Female Choice Benefits Mothers More Than Offspring

Fascinating article at New Scientist. I've jumped to the conclusion but that is a disservice. Please read it all.

We found no support for the idea that increased female resistance to mating results in sons that are more successful in competition with other males, or in more fertile daughters. Hence, female resistance is mostly beneficial to the female herself, while inadvertent selection for male 'persistence' plays a minor role, says Alexei Maklakov, who led the study.

Another study reported at Discovery discussed how female choice created diminutive, but persistent males in spiders, Deadly Spider Demands Long Courtship, or Else.

A great way to sail into the Halloween weekend...

Sex-based Prenatal Brain Differences Found

As reported by New Scientist:

"The results show that many of the genes situated on the Y chromosome are expressed in various parts of the brain prior to birth and probably provide a developmental basis for the sex-based differences exhibited by adult brains," according to Elena Jazin.

More than a third of Y-chromosomal genes appear to be involved in sex-based human brain differentiation. Some of the genetic activity in question is evident in the adult brain, while other of it only appears at earlier stages of brain development. It is yet unknown whether the differences in genetic expression among female and male brains have any functional significance.

Another Voice for Equality

After carefully considering the arguments, I am coming out at as voice for equality. We can't have second class citizens, after all, and discriminate against a historically oppressed minority. Why should anyone else be able to tell someone else how to live, or make others conform to their narrow views? The people who oppose this equality are doing so because of their church has told them to. Jesus never said anything about this, though. These people are our friends, our neighbors, or family, our coworkers, and they pay taxes.

This is why I am coming out for awarding University of California degrees for any participants in Indian gaming who request them.

[Much more after the jump.]

Now some people may object to this, saying that gambling or running a gambling establishment isn't the same as doing UC coursework. But some people have no interest in doing UC coursework, but enjoy gaming, and they want the benefits and respect that come along with a UC degree. And denying them the UC degree denies them equal access and protection. It doesn't matter that there are other schools. We can't have separate-but-equal, and the University of California, as a government institution, can't discriminate. Other people have been denied UC degrees in the past, too. Denying a UC degree to an Indian gamer is the same kind of bigotry.

Sure, some people object to gaming on religious grounds, but we have separation of church and state. And because we have separation of church and state, we can't deny UC degrees to these people.

Tribal groups are historically oppressed, especially in relation to public education. As such, we can't deny them what they want.

To those who oppose this equality, I ask, how does it hurt you? How does this hurt your education? You really shouldn’t talk. So many of you never complete your education, or you switch majors, or you fail in your careers, or you stop doing jobs related to your degrees, or you go back and get a different degree – some of you several times! Some of you have three degrees! All these people are asking for is one. Some of you have gambled, too, so you really shouldn’t talk. Perhaps you are opposing this because you really are a closet gambler. And guess what? Some Indian gamers do the very same kind of professional work that people with UC degrees do.

Jesus never said anything about Indian gaming.

You can't judge gaming administrators and participants. And since you can’t judge them, you have to give them UC degrees. Besides, it would make them happy, and isn't that a fundamental right?

If we can get a judge or entire court to agree with us, that will make it a fundamental right.

Who are you to say what qualifies as UC coursework anyway? Shall we vote on your degree now?

Sure, there are such things as gaming licenses, and player club memberships, but those aren't as prestigious or well regarded as UC degrees.

Next up: The Mormon church's views on caffeine shouldn't prevent the FDA from approving the labeling coffee as milk. After all, some people are lactose intolerant – how can we be so cruel towards them?

Banning Divorce - Part 2

Why did people support the California Marriage Amendment? Well, I don't know the motivations of each and every person, but I'll list as many possible motivations that I can think of, in no particular order:

1. Their belief that marriage is a religious or natural institution that government has recognized and adopted. As such, it isn't the place of government to redefine it.

2. Exercising their veto over a court that tossed aside a vote of the people.

3. Wanting to prevent the further expansion of government involvement into personal relationships.

4. Their personal understanding or intuition of the nature of marriage.

5. Encouraging the model of a married mother and father as the ideal for raising the next generation and promoting the best conditions for society.

6. A suspicion that there is more behind the push to neuter marriage licensing than simply making an old lesbian couple happy – something that will be detrimental in the long run; an undermining of parental authority, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and freedom of association.

7. General resistance to change.

8. General disapproval of homosexual behavior.

9. General disapproval of homosexuality activists (wanted to vote against them).

10. The "ick" factor.

11. Just to stick it to LGBT people.

12. Their church told them to.

Most people probably have a combination of motivations.

Based on what I've observed, I'd say the majority of California Marriage Amendment supporters were motivated primarily by 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6. Marriage neutering activists seem certain it was mostly 7, 11, and 12 – especially 12. But given how many of the same voters must have voted "for change" in other matters on the same ballot, their overall tolerance, and how few of them are regular churchgoers who closely follow church instruction, I don't see that. (I think less than half of regular eligible attendees of "conservative" churches register to vote, and something like less than half of those who register even bother to vote.)

[Much more after the jump.]

While I heard the satirist citing the official campaign materials of the California Marriage Amendment proponents, the reality is that political science-filtered statements by campaigners are not the same thing as why people vote the way they do. Campaign messages have to be kept short and simple, focusing on what will gain the widest and strongest support or prompt interest to check into the matter further. Notice that the marriage neutering proponents didn't ran ads showing same-sex ceremonies, or telling us we should be okay with judges making this decision for us. So the satirist's tacit charge that marriage defenders were hiding their true motivation is flimsy.

Most of the motivations I listed above do not transfer to banning divorce, at least not as proposed in the language of the ballot measure, which doesn't allow for traditional or Biblical grounds for divorce.

For example, I believe that marriage unites the sexes, and that is a sacred institution. I believe what the Bible says about marriage. I believe that uniting a bride and groom in this way is good for society and best for raising children. I believe in limited government. I believe marriage had more to do with creating society than society had to do with creating marriage. I abhor divorce, don't plan on filing for one, and pray my wife never does, either. I'll quote myself...

One need not be religious nor believe in God nor believe that divorce is a bad to believe that authority over licensing requirements belongs with the people instead of the courts, or that state marriage licensing should be reserved for voluntary associations consisting of a bride and a groom…It is also disingenuous to invoke Scripture or religious tradition against those who hold such things dear with one hand and dismiss it with the other… Really, it is silly to say that because there is divorce, we should neuter marriage. It simply does not follow. A state-licensed marriage is essentially a kind of partnership. Partnerships are dissolved all of the time.

It is also silly to say that because we reversed the recent court imposition of neutered marriage licensing, we should also outlaw long-established divorce. It wasn't just people who confidently affirm that marriage is a scared institution initiated and helmed by God who voted for the California Marriage Amendment. Even people who do not have moral qualms about divorce understand that marriage unites the sexes. Noting that something is created using a certain recipe and not other ingredients doesn't obligate someone to never throw that thing away. Legal entities can be dissolved, but not just any grouping of people can form any kind of legal entity.

Yes, the divorce rate is too high, and those who want to protect marriage should take steps to change that.

Have you heard of covenant marriage? How many legislatures that have ever voted to neuter marriage licensing offered that? I think that's a big fat zero. I don't see marriage neutering activists using their considerable clout to push it.

The fact is, many of the same people who are ardent marriage defenders have long attempted to reduce the divorce rate, some even started way back, fighting against some of the things they correctly suspected would end up being contributors to an increased divorce rate. And guess what? All along the way, they've been severely criticized and rhetorically assaulted and mocked for doing so.

Shacking up correlates to an increased divorce rate. Who has been speaking out against that all along?

Purity programs have attempted to reduce some of the conditions that lead to marital problems and broken homes. I have noted before that these programs have been derisively ridiculed. Hey, I wonder how many of those same-sex couples who have gotten marriage licenses exchanged purity rings when they had their ceremonies? Can anyone point me to just one couple?

Focus on the Family, anyone? Promise Keepers?

Dr. Neil Clark Warren cited a desire to lower the divorce rate as one of the reasons for starting the EHarmony.com business. We all know how he and the business have been portrayed, now don't we?

Dr. Laura did not express public support of the California Marriage Amendment (as far I can recall), but has offered much advice on avoiding divorce, at least until all minor children are raised, and has stated many times that marriage is sacred. She has stated the importance of children being raised by a mother and a father. There are lies, misrepresentations, and distortions, half-truths, and outdated trashings of her all over the web.

Come to think of it, is there a single prominent voice against divorce that the marriage neutering advocates have ever been anything but hostile towards? Evangelical Protestant churches? The Roman Catholic Church? The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints? I struggle to think of any examples, which isn't surprising because the philosophy underlying much of marriage neutering support from the general public is the very same that encourages divorce: "My personal desires are more important than society, marriage, children, and my vows. If I want a marriage license, then I have a right to it. If I now desire something other than being with my spouse, I have a right - even an obligation - to leave."

So now, having backed no-fault divorce, making divorce easier, even incentivizing divorce for women to the point that they are much more likely to file, and otherwise supporting conditions that contribute to divorce - all the while telling us to shut up with our objections, these "progressive" types are now making an issue of the high divorce rate.

Why? Because we didn't roll over and allow what's left of marriage to be replaced by a counterfeit.

It's like saying that because we didn't want the Constitution replaced with the code to Donkey Kong, then we should lose our right to criticize anything the government does - and we hate Donkey Kong. (Now there's a dated reference.)

Divorce will not be banned. The lawyer lobby will see to that. They make too much money off it.

I do believe in the sanctity of marriage, no matter how many times that is violated with divorce. I also believe in the sanctity of life, no matter how many people are murdered. Just as murder still happens even though it is outlawed, you can outlaw the legal process of divorce, but you can't force people to keep their marital vows or live in any way as married. All we can do is have public policies that encourage, or at least don't undermine, marriage and family.

(Minor edits made to correct typing errors.)

Banning Divorce - Part 1

I appreciate good political satire. Whether the "movement" to ban divorce in California is good political satire or not is something I will leave up to the reader to decide.

Apparently upset by the arguments made by official backers of California Marriage Amendment, one fellow has tried to adapt them to another proposed ballot measure that would ban divorce. The attitude is a very thinly disguised "So you say marriage is sacred, huh? Well then, prove it by banning divorce!"

On Lawn wrote about this just yesterday, prompted by Ed Morrisey's piece.

You can hear the man proposing this "divorce ban" in this audio, from yesterday's "John & Ken Show".

[More after the jump.]

I agree that there is way too much divorce, and that divorce is a bad thing. At its "least worst" divorce is the best option left after at least one serious mistake has already been made, and one or both spouses refuses to take the steps to become a healthy spouse. I'd rather people not make those mistakes – such as marrying the wrong person, or mistreating their spouse - to begin with.

I wrote about this already in "Divorce Does Not Justify Neutering Marriage Licensing", published on my namesake blog at the end of 2008. I highly suggest checking out what I wrote then.

If nothing else, this gives a chance to examine before the public why divorce is bad, and to talk again about why we value marriage, and perhaps build momentum for more sensible legal reform when it comes to marriage.

Two Items of Possible Interest

Two items on my namesake blog that readers of this blog might find of interest:

1. SCOTUS weighed in on protecting petition signers, who happen to be defenders of marriage in the State of Washington. Marriage neutering activists say they just want to have the petition signers over for a friendly little chat.

2. You may have heard that at an Oscar-winning film director has cut his 35-year association with the Church of Scientology over the organization's support for the California Marriage Amendment. Well, that's not really an accurate portrayal of what is really going on, although he does make it clear that he thinks marriage defenders (or, possibly just vote defenders) are a bunch of bigots, hypocrites, and homophobes.

Attention Voters of Maine: Vote Yes on 1

Remember to vote, and to vote "YES" on 1. This will protect your state's marriage law from the neutering actions of your legislature. State-issued marriage licenses are issued on YOUR behalf, and if you think marriage unites a bride and a groom, or if you do not want your official state policy to be that coitus (the heterosexual behavior that created all of us in the first place) is no different than homosexual sodomy, then you have good reason to vote "YES". State law applies to all – state-issued licenses are not a private matter. This does have an impact on you.

People of Maine, I feel your pain. You are being bombarded with information and emotional pleas on this. We Californians went through a similar situation a year ago, when we voted in the California Marriage Amendment. We adopted the amendment, it survived a challenge before the state supreme court, and California is still here. Gay people and same-sex couples are not suffering as a result.

Being a Californian, I can identify with that the folks in Maine are going through these days. People are being told they are bigots because they understand that marriage unites the sexes, and that state licensing of marriage should not be neutered to cater to the feelings of some people within a tiny minority. Don't surrender your vote to activists who try to guilt you with appeals to emotion. Vote to maintain marriage instead of allowing it to be redefined into meaninglessness. Affirm that both husbands and wives form the core of marriage. Do not go along with the devaluing of that important bride+groom dynamic. You don't have to disaprove of homosexual behavior to see that marriage unites a bride and a groom, and that is what the state licensing should reflect.

Our situation in California was a little different in that here, our supreme court imposed marriage neutering upon us, overriding our previous vote on a law that reaffirmed marriage, and then refused to stay their decision until after an impending vote to amend our state constitution could take place. In your state, it was the legislature that voted to neuter the licensing, and implementation was held back pending the vote by you.

Your time to be heard has come. You can have your say, and vote your conscience. There's nothing hateful or bigoted about honoring marriage in our state laws. Do not be intimidated or bullied.

Adapted from my blog entry, "The Case For Prop 8", here is a short case for "Yes on 1":

1. True rights do not obligate others without their consent.(1)

2. State licenses are granted by the people of a state per their consent.

3. The people of Maine have not directly consented to issue marriage licenses to brideless or groomless couples.

4. Therefore, voluntary associations without a bride or a groom do not have a right to a state-issued marriage license.(2) Just as the legislature has sought to neuter marriage licensing, the people have the right to preserve bride+groom marriage licensing.

5. Voting "YES" on 1 restores marriage licensing requirements and preserves your self-government rights without hurting anyone.(3)

Please note that nowhere in this argument is there hatred or bigotry expressed, nor religion invoked.

For more, consult my Handy Dandy Marriage Neutering Plea Repellant.

[Much more is right here after the jump.]

I suspect there will be harm if the official state policy is that there is no difference between a couple that unites the sexes and one that excludes one of the sexes. That would indicate that children are not the primary concern of the state involvement in marriage, and one less pressure for children to be born and raised within wedlock. After all, if marriage isn't about children, why bother to get married to raise them? How could adoption agencies give preference to placing a child in a home with both a mother and a father?

The main reason for the state to even be involved in voluntary personal relationships is because someone else can be brought into the situation without their own consent: children. Since it takes both a man and a woman to naturally produce children, that is where the state's interest is greatest. No same-sex pairings have ever produced children by themselves. The state has an interest in licensing and promoting bride-groom pairings that it does not have with other voluntary relationships. Yes, I'm well aware that not all man-woman pairings can or intend to produce children, but they are the only kind that can – and whether they want to or intend to are private matters, while your sex is on your government-held birth certificate.

We should not be doing things that encourage people to conceive or raise children without providing those children with one mother and one father who are in a healthy marriage together.

The state does not have an interest in promoting – or moral obligation to promote or celebrate – homosexual behavior, or treat the behavior the same as heterosexual behavior; namely, calling it marriage. Unlike heterosexual behavior, homosexual behavior does nothing to contribute to the larger society or perpetuate society.

Don't fall into these traps:

1. My [insert family relation here] is gay, and so I will vote "No".

You have no moral obligation to vote "no" because you have a homosexual friend or family member, even if they have asked you to vote no. Do they vote according to your desires? Your vote is your vote. If you do not think a brideless or groomless pairing is marriage, vote "YES". Your loved one's happiness is their own responsibility.

2. I saw a really nice same-sex couple on TV, and they have children. I want those children to have married parents.

Children do benefit from marriage, but mostly, if not entirely, because marriage gives them a mother and a father. Same-sex couples do not provide that. Whenever you see a same-sex couple with children, remember that those adults did something to create that situation, depriving those children of either a mother or a father. (The only other possibility was that the biological parent was widowed through actions that were not the fault of either themselves or their spouse.) They created that fatherless or motherless situation for the children by either using "third party" reproduction, or by one of them having sex with someone of the opposite sex outside of a stable, healthy marriage, or by otherwise picking the wrong person with whom to make children. You are under no obligation to change marriage laws for this reason. Other legal mechanisms can protect those children.

3. I'm tired of all of this. I just want it to go away. It is inevitable, so I'm voting "No" or just not voting.

It is not inevitable. Don't fall for the activist claims of momentum towards marriage neutering. Most states have recently affirmed traditional marriage. Even younger generations supposedly in favor of neutering marriage may change their understanding of marriage as they mature. Californians voted for their own California Marriage Amendment. Only a handful of states have neutered their marriage licensing, none by direct vote, most by court usurpation of power. It is entirely possible that the Supreme Court of the United States, as it exists today, would affirm traditional marriage. Marriage neutering activists suspect as much. You have to vote "YES" to preserve the status quo. Not voting gives your vote to the marriage neutering side.

The issue will not go away with a "No" vote, allowing the legislature's neutering of marriage licensing to stand. Marriage neutering advocates would not stop complaining even if neutered marriage became the law of the land written expressly in the Constitution, because someone is always going to realize, despite any changes to law, policy, school curriculum, etc. that there is a difference between the pairing of a man and a woman and the pairing of two men and the pairing of two women. As long as someone notes the difference, the advocates will be complaining about it. Don't embolden them by allowing Maine marriage licenses to be neutered.

4. I think goverment should get out of marriage entirely, so I am voting "No" or just not voting.

That issue is not being put to direct a vote here, but if "No on 1" prevails, government involvement in marriage and personal relationships is increased, and a powerful coalition of activist groups will have incentive to keep the government involved in marriage. If you hold this position, you are better off voting "Yes" on 1.

See also:

What is the Harm of Neutering Marriage?

Sam Schulman on Kinship and Marriage

Stand to Reason (audio)

Dennis Prager on why doing things like voting "Yes" on 1 isn't like opposing "interracial" marriage.

Does the Constitution Disqualify Voting According to Religion?

Schools Aren't Required to Teach Marriage (But they will teach same-sex "marriage" and bride+groom marriage are one in the same.)

This blog entry of mine also gathers together some good links.

Hasn't Marriage Always Been Changing?

I Will Gladly Stay Out of Your Bedroom

Yes, Defending Marriage is Discrimination (all laws discriminate.)

Does Marriage Defense Create a Slippery Slope?

DOJ, DOMA, and Bigotry

Equal Protection

Notes:

(1)There is a right to free speech, for example, because each of us has been born with the ability to communicate. But that doesn't mean anyone has to listen to me, nor does Clear Channel have to provide me with billboard space free of charge.

(2)Under the principle of equal access/protection, some state and federal laws prohibit discrimination against individuals on the basis of certain traits, such as race, sex, and sexual orientation, so that a driver's license can't be denied to someone with darker skin if that person meets the same criteria as a person with lighter skin. However, bride-groom marriage licenses are available to all individuals, regardless of race, sex, or sexual orientation. It is not unconstitutional for the state to treat different kinds of voluntary associations differently, as evidenced by numerous laws and regulations; monosexual couples are inherently a different kind of association than a couple uniting both sexes, because men and women are different. If men and women were not different, then the phrase "sexual orientation" would cease to have meaning, so it is impossible for anyone to argue that that there is no difference between men and women, and therefore same-sex and both-sex couplings, without removing their original argument. In other words, a homosexual man knows there is a difference – which is why he doesn't want to be married to a woman and instead wants to be "married" to a man.

That a homosexual man or woman does not want to obtain a marriage license under bride-groom marriage licensing does not mean that the licensing access is not equally provided or is flawed, nor does it necessitate change, any more than how we issue driver's licenses need be changed to accommodate a lifelong bicyclist. Since when does a segment of the population NOT wanting to use something other people are using obligate a universal change in that thing? Don't want to marry someone of the opposite sex? You don’t have to. Marriage is optional.

Equal access is provided with either a "Yes" or "No" vote, so the equal access argument is a red herring.

There is no natural right to a state-issued license – not a business license, not a professional license, not a driver’s license. State-issued licenses are issued on behalf of the people, because the people have chosen to issue them.

(3) California law treats same-sex domestic partners as spouses – with all of the legal attachments thereof that fall under state jurisdiction. Maine law can be changed to do the same thing. Voting "YES" on 1 will not stop anyone from living together, making vows and commitments, having ceremonies, exchanging rings, changing names, going on "honeymoon" trips, signing contracts, and asking other people (including business) to treat them as married. Such things all involve voluntarily consent and participation.

Breaking News: California Petition to Outlaw Divorce ... Hollywood Hardest Hit...

As Ed Morrisey tells it:

Some of the people who resent the hell out of the majority of voters in California who voted to keep the traditional definition of marriage have launched their own new initiative to protect marriage … by banning all divorces. It takes a special kind of elitist to make the supporting web video, which intends to insult mainstream Californians who passed Proposition 8 by a 52%-48% margin in 2008, which presumes that the only people who supported the original initiative were ignorant rubes and religious fanatics.

Go to his site for link to the details. For me, it is always funniest how quickly people who support neutering marriage will equate it directly with divorce. I think the correlation is obvious too, as it turns out... which is why I would never support divorce to be recognized as a marriage.

Playful, op-ed, Chairm and others, I've saved the really fun analysis for y'all. They've really let the mask slip on this one.

Shorter [Fannie]: Integration FAIL

The anti-egalitarian title, by the way, is Fannie's synopsis of her own point ... not mine. How did she get so anti-egalitarian in her remarks? Well I'm not really sure.

In this post she is all over the map. See if you can spot the inconsistencies in this coupling for instance, because her readership (including Seda) couldn't... Or if they did see it, they never seemed to call her out on it.

On Lawn, being a Man Who Knows Things [...] relying on the weight of his Authoritative Male Voice.

[later...]

While the anatomical and physiological differences between men and women are (often, but not always) "obvious," the psychological, temperamental, and spiritual distinctions are hardly so. In On Lawn's statement, we see a clear argumentum ad gastrum- an argument from the gut. [...] as though that is some sort of universal truth observable in reality.

That little hypocrisy is rather petty, I know. While it is very telling of Fannie's belief system, it neither proves nor disproves either side.

But, not to worry, she undermines her own point with the evidence she presents (directly and indirectly). Not just her point, but Seda as well. Yes that Seda, who actually presented (in an attempt to discredit my thesis) urban myth as fact, and who was wrong on fundamental historic facts, congratulated Fannie's post.

Ah, Fannie, I love you! You say so well in this post what I was trying to say and screwing up because I was doing it in quick spur-of-the-moment comments - because that's all the time I have right now!

Unfortunately Seda, who couldn't even detect her own inconsistent claims, now couldn't tell when Fannie was disproving one of her claims. Seda had mentioned that,

Social activism and cultural change bring equality. Attempting to harness equality to marriage seems a stretch.

But that was just the quick spur-of-the-moment comments compared to Fannie's more thoughtful research...

Seneca Falls, Lucy Stone, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Susan B. Anthony, the Men's League for Women's Suffrage, marches and parades that sometimes turned violent when angry male mobs "jeered, tripped, grabbed, and shoved" the marching women? All relatively meaningless. What women really needed to do to get the right to vote was marry men. (Oh, erm, let's just set aside the fact that many leaders of the women's suffrage movement were lesbians). It wasn't the tireless efforts of female and male suffragists that led to voting equality, it was marriage. Why? Because On Lawn says so, that's why.

I'll let it be up to the reader if Fannie was genuine or sarcastic in that quote though to me there is little doubt -- Fannie is more rarely genuine. Interesting enough, if for some reason what she said was genuine even though it undermined what Seda had said, the article she turns to in her post provides support for that statement (and my thesis which, though it didn't go anywhere near as far as she did in denigrating the usefulness of social activism):

In 1869, the territorial legislature of remote Wyoming granted its women access to ballot, followed in 1870 by the territorial legislature of neighboring Utah. This victories were stunning, both for where and how they occurred. It was not New York, nor New England, which housed the headquarters of the two national woman suffrage organizations, that led the nation in extending the franchise to women. Moreover, any suffragist activity in these two territories had been minor at best. This paradox has bewildered historians. All the more so, since the American West continued to lead the nation in the enfranchisement of women for the following forty plus years. ["Men, Women, and the Ballot: Woman Surage in the United States"; Sebastian Braun and Michael Kvasnickay; Feb 23, 2009; page 6]

Surely a great mystery is held in history. Like I said, the article undermines her point and also supports my thesis. Even more funny is how Fannie provides the quote from this article to her readership. Given that I find marriage as a conduit for women to persuade men for equality,

"[W]ith women being a scarcity, the net benefit of adopting woman suffrage carried lower potential costs to men in terms of risks and devaluation of their political influence; and for legislators in the West, woman suffrage had the added benefit of potentially attracting female settlers."

I wonder if Fannie misses out on the power of male-female integration in marriage mentioned directly in that quote. To her credit, this author is not (in this particular quote) crediting existing (though my thesis does not rely solely on existing marriages), instead the authors rely on the basic need for marriage -- gender integration.

Its a given, its obvious.

But that isn't all. With a link she presents another historic point:

In fact, the legislator who cast the deciding vote for the 19th Amendment was said to have done so at his mother's urging.

Does that contradict my thesis? No. As I pointed out in the comment section (and she acknowledged tacitly in her post):

Sure, and I bet the vast majority of the education that influenced equality happened in the walls of their home in their marriages.

It is such an important conduit for those humanitarian values of love, tolerance, support and respect that we should recognize in each marriage the expectation of love, tolerance, support and respect of each gender that combined (or potentially combines) to create each child.

Marriage doesn't just share the value of integration with just the participants. It shares the opportunity for persuasion to the children also. And what Fannie provided shines light on that process pretty well.

On that line, Seda and Fannie both present real world situations where equality was not taught by married individuals. I think it is an effort to contradict that marriage always breeds equality. I would actually agree, marriage has great potential for teaching equality, I believe Fannie even agrees with that point. It also has great potential for harm where that potential is not realized.

In fact, the capacity in marriage to progress equality (or make it digress if the opportunity is not grasped) makes our understanding of marriage all the more urgent. Marriage equality has always been a banner against such actions. Marriage equality, especially to the politically active women at the time of woman's suffrage, would have been understood as the equal recognition of rights and responsibilities towards each gender in each marriage.

Now there were many aspects of Fannie's post that was petty. However, this is not. As Fannie said herself, her point was in short "Integration FAIL". That marginalizing integration (or in the past even the expectation of monogamy) in marriage is in and the vision of segregation as "equal" to marriage is the new equality. And that is her goal both as a lesbian and a self-proclaimed feminist.

---

One last note. Fannie seeks to find fault in my labeling the way men shared power with women as a bloodless revolution. She points to clashes in the streets between women and men mobs, rock throwing, etc... It seems she misses the meaning of the term. From Ghandi to MLK Jr, the doctrine of civil disobedience and non-violent activism never at any time guaranteed there would be no blood. In Ghandi's India, there were clashes that lead to many, many deaths. MLK Jr, was himself shot and killed. The point of the bloodless revolution is not that there wasn't a struggle, but that there is not by threat or intimidation that the power is re-dispersed. Or in other words, there is no need to kill or maim the incumbent to bring about the desired ends. Instead, it is by persuasion that the incumbent either resigns or more equally shares power.

It was in the spirit of their doctrines for non-violent revolution that I applaud woman's suffrage. The only problem with that seems to be with Fannie's ignorance.

Basic Biology Lost on Letter Writer

Lorrie Farrelly of Yorba Linda has a letter published in the Los Angeles Times in response to their recent article on the marriage fight in Maine.

I suppose the absurd statement made by a Maine anti-gay-marriage worker -- "There is no family without mom and dad" -- might make sense were there not single-parent families, families headed by one or two grandparents, gay families, adoptive families, families headed by an older sibling and even the ultra-extreme Octomom's family.

There's nothing absurd about the marriage-honoring worker's statement. In each of those cases Ferrelly cites, both a man and a woman created those children – "mom" and "dad". So the statement stands – without mom and dad, there is no family.

Unfortunately, yes, there are children born to someone who is unable or unwilling to care for them (say... wasn't "safe and legal" abortion, in addition to contraception, supposed to end that?), and unfortunately, some children are left without their original parents due to death, and yes, some unmarried women foolishly have themselves inseminated using sperm foolishly donated by some guy who thought it would be a good idea to get paid for masturbating, especially if it meant passing along his genes supposedly-no strings-attached. But none of these things should be encouraged. For the sake of a better civilization, we should be encouraging people to 1) avoid conceiving children out of wedlock, 2) only get married (that means a bride+groom) when a) ready to be a dedicated spouse, and b) he or she has found a fundamentally compatible partner is also ready to be a dedicated spouse, 3) live in a way that honors and cares for their spouse; 4) put the needs of any children they birth or adopt over their personal desires and convenience.

[More after the jump.]

Notice I do not say everyone should get married. I do not say everyone should have children. Don't want to get married? You don’t have it. It is voluntary.

We should not be doing things that encourage people to conceive or raise children without providing those children with one mother and one father who are in a healthy marriage together.

Of all of those families, only one group does not have accompanying legal rights and responsibilities, and that needs fixing.

Two or more men, or two or more women is not a family, unless they are related through birth or adoption. Regardless, it takes both a mom and a day to perpetuate the family. Any couple consisting of two men or two women caring for children most likely is doing so as the result of previous relationships or artificial insemination. In either of those cases, the adults decided to create the situation knowing that it wasn't going to give those children a married home with a mother and father. In rare cases, same-sex couples may end up with orphaned nieces or nephews – and I do not have a problem with a domestic partnership being granted. We need not redefine marriage to accomodate this rarity.

Two unwed adults who love each other should have the right to marry.

Again, what if they don't love each other? How does the state know that one way or the other? And, again, by this standard, people who are already married to others or are closely related to each other would have a "right" to get a marriage license. And, finally, again, why just two? Isn't that a "bigoted" limitation?

Looking Back at Feminism, 50 Years From Now

Something to think about...

What will people think of feminism 50 years from now, or however long it takes for a more balanced view of gender issues to permeate society?

The first question will likely be: how could we let it go so far? How could men be seen as the oppressors and sole winners in the gender role system when:

• The vast majority of homeless people and prison inmates are men
• The vast majority of people who die in work related accidents are men
• The only group of people forced to fight in wars are men

What kind of patriarchy protects its men in such a lousy way? Well, it’s certainly not a patriarchy designed to give men all the perks while leaving women empty-handed (women are the only oppressed class in history who had their oppressors go out and work in the fields for them, as Warren Farrell says).

Maine Update

Being a Californian, I can identify with that the folks in Maine are going through these days. People are being told they are bigots because they understand that marriage unites the sexes, and that state licensing of marriage should not be neutered to cater to the feelings of some people within a tiny minority. Bob Drogin reports in the Los Angeles Times on the marriage fight in Maine, comparing it to what went on in California with getting the California Marriage Amendment adopted.

Brandon Brawner spent a year training Los Angeles groups that opposed Proposition 8. Now the West Hollywood activist runs a phone bank here to block a repeal of Maine's new same-sex marriage law on election day.

"The tactics they use are fear and lies," Brawner, 29, said of his opponents.

Saying this over and over again does not make it true. But it is laughable, coming from a side that attempts to shame and bully.

[Much more after the jump.]

Up the road in Yarmouth, Kym Souchet worked the phones to urge voters to reject gay marriage.

Notice how this is worded? "reject gay marriage"? It's restoring bride+groom marriage licensing. As I've pointed out many, many times, it's not "gay" as there is no requirement for sexual orientation – it's "same-sex". And it is only "marriage" by court imposition on the English language.

The home-schooling mom said she was stunned at times at the response she heard.

"Home-schooling" is thrown in there in an effort to marginalize her. Notice Brawner's occupation is not used to describe him.

Maine voters will decide whether to repeal a law that redefines marriage as the "legally recognized union of two people" regardless of gender. The law is on hold pending the referendum.

At least that is better than what happened in California, where the court deliberately insisted that neutered marriage licenses be issues ahead of the impending vote.

In particular, Schubert Flint Public Affairs, the Sacramento-based company that managed the campaign to ban gay marriage in California, is directing strategy and media operations for pro-repeal groups in Maine.

Once again, it isn't to "ban gay marriage".

Gov. John Baldacci, who signed the bill into law May 6, has thrown his political clout behind legalizing same-sex marriage after opposing it in the past.

The two-term Democrat changed his mind when he discovered state statutes contained "400 rights and responsibilities that are only available under marriage, not civil unions," he said in a telephone interview. "That's not fair, and it's got to be fixed."

There's a reason for that. Civil unions are not marriage. They are different kinds of associations and it is okay to treat them differently. However, if he was so concerned about this, he could have insisted on a law treating those in civil unions as spouses, like California had with domestic partnerships. Really, this is not about protecting anyone – it is social engineering; imposing the idea that there is no difference, even though if there wasn't a difference we wouldn't need terms like "heterosexual" and "homosexual".

State Atty. Gen. Janet Mills weighed in last week when she rejected claims that the new law would require "the teaching of homosexual marriage to young children in public schools," as pro-repeal ads and mailings consistently warn.

Not by itself, no... but when combined with other laws and court rulings, teacher unions, and homosexuality advocacy groups, of course state schools are going to teach the state position – which will be that two men is the same thing as two women is the same thing as one man and one woman. Why do you think GLSEN exists?

Baldacci's former campaign manager, Jesse Connolly, runs No on 1/Protect Maine Equality, a political action group seeking to [neuter marriage licensing]... Unlike his opponents, Connolly has invested heavily in paid staff, opened five offices around the state and drawn about 120 volunteers or staffers from out of state.

The group has used Virginia-based McMahon, Squier and Associates for TV ads and placement, and other out-of-state companies for political consulting and direct mailings.

Just thought you should know.

Most major newspapers in the state came out over the weekend against a repeal.

Yes, nobody knows better what our marriage laws should be than a bunch of people working for a dying industry, right? It's not like most newspaper editorialists are known for siding with social engineers, right?

The simmering culture war, at times, has a religious cast.

One need not believe in any traditional religion to see that the state has an interest in licensing bride+groom pairings that it does not have with other kind of voluntary associations.

Finally, at the end of the article, we learn that...

Brawner flew to Portland to volunteer for a week, and then extended his stay for two more weeks after making a deal with his employer -- a company that produces entertainment and advertising for China -- to work online during the day.

Which company would that be?

Attention people of Maine: Don't surrender your vote to activists who try to guilt you with appeals to emotion. Marriage licenses are issued on YOUR behalf, and marriage laws apply to all of us, and will have an impact on future generations. Vote to maintain marriage instead of allowing it to be redefined into meaninglessness. Affirm that both husbands and wives form the core of marriage. Do not go along with the devaluing of that important bride+groom dynamic.

Daffyd: All Over but the Outing

A few nuggets from Daffyd's latest...

But here is where things get creepy: In response to the petition that put Referendum 71 on the ballot, gay activists have become obsessed with "outing" everybody who signed it -- publicly printing not just their names but their addresses as well. They even wanted to put all the personal information on the internet, so it would easily be searchable by anybody who suspected his neighbor might be insufficiently tolerant.

Activists claim they are only trying to exercise the state's "public records disclosure law;" but it's hard not to come away with the sick feeling that SSM proponents are hoping that friends and neighbors of the petition signers will punish them for their apostasy, especially if they live in a liberal (or gay) neighborhood. That is, I believe the legal fight to release the signers' names and addresses is a transparent attempt to intimidate and frighten them into not signing any future petitions.

Then quoting a news report:

The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld an order preventing Washington State from releasing the names of more than 120,000 people who signed petitions seeking a voter referendum on whether to give same-sex couples most of the same rights as married couples.

As always, read the whole thing for what it is worth.

Americans Who Believe In Equality Are More Likely To Buy On Impulse

A new study from Rice University's Jones Graduate School of Business finds that Americans who believe in equality are more-impulsive shoppers. And it has implications for how to market products differently in countries where shoppers are more likely to buy on impulse.

Compare and contrast that report with Wretchard's post here. I think the implications to this debate will come to light if you do.

Why Cosmetics Work: More Depth To Facial Differences Between Men And Women Than Presumed

In a study published in Perception, Russell demonstrated the existence of a facial contrast difference between the two genders. By measuring photographs of men and women, he found that female faces have greater contrast between eyes, lips, and surrounding skin than do male faces. This difference in facial contrast was also found to influence our perception of the gender of a face.

Check the two pictures and see if you agree...

Women, Girls Created Paleolithic Cave Art

Check out this flash presentation at Discovery.com...

Suggested Harvey Milk Day Curriculum

Now that California Governor Schwarzenegger has signed legislation for an official Harvey Milk Day in California, I am proposing curriculum for use in public schools.

Here is the text that should be taught to the students on Harvey Milk Day:

Harvey Milk was a heterosexual who stressed the importance of distinguishing marriage from other kinds of voluntary relationships. He advocated that every child should have both a mother and a father, married to each other and treating each other with respect, and looking after the needs of their own children. He noted the problems that happen when people do not adhere to these ideals. He spoke often about how marriage was universally understood to unite the sexes. He also noted that heterosexual coitus is how all of us got here, while homosexual sodomy does not likewise contribute to society.

Some people will object to this, because they want to impose their narrow, outdated, bigoted view of Harvey Milk on everyone. Sure, historically, depictions of Harvey Milk have not been inclusive of this understanding of him, but that is only because of discrimination. Past depictions of African-Americans have been wrong and have been corrected, so that means that opposing my updated depiction of Harvey Milk is just like racism. We should have equality. After all, the meaning of Harvey Milk is not the same to everyone.

California Marriage Amendment Update

I don't think Jimmie JJ Walker has ever said anything as funny as some of the things U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker said yesterday. Maura Dolan of the Los Angeles Times reports.

A federal judge refused Wednesday to dismiss a constitutional challenge to [the California Marriage Amendment], ruling that a trial was required to resolve legal and factual disputes over the voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage.

There should be no dispute. Licenses are issued on behalf of the people of a state. The people of California have limited the issuance of marriage licenses to one man and one woman, neither of whom is married, and who are not closely related to each other. None of these criteria exclude any individuals on the basis of sexual orientation or sex. The people of California lawfully amended their constitution. This amendment does not violate the federal Constitution.

[Continued after the jump.]

The California Supreme Court ruled in May that [the California Marriage Amendment], passed by 52.3% of voters, did not violate the state Constitution. The suit before Walker says the measure violates the federal Constitution's guarantees of equal protection and due process.

How, exactly does it do that? And if it does, what about "equal protection" for groups of three or more who want marriage licenses, or close relatives? Or why can't a business partnership be treat exactly like marriage? Why? Because - it is perfectly constitutional to treat different kinds of voluntary associations differently.

During the hearing, Charles Cooper, representing the Proposition 8 campaign, argued that marriage historically has been reserved for unions between a man and a woman because only opposite-sex couples can procreate "naturally."

Walker, however, noted that not all married couples can procreate.

That response ignores the actual argument. The argument is the pairing of a man and a woman is the only kind of pairing that can procreate naturally, even if not all of them will. No same-sex pairing procreates, no matter what the ages of the individuals. One woman, three men, four men, five women... none of those relationships procreate.

In addition, only the pairing of a man and a woman provides a representative of both of the two sexes that comprise society.

The Minnesota Supreme Court had rejected an equal protection challenge of that law, and the U.S. Supreme Court, without issuing a full-blown opinion, declined to hear an appeal.

"We can't put much stock in that case, can we?" Walker told the lawyers. He described the case as "old," "very limited" and "not a considered decision of the Supreme Court."

Old? Limited? So is Loving v. Virginia. So is Brown v. Board of Education. So is the Constitution. So what?

In his ruling, Walker also noted that [the California Marriage Amendment] stripped gays and lesbians of the right to marry, which they had been given six months earlier in a historic 4-3 ruling by the California Supreme Court.

True rights are not given by state courts. True rights are recognized by courts. If a court can create a right, the people can take it away. Even though the federal Constitution has the Second Amendment, lawmakers have taken away the "right" to purchase certain kinds of arms that we once had. Most laws "take away rights", in the definition he is using, and it wasn't just "gays and lesbians" who could form a legal brideless or groomless "marriage", so they weren’t the only people who lost those "rights". We all did. There is no illegal discrimination involved. Here, as frustrating as that reality is for those who lost the vote.

"Potentially, [the California Marriage Amendment] may be invalid given the history in California, while similar actions in another state . . . may not be constitutionally infirm," Walker said.

So, which is it? Are states allowed to be different from each other, or not? Choose your side of the fence now.

The judge previously ordered the Proposition 8 campaign to disclose its internal strategy memorandums and communications, an order the campaign is appealing to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on 1st Amendment grounds.

Yeah, I wasn't expecting much from him, given that prior order.

Theodore Olson, representing same-sex couples in the case, told Walker that if the appeal delays the trial, he may ask for a preliminary injunction to suspend [the California Marriage Amendment].

Oh, that would be rich. A court being able to suspend the constitution?

Walker also ordered written arguments on a request by the Proposition 8 campaign to remove Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown as a defendant and make him a plaintiff in the case. Brown, who was sued in his position as the state's chief law enforcement officer, has said in court papers that he agrees with plaintiffs that the ballot measure was unconstitutional.

Brown and the plaintiffs oppose the potential realignment.

Well, of course they do. If you could choose your "opponent", wouldn't you choose someone who agrees with you?

Judge Walker, I know it is highly unlikely you will ever read this, but if you have and you feel insulted by my lack of appreciation for your reasoning, please note that we feel insulted by your lack of respect for our votes and the institution of marriage, and the value of uniting the two sexes. You may believe in your heart of hearts that a state has no compelling reason to distinguish between bride+groom pairings and other kinds of voluntary relationships, but it really isn't your place to solve everything you perceive to be a problem, even if it comes to your court. The people have spoken, and the people have a government. It isn't the other way around. Any of these couples will, as domestic partners, be treated by the state government the same way spouses are treated. It is not your job to look after their feelings, or advance their agenda. It is up to them to persuade the rest of us to their point of view.

California Update

There were a few items in the news over the last several days in California relating to marriage and sexual orientation.

Maura Dolan at the Los Angeles Times reports that California Chief Justice Ronald M. George is unhappy with the state’s initiative process – no doubt because the people overruled him when they adopted the California Marriage Amendment.

The blog version of this story is here, complete with comments.

California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed a bill that recognizes as domestic partnerships licensed brideless and groomless “marriages” which began elsewhere during the window in which California was issuing neutered marriage licenses. This is the Associated Press story and this is the one from the UPI, which is has more clarity.

However, in a signing message, Schwarzenegger said California law will not recognize such unions as marriage, The Sacramento Bee reported Monday. Rather, he said the state will "provide the same legal protections that would otherwise be available to couples that enter into civil unions or domestic partnerships out-of-state."

[Continued after the jump.]

The UPI story also mentions the Governor signing into law the Harvey Milk Day legislation. So now school kids will be taught that Milk was important because he was attracted to other men, and was open about it, and still got elected to office.

The article goes on to say...

The announcement came on the same day that the San Jose Mercury News reported a California judge will consider a motion from Proposition 8 backers to halt a trial and end efforts to overturn a law against gay marriage. Jim Campbell, a staff attorney with the conservative Alliance Defense Fund, said the case to overturn Proposition 8 can be dismissed on legal grounds without a trial, the newspaper said.

That would be good.

The Los Angeles Times editorial board weighed in on Schwarzenegger’s bill signings.

On his signing of the Harvey Milk Day bill, they write...

Though May 22 won't be a state holiday, and schools and government offices will remain open, the bill encourages public schools to commemorate the birthday of Milk, a gay San Francisco supervisor who was gunned down in 1978.

Yes, he was gunned down over a personnel dispute.

By taking a grown-up political fight to schoolchildren, Leno's bill will only add to the hysteria surrounding gay rights, proving to conservatives that proponents really are eager to teach homosexuality in the schools. Schools have an obligation to teach history, but they shouldn't be used as a platform for a political agenda. Although Milk deserves recognition as a gay-rights pioneer, there are more appropriate ways to honor him.

Call me cynical, but I think their real concern is that this will make repealing the California Marriage Amendment at the ballot more difficult. Otherwise, I mostly agree with that paragraph.

I wonder what would happen if some schools taught that Harvey Milk was a heterosexual who opposed the neutering of marriage? If "marriage" can be redefined, why can't we make up our own definition of "Harvey Milk"?

I wrote about the events of Columbus Day weekend in Washington, D.C. over at my namesake blog.

The Maine Thing

Maine certainly is awash in campaigning over restoring marriage licensing, isn't it? Associated Press writer David Crary had an article recently.

Though five other states have legalized same-sex marriage, including four of Maine's New England neighbors, none has done it with the affirmation of a popular vote. Maine could be the first - a prospect which worries Schubert and his allies.

Again, most of those states did it by court imposition.

Supporters of same-sex marriage, in Maine and elsewhere, are cautiously hopeful of a landmark victory that they believe would have impact in other states, including California.

I fail to see why the California constitution should be altered because of something that happens in Maine.

[Continued after the jump.]

But they acknowledge that defeat - by an electorate known for its independence and moderation - would be crushing.

How would it be crushing? What would they lose, given the state's civil unions? The very next day, they'll be filing a lawsuit over the measure.

Among the lawmakers backing the marriage bill was Sen. Larry Bliss, an openly gay Democrat who moved many colleagues with personal stories of raising a family as half of a same-sex couple.

And how did they get that way? Not by getting together and making babies. They chose to bring children into a non-marital situation, where either a mother or a father would not be present. This is like a man divorcing his perfectly good wife to be with a married woman, and then complaining about how lonely he is without a wife, and that polygamous marriage licenses should be issued. They use constant appeals to emotion, and claim that any disagreement with them is akin to wishing them murdered.

But what is good for society? Where is the state's interest?

Initially, Bliss felt the bill was premature, but changed his mind when his longtime partner quit his job and needed to get on Bliss's health insurance.

"If he'd been my spouse, it would have been easy," Bliss said. "Instead the process was appallingly humiliating."

You see, it isn't about getting married, it is about what they can do with a marriage license to get things they want. There is a difference.

When the marriage bill was introduced, [Gov. John] Baldacci argued that gay couples could get needed legal rights through civil unions, but his views evolved.

"I was creating a second-class marriage for certain people, which wasn't right," he said. "I wasn't doing my duty to the constitution I swore to uphold."

It's different from marriage, regardless of whether or not it gets a marriage license. It lacks a bride or it lacks a groom – and that is entirely up to the participants. Nobody is forcing them into these relationships.

Beth Allen, 30, and Valerie Frye, 29, just moved into a wood cabin in the hamlet of Fletchers Landing, a three-hour drive northwest of Portland.

They've been a couple for three years, working for the same social service agency and sharing care of Allen's 5-year-old daughter Fiona.

Where is Fiona's father??? Deadbeat? Dead? Sperm donor? Estranged husband and father? One night stand? What does he have to say about this? Is he paying child support? Does he have visitation or any level of custody?

If there is any doubt that the marriage neutering advocates will use whatever means they can, including marriage-neutering laws, to get churches to perform their "marriages" just remember what has been happening with the Episcopalians. The latest on that is over at my namesake blog.

Am I a Father or not?

The following is edited, you can (if you have a stomach for harsh language) read the unedited version at Masculinisme. I can't attest to his handling of either the failing marriage, or problematic divorce. I just know this kind of strife after divorces is all too familiar.

So without judging what he or she could do better, can we just look at the sentiment being relayed here. I think there is a real important lesson to be learned by looking at these experiences. In these cases where a marriage has dissolved (but the family cannot be dissolved), we can really see what needs are to be fulfilled and what recognition marriage is meant to bring.

This is the problem Jeremy.

Most men are dumb [...], living in a dream world.. We marry these women and because we marry them we trust them... The thing is women are not men... There are a lot of vindictive and devious women... They can also be good actors and it is not until we are married and they have children they show their true colours.

There are two types of men, I feel.. The first type is the one that gets married/has children and has no problems.

We are the second type.

It is this second type, I feel that tend to be somewhat lacking in control or discipline.

Personally speaking my ex wife turned the moment she became pregnant. It was very very quick.. I put it down to "hormones" and let it slide. Then after my son was born she got worse.. Again I made excuses and let it slide in the hope it would eventually sort itself out.

Well.. I guess it did.. and I haven't seen my son for 2 1/2 years.

I let things slide and rather than confronting her negative behaviour I actually reinforced it by letting it slide...

I think we have to try and pinpoint a "root cause" that seems to generally be a part of the situations we find ourselves in. If we can find some sort of [generalization] of the mechanics of this we can then empower other men not yet in this situation to know what to look for and what remedies he might be able to use to rectify or control the [situation]. This is extremely important.

I guess we can maybe build a picture by "talking and sharing our experiences."

What I don[']t like is too much wound licking going on and also talk of negotiating over time..

The fact of the matter is my son is now 4 1/2 and has not seen me for 2 1/2 years.. That time we have missed together can never be replaced.. Every single minute of his life, he is growing and changing.. Personally I've no time for negotiations... If I need to go to prison and really get up peoples noses then so be it.. If that is what it takes for my son, then I will do that.

Frankly I'm not interested in negotiation.. I'm not interested in appealing to these heartless morons with children of their own... Jeez.. if they can be so cold hearted, think how sad their own children are...

It's simple.. I'm either my son's father or I'm not.. If I'm not then stop hassling me for money and all that crap.. If I am then give me rights equal to that of the [woman] that has made sure I cannot see my own flesh and blood..

I don't need to negotiate that.

Regards

Jon Sims

Why Marriage is Different

The marriage debate has proven to be different than the general fight for “gay rights”, and this causing a lot of people to go bonkers, and exposing homofascist tendencies in some of them.

Why? Perhaps the answers can be found in recent history.

The "gay rights" movement has had astounding success. Homosexual behavior used to be illegal and was prosecuted. There were raids on places where homosexual people congregated. Homosexuality was classified as a disorder by the APA. Entertainers (and many others) hid homosexual behavior for fear of career loss. Kids were warned to beware of homosexuals, with such warnings equating them with pedophiles. Many people didn’t even know the word "homosexual".

Things have changed.

[Continued after the jump.]

Homosexual behavior is treated like heterosexual behavior by the law, in that private consensual behavior is legal. Raids on "gay bars" when they happen (which is rare), can only be done under the same reason any other bar would be raided. The APA has not only reclassified homosexuality away from being a disorder, but it advises against telling people they can change their behavior away from homosexuality. Some entertainers make their careers out of being proudly "out", and other out entertainers have thriving careers. Homosexual characters and reality show contestants are overrepresented on television. Homosexuality has long had its own media segment in the form of cable channels and periodicals, but it is also a regular part of mainstream media. There are legislators who are openly gay and it isn’t even an issue. Kids are taught in schools that there's nothing wrong with homosexual behavior, and that is just like heterosexual behavior. Saying "that's so gay" to a coworker can mean punishment by your employer and sensitivity training. Some religious groups, such as many denominations claiming to be Christian, have switched to celebrating homosexual behavior, in contrast to Biblical teaching and church traditions.

Laws (or proposed legislation) and court decisions at the state and federal level protect people from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in employment and housing. HIV/AIDS was even singled out in the American's With Disabilities Act. Domestic partership and civil union laws in many states have recognized same-sex pairings as legal arrangements - California's law, for example, treats domestic partners as spouses. Even where not mandated by law, many employers and others recognize domestic partnerships.

"Hate crime" laws and programs track, and in many cases, add extra penalties for crimes committed on the basis of the victim’s sexual orientation.

Homosexuality advocates have even managed to get a lot of otherwise reasonable people go to along with the idea of "transgenderism" – simply because they have asked them to. This is the catch-all phrase assigned to dressing so as to appear to be the opposite sex, or going so far as to surgically remove health ybody parts and get shot up with hormones to further the pretending. So now, if Fred announces to his employer that he's now Jane, the employer is supposed to pretend that he's a woman. If "Jane" comes back from vacation and says he went back to being Fred, the employer is supposed to go along with that, too. Something like this happened at the Los Angeles Times not long ago, with one of their journalists . The news media referred to a woman as a "pregnant man" because she'd gotten enough hormone treatments to grow facial hair. These are just two recent examples. In comparison, while there is an active and ardent "deaf pride" movement, what do you think the reaction of most people would be if a man with otherwise good hearing had his ability to hear intentionally removed through surgery, because he's always felt like he was born with hearing he shouldn't have?

While there are families that shun or disown any member who "comes out", more families are accepting a member’s homosexuality (and partner) and do not attempt to discourage homosexual behavior, or even happily celebrate the situation, doing whatever they can to suppress or get over any negative feelings about the idea of their family member partnered with someone of the same sex (and not someone of the opposite sex).

It's gotten to the point where, as far as I can tell, the changes to society most sought after now by "LGBT community" are, in no particular order, 1) Getting schoolkids to stop saying "that's so gay" or using slurs; 2) Getting the state of California to declare a statewide Harvey Milk Day; 3) Getting the military to allow homosexual people to serve openly, as opposed to "don’t ask, don't tell"; and 4) neutering marriage. Even HIV/AIDS has faded from the spotlight, though there are official government programs and agencies geared towards funding research, educational outreaches, and treatments.

That's a lot of progress towards their stated goals.

To sum up, just about everything homosexuality advocates asked for in the public square, they've gotten. Perhaps they took this to mean that more of their friends, family, coworkers, neighbors and others they know were willing to go along with everything the activist groups demanded, simply because they asked. It was "yes, yes, yes", for the most part.

So at last we've arrived at the marriage issue. The activists groups have been spoiled for so long. And now, they're hearing a strong "no" for the first time, and like a spoiled child, they are throwing fits. Some marriage neutering advocates are only pretending to be surprised by the opposition, playing to the audience so as to position the opposition as extreme, bizarre, and outrageous - or perhaps doing a little self-deluded projecting. They thought we had followed them through the looking glass, and so they expect us to fall into line and see it their way. But we don't. If they'll feel more comfortable there, we're not going to stop them. But we're not going there ourselves.

Even those of us who were happy to go witness commitment ceremonies have balked at removing the core meaning of marriage.

When it comes to acceptance and support for how you live your life from your family – whether or not you get a state-issued marriage certificate with your partner won't matter to most of us. Family members who hate you will still hate you. Family members who disapprove of homosexual behavior will still disapprove of that behavior. People who understand marriage as uniting a bride and a groom will still continue to think that way. People who support whatever you do will do so regardless. Government force should not be brought in to force your family to pretend they approve of the behavior or think a brideless or groomless pairing is marriage, so this is a personal matter on a case by case basis.

Marriage is different from the issues dealt with before because marriage has been a core building block of our society. Marriage and marriage laws have an impact on all of us, whether or not we ever get married. Marriage licenses are issued on behalf of the people of a state, so it isn't just a private, individual matter.

So there are even those of us who see nothing wrong with homosexual behavior but still believe it is important to acknowledge the difference between heterosexual behavior, which is how we all got here, and homosexual behavior; between marriage and other kinds of relationships. We are tolerant. But tolerance doesn't include abandoning our own convictions about the nature and importance of marriage, and distinguishing marriage from nonmarriage in the law.

This is different because this is not a denial of rights to homosexual people – homosexual people have the same rights as anyone else, even if they don't want to exercise them as they are. It is protection of the best way we know how of creating a microcosm of society for the purposes of perpetuating it.

If we, the people, do not see brideless or groomless pairings as marriage, we're not going to roll over and allow miniscule percentage of the population to impose a change on us.

Personally, being a believer in the inherent worth of every human being and the principles of individual liberty and limiting government, I'm in agreement with the true human rights aspects of the "gay rights" movement. Consistent to that philosophy is opposing the forcible neutering of marriage licensing against the will of the people of a state.

Disclaimer: I don't believe I can know with certainty a person's intentions or thoughts or feelings. I can only make guesses based on behavior and what I know about human nature.

The Market for Lemons, Neutered Marriage, and Queen Elizabeth the I

When I read Wretchard at Belmont club describe the effect of John Edwards affair on the nature of politics in general, I couldn't help but see a real formidable analog in the effect it must have had on the marriage institution:

The cost of lying, according to Tobias Lindquist of Stockholm University, “increases with the size of the lie and the strength of the promise”. A classic example of “the bigger they come, the harder they fall” is Bernie Madoff; or if you are inclined to institutional examples, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which everyone knows were “too big to fail”. There may be even more striking examples about, but this is not the place to talk about them.

But even if the liar is not caught, the very prize he seeks to obtain is cheapened by the falsehood. It’s not poetic justice, its economics.

If I were to merely key off of the phrase "too big to fail", and the assurances that marriage will not change with the major alteration to its definition, it wouldn't be the first time that I have noted such a parallel. Both the adulterer and the proponent of neutering marriage believe that the health of their marriage, or the institution of marriage, is to momentous to be taken off course by their own infidelity.

Similarly, I've also covered the ground of how the prize if marriage itself is cheapened in the process of neutering it. I've often said that neutering marriage does no one any good -- and it is especially cheapened for the people who buy into the newly neutered definition. The same goes for the adulterer who believes that their new open expression of sexual conduct is anymore meaningful then the monogamous life long commitment they could have had.

But Wretchard charts a metaphor with an established economic principle which also has application in this debate. It dovetails nicely with Jane Gault's recognition of the marginal case in charting just how marriage could be devalued if it were neutered.

He points to the "Market for Lemons", a paper based on the market for used cars. The Wikipedia offers as a synopsis:

There are good used cars and defective used cars ("lemons"), but because of asymmetric information about the car (the seller knows much more about the problems of the car than the buyer), the buyer of a car does not know beforehand whether it is a good car or a lemon. So the buyer's best guess for a given car is that the car is of average quality; accordingly, he/she will be willing to pay for it only the price of a car of known average quality. This means that the owner of a good used car will be unable to get a high enough price to make selling that car worthwhile. Therefore, owners of good cars will not place their cars on the used car market. This is sometimes summarized as "the bad driving out the good" in the market. "Lemon market" effects have also been noted in other markets, such as used computers and the online dating "market".

The quality of a marriage is different, perhaps even completely different then the quality of a companion's commitment to marriage. However, the quality of the marriage institution is perhaps very comparable to the institution of online dating or buying a used car. All involve an investment and a continued commitment to an uncertain future. All involve the recognition that you may not know what you are getting into while the purveyors will have a much better clue. And the people most exposed to the poor quality are less likely to even join the effort to find the real quality to begin with.

A recent exchange in our comment section brought out the question of why Queen Elizabeth the First never got married, in spite of numerous petitions and suitors. The other commenter claimed of Elizabeth, "She knew that re-marrying would cause her to become subject to her husband". As I mentioned in my reply there are many problems with this assumption. In fact, the structure so strongly resembles the institution of marriage as a Lemon Market, I can't quite put it down.

Before Elizabeth sat on the throne of England, her sister Mary was Queen. One would think that if there was such a cause for concern that Mary would, perhaps, have the same fear? However as the Wikipedia reports...

At age 37, Mary turned her attention to finding a husband and producing an heir, thus preventing the Protestant Elizabeth (still her successor under the terms of Henry VIII's will) from succeeding to the throne.

It is important to note that her marriage did make her unpopular due to the foreign entanglements it caused. And so I'll leave quickly on the table the postulate that their marriage was simply a bad example for Elizabeth in matters of state, and move on.

Other theories include that Elizabeth feared she was infertile, and felt no advantage to marriage. The way she would have known this, according to the theory, was from how an uncle molested her regularly as a teenager (those generous to the proceedings call it just an affair). All ripe for a lemony understanding of marriage, but that isn't even the strongest source of potential sourness towards marriage.

The conjunction of famous qualities has given Elizabeth a lasting legacy and lore. She being a woman monarch in England, and unmarried her whole life, might just correspond to another notorious first -- her father was none other then King Henry the VIII, who is famous in being the first King to divorce (or rather go even further and divorce) his wife.

There are good marriages, and bad marriages ("lemons"). The good marriages are the ones that express selfless devotion to the person they combine with to have children with. The good marriages are the ones that equally recognize, with tolerance and compassion, the rights and responsibilities of both partners in raising the children they have together, and the rights those children can claim from their parents care. This generational gift of love by example is what has given marriage a reputation beyond the lemons occasionally found in it.

Those ideals have constantly been eroded by the selfish goals of sexual liberty. No clearer case is where the adulterer (or in the case of divorce for sexual liberty, the abandoner) causes that marriage to go sour. Instead of giving the gift of love and tolerance to the next generation, it causes callous and churlishness. The reason this applies to neutering marriage is in the effect of removing of its expectation of equality. And I mean specifically the equality in how both genders relate to each other in each marriage. Which, when eroded or even neutered, only instills and even subsidizes those principles that make marriages go sour.

Your Papers, Please

Do you know exactly why your Congressman wrote a particular piece of legislation? Does it really matter? Doesn't it matter what the text of the legislation actually says? Well, if that's what you think, you're just not taking advantage of creative new ways of trying to remove an amendment to a state constitution. Bob Egelko of the San Francisco Chronicle reports.

A federal judge has ordered sponsors of California's Proposition 8 to release campaign strategy documents that opponents believe could show that backers of the same-sex marriage ban were motivated by prejudice against gays.

This is ridiculous, and I have to wonder if this is a way of ensuring this will go to SCOTUS – which it will anyway. Are we now going to be able to demand all communications by all ballot measure proponents? What matters is what a law says – especially in relation to other laws, chiefly the federal Constitution. It doesn't matter if the backers thought this would turn the moon plaid. The only time the intent of the writers should be considered is in determining how to apply the amendment - not whether or not it should be there.

[More after the jump.]

"The intent or purpose of Prop. 8 is central to this litigation," Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker declared Thursday in requiring backers of the November 2008 measure to give the opposing side their internal campaign communications.

Nonsense. Just like it doesn't matter if the motivation of backers of Harvey Milk Day really just want to make life better for Sean Penn, to the detriment of other actors. What matters is whether or not a law or resolution for Harvey Milk Day is adopted or not. The California Marriage Amedment was duly adopted. It treats men and women, regardless of sexual orientation, the same.

These people are really desperate, and their willing to trample all over the law, even a state constitution, to get what they want.

The initiative, approved by 52 percent of the voters, overturned the state Supreme Court's May 2008 ruling that gave gays and lesbians the right to marry in California.

Wrong - it mandated that the state license as marriage any same sex pairing that requests it – regardless of the sexual orientation of the participants – except to people who are already married to others or are close relatives, of course.

Although "voters cannot be asked to explain their votes," Walker said, a ballot measure's authors and strategists can be scrutinized to see what their motives were.

Why? This is thought-police territory.

Andrew Pugno, a lawyer for the Prop. 8 sponsors, said Friday it was unprecedented to allow "the losing side of a campaign to pry into the most intimate strategy discussions of the winning side."

"This will make any citizen group think twice before attempting a ballot initiative," Pugno said.

Well yeah, isn't that likely part of their motivation in all of this? To discourage us from standing up for ourselves when they have managed to browbeat legislators and judges to their activist agenda that serves very few people?

Marriage brings equality

I can show plenty of examples where rights were extended to women in marriage before they were shown to divorced or single women. That is because marriage promotes equality, not oppression. Here I present two...

A while back a commenter presented two cases which he proposed showed that marriage was an institution of oppression. He showed as evidence the state of Kentucky where women weren't recognized as owning property. But what undermined that claim was that the status was changed, first for married women. The people who voluntarily voted in that recognition were their husbands.

For woman's suffrage, it was a bloodless revolution. I do not know of another case in history where power was shared so voluntarily as the husbands shared voting power with women. If women had a better conduit to gain that power then their marriage, you tell me what that was.

My premise is not that marriage itself brings equality. Its not just a name or title or the fact there are two people heading a household. My premise is that integration brings equality, in this case the integration of two distinctly different types of people -- men and women. However superficial and deep the distinctions are between them, they are obvious.

Neutered marriage is not integration, its neutralizing the expectation of integration. Another case of integration was how the civil rights movement insisted schools have both black and white students even at the cost of busing children around the city. Naturally some cities had to try harder to integrate then others. But now imagine with all of the gains that movement has had since that change, if we then decided that an all-white school was now in an of itself an entity which needed integrating with integrated schools. Imagine if the all-white school was now considered just as integrated and equal as the integrated class.

As people point out with marriage's integration of gender, or our efforts to integrate races educationally, integration has provided many opportunities for dominance of one group over another. And that makes sense, I mean you can't have dominance of one over the other if they don't share the same space at all, right? So I think its a fools paradise to think that integration prevents oppression, however over time integration can and has promoted equality. Over time it has encouraged people to love, tolerance, and respect. It has made civilizations more equal.

And marriage is simply the oldest, most battle torn, institution of integration there is. But it is also the most important, and the one with the most potential to change society into being more loving and respectful.

[Update: Some discussion has lead to even more supporting facts...]

Is the constitution ever unconstitutional?

In our 'judicial' tag, we've wrestled with the possibility that marriage neuterists would get so frustrated with the people and the constitution that they actually throw both out on their proverbial ear.

Do my eyes deceive me? Did that just happen in Texas?

Why am I in this?

I'm in it for marriage equality.. Real marriage equality that can be shown to make a difference for all of society.

Marriage equality, for as long as anyone can research, has meant (roughly) the equality of both genders in meeting the responsibilities and rights afforded to those who are potentially created by them. No one can get around the fact that means means both genders in each marriage.

Getting both genders to equally recognize the rights of the other in each marriage has been a struggle, which thankfully has been a winning battle though there is still much work to be done. I see the seperate-but-equal status of neutering marriage for the sake of homosexuality to be a major step backwards for marriage equality.

And, as one would expect, it would be the most defenseless and vulnerable who are asked to pay the price. Recreating marriage equality to mean extending the welfare endorsement that they see marriage to be, in the name of sexual liberty, cheapens marriage and over-extends the governments arm in giving needed aid. Its the children, and those who care about them to forgo their own liberties to take care of them who wind up suffering from the neglect from those they should expect support from. People lead away from supporting the families who should mean the most to them, by the new subsidization of sexual liberty.

I still maintain that neutering marriage (needlessly) for the sake of homosexuality will be considered among slavery and abortion as the most grievous of acts one group of people committed against a more defenseless group.