinson was barred from taking part in leadership meetings at the Lambeth Conference, a once-a-decade global gathering of Anglicans.
Hey, everything must be sacrificed on the altar of homosexual esteem. Scripture, tradition, sound government policy - everything. By the way, my church has had "openly gay" speakers and welcomes "openly gay" people into the congregation, though the church maintains that sex is for marriage, and calls for repentance from sin.
President Obama tapped him to deliver the invocation at the kick-off concert for his inaugural ceremonies. On Saturday night, the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation gave Robinson an award at a star-studded show at the Nokia Theatre.
It's a rough life, being so open, isn't it?
The bishop, a bespectacled man in a white collar and crimson shirt, drew laughs as he recounted the celebrity doors opened by his outcast status. Elton John -- to whom Robinson referred by his first name -- sang at one of his events. Actor Ian McKellen cooked him dinner and invited him and his partner to visit the set of "The Hobbit" in New Zealand.
It can be nice to be the darling of "the world". Doesn't sound like there is enough adversity to warrant an Oscar-winning biopic, though. Let's hope it stays that way.
In response to a question about how the parish should respond to the passage of Proposition 8, the bishop suggested that churches could begin mending the split on same-sex marriage by having clergy get out of the civil marriage business altogether.
Ah yes, the False Compromise.
He said that "untangling" the roles of clergy and government in this country would focus the discussion of same-sex marriage on civil rights rather than religion.
One need not have a religion to see that, from a civil perspective, the state does not have the same interest in licensing or promoting brideless or groomless coupling as it does a bride-groom marriage. And people get civil marriages without a religious ceremony all of the time.
"The church is infringing on the secular society and trying to enforce its beliefs onto the entire culture," he said.
And which church would that be? Society did not create marriage. Marriage created society. The state did not get the notion that marriage unites the sexes from a church.
"If we can get these two things separated, we can assure every religious group, no matter how conservative, that they will never have to bless these marriages."
We've heard promises before from homosexuality advocates that turned out to be false. Such promises are not legally binding, and we don't believe you any more.

By the way, he spoke at St. Michael & All Angels Church in Studio City, California, a church the article says actively opposed the California Marriage Amendment. Funny, I didn't hear those saying that churches should stay out of the election citing this church in their complaints.

I have not heard a good reason for implementing the False Compromise other than to get marriage neutering advocates to stop complaining. Asserting "the state should not be involved in marriage" over and over again doesn't make it true, and getting the state out of marriage entirely is impossible, because marriage involves interpersonal relations.

Euripides wrote about this over story at Self Evident Truths.

"A Father for Every Child"

From the book, "Fatherless America" by David Blankenhorn and published in 1996:

The most urgent domestic challenge facing the United States [today] is the re-creation of fatherhood as a vital social role for men. At stake is nothing less than the success of the American experiment. For unless we reverse the trend of fatherlessness, no other set of accomplishments -- not economic growth or prison construction or welfare reform or better schools -- will succeed in arresting the decline of child well-being and the spread of male violence. To tolerate the trend of fatherlessness is to accept the inevitability of continued societal recession.

Many voices today, including many expert voices, urge us to accept the decline of fatherhood with equanimity. Be realistic, they tell us. Divorce and out-of-wedlock childbearing are here to stay. Growing numbers of children will not have fathers. Nothing can be done to reverse the trend itself. The only solution is to remediate some of its consequences. More help for poor children. More sympathy for single mothers. Better divorce. More child-support payments. More prisons. More programs aimed at substituting fathers.

Yet what Lincoln called the better angels of our nature have always guided us in the opposite direction. Passivity in the face of crisis is inconsistent with the American tradition. Managing decline has never been the hallmark of American enterprise. In the inevitable and valuable tension between conditions and aspirations -- between the social "is" and the moral "ought" -- our birhright as Americans has always been our confidence that we can change for the better.

Does every child deserve a father? Our current answer hovers between "no" and "not necessarily." But we need not make permanent the lowering of our standards. We can change minds. Moreover, we can change our minds without passing new laws, spending more tax dollars, or empaneling more expert commissions. Once we change our philosophy, we may well decide to pass laws, create programs, or commission research. But the first and most important thing to change is not our policies but our ideas.

Our essential goal must be the rediscovery in modern society of the fatherhood idea. Malinowski called it the "principle of legitimacey." For every child, a legally and morally responsible adult male. Others have described this idea as the imperative of paternal investment, achieved through a parental alliance with the mother. A more familiar name for such activity is married fatherhood.

Privatizing Marriage is not the Answer to the Same-Sex Marriage Debate

Dr J writes:

Far from settling the marriage debate, ‘getting the state out of marriage’ will reduce liberty, leave cultural questions simmering, and harm our nation’s children.

Read and consider the whole thing...

Monday, April 20, 2009

Tradition and Marriage

In a past blogpost, I quoted from an article by two anthropologists who wrote about tradition and marriage:

Tradition and the bedrock social institution.

One of us is a man, the other a woman; one is Jewish, the other gentile; one is gay, the other straight; one specializes in Western civilization, the other in Eastern civilizations; and so on. As a result of our collaboration, we have been able to gather a great deal of evidence to support our responses to the arguments made by advocates of gay marriage.

Given their backgrounds, cynics might think these two may seem unlikely defenders of the social institution of marriage's core meaning. But read their article and consider how tradition fits into their anthropological account of the universal features of marriage.

Not surprisingly, comparative research reveals a pattern: Marriage has universal or nearly universal features and variable ones.

Its universal features include the fact that marriage (a) encourages procreation under specific conditions; (b) recognizes the interdependence of men and women; (c) defines eligible partners; (d) is supported by authority and incentives; (e) has a public dimension; and (f) provides mutual support not only between men and women but also between them and children. Its nearly universal features are (a) an emphasis on durable relationships between biological parents; (b) mutual affection and companionship; (c) family (or political) alliances; and (d) an intergenerational cycle (reciprocity between young and old). These features assume the distinctive contributions of both sexes, transmit knowledge from one generation to another, and create not only “vertical” links between the generations but also “horizontal” ones between allied families or communities.

[...]

[Click here to read more.]

* * *

Marriage is a complex institution. Fostering the emotional gratification of two adults is only one of its functions—-and not the most important one from a cross-cultural or historical perspective.

[...]

It is true that (some) gay people are motivated by the current straight ideal of settling down to bourgeois domesticity. But that sentimental ideal, whether held by gay or straight people, is a very impoverished one compared to the ideals associated with marriage in many communities, including our own not so long ago (notwithstanding the occasional need for reform). Gay marriage, with its focus on “love,” might add support to this impoverished ideal of marriage, sure, but only at the cost of undermining support the its primary functions (along with its richer and deeper ideals).

[...]

It is true that one function of marriage is to bring men and women together in the interest of producing future generations, after all, but another function is to bring them together in the interest of social stability—-that is, to prevent social fragmentation (the two most obvious and symbolically important fragments being those of men and women). In this sense, even childless marriages (between men and women) contribute directly and significantly to the achievement of a fundamental requirement of every society. Gay childless marriages, on the other hand, would not. Consequently, they would dilute the symbolism of marriage. Advocates of gay marriage find it convenient to ignore all this, arguing as if marriage had no communal dimension.

[...]

Marriage and the family are always changing anyway, so why not allow this change? Well, yes, of course, institutions change. Whether they always change in beneficial ways is another matter entirely. Unless we adopt the mentality promoted by countless ads and commercials—-every product is “new and improved”—-we must at least imagine the possibility that some changes might be for the worse. There is no logical connection, in short, between either “new” and “improved” or “changed” and “better.” Marriage has changed for the worse in many (though not all) ways, over the past forty years. It has been so severely weakened, at any rate, that many straight people dismiss as “nothing more than a slip of paper.”

And whether institutions change in all ways is yet another matter. Some features of marriage have not changed, which means that they are universal and therefore, presumably, both necessary and beneficial. Marriage has always been supported by the highest authorities and always been publicly witnessed, making every marriage a matter of communal importance—-which is to say, one that serves more than individual needs. These cultural norms are so pervasive and so enduring that they might as well be due to nature itself. We play with them at our peril.

* * *

And here is my impromptu response to a series of questions about the distinction between the core and the parameters of marriage:

[Click here to read more.]

The parameters and the core of marriage.

Is equality between spouses vital?

Is there any age limit (upper or lower) that is vital?

Are children vital?

Are limits by consanguinity vital?

Are there limits to how many husbands or wives there can be that are vital?

The five items you listed are not vital to a marriage. But they have developed from the man-woman union which demonstrates the vitality of the two-sex requirement. Despite variations on the secondary aspects of marriage, this criterion, the combination of man and woman, has been reflected through-out recorded history as the basis for the formation of a family and the social status of marriage.

The rest of what I had to say there is very close to David Blankenhorn's view which he expressed in an exchange with Dale Carpenter shortly after the release of Blankenhorn's pro-marriage book, "The Future of Marriage".

Unfortunately, Blankenhorn's blogged remarks no longer appear at Family Scholars Blog because they've had problems with their server. But if you want to follow the topic, here are a links to discussions in which Blankenhorn's remarks were discussed at length:

Dale Carpenter:

Gay marriage can very clearly meet five of the six dimensions of marriage. ...

My response to Carpenter and to other SSMers in the discussion:

6. Why do you imagine that marriage turns biological strangers into next-of-kin? See the nature of marriage.

This item #6, as David Blankenhorn puts it, is like the light bulb at the center of the other 5 items and it lights up those related items and gives them both context and special meaning. It is #6 that distinguishes the marital relationship from all other relationship types that might share, in some secondary or tertiary way, aspects of the previous 5 items.

Mr. Carpenter, your blogpost demonstrates that you argue for the two-person relationship type without giving an account of the nature of such a relationship type. In short, what is the essence of the thing you would have society call "marriage" -- if it is not illuminated by item #6?

Let's turn off that light bulb [#6] and proceed from there, as your post proposes, by the light of this two person relationship ideal.

* * *

My comment under the blogpost, "Plausible basis for SSM?" --

Note that the core of marriage is not a tradition.

The phrase "traditional marriage" would normally refer to a culture's particular traditions surrounding the core of marriage.

However, since SSMers have pushed forward the oxymoron, "gay marriage", some people have responded with a rhetorical response -- adding "traditional" to differentiate marriage from "gay marriage".

* * *

The Upshot:

What SSMers mean by "traditional marriage" is perhaps better described as everything that came before SSM was pushed to the top of the agenda ... except when SSM has been imposed for a few years, then it has become "traditional", too.

And, naturally, this means that most of what came before is bad and all that follows the imposition of SSM will be good. Or they mean something very like that.

However, the core meaning of marriage is not "traditional". It is universal. Gutting marriage of its core is not merely adding a new tradition to marriage. It would be a radical hollowing-out of marriage itself.

* * *

I think that marriage defenders and SSMers alike often confuse 1) the significance of tradition in terms of constitutional jurisprudence and 2) the significance of tradition as demarcating the boundaries and the protocols of marriage.

Items 1 and 2 are not one and the same even if there is overlap.

More later.

Missed USA

Shame on classless Perez Hilton – and I'm not talking about his riding the coattails of some heiress with a sex tape and rap sheet, or "outing" people who wish to keep their private lives private. Yes, I know Miss USA is a Miss America knock-off meant to give NBC-Universal some eye candy and supply Donald Trump with an endless number of reminders that he could always get divorced and remarried again, but that doesn't make it okay to turn the broadcast into a platform for the judges' personal pet causes by warring with contestants. Whatever his real name is, this guy brought this year's edition to a new low, and that's saying something for a pageant where one of the judges is wearing a hoodie. Yes, I caught some of it. My wife watches these things as she was once a pageant participant. She could have slapped that question down into the carpet.

[The rest is below the fold if you care to read it.]

When asked by judge Perez Hilton, an openly gay gossip blogger, whether she believed in gay marriage, Miss California, Carrie Prejean, said "We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite."
While a bit clumsy (she probably wasn't expecting this question, and rightly so), this statement is true. People have freedom of association. People are allowed to live as "married" with their same-sex partner, regardless of how they landlord feels or what the landlord thinks. The cops can't get involved.
"And you know what, I think in my country, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman."
This is the opinion presumably expressed by a majority of California voters – twice. Since when is is a big deal for a pageant participant to express the opinion of a majority of her state's voters?
Keith Lewis, who runs the Miss California competition, tells FOXNews.com that he was "saddened" by Prejean's statement.

"As co-director of the Miss California USA, I am personally saddened and hurt that Miss California believes marriage rights belong only to a man and a woman," said Lewis in a statement.

Well, Mr. Lewis, I don't mean to shock you, but every single one of us is either a man or a woman. So that means every single one of us has the same "marriage rights".

Apparently, the reporter was unable to either find someone with a more coherent argument than this, or failed to quote one if it was expressed:

Charmaine Koonce, the mother of Miss New Mexico USA Bianca Matamoros-Koonce, argued back.

"In the Bible it says marriage is between Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!"

While this is a simple version of an argument that may work with people who believe Adam and Eve have significance, there are arguments with much broader appeal expressed right here on this blog.

The audience at the pageant did not represent the majority of Californians – or Americans, for that matter.

"It Makes Marriage Meaningless"

From Island Breezes, this excellent insight:

Advocates of same-sex marriage need to step back and face themselves in the mirror. They will see someone willing to take away from someone else what they themselves can not have. Same sex marriage does not make two men or two women married. It makes marriage meaningless.
- Perspective: Same-Sex Marriage

The article in some ways falls into the trap of identity politics, but on balance is a good read.

Saturday, April 18, 2009

Different from most -- but not all

Iowa Supreme Court Justice Cady in his pro-SSM opinion:

Despite the commonality shared with other Iowans, the twelve plaintiffs are different from most in one way. They are sexually and romantically attracted to members of their own sex.

This is irrelevant to the marriage law.

But Cady equated "same-sex" with homosexual orientation. This he defined as sexual and romantic attraction to the same sex.

Yet he provided no sexual aspect in the law that would justify transformation of "same-sex" into "homosexual".

* * *

[read more below the fold]

* * *

The sexual aspect of the union of husband and wife was discarded when Cady said that the ability to procreate naturally was "insufficient" to support the state's argument that same-sex and opposite-sex relationships were dissimilarily situated.

Cady did not discuss the marital presumption of paternity for he dismissed sex differentiation in parenting, as well.

In this way Cady disregarded the core meaning of the social institution that the marriage law recognizes rather than creates.

The purpose of marriage law?

According to the Justice's opinion, the purpose of the marriage law is for the government to provide a sense of order to the legal relationships of committed partners and their families.

Now, one might ask, what sense of order is provided for unions of husband and wife when the sexual aspect of marriage is marginalized? The very aspect that legitimizes children as the natural progeny of the husband and the wife together? How does society benefit?

This willful judicial blindness to the sexual aspect of marriage law must now mean that eligiblity will be determined based on the extent to which those who come for a license to marry are similarily situated with same-sex relationships. For this becomes the new test of the constitutionality of the elegiiblity rules.

Similarily Situated.

Consider the range of man-woman combinations which are ineligible due to consanguinity and affinity. See the Iowa Code, Chapter XV, Subtitle 1, 595.19.

Despite the commonality shared with other Iowans, the plaintiffs are different from most in one way. They are sexually and romantically attracted to closely-related persons.

Or, since the sexual aspect is no longer sufficient to disqualify some people, then, mutual consent would suffice.

Despite the commonality shared with other Iowans, the plaintiffs are different from most in one way. They are mutually caring and committed and share dependancies with closely-related persons.

But waitaminute.

The marriage law does not inquire after sexual and romantic attractions. The man-woman criterion is neutral on that point.

But the sexual aspect is central to the marital presumption of paternity, now dropped dead by Cady's opinion, and one should not expect it to be revived as a trait that would distinguish a class of Iowans from most other Iowans for the purpose of marriage law.

Questions for SSMers.

Can someone please identify the sexual aspect, if any, on which Cady has based his opinion? How did he transform "same-sex" into "homosexual"? Is there a new legal requirement for homosexual attraction? I don't think you'll discover this in his reasoning. You might hope to read it into his remarks, but it is not there.

If there is no sexual aspect in the marriage law, at least none that Cady's opinion could tolerate as constitutional (such as societal concerns for responsible procreation and sex integration) then, on what basis would the lines drawn against first-cousins be sustained, for example? See the Iowa Code, Chapter XV, Subtitle 1, 595.19.

Maybe social taboo or revulsion or tradition or public morality. Or the assumpton that few people would marry closely-related persons. But this would directy contradict the insistence of SSMers that these are insufficient reasons to deny "marriage equality".

The presence or lack of romance is not relevant, nor is the presence or lack of sexual attraction, given Cady's stated purpose for the marriage law. You wouldn't rely on tradition alone, right?

And yet Justice Cady indicated that such attraction was decisive in his reasoning. But without a sexual aspect, his reasoning flies apart.

Or, more accurately, his reasoning flies away from marriage.

Friday, April 17, 2009

Powers of Ten (again)

See: "The Bigger They Are ... "

When pondering the seeming arrogance of those with whom you disagree, look for a little perspective and take a journey through forty powers of ten.

Also see: All from what looked like nothing.

Iowa court opinions on SSM

Justice Cady's marriage opinion (Supreme Court, 2009) is available at the website of the Iowa Judicial Branch, here.

Judge Hanson's trial court opinion (Polk District Court, 2007) is available here.

Related Opine Editorial blogposts, here.

Thursday, April 16, 2009

Asexual Ants Give up on Males

Its an interesting report that is right up the alley of our investigation into gendered biology, and then it takes the sci-fi twist right at the end...

Jacobus Boomsma, director of the Center for Social Evolution and a professor in the Department of Biology at the University of Copenhagen, told Discovery News, "Time will tell whether this ant is an ancient 'asexual scandal' that flies in the face of commonly accepted theory or whether there is a good explanation, albeit perhaps an unusual one."

His "hunch is that the answer lies in this ant being extremely Catholic in its association with a wide array of fungal partners."

Humans are, of course, a sexual species, but "in theory, genetic engineering could in the distant future enable male-less reproduction," Himler said. "A female could then reproduce without any male mate, whereas a male would still need a female mate to reproduce because males don't have the reproductive machinery to make babies."

She added, "How such theoretical societies would look is difficult to predict."

I add this in light of a reply I gave in the comment section recently...

Twenty-five Bucks to Buck the SSM campaign

See: 25 for UFI.

Also video: the international battle to protect motherhood, fatherhood, marriage, life, liberty and family.

Wednesday, April 15, 2009

The Ground Politics of the Courtcentric SSM campaign

The Washington Post has published an article that describes the politics of the courtcentric SSM campaign in Iowa.

When taking the court route, the activists identify same-sex couples to bring test cases, typically after meeting and spending time with scores of couples. They prepare the selected couples for what is likely to be intense, sometimes harsh media attention. They study the state's constitution and review past court rulings, waiting to move until they feel the political and legal climate is favorable.

The political and the legal were cojoined in a strategy that sought to impose SSM in a state that is heavily pro-marriage.

[more below the fold]

By December 2005, three years after she took on the cause, Taylor decided the foundation in Iowa was set and she filed a case for six gay couples. She selected them strategically, finding those who were representative and picking a pair from every region of the state.

The selection process cannot be emphasized enough, I think. It directly reflects the political strategy used in the courtrooms.

She also made another key strategic move -- selecting a local co-counsel, someone respected in Iowa and by the state's Supreme Court, where she knew the case would ultimately be decided.

Where high courts have decided in favor of merging SSM with marriage (under the name civil union or marriage), the defense of marriage has usually fallen to the presiding Attorney General or a Health Department or a County Office. It is rare for the lead to be provided by legal counsel supplied by a local pro-marriage organization, as in Ken Starr's oral arguments in favor of the constitutionality of Proposition 8 in California. Unlike the pro-SSM side, we generally don't get to pick our defenders.

Based on my reading of the Iowa court's pro-SSM opinion, it appears that an assertion of politics, not judicial review, decided the case. So perhaps even a stronger legal defense would not have overcome that political bias.

"There wasn't a strong local group that would be the go-to group for organizing a campaign for marriage equality," said Sharon Malheiro, who founded the group One Iowa shortly after Taylor filed suit on behalf of the six couples.

"If we were going to do this in Iowa, it had to be Iowans talking to Iowans," Malheiro said. One Iowa began coordinating with Taylor and Lambda Legal, with the local group taking over much of the public education effort.

It is not clear how a courtcentric campaign amounts to Iowans talking to Iowans. The pro-SSM attempt to re-educate the public has failed since the majority continued to oppose to the SSM-merger.

Taylor made one other major tactical move in the fall of 2006, when she added the couples' children as plaintiffs. Some people in the gay advocacy movement objected, she said, saying that children should not be inserted into the marriage debate. But Taylor wanted to raise the issue of the rights of children of gay couples to deflate the opposition argument that marriage was solely about procreation.

The presence of children in same-sex households does not "deflate" the strong argument in favor of the contingency for responsible procreation.

Indeed, there is no pro-marriage argument from any major pro-marriage organization -- in court or outside -- that claims that procreation is the sole purpose of marriage. The tactical move was a political move, not a legal move, and as such it was to showcase a strawman argument for the pro-SSM side to attack.

This frank glimpse into the local courtcentric campaign in Iowa and into the thinking of its leading lights ought to reinforce our resolve against SSM argumentation and SSM politics. We face identity groups whose goal is to subvert the Law and to make gay identity politics a trump card against all opposition and dissent. Like the ascendancy of identity politics of all kinds, the use of strawmen arguments and the misrepresentation of those who disagree is endemic to the SSM campaign -- both inside and outside of the courtrooms.

* * *

Compare and contrast with the ground politics of the pro-SSM legislative campaign in Vermont: Wrenched Connections.

MIllions Watched "Gathering Storm"

Brian Brown, Executive Director of the National Organization for Marriage, says that "Gathering Storm" is already a huge success:

In less than a week our new television commercial has been seen by millions on national television as the ad was replayed over and over again in segments on MSNBC, CNN, Fox News, and CBS. As of today, nearly 350,000 viewers have watched it on YouTube, making it one of the top 30 most watched YouTube videos of the past week.

More importantly, hundreds of thousands of Americans have been alerted, most for the first time, to the threat that same-sex marriage poses to the religious liberties of individuals and faith groups.

[...]

Last week, our president, Maggie Gallagher, went head-to-head with HRC’s president, Joe Solmonese on Hardball and she utterly devastated Joe’s baseless claims.

Those of us familiar with the marriage debate know that every single story on the ad is real. But many Americans did not know before this past week. Now they do.

He also notes:

HRC has distributed supposedly “secret” audition tapes of the commercial. They’re not secret, but they were never distributed or released so however HRC got them, they did so unethically. Further, having done ads of their own in the past, HRC knows that (a) such materials are copyrighted and (b) the actors in the audition tapes did not sign consent forms. HRC is violating both their rights and our own through the publication of the audition tapes . . . and they can be sure we will take appropriate action.

* * *

Wrenched Connections: Imposition of SSM in Vermont

Dr. Craig Benson runs “Take it to the People”, the Vermont Citizen Coalition for Traditional Marriage. His group has been working on the marriage issue in Vermont since 1997.

Here are large portions of an interview he gave to Voice Of The Nation and which has been partly transcribed at BeetleBlogger.

[more below the fold]

Civil Union Imposed Through Judiciary Intervention.

[By 1999 then-Governor Howard Dean had] orchestrated a situation whereby when a same sex marriage lawsuit came to a local court, it worked it’s way quickly up to the state supreme court.

When it got there, the ruling that came out was cleverly designed to open the door as far as the legislature could make it open without necessarily saying that they had to do same sex marriage; they said they could do same sex marriage, and at the same time said they didn’t have to make same sex marriage but they did have to make sure that same sex couples got all the benefits that married couples got.

At that time the huge outcry on the part of citizens who opposed any such thing, forced them to quote “take marriage off the table”, and then they cleverly borrowed an idea from Europe and came up with civil unions, where it was the first time America had to deal with something like that.

A "Perfect Storm".

And then they waited nine years and came back and at a perfect storm moment in Vermont’s political history, managed to squeak same sex marriage through. The bill was one vote shy of having been killed by a veto.

[...]

The veto deal for Vermont is that there are a hundred and fifty house members, the house and the senate both have to have a 2/3rds vote to override a veto. Our Senate was such that it was a 25/5 vote; and no one was expecting the veto to be sustained in that body. But in the House, they thought it would be very close because the vote on the bill had been 96/52 and a 99/50 vote would have given us victory.

It came down to a 100/49 vote and that gave them their one vote victory, with no other options for doing anything [...] at this point. [Nothing] besides as I say, throwing the bums out, starting with a new group, and repealing the existing law. [This] would be a huge political undertaking.

[...]

It was probably the slickest, most carefully orchestrated and planned out political campaign that Vermont has ever seen in terms of several years of preparation and building up to it, and lots of money going into election races over several election cycles, carefully grooming and picking candidates to take over a seat here and there and finally getting to the point where they pretty much had a veto-proof majority in the house and the senate on the part of the political left.

The Rush and Push to SSM.

When the time came to do the deed, they announced it. You know, something that had not been a campaign issue in November, and was not a priority in January and February, when the house came back in session, [but] suddenly [it] became a legislative priority two days after our legislators had been at their town meetings talking to their constituents.

So they didn’t even have a clue then when we were having this statewide town meeting cycle, that anybody should ask their legislators what they should do about this bill because it wasn’t a priority and we’d been assured it wasn’t going anyplace.

Then they announced it and Wham!

Off it went and within three hours of the priority being announced the other side had slickly produced television commercials and radio commercials running on all the radio and tv stations in the state. They had half- and full-page ads in all of the major newspapers. They blew a tremendous amount of money in media and setting the stage for this to happen. It was politically extremely well done.

Difficult Amending Process.

In Vermont, constitutional amendments can only originate in the Senate in presidential election years if 20 of the 30 senators decide to start the ball rolling. So you need 2/3rds to start it in the Senate and then the House needs to pass it by a 50% vote. And then two years later, when you have a second biennial session come back, both the House and the Senate have to pass it by a 50% vote. And then in the next general election after that, the question is put to the people.

That is, by the way, the closest thing Vermont has to a binding citizen’s initiative. The citizens can’t initiate it. They can just put into office people who are willing to initiate it.

The Wrenched Disconnections.

[Both Vermont and California] suffer from Supreme Courts that have a little trouble being connected to reality [...] and legislators that are not connected to the people.

[...]

This whole deal went down in less than a month, so the amount of public discourse that was allowed was a little weak; and particularly since they timed it so during the one time of the year when the representatives are back mingling with their people on purpose, during town meeting, well when they announced that this was a priority two days AFTER town meeting.

That means they didn’t WANT to talk to their people about it.

They also managed to wrap it all up before anyone knows how much money they spent on it. It’s still three weeks before the reporting is required to come in on how much was spent to influence legislation. So, there’s a lot of hiddenness about this.

The other thing about this is, and this is my schpeal on how well our legislators listen to us, is that when we said “Slow it down! We need to talk about this, you’re going too fast.” What we were told was, “We’ve been talking about this for nine years!” you know, since civil unions. “We’ve talked plenty, we’re just going to make it happen.”

Not by the People, Not for the People.

Now let me describe for you what those legislators consider talking and listening.

They didn’t listen for civil unions. The public polls were three to one against same sex marriage or anything like it, and they did it anyway.

Then they set up two commissions for the following two legislative years, that by the way could not be amended, or have their membership changed by any succeeding legislature. Two commissions to review civil unions, and the only people that were allowed on the commissions were the people who invented and made civil unions happen. And they were supposed to give reports as to how well the institution was working.

Then when they wanted to discuss the issue again a year and a half ago, they set up a marriage commission to investigate not whether civil unions were ok, but whether it’s time to upgrade civil unions to same sex marriage, and they filled the entire commission with people who had already announced to be supporters of same sex marriage.

They embarrassed themselves so much by that that even the major newspapers in the state were starting to say, “Shame on you!” for this obvious set-up and kangaroo commission thing.

And then, when they come to actually doing the law, they don’t bother to do it at a time when we can talk to them and they do it so fast we CAN’T talk to them.

In the midst of that, they skipped or refused to do a non-binding referendum which is Vermont’s only option for letting the people speak on an issue. We can’t put something into law, but they can put a question to the state that measures the opinion. They refused to do that.

From their point of view it was time for this to happen and they were going to make it happen. It had nothing to do with citizens and everything to do with the oligarchy that sits at our state capitol.

A Conscience Vote versus a Party-line Vote: Pressure.

[There was] huge political pressure from the side of the Democrats and the leftists, we call them Progressives in Vermont.

We have a three party system. There are the Republicans which are the minority party, the Democrats which are the majority, and then there are the Progressives which are left of the Democrats, and they have enough power that they put a progressive, Bernie Saunders, into the U.S. Senate, from Vermont. So, it’s a very unusual political setup.

Now, [as for] the pressure.

Here’s how we discussed it: Some of the legislators were discussing the day of the vote about the extreme pressure that had been put on some of their Blue Dog Democrat friends to switch their votes, and they were saying, "Well, you know, if you don’t do what the Democratic leadership wants, they throw you under the bus!”

And I responded to that and said, “Well there’s the difference, the Republicans don’t own a bus!” because the Republican side did not pressure anyone to vote with the caucus. It was purely an issue of conscience.

Even though the governor said there would be a veto and he had delivered on the veto, he did not lobby any of the straying Republicans to try to woo them back to a party side.

Meanwhile, the Democrats were either going after squishy Republicans, and promising them money and election help, or they were going after the Democrats that had strayed from the party and promising to run people against them in the primary -- to never give them any money again and to take them out of their favored positions on committees, punishing them by putting them in the woodshed for the rest of the time they were in the legislature.

So much so that we had at least one representative who came in pretty much in tears on the day of the vote because the pressure had been so intense over the weekend.

A lot of political pressure, a lot of buying, selling, threatening and intimidation, amazingly from the people who insisted that we put an anti-bullying law in for our schools, those very people were the ones doing the bullying on the folks in their party.

* * *

See:

Insider's Story: How The Gay Marriage Vote Went Down in Vermont.

Tuesday, April 14, 2009

Plausible basis for SSM?

Peter Sprigg, in "The Iowa Supreme Court's Marriage Creation Myth", writes that,

Marriage exists in virtually every human society, of every culture and every religion-and for thousands of years, it has always and everywhere been a male-female union.

Then he offers the following scenarios for the origin of marriage:

Scenario #1 --

"We've noticed that sometimes an adult human being will form a strong pair-bond with another adult human being. These two individuals will choose to share a dwelling, share economic resources with each other, and make a commitment to stay together for an extended period of time. Let's create a social institution to provide public affirmation for these generic pair-bonds between adult human beings, and let's call that institution 'marriage'. But because we dislike gay people, let's make sure they can't participate!"

Or, Scenario #2 --

"We've noticed that when a man and a woman have sex with each other, the woman sometimes gets pregnant and has a baby. We need babies for our society to continue into the future. And we've noticed that it's easier to raise those babies if the mother and father stay together and cooperate in raising them. We know that there are many other relationships between human beings that are important, but because this kind of relationship between a man and a woman serves such an important function for society as a whole, let's create a social institution that will encourage, protect, and regulate it. We'll call it 'marriage'."

Could anyone possibly argue -- with a straight face -- that the first scenario is a more plausible explanation for the origin of marriage than the second? Yet that is, in effect, what the Iowa Supreme Court ruled.

Peter Sprigg concludes:

[T]he court unilaterally changed the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples, and then used that as justification for ordering a change in the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples. It doesn't get much more circular than that.

* * *

No, there is no sexual basis for SSM.

In a previous blogpost I asked, Is there a sexual basis for SSM?

The answer is, No.

But marriage is a public sexual relationship -- in our customs, traditions, and laws.

Sunday, April 12, 2009

What is the basis for the presumption of paternity?

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.

Is there a sexual basis for SSM?

What is the sexual basis, if any, for SSM?

Suppose that "gay union" is imposed as exactly the same as the public union of husband and wife. The two would be merged in name and everything else. Would there remain a sexual basis for distinguishing "marriage" from nonmarital arrangements and relationships?

If yes, howso?

If not, then, how can SSM argumentation really be based on a claim of unjust classification by sexual orientation?

Saturday, April 11, 2009

From Marriage to a Mere Contract

Conn Carroll at Heritage Foundation's blog, The Foundry:

[The] Iowa Supreme Court became the fourth state supreme court to redefine marriage to include same-sex couples. Justifying his decision Iowa Supreme Court Justice Mark Cady invoked his court’s 1839 decision which struck down slavery laws. Heritage’s Matthew Spalding addressed the specious argument back in 2003.

Mathew Spalding:

The argument of these judges is that homosexual “marriage” is simply the extension of privileges to a discriminated class in the name of civil rights. The parallel is made to the Supreme Court’s striking down, as instances of arbitrary and invidious discrimination, statutes that had been drawn according to race, in particular laws against interracial marriage.

But this analogy does not work. The first court faced with this argument as the ground used to justify same-sex “marriage” made the obvious point: “in commonsense and in a constitutional sense, there is a clear distinction between a marital restriction based merely upon race and one based upon the fundamental difference in sex.”

What is happening is no minor adjustment, a slight change in degree that just extends benefits or rights to a larger class, but a substantive change in the essence of the institution. It does not expand marriage; it alters its core meaning, for to redefine marriage so that it is not intrinsically related to the relationship between fathers, mothers, and children formally severs the institution from its nature and purpose.

Expanding marriage supposedly to make it more inclusive, no matter what we call the new arrangement, necessarily ends marriage as we now know it by remaking the institution into something different: a mere contract between any two individuals.

Below is an extensive selection of snippets from Mathew Spalding's 2003 article.

[read more below the fold]

A Defining Moment: Marriage, the Courts, and the Constitution.

Marriage and Constitutional Government are at stake

What was once an important debate over the nature, purpose, and legal status of marriage has emerged as a critical national issue, the resolution of which will shape the future of our society and the course of constitutional government in the United States.

[...]

These judicial decisions [...] seek to redefine the institution of marriage by judicial fiat and affirm homosexual "marriage" as a fundamental civil right that the federal government has a constitutional obligation to secure nationwide.

Faced with such a concerted legal and political effort to deconstruct and thereby undermine one of the most basic institutions of civil society, policymakers must now take immediate steps at both the state and federal levels to protect marriage, prevent judicial usurpation, and uphold the rule of law.

Overwhelming Consensus.

For thousands of years, on the basis of experience, tradition, and legal precedent, every society and every major religious faith have upheld marriage as a unique relationship by which a man and a woman are joined together for the primary purpose of forming and maintaining a family. This overwhelming consensus results from the fact that the union of man and woman is apparent and manifest in the most basic and evident truths of human nature.

Marriage is the formal recognition of this relationship by society and its laws. While individual marriages are recognized by government, the institution of marriage pre-exists and is antecedent to the institution of government, which in turn presupposes and depends on the institution of marriage. Society's interest in uniquely elevating the status of marriage among human relationships is that marriage is the necessary foundation of the family, and thus necessary for societal existence and well-being.

Responsible Procreation.

Only in the context of family built on the foundation of marriage can the sometimes competing needs and interests of men, women, and children be harmonized.

[...]

Based on existing studies comparing two-parent and single-parent households, social science overwhelmingly demonstrates that children do far better when they are raised by two married parents in a stable family relationship and that children raised in other household structures are subject to significantly increased risk of harm. [...] Although we have little information concerning children raised in households with same-sex parents, what we do know is that marriage between a man and a woman provides unique social, economic, and health benefits for children, adults, and society in general.

Form and Substance.

In the end, despite all the changes that law and cultural trends have wrought concerning marriage--despite the laws concerning prenuptial agreements, divorce, tax, and property that treat marriage as a contract--it has never before been, nor is it now completely, the case that marriage is a mere contract. Society has changed the form, but never the substance, of marriage; and it is the substance of marriage--its very nature, definition, and purpose--that creates and justifies its unique position as a social institution and continues to give lawmakers strong and reasonable arguments for upholding traditional marriage and protecting it in law.

[...]

Expanding marriage supposedly to make it more inclusive, no matter what we call the new arrangement, necessarily ends marriage as we now know it by remaking the institution into something different: a mere contract between any two individuals.

Consequences.

Changing the definition of marriage--or even remaining neutral as to that definition--breaks down the very argument that gives marriage its unique and preferable status in society. If marriage becomes just one form of commitment in a spectrum of sexual relationships rather than a preferred monogamous relationship for the sake of children, the line separating sexual relations within and outside of marriage becomes blurred, and so does the public policy argument against out-of-wedlock births or in favor of abstinence.

Based on current evidence and settled reasoning, it would be a terrible folly to weaken marriage either by elevating non-marital unions to the same position or by lowering the institution of marriage to the status of merely one form of household.

[...]

Imposed by the courts, the redefinition of marriage is the legal establishment of a new status quo. While it is not correct to say that homosexuality or the advance of same-sex "marriage" is solely to blame--traditional marriage measured in terms of divorce, cohabitation, illegitimacy, and fatherlessness has been in decline for some time--the judicial redefinition of marriage, forced by the push for same-sex "marriage," essentially codifies and affirms these trends.

Consider a few possibilities.

Churches, synagogues, mosques, religious schools, and faith-based charities, as well as secular organizations of every kind, would be subject to a new kind of government scrutiny [under new laws forbidding discrimination in hiring based on sexual orientation].

[...]

By definition, all dissenters will find themselves at odds with the new political ethos and are likely to be stigmatized as prejudiced and discriminatory. [...] The legalization of homosexual "marriage" will greatly accelerate these pressures to marginalize the nation's religious communities and the values that define them.

[...]

The deconstruction of marriage will affect what children are taught in virtually every subject at public schools. Students will be instructed that marriage, like slavery before it, is a vestige of America's discriminatory past that was overcome by the latest step forward in the advancement of civil rights. At the very least, heterosexual and homosexual relations will be presented in public schools as fundamentally equivalent expressions of individual autonomy.

Defending Marriage and Constitutional Government.

Under normal circumstances, the federal DOMA would survive constitutional scrutiny. Many thoughtful legal scholars, however, believe that it likely would not withstand activist judges using dubious interpretations of due process or equal protection to advance their policy objectives. Given what is at stake, it is risky to rely solely on the federal DOMA.

In any event, the federal DOMA does not protect the nation from state judges like those in Massachusetts who misconstrue their state constitution to establish same-sex "marriage." Nor does it address various local jurisdictions that openly ignore and violate state marriage laws.

[...]

If the options are either to allow a few activist judges to redefine marriage by fiat or to amend the Constitution to reflect the settled will of the people, the choice is clear. It is imperative, for the sake of constitutional government, that we proceed with the democratic process of amending the Constitution.

If not us, who? And if not now, when?

This is a defining moment for our nation. Americans are a greatly tolerant and very reasonable people. They did not choose this debate or force this issue on the nation. But now that the issue has been joined and the decision has been forced, we must act in accord with our basic principles and deepest convictions to preserve constitutional government and the foundational structure of civilization.

HRC challenged by NOM on substance

From the comment section under my blogpost, "SSM and Religious Liberty -- NOM vs. HRC", the following was said of the "Gathering Storm" audition reels that SSMers had obtained and published on Youtube.

BlackTsunami:

The complaint about actors couldn't have been too uneffective. NOM removed the clips from Youtube.

Youtube, not NOM, removed the audition video. Meanwhile, the NOM ad, "Gathering Storm", remains available.

[more below the fold]

* * *

The audition material had been placed on Youtube by someone else -- presumably a political enemy of NOM.

At the time, the HRC piled on almost immediately. Maybe there's a connection between the unauthorized use of NOM's property (and the acquisition of it in the first place) and the HRC's rapid reaction to "Gathering Storm" on its media website. [See footnote]

Or maybe the mutual interest was entirely ... urgently coincidental.

No matter, NOM's ad says (in text in the video) that these are actors. There's nothing being hidden nor denied on that point. The message is based on real events and real controversies.

So the anti-NOM complaint about actors was trivial and effectively misleading. And it may have been assisted with a politically motivated infringement of copyright. The question of dishonesty reflects back onto the HRC and the SSM campaign's operatives.

More importantly, NOM's message in "Gathering Storm" stands or falls on its merits.

Maggie Gallagher, president of NOM, responded with the following blogpost on NOM's blogsite:

The response from the Human Rights Campaign (and others) to the release of the Gathering Storm ad this week is nothing new. It’s the exact same tactic we saw last year in California: Call us liars with no substantiation on particular facts.

To HRC: People are smarter than this. Check out our background facts here.

And for those who keep asking about the actors — It’s a professionally produced ad. Of course we used actors. We say so right in the ad. Is that the best talking point HRC could come up with? If so, we struck more of a nerve than I originally thought.

I challenge the Human Rights Campaign to try to refute any of the incidents described in the ad. Please.

The fact is you can’t (the WashPost just verified them again today) — so you simply cry “liar” and hope that it sticks. Sorry, we’re smarter than that.

If there are legitimate disputes of fact, then, SSMers might substantiate their contentions.

[more below the fold]

* * *

Footnote:

The HRC grabbed the opportunity to make hay of the audition video when it published on its website links to the item on Youtube. That link was made inactive and the video was replaced with the Youtube message, "This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by National Organization for Marriage."

In quick order, the HRC replaced that first link with another to snippets of the audition video posted by the Rachel Maddow Show. That link now also displays the copyright message.

Acting on a lawful copyright claim seems to make good business sense (especially for a nonprofit organization on a tight budget) to protect transactions with the actors and others involved in the production.

Friday, April 10, 2009

Update on Rick Warren's remarks

Watch the video and read the transcript of Larry King's interview with Rick Warren, here.

SSM and Religious Liberty -- NOM vs. HRC

National Organization for Marriage (NOM) has released a new video advertisement for television, "Gathering Storm".

Already, Boston Catholic Charities has been denied its adoption agency license because of their religious beliefs concerning marriage and the welfare of children. A New Jersey church group has been denied property tax exemption because they cannot in good conscience permit civil union ceremonies in church facilities. And individual service providers have been forced to choose between their faith and their profession. Religious liberty experts have said that these sorts of conflicts just scratch the surface of what we are likely to see if same-sex marriage becomes widespread.

Human Rights Campaign (HRC) has attacked the ad as "fake".

The HRC is the largest gay lobby group in the USA.

On its website the HRC begins its complaint by emphasizing that it has released audition reels it has obtained which show that the NOM ad used actors. Without being explicit, the HRC strongly suggests that ads that use actors reading scripts are "phony".

They should complain to Samuel L. Jackson, too.

Heh.

I thought that was a very superficial way to begin their complaint.

As I said at a pro-SSM blogiste:

The ad provides a political message. That's fair enough.

Are you complaining that actors cannot appear in such ads or that reading scripts for such ads is somehow dishonest?

Because I am pretty sure that the anti-Mormon ad of the No-on-8 side used actors for all the characters. Right?

See Courage Campain's: "Home Invasion": Vote NO on Prop 8. It is widely lauded as the most effective No-on-8 tv ad. Note that its explicit anti-Mormon depiction serves to illustrate the truthful theme of NOM's "Gathering Storm" ad.

[more below the fold]

* * *

For a small taste of the positive feedback among SSMers for the "Home Invasion" ad, see the pro-SSM discussion of the ad: Mormon Home Invasion.

Comments from that blog:

"I wish all the No On 8 ads had been this powerful."

"That was by far the most effective ad."

"Excellent! Shine a bright light on the bigots & make them crawl out from under their rocks!"

"The ad got more media coverage here in CA than they ever could afford to buy."

The complaint about the use of actors is a triviality. The substantive issue consists of the profoundly illiberal conflict that arises for religious liberty and freedom of conscience in the midst of the imposition of SSM and of gay identity politics.

* * *

Anyway, the HRC's website says that it is

"calling out those who maliciously use lies and misinformation to interfere with the LGBT community’s path to equality"

such as NOM and

"the American Family Association (AFA), the elders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, Oklahoma State Representative Sally Kern, and Utah State Senator Chris Buttars, Proposition 8 lawyer Ken Starr, right-wing media personality Rush Limbaugh, and GOP Chairman Michael Steele."

* * *

HRC also published its attempted rebuttal to the ad's political message:

1.

The [California] law does not, and cannot, dictate [a doctor's] faith - it can only insist that she follow her oath as a medical professional.

2.

The [New Jersey] law does not challenge the church organization’s beliefs about homosexuality - it merely requires that [their property which] had been open to all for years comply with laws protecting everyone from discrimination, including gays and lesbians.

3.

The [Massachusetts] law does not stop [a parent] from disagreeing, from teaching [her child] consistently with her differing beliefs at home, or even educating her child in a setting that is more in line with her faith traditions. But it does not allow any one parent to dictate the curriculum for all students based on her family’s religious traditions.

* * *

NOM has responded with a brief statement in response:

HRC's record of truth and honesty about their intentions is not that impressive. They once said marriage amendments weren't necessary because there were no federal court cases. Now there is one.

They called us liars when we said public schools will teach about gay marriage if its the law--but they do in Massachusetts. Serious religious liberty scholars from Eugene Volokh to Doug Laycock to Robin Wilson acknowledge the central driving idea behind gay marriage--there is no difference between same-sex and opposite sex unions and supporters of marriage are engaging in discrimination if they think differently--will have consequences for the freedoms of traditional faith communities. To pretend otherwise is to be profoundly unserious--if not deceptive--about what gay marriage means.

* * *

On its website, NOM provides background facts for "Gathering Storm":

1.

Shortly after the California Supreme Court redefined marriage in California law, a California Court of Appeals heard a case involving a doctor who had referred a woman in a same-sex couple to another doctor for artificial insemination because of his religiously based conscientious objection to participating in the procedure. The court held that the doctor could claim no religious exemption to the civil rights law under which she was sued because of the State’s compelling interest in ending sexual orientation discrimination, a policy one judge identified as emanating from the court’s marriage decision.

2.

A N.J. Methodist Camp Association was denied part of its tax exemption when it declined to allow a portion of its property to be used for a civil union ceremony. The same-sex couples who wanted to use the property are also pursuing a discrimination complaint against the Association, and the Division of Civil Rights in the Attorney General’s Office has found “probable cause” for continuing the action against the Association.

3.

[P]arents of young elementary school students objected to curriculum and class room discussion meant to inculcate in the children the idea that there are no differences between the marriages of men and women and [unions] involving same-sex couples. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit held that public schools “have an interest in promoting tolerance, including for the children (and parents) of gay marriages. [...] Given that Massachusetts has recognized gay marriage under its state constitution, it is entirely rational for its schools to educate their students regarding that recognition.”

4.

[S]everal articles [discuss] religious liberty issues in the same-sex marriage context. See Jonathan Rauch & David Blankenhorn, A Reconciliation on Gay Marriage, NY Times, Feb. 22, 2009, at WK 11 (“Cases of this sort are already arising in the courts, and religious organizations that oppose same-sex marriage are alarmed.”); Barbara Bradley Hagerty, Gay Rights, Religious Liberties: A Three Act Story, supra, (“As states have legalized same-sex partnerships, the rights of gay couples have consistently trumped the rights of religious groups.”); Peter Steinfels, Will Same-Sex Marriage Collide with Religious Liberty? NY Times, June 10, 2006 (“Chai R. Feldblum, a professor at Georgetown University Law Center and a proponent of same-sex marriage agrees that permitting gay couples equal access to civil marriage will inevitably burden the religious liberty of those religiously opposed.”); and Maggie Gallgher, Banned in Boston: The Coming Conflict Between Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty, The Weekly Standard, May 16, 2006 (“‘The coming conflicts over religious liberty stemming from gay marriage [will] affect every aspect of church-state relations.’” (quoting Anthony Picarello, General Counsel for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops)).

Read the letter sent by NOM to the station managers of the TV networks on which it has launched its ad, Gathering Storm.

This letter provides the basic substantiation for NOM's television advertisements entitled "Gathering Storm," 60-sec and 30-sec ads. Additional information and documentation is available on request. Because everything in the 30-sec ad is in the 60-sec ad, this letter will substantiate each factual statement of the 60-sec ad.

Also see: "HRC challenged by NOM on substance of ad".