Gay politics as sexual anarchy

When people will be taught from an early age that gay is acceptable, gay is good, there is nothing wrong or bad about it, even how pleasurable and fun it can be…… how many of them, when reaching sexual maturity, might not be tempted to experiment with homosexuality?

After all, why not? No educator or public instance will have ever taught them that there is anything wrong, bad, or immoral about this once this is a policy approved and imposed by government. In fact, it will probably be just the opposite!

And what effect will this have on the time-honored ideal of the sexual relationship as the union of a man and a woman legitimately united in a bond of wondrous, life-giving power?

It will utterly corrupt this ideal! It will desecrate it! It will make impossible any ideal of the the sexual relationship once it is divorced from procreation and leave a gaping hole that will invite sexual anarchy. And sexual anarchy is simply anarchy!

The politics of homosexuality is an appallingly corruptive force!

Why "marriage equality" is important to gays

It is important to gays because they want public sanction and legitimacy for their lifestyles, and they will use government power to acquire it. This is what same-sex marriage is all about. It is not about marriage!

It is about power and leverage!

It is important to gays because it is about the power to queer America and eventually, every other nation, and same-sex marriage will give gays the political leverage to achieve their aims. Enacting so-called "marriage equality" will give the gay lobby the political leverage to effect the policy of imposing the standards of public morality that gays desire.

However one might feel about homosexuality, people will be forced to accept it whether one likes it or not (a favorite phrase employed by gays) as something acceptable, good, desirable even, or else shut up about it, or else face the full force of government power and punishment. The gay rights movement is essentially a fascist one.

Though gay activists cloak their language with noble, high sounding rhetoric, when they seek legitimacy for their lifestyle in this way it is no longer about tolerance and live-and-let-live. Seeing the fascism of their true goals provokes the fear and reaction of many who cherish their freedoms. Their fear is not simple "homophobia." Their fear is about government tyranny and the influence the special interest gay lobby exerts on government to achieve its goals.

The gay political movement will really be hammering another nail into the coffin of Liberty.

Greg Koul On Neutering State Marriage Licensing

Stand to Reason's Greg Koukl, who is a very careful thinker, took a call on his radio show on marriage neutering. The audio clip is here on STR's blog. It lasts several minutes. He touches on many of the points we have discussed here.

Just One Good Reason………

Those defending the traditional and historic understanding of marriage have often been asked by same-sex marriage advocates to provide one good reason why marriage should not include same-sex couples. There are more than just one good reason, some being that:

1) There is NO good reason to include same-sex couples. No one has ever provided a good reason why these should be included. "Why not?" as a reason just won't do it.

2) There is no legitimate public interest in any same-sex relationship that is commensurable to the public interest in opposite-sex romantic or sexual relationships.

3) Same-sex marriage would disrupt, change and supplant the cultural assumptions of an historic institution.

4) As any same-sex relationships, same-sex couples are not included in the statutory classification denoting eligibility to marry for reasons number 1 and 2 above.

5) Same-sex marriage imposes another definition on the institution of marriage.

6) Same-sex marriage imposes another standard of public morality

……etc.

Importantly, however, the reasons to support and defend the majority civilizations' traditional understanding of marriage against any attempts to undermine this – as the institutionalization of same-sex marriage would do – are also philosophical and aesthetic in nature.

The traditional understanding of marriage as a man and a woman legitimately united in a bond of wondrous, life-giving power upholds a model, especially in Western civilization, that represents the cultural ideal of sexuality and beauty for the sexual relationship. Because this is an ideal, it must necessarily be unique.

Wanting to supplant this traditional ideal, homosexual activist propose an alternative cultural "ideal" that, at its core, is two consenting adults united in a bond that confers legal rights, benefits and privileges. On its face, this "ideal" is utterly pedestrian. It is also arbitrary. Lacking in inspiration and aesthetic power, this is an "ideal" that is no ideal at all, in spite of homosexuals' attempts to dress it up as a bond of love, care and mutual sharing of two persons.

It is arbitrary for specifying "two" This has likely been done by gay rights activists to make the pill of same-sex marriage easier to swallow, as the idea of "two consenting adults" piggy-backs on the cultural assumptions and the special place of honor that society has always had for the union of a man and a woman, the only "two" who are truly significant, as these two comprise the two essential and necessary beings for recreating new life.

There is nothing necessary or essential about "two", however, for the same-sex relationship. This, naturally, opens to challenge the ideal of two consenting adults. Why just two? Where is the ideal or necessity in that?

Like lipstick on a pig, the attempts by gay activists to dress up this new cultural "ideal" as a bond of love, care and mutual sharing almost seems inspirational and aesthetically pleasing at first, until one realizes that people can pretty much love, care and share with pretty much anything they want. For homosexuals to remedy this by imposing conceptual restraints so as to exclude all who do not fit the conceptual model that homosexuals have conveniently imagined for themselves only robs this "ideal" of any claim to credibility and highlights more and more its arbitrary character. It seems just too tailor made for serving the political purposes of the homosexual lobby.

People of all cultures and civilizations are attached to their historic ideals, values and traditions, and the union of a man and a woman legitimately united in a bond of wondrous, life-giving power is one of these. To replace this revered ideal held in such high honor and esteem by all civilizations with the notion that two consenting adults united in a bond that merely confers legal rights, benefits and privileges is any sort of ideal equal or superior to the one that it supplants is an affront and an outrage to human dignity and worth!

The life and power of a civilization arises from the deep well of the spirit that animates a people. When this well runs dry and the inspiration giving life to its ideals degenerates into mere legalities and specious technicalities where it really becomes just a question of "what's in it for me", then this is a civilization that is exhausted and at the end of its road. Gay rights activists are helping to chart this course to decline for America and the West, and that is not only sad, but it is something that should raise the hackles of any decent person.

So it is important for the spiritual life of a nation, of America and the other Western nations, to renew with the spirit that gave it life; to honor what is honorable; to venerate what is timeless; to worship what is sacred, and to begin setting the course right again by upholding the ideal that is the sacred institution of marriage as the life-giving relationship of a man and a woman who are both ultimately united by God.

Study Says Divorce Devastates

Surprise! Divorce is bad for us. Jeanna Bryner, senior writer at LiveScience.com, brings us the article.

Scientists have known that marriage can boost a man's health and augment a women's purse. The new study shows that divorce or losing a spouse to death can exact an immediate and long-lasting toll on those mental and physical gains.

Didn't we know this intuitively?

[Make the jump if you want to read the details.]

"That period during the time that this event is taking place is extremely stressful," said study researcher Linda Waite, a sociologist and director of the Center on Aging at the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago.

This is obvious, isn't it?

Finding that divorce and spousal death had similar impacts on a person's health suggests divorce operates like a traumatic event in one's life, according to Waite.

I've heard that divorce's impact on children is like a death in the family. Nowhere in this article is the impact on children mentioned. My guess is that wasn't part of the study - especially given the age of the participants.

Waite and Mary Elizabeth Hughes of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Maryland analyzed data collected from nearly 9,000 adults ages 51 to 61 who took part in the nationally representative Health and Retirement Study.

That's an interesting age sample. I would be interested in a broader age range.

Overall, about 20 percent of the participants were remarried, meaning they had previously been divorced or widowed, the researchers will report in the September issue of the Journal of Health and Social Behavior. And nearly 22 percent had previously been married but hadn't remarried. Less than 4 percent were never married.

"Hadn't remarried" and "never married" are broad categories. I would be interested in breakdowns that sorted out shack-up couples, people who had long term relationships but didn't shack up, same-sex couples, and people who didn't have a long term relationship at all. Also, what about break-ups in these cases compared to continuous relationships?

Results showed that those who had been divorced or widowed suffered from 20 percent more chronic health conditions, such as heart disease, diabetes or cancer, compared with individuals who were currently married.

Other findings included:

* People who never married reported 12 percent more mobility limitations, such as trouble walking or climbing stairs, than married individuals.

* People who never married were 13 percent more likely to show signs of depression than their married counterparts.

I'm sure reading things like this doesn't help never-married people feel any better!

* Individuals who remarried reported an average of 12 percent more chronic conditions and 19 percent more physical limitations compared with the continuously married. No difference in depression was found between these two groups.

Perhaps there is a connection to this and the fact that second (and subsequent marriages) are more likely to end in divorce?

Hayward notes, however, that the results give averages and that some divorces may do a body good.

"If you have a high-conflict, abusive marriage, divorce can be a relief," he said during a telephone interview. "I would never recommend that people in high-conflict, abusive marriages stay in them."

Definitely - if a marriage does not consist of two people who are cut out for marriage, including that they generally want to be married, it is going to be stressful. If one or both spouses is abusive, then it is best to get out. But it would have been even better to have never gotten into that situation to begin with. My advocacy of marriage does not include a belief that all individuals should marry.

One of the problems with these studies is that we are comparing individuals to each other, not themselves. People go through different phases in their lives as they age, and we have no idea what any particular John Doe, married continuously for 30 years, would be like if he had divorced 10 years ago. He may be better off currently than a Fred Roe with a similar background who did divorce 10 years ago. Finding that John Does, on average, are better off that Fred Roes probably does mean that the divorce was a bad thing, but are we sure the divorce isn't itself a symptom of what is causing the other negative elements?

Ultimately, though, most people who go through divorce will tell you that it was a horrible experience.

Ted Olson Talks Marriage With Morrison

Patt Morrison of the Los Angeles Times had an interview with attorney Ted Olson, who, along with David Boies, is leading a challenge of the California Marriage Amendment in federal court. Morrison lists some of his conservative credentials before the Q & A. I wanted to take a look at some of Olson's answers.

But we are discriminating unfairly and unreasonably against gay and lesbian individuals, and it's the wrong thing for us to do.

Okay, let's unpack that statement.

How are we discriminating unfairly against homosexual individuals? We are treating them exactly the same as every other individual. That's not discrimination, and it isn't unfair, unless you want to argue that they should be treated differently under the law than everyone else. That would be discrimination.

How is it unreasonable to maintain bride+groom marriage licensing? The state has an interest in licensing marriage that it does not have is licensing the personal relationship between two men or two women.

It is wrong for us to do that? So there is a right and a wrong apart from the law? How is this morality determined? Don't invoke the people - we voted for the CMA. Don't invoke God, a church, or religion - and tell us how maintaining marriage is wrong.

[Make the jump if you want to read more.]

On Boies:

I thought we needed someone who was a well-recognized lawyer but who would provide balance for my perspective. I wanted to convey the message that this was not Republican or Democrat, conservative or liberal, that this is about human rights and human decency and constitutional law.

This shouldn't be a partisan issue. We should all be for strengthening marriage and family, and encouraging that children be born and raised within a stable, healthy married home with a mother and a father.

I hope some people will open their eyes to the decency of getting to the point where we allow gay and lesbian individuals to be married and have a happy life.

Nobody is stopping them from getting "married" or being happy. State licensing should be up to the people of a state, however.

A woman came up to me in our library in our law firm and said, "You and I haven't worked together, but I'm a lesbian. My partner and I have two children."

Where is/are the father(s)? Those women did not make those children alone, nor together. They use at least one man's genetic material. Those children are being deprived of a father.

It is a conservative value to respect the relationship that people seek to have with one another, a stable, committed relationship that provides a backbone for our community, for our economy. I think conservatives should value that.

Same-sex pairings are a dead end for our society, and taint the notion of same-sex friendships. I don’t respect or support all both-sexes pairings because some of them are detrimental to the participants, so should I automatically respect the pairing of two men or two women, especially if they engage in detrimental behavior. I wouldn't try to stop anyone from pairing up to live together, to have a ceremony marking it, etc. I wouldn't stop their effort to get their employer to recognize their relationship. But the problem comes when they demand I abandon my convictions and my vote on public policy.

Olson lost his third wife suddenly (in the 9/11/2001 terrorist attacks), which must have been incredibly painful. He is now married to a Democrat who supports Obama. Assuming that he has truly held the principles of the Federalist Society and other conservative organizations with which he has been involved, I this may be somewhat revealing about his view of marriage.

Dad's Early Connection With Child 'Writes Script' For Later School Involvement

When a dad changes diapers and makes pediatrician's appointments, he's more likely to stay interested and involved when his child makes the transition to school, said a new University of Illinois study that explores the role of parent involvement on student achievement.

This is rather intuitive, but now more verified. I think we can also say intuitively that the more the potential dad is tied to the wife and future family in commitment, the more likely he'll develop that relationship early on with his children. But that presumption relies on how well he understands marriage to be for that purpose or not...

Young Men Living At Home With Parents Are More Violent, Study Suggests

What's this I read? Evidence that the nuclear family is not the best place to raise children? Well, no. This is more evidence that the nuclear family is the best place for young men -- to connect them with their children.

Young men who stay at home with their parents are more violent than those who live independently, according to new research at Queen Mary, University of London.

Fathers aren't dispensable just yet

The bottom line is nothing new...

"Fathers and mothers contribute in a very specific and different way" to infants' social and emotional development, says Feldman, who presented the results at a Society for Research in Child Development meeting in Denver, Colorado, in April. She says fathers may be "biologically programmed" to help raise children.

Boies Will Be Boies

David Boies, who is partnering with Ted Olson to challenge the California Marriage Amendment in federal court, has a commentary in the Wall Street Journal. If I was a heavy drinker, I would set up a drinking game based on downing a shot every time he invokes one of the standard bad arguments. I expected more out of someone of his stature.

It is all after the jump, if you care to read my analysis.

Meanwhile, over on my namesake blog, I have looked at last bit of coverage of last week's convention of Episcopalians, where marriage neutering made gains in that denomination.

[Make the jump if you want to read more.]

First, he invokes the race card.

Then he invokes "equal protection".

Then he writes about the "right to marry the person you love":

The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the right to marry the person you love is so fundamental that states cannot abridge it. In 1978 the Court (8 to 1, Zablocki v. Redhail) overturned as unconstitutional a Wisconsin law preventing child-support scofflaws from getting married. The Court emphasized, "decisions of this Court confirm that the right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals." In 1987 the Supreme Court unanimously struck down as unconstitutional a Missouri law preventing imprisoned felons from marrying.

Notice that none of these, nor Loving v. Virginia, recognized brideless or groomless "marriages". Other court cases have shown that states can have certain limitations on marriage licensing. So his argument is like saying, "The court said that you can't discriminate against me in hiring because I have dark skin. Therefore, you can't discriminate me in hiring because I can't do job!"

Then gets into "How does this harm your marriage?"

The occasional suggestion that marriages between people of different sexes may somehow be threatened by marriages of people of the same sex does not withstand discussion. It is difficult to the point of impossibility to envision two love-struck heterosexuals contemplating marriage to decide against it because gays and lesbians also have the right to marry; it is equally hard to envision a couple whose marriage is troubled basing the decision of whether to divorce on whether their gay neighbors are married or living in a domestic partnership.

Neutering state marriage licensing – especially via court - changes the very nature of marriage for everyone against our will. It is profoundly naïve to think it will have no effects other than making same-sex couples and their families happy and giving those couples access to benefits and more respect.

And even if depriving lesbians of the right to marry each other could force them into marrying someone they do not love but who happens to be of the opposite sex, it is impossible to see how that could be thought to be as likely to lead to a stable, loving relationship as a marriage to the person they do love.

This is a red herring and presents a dichotomy when there are many more options. Most marriage defenders do not say that everyone should get married. People of any sexual orientation can remain unmarried – whatever form that takes. Marriage is optional. If you aren't attracted to someone of the opposite sex, then there's a good chance that marriage isn't the right thing for you. I'd still like to see a good argument as to why California's domestic partnerships aren't enough "protection" for same-sex couples.

Moreover, there is no longer any credible contention that depriving gays and lesbians of basic rights will cause them to change their sexual orientation.

Without arguing that point, there is a case to be made that having it be official state policy that there is no difference between a bride+groom and other kinds of voluntary associations will encourage confusion in impressionable youths whose behavior patterns are highly malleable, and it does dilute the meaning of marriage and its place in society.

He then goes on to "what rights are next?"

The ban on same-sex marriages written into the California Constitution by a 52% vote in favor of Proposition 8 is the residue of centuries of figurative and literal gay-bashing.

I know this is integral to his case, but the fact is that one need not disapprove of homosexual behavior to affirm that marriage unites the sexes. Plenty of people who had never thought that people could be homosexual as an orientation understood that marriage united the sexes, and it wasn't to be mean to gay people. Also, the restoration of bride+groom marriage licensing followed the neutering of marriage licensing by a handful of judges who voted to neuter marriage. So why it is okay for a handful of people to vote on something, but not okay for a larger number?

In 2003 the United States Supreme Court in Lawrence v. Texas held that states could not constitutionally outlaw consensual homosexual activity.

Okay, but that doesn't mean a state must issue marriage licenses to brideless or groomless couples – and notice that the decision didn't say they did, or you wouldn't be bringing your case now.

There are those who sincerely believe that homosexuality is inconsistent with their religion -- and the First Amendment guarantees their freedom of belief.

One need not invoke religion in their rejection of marriage neutering.

Then he goes for the "We are your family and neighbors" argument.

It is time, indeed past time, that our Constitution fulfill its promise of equal protection and due process for all citizens by now eliminating the last remnant of centuries of misguided state discrimination against gays and lesbians.

Oh, is this the last remnant? So does that mean that there will be nothing for Lambda do to if the federal courts neuter marriage in federal and state law? Too bad this quote wouldn't mean much in court.

The argument in favor of Proposition 8 ultimately comes down to no more than the tautological assertion that a marriage is between a man and a woman.

Actually, the argument for Prop 8 is that it was lawfully voted in by the governed and does not violate the Constitution.

If the fact that marriage unites the sexes can be dismissed as a "tautology", then so can statements like "the sun rises in the east" and "east is that way, west is this way", "this is right, this is left", "this is blue, and this is red" and many other things, including "we should follow the Constitution".

The Procreation Question, Revisited.... [part 2]

[ ... Continued from part 1]

Which brings us to the next point, do "the obligations of procreation end at childbirth"?

Danderhall previously said of this premise...

(1) First let us take op-ed's premises and suppose further that these obligations only concern conception through childbirth and nothing before or after. Suppose further that the institution only addresses issues relevant to procreation. In this case it would be okay to exclude arrangements without the potential to procreate. (2) This time let us take op-ed's premises and suppose that the obligations include obligations both before conception and after childbirth. Let us suppose further that the institution while set aside to address concerns of procreation also in the process addresses other concerns. Let us suppose further that the institution works quite well even for couples who do not procreate. In this case it would be wrong to exclude arrangements without the potential to procreate.

In short, responsible procreation is easily locked to at least one of the two parents until birth. At that time, the responsibility for the new life can easily be met by transferring to another set of care givers. Hence, one meets the requirement of responsible procreation when they are simply taking care of children. And so any institution meant to focus on responsible procreation should include them.

I could have it wrong. But if that is the argument the answer is pretty clear...

[Read on...]

The obligations of procreation do extend before, during, and after childbirth. Consider this video where a father meets his obligations not only to a handicapped child but to his handicapped wife before, during, and after childbirth.

Note that in the video there are a number of institutions that offer to take on part of that obligation, from insurance companies to full institutionalization. There are also institutions which take can take care of the obligations just between adults, from Reciprocal Beneficiaries to the flexibilities of all contract law. But none of those -- especially in the eyes of that father -- are equatable to his obligations contracted by marriage.

To continue on Op-Ed's basic question, it follows that if procreation is worth supporting with expectations of responsibility (or rather socially recognized commitment to the child and the person you created the child with) it is worth doing right. There is, and should be, one institution directly focused on the whole story.

From the commitment before one even engages in the actions which bring children into the world, to the fulfillment of that commitment. Other institutions assist that are pieces of the whole, but even those are best understood in the context of that whole. Each aspect we recognize in marriage serves the specific purpose of encouraging that complete recognition of responsibility and rights to all involved in the human mating practice. Without the context, each responsibility may exist in a government recognized form if we choose. However, they become like poorly chosen words which are given any context one may wish.

To Ballot or Not to Ballot?

Over at my namesake blog, I take a quick look at two Los Angeles Times pieces - one on the split in the marriage neutering movement over whether to go to the 2010 ballot in California (or wait for 2012), and the other on what the Episcopalians are up to at their convention.

Another Study on Why Some Marriages Last

With apologies to the Beatles, you need more than love - at least to make a marriage work. Most marriages that have ever existed have not been about romantic love or attraction between the participants. As someone from India once old me, they have the expression of "growing into love" instead of "falling in love" – reflective that arranged marriages can be happy if the participants decide to care for each other and grow on each other. While physical attraction is nice and I do think it is important, and a sense of romance is also very nice, fundamental compatibility is essential to a lasting, happy marriage.

Today's news tells of a study jointly written by Dr. Rebecca Kippen and Professor Bruce Chapman from The Australian National University, and Dr Peng Yu from the Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs. The Reuters article is by Miral Fahmy.

[Make the jump to read about it.]

A couple's age, previous relationships and even whether they smoke or not are factors that influence whether their marriage is going to last, according to a study by researchers from the Australian National University.

Imagine that - facts like age, marital history, and personal habits make a difference.

The study, entitled "What's Love Got to Do With It," tracked nearly 2,500 couples -- married or living together -- from 2001 to 2007 to identify factors associated with those who remained together compared with those who divorced or separated.

It found that a husband who is nine or more years older than his wife is twice as likely to get divorced, as are husbands who get married before they turn 25.

I know that in some circles, marrying before 25 is common. I do believe that can work if both participants share a church and have strong family and community support.

Children also influence the longevity of a marriage or relationship, with one-fifth of couples who have kids before marriage -- either from a previous relationship or in the same relationship -- having separated compared to just nine percent of couples without children born before marriage.

Children matter. They make a difference. If people are willing to make them outside of marriage, then they are less likely to be committed to marriage. Also, the stepparent/stepchild dynamic can be a strain.

Women who want children much more than their partners are also more likely to get a divorce.

While I am no fan of divorce, I think that is the better thing to do than to try to "trap" a man who does not want to be a father. I know people change, but they need to be reasonably certain about these things – whether or not they want children - before they marry. In some traditions, to marry is to welcome children (as children are often a natural result of normal marital behavior).

A couple's parents also have a role to play in their own relationship, with the study showing some 16 percent of men and women whose parents ever separated or divorced experienced marital separation themselves compared to 10 percent for those whose parents did not separate.

That ties in to what I have said recently – that the effects of marriage and changing the very meaning of marriage are generational.

Also, partners who are on their second or third marriage are 90 percent more likely to separate than spouses who are both in their first marriage.

Shouldn't that be common sense?

Not surprisingly, money also plays a role, with up to 16 percent of respondents who indicated they were poor or where the husband -- not the wife -- was unemployed saying they had separated, compared with only nine percent of couples with healthy finances.

You mean there is a difference between men and women? Yes, the article reinforces this in this next line below. And notice that a generation or two after some feminists declared that they didn't need a man, it may be that women still expect the man to financially provide - or, perhaps is it that men who experience unemployment are so negatively impacted psychologically that their marriage suffers?

Factors found to not significantly affect separation risk included the number and age of children born to a married couple, the wife's employment status and the number of years the couple had been employed.

I understand that there are studies that do show that couples are more likely to separate in the few years after the birth of their first child than at other times – attributed to things like the stress of a changing life under parenthood, or that the couple married mostly for the sake of an unplanned pregnancy and then decided it wasn't going to work.

I would be interested in seeing more about the "wife’s employment status". If both spouses have demanding, separate, out-of-the-home-careers, I can imagine that would work for some couples where both members have a certain personality type, but for others the lack of time and energy and the temptations out there with coworkers or with traveling might take a toll, I would think. At some point, there is the risk of a spouse becoming little more than a roommate who also has access to your bank account.

We often hear about a "50 percent divorce rate". But I wonder what the divorce rate is for couples who:

1. Marry between the ages of 25 and 35, both having completed their formal education

2. Share the same faith/religious practice, including attending services with some regularity

3. Were both previously unmarried and childless

4. Married after having dated/courted/whatever between 18 and 24 months

5. Did not shack up before they married? Add in:

6. Both married as virgins

7. Both had married parents throughout their childhood?

I'm sure somebody has done a study that has most of these factors. My guess would be that the divorce rate would be much lower than 50%.

Couples Who Cohabit Before Engagement Are More Likely To Struggle

Lots of good food for thought, especially when evaluating the virtues of mutual-trust cohabitation and the importance of marriage commitment. The bottom line seems to be:

"Cohabiting to test a relationship turns out to be associated with the most problems in relationships," Rhoades says. "Perhaps if a person is feeling a need to test the relationship, he or she already knows some important information about how a relationship may go over time."

Three Items in Saturday's Los Angeles Times

In yesterday's Los Angeles Times, there were three items of note that relate to marriage neutering. I examine them together over on my namesake blog.

Partner Violence Continues After Break-up

Family relationships exist even without "marriage recognition". For instance, even after a father and mother may divorce, they are still related to each other through the child. This can sometimes have very negative side effects...

Violence inflicted by an intimate partner lasts longer if the couple has children together, and the violence continues after the relationship ends. In addition, children are harmed more by witnessing violence between their parents than previously thought.

Perhaps no where is abuse or neglect more painful than where the child realizes the biological tie between then and the abuser. There is more potential for abuse and neglect to harm children when it comes from their real mother and father. We should have an institution which encourages each member of that relationship to equally recognize the rights of the other -- to promote support and love instead of neglect and abuse.

Lets call it "marriage". And lets help encourage people to have that commitment in place before they decide to engage in actions which can create children.

The Procreation Question, Revisited.... [part 1]

Last month, distinguished editor Op-Ed posed a question that said, in summary...

Assuming procreation is sufficiently important to society that it reserves an institution to safeguarding its interests in that regard, is it wrong to exclude relationships specifically unrelated to that purpose?

For one of our more intelligent commenters, who goes by Danderhall, after a meaningful discussion said,

[Read on...]

I agree that under certain premises it would not be wrong to exclude certain relationships from an institution designed for a given purpose.

Danderhall then went on to raise six points of contention with the question itself and its application in this issue. The first three being the most fundamental, and which I bring to your attention in this post. The disagreement is on ...

1. The premise that there exists an institution designed specifically to deal with issues of procreation.
2. The premise that the obligations of procreation end at childbirth. I would hope you join me in disagreeing with this premise. Unfortunately for the sake of our agreement, this was one of the additional premises that led to my conclusion that it would be acceptable to exclude same-sex couples from the institution.
3. The premise that the institution doesn't work well for arrangements that don't procreate. I disagree with this premise. You and op-ed find this premise irrelevant, but I don't. Again without it I do not join in the conclusion that it is acceptable to exclude arrangements without the potential to procreate.

As premises, the nature of the argument takes on a different flavor. Conclusions or even the logic which drives a point is conclusive, it can be shown to exist or not exist. A premise may or may not actually exist. The axioms on which a premise is built may not be proven or disproved even if the premise is validated in an experiment. However, we can discuss whether the premise should be recognized or not.

To put it more succinctly, the argument turns from what is and what isn't to what should be and what should not. This brings the most natural response to disagreement #1, "the premise that there exists an institution designed specifically to deal with issues of procreation", is that if there isn't there should be. And if marriage is not that institution, then what can be? I mean specifically that if we determine that marriage is not an institution that can ensure the equal recognition of everyone's rights and responsibilities involved in procreation (the man, woman, and child), because it is deemed unfair to pursuits outside of that purview, then could any institution exist to do this?

I say the answer is "no", in fact I cannot even conceive how the answer can be "yes". The very reasoning behind the question attacks not marriage but the premise itself. So if there is to be such an institution, let it be...

Let it be marriage. It is marriage.

(More to come on the second and third points later...)

Seeking Weddings, Not Marriage

Joan Frawley Desmond, inspired in part by Sam Schulman, has a piece titled "Same-Sex Marriage: In-Laws Optional?" over at The Cathoholic. She notes that so many heterosexuals seem to be backing away from marriage (Google "marriage strike" for just one set of reasons) while homosexuality advocates are insisting it is essential to homosexual people. People seem to care more about getting married than what it means to be married, planning more for their wedding and not what it begins.

[Make the jump if you want to read quotes and some analysis.]

Fantasy weddings have emerged as a big industry in this country. But I have always suspected (with only anecdotal evidence to support my suspicions) that the bigger and more extravagant the wedding celebration, the more likely the marriage will fail.

Let’s see...

Liza Minnelli & David Gest

Paul McCartney & Heather Mills (quite an expensive divorce for McCartney, too!)

Elizabeth Taylor & Larry Fortensky

Mariah Carey & Tommy Mottola

Brad Pitt & Jennifer Aniston

Eddie Murphy & Nicole Mitchell

Guy Ritchie & Madonna

Charlie Shanian & Tori Spelling

Marc Anthony & Dayanara Torres

Hugh Hefner & Kimberley Conrad

Charles & Di

Trump & Maples

Yup.

I would be interested in hearing about some non-celebs, but are there really all that many super-rich folks who aren't celebrities in some capacity? Of course, there have been plenty of quickie, quiet weddings whose marriages failed, too. There seems to be a happy medium in moderation, or maybe humility.

The modern wedding production is more about romance than reality; the organizational and financial challenges become a dangerous distraction from the fundamental purpose of marriage and the self-sacrifice required to keep family life afloat.

Too many people do not like the idea of sacrificing their autonomy and impulses for the sake of the family.

Today, traditional marriage has become a bit tattered, as we all know. Heterosexual couples are pre-occupied with career advancement or they linger in an extended adolescence.

There's nothing wrong with focusing on career advancement or staying "young", as long as you are taking care of the obligations to which you have committed – if you want to party or are highly driven to climb the ladder in a highly competitive profession, which often means long hours and frequent relocations, you're not in the ideal lifestyle for marriage.

Of course, the West has long been engaged in the disentangling of kinship obligations from individual moral choices, including the selection of a spouse. Today, Americans reside within a culture of individual autonomy, which finds its origins in the Enlightenment. But the trend rapidly accelerated with the sexual revolution and artificial birth control – a topic Schulman does not address. The separation of sex from procreation ultimately led to the separation of procreation from sex. Both developments rendered the kindship system obsolete.

Urbanization and the automobile have contributed to changes in socialization. I have nothing against either of those, but they have mead it easier for people to abandon real family values.

At the center of the new ethos is the autonomous individual responsible to no one but him or herself, with pleasure as the primary aim of sexual relations. Of course, residual kinship structures and rituals have protected the culture from the full consequences of this development.

But would they survive the neutering of marriage?

(H/T: Mere Comments)

Speaking of Mere Comments...

Anthony Esolen posted "Pseudogamy 108" over at Mere Comments back in June.

It occurs to me that the pseudogamy of the male homosexual is essentially related to the need to put on an act, an act that the man not burdened with same-sex attraction can hardly understand.

I can't imagine those seeking a neutered marriage license will be happy with what he wrote. But he has already posted seven other installments on the difference between marriage and pseudogamy, none of which focused on same-sex pairing. His aim is clearly to distinguish holy matrimony from counterfeits, not pick on gays.

Sam Schulman on Kinship and Marriage Neutering

Sam Schulman had a piece in the Weekly Standard (Volume 014, Issue 35) that I am surprised we haven't discussed here until now. In "The Worst Thing About Gay Marriage", he claims that same-sex "marriage" will wither away, but could very well remove marriage from the larger kinship system in process, with disastrous effects. The piece has many concepts that we have examined in this blog.

[Make the jump if you want to read quotes and some analysis.]

The embrace of homosexuality in Western culture has come about with unbelievable speed - far more rapidly than the feminist revolution or racial equality. Less than 50 years ago same-sex sexual intercourse was criminal. Now we are arguing about the term used to describe a committed relationship. Is the right to marry merely lagging behind the pace with which gays have attained the right to hold jobs--even as teachers and members of the clergy; to become elected officials, secret agents, and adoptive parents; and to live together in public, long-term relationships? And is the public, having accepted so rapidly all these rights that have made gays not just "free" but our neighbors, simply withholding this final right thanks to a stubborn residue of bigotry? I don't think so.

As a society, we are broadly tolerant and even affirming of homosexuality. But we are not willing to surrender marriage.

When a gay man becomes a professor or a gay woman becomes a police officer, he or she performs the same job as a heterosexual. But there is a difference between a married couple and a same-sex couple in a long-term relationship. The difference is not in the nature of their relationship, not in the fact that lovemaking between men and women is, as the Catholics say, open to life. The difference is between the duties that marriage imposes on married people--not rights, but rather onerous obligations--which do not apply to same-sex love.

I disagree that there is no difference in the nature of the relationship and the nature of the behavior. But I'll take his point. It is very different to prevent a homosexual person from holding a job than it is to deny that a same-sex pairing is marriage.

The entity known as "gay marriage" only aspires to replicate a very limited, very modern, and very culture-bound version of marriage. Gay advocates have chosen wisely in this. They are replicating what we might call the "romantic marriage," a kind of marriage that is chosen, determined, and defined by the couple that enters into it. Romantic marriage is now dominant in the West and is becoming slightly more frequent in other parts of the world. But it is a luxury and even here has only existed (except among a few elites) for a couple of centuries--and in only a few countries. The fact is that marriage is part of a much larger institution, which defines the particular shape and character of marriage: the kinship system.

He goes on to discuss "four of the most profound effects of marriage within the kinship system".

The first is the most important: It is that marriage is concerned above all with female sexuality. The very existence of kinship depends on the protection of females from rape, degradation, and concubinage.

I can see some feminists and male hedonists scoffing that this, denying that fornication is degrading to women. (It is degrading to women – and to men.)

This most profound aspect of marriage--protecting and controlling the sexuality of the child-bearing sex--is its only true reason for being, and it has no equivalent in same-sex marriage.

The fact that women are the ones with the wombs makes a big difference. Women are certain the child within them is their child. Maternity fraud is not a possibility in the same way that paternity fraud is. A man who is sexually assaulted can't get pregnant as a result, but a woman can. A man can leave or die during the pregnancy and the baby will be born just the same, but a woman can't literally walk away from being pregnant (though she can abort), nor does the baby survive if she dies (unles the baby is removed and is far along enough). As tainted and diseased as a man may become through fornication, the child is never inside his body. Conversely, the child is conceived within the woman, grows for nine months within her, and is likely to pass through her genitals at birth.

Second, kinship modifies marriage by imposing a set of rules that determines not only whom one may marry (someone from the right clan or family, of the right age, with proper abilities, wealth, or an adjoining vineyard), but, more important, whom one may not marry. Incest prohibition and other kinship rules that dictate one's few permissible and many impermissible sweethearts are part of traditional marriage. Gay marriage is blissfully free of these constraints. There is no particular reason to ban sexual intercourse between brothers, a father and a son of consenting age, or mother and daughter. There are no questions of ritual pollution: Will a hip Rabbi refuse to marry a Jewish man--even a Cohen--to a Gentile man?...If Tommy marries Bill, and they divorce, and Bill later marries a woman and has a daughter, no incest prohibition prevents Bill's daughter from marrying Tommy. The relationship between Bill and Tommy is a romantic fact, but it can't be fitted into the kinship system.

Neutering marriage does not simply add to marriage. It changes the basic meaning of marriage and its interaction with culture.

Third, marriage changes the nature of sexual relations between a man and a woman. Sexual intercourse between a married couple is licit; sexual intercourse before marriage, or adulterous sex during marriage, is not. Illicit sex is not necessarily a crime, but licit sexual intercourse enjoys a sanction in the moral universe, however we understand it, from which premarital and extramarital copulation is excluded.

The fact that we have allowed the separation of sex from marriage by removing any stigma or shaming from fornication and even forming public policy around accommodating it (also by condoning withholding oneself from one's spouse) is not unrelated to a sizable percentage of the population failing to see the significance of marriage uniting the sexes.

Gay lovers live merrily free of this system. Can we imagine Frank's family and friends warning him that "If Joe were serious, he would put a ring on your finger"? Do we ask Vera to stop stringing Sally along?

There may be smatterings of this here and there, but it doesn't seem to be widespread and standard.

Fourth, marriage defines the end of childhood, sets a boundary between generations within the same family and between families, and establishes the rules in any given society for crossing those boundaries. Marriage usually takes place at the beginning of adulthood; it changes the status of bride and groom from child in the birth family to adult in a new family.

While I agree marriage can provide a clear delineation between childhood and adulthood, and any person who marries should "leave & cleave" – meaning they are forming a new family that takes precedence over allegiance to their family of origin – I am a firm believer that an unmarried person can be a fully mature adult.

Marriage is also an initiation rite. Before World War II, high school graduation was accompanied by a burst of engagements; nowadays college graduation begins a season of weddings that go on every weekend for some years. In contrast, gay weddings are rather middle-aged affairs. My impression is borne out by the one available statistic, from the province of British Columbia, showing that the participants in first-time same-sex weddings are 13 years older, on average, then first-time brides-and-grooms. This feels about right. After all, declaring gay marriage legal will not produce the habit of saving oneself for marriage or create a culture which places a value on virginity or chastity (concepts that are frequently mocked in gay culture precisely because they are so irrelevant to gay romantic life).

One of the reasons for this is that there isn't the risk of "unwanted" conception.

Sooner rather than later, the substantial differences between marriage and gay marriage will cause gay marriage, as a meaningful and popular institution, to fail on its own terms. Since gay relationships exist perfectly well outside the kinship system, to assume the burdens of marriage--the legal formalities, the duty of fidelity (which is no easier for gays than it is for straights), the slavishly imitative wedding ritual--will come to seem a nuisance…They will discover that it is not the wedding vow that maintains marriages, but the force of the kinship system. Kinship imposes duties, penalties, and retribution that champagne toasts, self-designed wedding rings, and thousands of dollars worth of flowers are powerless to effect.

Any attempts to bring traditional kinship pressures involved in marriage to same-sex "marriage" are likely to be rebuffed with appeals to "acceptance", "progress", and ignorance, as in "You can't understand, because you're not gay".

As kinship fails to be relevant to gays, it will become fashionable to discredit it for everyone. The irrelevance of marriage to gay people will create a series of perfectly reasonable, perfectly unanswerable questions: If gays can aim at marriage, yet do without it equally well, who are we to demand it of one another? Who are women to demand it of men? Who are parents to demand it of their children's lovers--or to prohibit their children from taking lovers until parents decide arbitrarily they are "mature" or "ready"? By what right can government demand that citizens obey arbitrary and culturally specific kinship rules--rules about incest and the age of consent, rules that limit marriage to twosomes?

After all, we are striving for equality, right?

Click through and read the whole thing. It is thought-provoking.

(H/T: Mere Comments)

Incest: The flying spaghetti monster in the debate on marriage

Marriage equality is when each gender and child receive equal recognition of their rights and responsibilities in how each child is created. This can only happen with a commitment from each party that has real follow through from each person who combined to create the child. That commitment is so important in enshrining our rights in our very human capacity to procreate that there is an institution built around that purpose -- Marriage.

Recently in history (meaning the past decade or so) people have contemplated destroying the direct recognition of that purpose, and replace it with recognition of their own purpose. While no doubt a noble cause in and of itself, it doesn't justify the replacement of what marriage means.

And no doubt it is noble. When many conservatives are asked to state their argument for such a replacement they note that children exist in these relationships and point to how it is a great benefit to children if their parents are married. Therefore, we are told, their parents should have marriage available to them.

First, I don't disagree with the argument though I find its application in this matter self-contradictory. Since it takes a man and a woman to create a child, and marriage is available to each man-woman combination, marriage is not being denied to the parents that matter most to a child. But for now lets get to know the great Flying Spaghetti Monster, created(?!) in an effort to illustrate why intelligent design should not be taught as science in schools:

[Read on...]

Henderson stated that both his theory and intelligent design had equal validity, saying

I think we can all look forward to the time when these three theories are given equal time in our science classrooms across the country, and eventually the world; One third time for Intelligent Design, one third time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, and one third time for logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence.

Equal time, because the Spaghetti Monster is just as valid as Intelligent Design in its scientific application. One of the key elements here is that no one really believes in the FSM, and its use is purely academic. However, its argument is clear, if "then a miracle occurred" is pervasive in scientific application then it allows in a number of ideas that are clearly unwarranted.

Whether or not this is a good argument against the teaching of Intelligent Design can be discussed in many forums on the Internet, and even in this comment section if the readership wishes. However, one recent commenter demanded that "Unless you can explain why you bring up incestu[o]s marriage, it just sounds like a ugly desperate smear, since few people believe that incestuous marriage is going to be made legal anywhere, and aren't worried about it even if it does."

Incest may seem like a smear for two reasons, the first is that obviously incest is considered taboo, something a number of groups are working to change. Second, probably not as obvious but even more important is that neutering marriage for the sake of homosexuality is all about making marriage into a club of who is cool enough to enter and who is not. Rather than the fact-based approach which recognizes equal rights for everyone who engages in the human mating practice, neutered marriage draws a line which is only as strong as the taboo against the practice denied marriage.

Other Flying Spaghetti Monsters in this debate are Polygamy and even singles, as well as polyamourous marriages (marriage with more than one spouse). There are a number of groups ready to argue that their mutual trust and dependency on each other and the presence of dependents in their care justify their inclusion to get equal access to all of the protections of marriage. Not all of them (including people who are already related but are non-intimate) are taboo, and yet all have the same need for recognition.

Nothing about recognizing that important purpose of marriage equality means that these groups should be denied recognition of their mutual trust and dependency. But should their needs mean that marriage equality -- the quality of each gender's contribution to a child's life and upbringing -- should go unrecognized any more? Marriage may be more than procreation, but that does not mean it is less then the institution which promotes the primal in-tact preservation of family ties.

Massachusetts Martha and Marriage Neutering

Massachusetts is suing the federal government over DOMA. Associated Press Legal Affairs writer Denise Lavoie has the story.

The federal Defense of Marriage Act interferes with the right of Massachusetts to define and regulate marriage as it sees fit, Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley said.

Really? How so? Haven't they been issuing neutered marriage licenses for five years now? Sounds to me like they have been able to do it as they see fit.

It says the approximately 16,000 same-sex couples who have married in Massachusetts since the state began performing gay marriages in 2004 are being unfairly denied federal benefits given to heterosexual couples.

The federal government has an interest in giving benefits to couples who unite the sexes in marriage that it does not have when it comes to other kinds of voluntary associations.

Before the law was passed, Coakley said, the federal government recognized that defining marital status was the "exclusive prerogative of the states."

Does Coakley consistently argue for states' rights, and against federal usurpation of power? Anyone know? And what about when courts usurp authority belonging to the legislature or the people directly?

Meanwhile...

In Maine, the Stand for Marriage Maine coalition said it took only four weeks to gather more than the 55,087 signatures necessary to put gay marriage to a vote.

The Maine law to legalize gay marriage had been scheduled to go into effect Sept. 12. It will be put on hold after the signatures are submitted and certified by the secretary of state's office. Voters will then decide in November whether the law should stand.

Too bad it didn't work out that way in California.

The basic fact of the matter is that the union of a bride+groom is a different kind of voluntary association than the pairing of two men or two women. This is demonstrable, and should be self-evident. The federal government should not be controlled by the whims of Massachusetts.

Scientists claim sperm 'first'

Scientists in Newcastle claim to have created human sperm in the laboratory in what they say is a world first.

It would be a first.

They began with stem cell lines derived from human embryos donated following IVF treatment. [...]

The stem cells were brought to body temperature and put in a chemical mixture to encourage them to grow. They were "tagged" with a genetic marker which enabled the scientists to identify and separate so-called "germline" stem cells from which eggs and sperm are developed.

Ironic that this could bring about a child to someone who was not allowed to gestate and life themselves.

More details from New Scientist.

Admit it.

When the right claims that gay activists "are out to destroy the family", the left is quick to deny anything of the sort -- and don't be ridiculous!

But when you talk to them about the details: about fatherless and motherless children, about "legal parent" status, about reproductive rights and artificial reproduction, you quickly find that many gay actists have absolutely no respect for traditional notions of what we mean by Family, and the specific actions they support attack those notions at their very core.

It's almost as if they want to destroy the family.

Not that they'd ever admit it.

Swamped

The Associated Press notes that a law recognizing brideless "marriages" and groomless "marriages" performed/certified elsewhere has gone into effect in the USA's District of Columbia.

Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Vermont and New Hampshire are the six states with neutered marriage licensing. The 44 other states and the various territories license bride+groom unions as marriage. Most, if not all, have either a constitutional amendment or a statute law recognizing that marriage unites the sexes - such as the most populous state, California, which has a constitutional amendment. Also, federal law explicity recognizes that marriage unites the sexes.

So far, no state has neutered their marriage licensing by a direct vote of the people. Most that have neutered their marriage licensing have done so as a result of court usurpation of power.

Battle Of The Sexes Benefits Offspring, Says Research In Birds

In nature, it is quite rare for both parents to be involved in raising young, but it is very common in birds, some fish and primates including humans. Researchers therefore wanted to find out why, for some animals, parents stick together. [...]

Dr Harrison explained: “Caring for offspring is essential for their survival in many species, but it is also very costly in time and effort. Time spent bringing up your young means lost opportunities for remating and having more offspring, so parents face a trade-off between caring for current offspring and creating future offspring.

“This creates a conflict of interest between parents, since each parent would benefit by leaving their partner holding the baby whilst they go off and start a new brood elsewhere.

“This is exactly what happens in most animal species, so we wanted to understand how and why animals like birds and primates have evolved the tendency to share their parental duties.”

link...

Does Marriage Defense Create a Slippery Slope?

Won't denying same-sex marriage open the door to taking away more rights? Whose rights are next?

My answer to these questions is below the fold.

[Make the jump if you want to read it.]

No "right" that depends on the cooperation of someone else is immune from being changed, restricted, or denied through legislation. That is a reality of government. Our Constitution was written with the understanding that we have certain natural rights based on our human nature – such as free speech – and that government should protect those rights or at least not work against them; it doesn't create or grant them. With speech, the government can only restrict it by physically restraining you; if the government does nothing, you retain your ability to speak freely. This is different from getting a state-issued license, where you require action by the government on your behalf.

A state-issued license is issued under the cooperation of the people of a state. If the people of a state do not, or no longer, consent to issue a license, or do not consent to changing how those licenses are issued, they are Constitutionally free to deny or rescind that "right" as long as the state does not illegally discriminate against individuals on the basis of such factors as sex. State marriage licenses can be accessed by both male and females, regardless of sexual orientation, so there is no problem there.

Yes, it is possible that future requests by behavioral minorities who want changes to laws applying to all of us for the sake of catering to their behavior may be denied by the people or our representatives. For example, drivers who really enjoy driving 110 miles per hour on a public road may want the speed limit changed, but we can say "no", even if driving 110 sexually arouses and fulfills the speeders.

In order to "take away" something under our federal Constitution, Congress must pass legislation that the President signs, or pass the legislation with enough votes to override a Presidential veto, and the legislation must withstand any challenges in the Judiciary. In some states, the people can pass the legislation directly. Then that has to be enforced by the actions by government agents.

Practically speaking, beyond a few crackpots with very little support, there is no movement to remove rights such as freedom of association, or to prevent a bride and groom from marrying based on their skin color, so it isn't a real danger.

Conversely, one could ask, what change is next beyond marriage neutering? If denying the neutering of state marriage licensing would provide some sort of momentum, does neutering marriage licensing provide momentum in a different direction? If so, what direction? Could it be what I have discussed in this previous message?

Not All Families Look the Same

Are there any "marriage equality" advocates who are willing to comment on this to explain why this couple shouldn't be able to get a state-issued marriage license, but a couple consisting of two women should? Please note that I am not equating same-sex pairing with what these two people are accused of doing. Story by KBCI staff.

Authorities have arrested two people and charged them with incest.

Boise Police say they arrested Marilyn Lee, 36, on an outstanding felony warrant for incest Wednesday at her workplace in Boise at approximately 11:50 a.m.

Her half brother, Brian L. Reed, 30, who is a registered sex offender, was already in custody on other charges and has been served the warrant in jail.

For the sake of discussion, I am assuming the incest was between the two of them and no minors were involved in the incestuous sex. Remember, "it's disgusting" is not a valid argument, at least from what I gather from reading the material of "marriage equality" proponents. "It's illegal" was once true to homosexual behavior, too.

Speaking of legality - notice that these people were arrested on felony warrants (she, at her place of work... talk about injurious!) for their consensual behavior. No such thing happens to non-incestuous same-sex couples. Where is this couple's "right to love each other"?

Update on CMA in Federal Court

Maura Dolan has the Los Angles Times article.

In the first hearing on a federal challenge to Proposition 8, a judge reminded lawyers Thursday that the constitutionality of the anti-gay marriage measure would be determined by higher courts and that his job was to give them as many facts and findings as possible.

Here are the facts:

[It's all below the fold; make the jump if you want to read it.]

1. The federal and state constitutions were both written with the assumption that marriage unites a bride and a groom.

2. Precedents in federal courts, including SCOTUS, affirm that there isn’t a right to a neutered state marriage license.

3. Congress and President Bill Clinton affirmed this in 1996 with the passage of DOMA.

4. The people of California affirmed this in 2000 with the passage of Prop 22.

5. Californians were in the process of placing a constitutional amendment on the ballot to reaffirm this notion in 2007/2008.

6. The California Supreme Court decided to neuter state marriage licensing in 2008, knowing full well that the people of California would be voting on the marriage amendment later that year.

7. The court refused to stay their decision, causing a period of neutered marriage licensing in the state.

8. The people of California amended their constitution in November 2008 to restore bride+groom marriage licensing.

9. In 2009, the California Supreme Court rightly concluded that the people of California amended their constitution.

10. None of this violates equal access/protection principles.

Done!

U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker, appearing before a packed courtroom, also declined to suspend Proposition 8 before trial, noting that such a move would create too much uncertainty for the state and same-sex couples who would marry.

As expected.

Olson said the couples had asked for a preliminary injunction because they preferred "the uncertainty of the ultimate outcome in this case to the certainty of having irreparable harm done to them."

There is no harm being done whatsoever. California treats domestic partners as spouses, so even though two women choose not get married by finding consenting grooms, they can still have a relationship together and be treated as though they are wives.

Depending on Walker's ultimate ruling, a full trial on the measure could help supporters of marriage rights because higher courts would be inclined to respect the judge's evaluation of various witnesses and reports.

What does this mean? A bunch of people are going to get on a stand and whine about their feelings being hurt? What about self-government by the people of California? What about our votes? What about our right not to have someone - especially the government - counterfeit what we consider extremely important? The government did not create marriage. It recognized and licensed it.

Walker, appointed to the bench by President George H.W. Bush, is viewed as independent. The next hearing in the case is scheduled Aug. 19.

Even some of his "conservative" appointments have shown that they are activists towards the Left, so this will be interesting.

What Is the Harm of Neutering Marriage?

Why should I care about "protecting marriage?" Who cares if a couple of guys want to marry each other? What’s the harm? How does this hurt my/your marriage? They've had same-sex marriage licensing in Massachusetts for five years, and isn’t the state is still there? Have things fallen apart? When has a member of the clergy ever been forced to perform a wedding against his or her will?

These are questions that are often asked of those who stand up to defend marriage from being neutered.

However, in most places, it isn't up to us to demonstrate that there will be harm. The burden of convincing falls on the people asking for change. The federal government and all but a handful of states recognize marriage as uniting the sexes, so in those cases, it is those who want to neuter marriage who must demonstrate why doing so would be of overall net benefit to society. While a marriage license may solve practical challenges for a brideless or groomless couple, those issues can be addressed without neutering state marriage licensing.

The universal understanding of marriage has been that it unites a bride and a groom. Only recently, in a few places, has there been deviation from this concept.

With that in mind, let's examine the questions.

[It's all below the fold; make the jump if you want to read it.]

Why should I care about "protecting marriage?"

Marriage laws have an impact on all of us, even those of us who never marry. If the recent past is any indication, around 90% of Americans will be married at some point in life, and we can expect the numbers to remain high unless the marriage strike makes dramatic gains or something else dramatic happens. Marriage is the basic building block of society, uniting both basic kinds of human beings – men and women.

We have ample evidence that raising children within a marriage better prepares them to be well-adjusted, productive citizens who will commit less crime. Yes, those who seek to neuter marriage have a vested interest in trying to counter every study or intuition that backs this up. But their actions betray them. They live as though there is a difference between men and women, and they also tout the value of diversity. It is only when it comes to the raising of children that they go against these two principles. The difference between men and women is important to them in choosing a partner - it is also important to children when it comes to their parents.

By nature, every child has a mother and a father. Marriage encourages unified parenting, providing a default establishment of legal paternity for any child born to the bride, and providing children with protection, nurturing, and provision from both a male and a female role model. Every child, barring incarceration or otherwise strict seclusion, will interact with both women and men throughout his life, and this being raised with the inclusive diversity of both a male and female role model is to his benefit.

While there are parents who die, abandon their children, or must have their parental rights restricted or terminated to protect children, in general, marriage encourages stability and cooperation in childrearing and otherwise codifies a child's natural right to her mother and father.

Who cares if a couple of guys want to marry each other? What's the harm? How does this hurt my/your marriage?

Nothing is stopping consenting adults from sharing a home, bed, and life together; having showers and parties; entering into contracts (in some places, domestic partnerships); having a ceremony with consenting clergy, wearing dresses or tuxes, holding flowers, making vows, exchanging rings, stomping a glass; having a reception with gifts, a cake, bouquet-tossing, garter-tossing, and dancing through the night; taking a honeymoon vacation; changing names; calling themselves married; requesting that others consider them married; and celebrating anniversaries.

Indeed, this has been going on for several years now, it is all legal, and there is no serious movement to pass legislation to change this.

However, state licensing is a public issue. When someone applies for a state license, it becomes the issue of any citizen. Each of gets our say when it comes to marriage licensing law.

Since neutering marriage licensing is a new concept, there isn't much direct history to use as an example of negative effects. No-fault divorce and other changes in family law are the closest kind of changes with enough history. Since the implementation of no-fault divorce, divorce rates have skyrocketed, as has the rate of nonmarital cohabitation.

A "marriage" without a bride and a groom is a counterfeit. It devalues marriage in the same way that other counterfeiting harms the authentic. How much more of a problem is it to get the government involved in counterfeiting?

Since same-sex pairings, as a category, are unable to produce children, applying the label "marriage" to such relationships indicates that marriage is not about children. If marriage is not about children, why bother to marry to raise children? If marriage is not about children, but instead the wants of the adults, then public policy regarding marriage will inevitably shift further away from the interests of children.

Neutering marriage perpetuates the false and destructive notion that men and women are interchangeable, devaluing both masculinity and femininity and the value of joining the two. Notice that a social commentators often bemoan when a workplace or some professional organization or educational program is all-male. This "lack of diversity" is recognized as a problem. Is diversity not important in the basic unit of society?

This isn't about what two people get to call their relationship - it is about forcing the rest of us to affirm brideless or groomless pairings as marriage, and prevent us from distinguishing between marriage, two men, or two women. The state is YOU and ME. It isn't like, when the state issues a marriage license, it is "someone else".

They've had same-sex marriage licensing in Massachusetts for five years, and isn’t the state is still there? Have things fallen apart? When has a member of the clergy ever been forced to perform a wedding against his or her will?

The most serious consequences of neutering marriage will likely be generational, not immediate, though there will be some immediate consequences. However, the neutering of marriage licensing was only in one state out of fifty (and only to residents of that state), and now more recently, a handful of states have joined in (as have a few nations). The federal government has never recognized a brideless or groomless pairing as marriage. As a result, Massachusetts has been an island still subjected to the influence of surrounding and national culture, where marriage is mostly presented as uniting the sexes.

The activist groups have publicly said they are currently holding back for strategic reasons, including public relations. If marriage is neutered at the federal level and imposed on all fifty states and all territories, or if it is neutered in a significant number of states so that the activist groups feel secure enough not to care about general public perception, we will definitely see further steps.

Those further steps could include a concerted effort to use neutered marriage licenses as tools in filing lawsuits, and using neutered marriage as a platform and precedent on which to build other legal, social, and cultural "reforms" that we haven't even considered or that haven't even been part of the public debate as of yet.

Possible results:

1. A greater percentage of children may be raised out of wedlock, or for a longer period out of wedlock. This has happened in the Netherlands, which was the first country to neuter marriage. Perhaps this is mere coincidence – are we willing to take that gamble?

2. The government will do less to protect – and may work against – a child's right to a mother and father. Someone who made children in a heterosexual relationship but enters into a homosexual relationship will more easily be able to gain custody of those children and legally replace the mother or father of the children with his or her new partner. How difficult would it be for the (majority) custodial parent to convince a court that their new legal spouse, being present in the home, should replace the other parent?

Adoption agencies will not be able to give preference to a bride+groom couple when placing children.

3. Free speech will be stifled. In the workplace, civic organizations, in academia, and in anything with any government ties, you will not be able to express the view that marriage unites the sexes. This isn't about a same-sex couple getting to use the word "marriage" to describe their relationship – it is about YOU and ME not being able to use the word "marriage" to describe the unique thing that unites both a bride and groom into a legal, social, and spiritual bond that provides children with both a mother and a father. Civil and criminal cases may be filed against anyone who personally fails to affirm that a same-sex pairing is marriage, including claiming slander/libel, defamation, and denial of civil rights. Likewise, esteeming (bride+groom) marriage may become actionable "hate speech", and those who do it will be portrayed as bigots (as they already are being portrayed by the marriage neutering advocates).

4. Any depiction of marriage, such as in the general media or school curriculum, will be required or strongly pressured to include brideless or groomless "marriages".

5. Parents and employees will lose any "opt-out" leverage they have when it comes to promotions of homosexual behavior or neutered marriage.

6. Religious organizations, congregations, and clergy will be pressured or outright forced to perform, host, and affirm same-sex "weddings", and will be prevented from presenting Scriptural teachings about homosexual behavior or marriage uniting the sexes.

7. When "disparities" are noticed between both-sex couples and same-sex couples, courts may order government programs to correct those disparities. For example, if a study shows that depression is more common in same-sex couples than bride+groom couples, taxpayers may be obligated to pay for treatment programs targeted towards same-sex couples in an effort to correct this disparity. Any evidence that these disparities are a result of the relationships being inherently different will be rejected.

8. Same-sex couples may be granted the "right" to taxpayer funding for reproductive technology and programs, including fertility treatments and surrogate mothers, to correct the "inequality" with both-sexes couples who are able to conceive children at no cost.

9. Several bad legal precedents will be established or strengthened: a) Constitutional rights applying to couples and groups, rather than just persons and states; b) the majority being forced to cater to any kind of minority, including professional groups, who ask for changes the majority does not want; c) a right to a state license; d) government involvement in private, personal relationships [the reason for their involvement in marriage is based on the natural tendency towards children who are involuntary participants].

10. It will be the official government position that homosexual sodomy is equivalent to coitus.

11. It will be the official government position that men and women are not only equal but interchangeable.

Doubt that these things can happen because they haven't happened before? We've never neutered marriage in our national culture before, granting a new tool to a highly organized and effective activist coalition that had demonstrated a history of taking a mile when given an inch. We have no reason to believe that this coalition will stop with neutering marriage. Based on what this coalition has done before, the successes of the true civil rights movement that this coalition has modeled their campaign after and attempted to hijack, and the fascist organizations that participate in their rallies - we'll have to fight these things with our hands tied behind our backs if we allow marriage to be neutered.

Neutering marriage would be one of the biggest social shifts in human history, changing the basic unit of society. It will effectively eliminate the heteronormative orientation of culture, replacing marriage with a counterfeit, discounting the distinctions between the sexes, devaluing both masculinity and femininity.

This isn't about Adam and Steve being able to exchange vows on the beach in front of their family and friends. This is about the rest of us not being able to have our say that the kind of union that produces children and provides them with both a mother and a father is uniquely beneficial to society and is the ideal. The activists are trying to prevent us from even having a word that distinguishes this relationship from others. It is time we stopped allowing ourselves to be politically, socially, and legally bullied by a tiny minority with a seemingly pathological need for affirmation from everyone else, and their demand that we reorder all of society in an attempt to make them feel more comfortable, regardless of how it makes the rest of us feel.

Previously on my namesake blog, I wrote about how neutering marriage devalues and discourages marriage.