Inevitable or the "death rattle" of the sexual revolution.

Here at Opine we have posited many good reasons why the cultural left's "inevitabilty" argument is equal parts wishfull thinking, propaganda & historisicm.

Add to this list trends in Europe. There is a good reason why countries like France, Great Britian & Germany have not adopted same-sex "marriage".

As it is often noted, Europe is a generation ahead of America in social evolution. Usually this is cited by the cultural left as demonstrating how backwards America is.

However: in this instance, the rate of family breakdown, low birth rates, and an unstable social welfare system is leading many European intellectual and poltical leaders to realize the importance of the traditional family and marriage for the health of their societies

Apparently this has become a major campaign theme in Britians latest election.

Here is an article from the Guardian intitled - Marriage is becoming preserve of middle-classes, Tories claimParty plans tax breaks and support for fathers to promote traditional family

Speaking to the Guardian, Willetts said it would be "extremely dangerous if marriage became something only for the affluent elite" and that the rate of family break-ups was a disaster for children.

Here is another article fromm the Tablet intitled

Marriage at the Heart of UK Election: Both major political parties claim that they will save British society through the family. Can they do it?

Both Britain’s Conservative and Labor parties have pledged to make family life a central issue of 2010’s general election. “Evidence shows marriage is a good institution which helps people stay together, and commit to each other,” said Conservative Party leader David Cameron in an interview with the Daily Mail. “A society that values marriage is a good and strong society.”

As European Intellectuals, politcians and populace increasinly "wake-up" to the importance of marriage as a social instiution, it puts tremendous pressure on our countries ruling classes to acknowledge the obvious. Marriage is more important than gay "inclusion". That has always been our strongest argument. Change can happen suddenly. I would not be surprised if this intellectual awakening amoung the politcal classes in Europe contributes to the revitalization of the marriage movement here in the USA.

Why so furious?

Who here doesn't feel even a small bit of loathing towards the message presented by the team here at Opine? Do you? If you do then perhaps you should read the following...

I'm sure you have many reasons to be annoyed either with the steady stream of detractors, or the (sometimes) steady stream of editorials. But in reality we've known each other for so long we are almost like family. We know each other, and maybe even talked about each other while their computer screens were turned in another direction. Some personalities grate on your nerves, while others simply annoy you. And some you feel like cheering on as champions saying what you want to say, if you only had the time.

Every now and again someone new stops by, gives a few parting shots and takes off when they realized we are not a very soft target. Enemies stalk us, supporters silently watch us too, but we all share this space and keep coming back.

So why not acknowledge that we really do enjoy this place, enemy or not. What does this whole debate boil down to anyway?

I can think of a few things...

1. Marriage equality. Can anyone disagree, or will they disagree, that it is fair and reasonable to call the following "marriage equality"? The formal recognition and expectation of equal recognition of rights and responsibilities of each participant in a procreation (the man, woman, and the child they potentially create together). Is that at all not marriage equality? You may be fighting for a different standard of marriage equality, but can you really say what I present is not valid to label as "marriage equality"?
2. Noting the expectation and recognition of marriage equality brings us to the second point, Government Recognition. If you believe that your full citizenship is at jeopardy if the government does not recognize your relationship for what you think it is, then doesn't it stand to reason that we feel the same way? That if the government doesn't recognize our relationship for the procreational engagement (either by potential or practice) that it is, specifically and explicitly? Do you really have to remove the man-woman reference which denotes that capacity to achieve what you want as recognition for homosexual couples? Does it really have to be that way? Or can you see that we can have recognition for both, even fair recognition of both, without taking away from the other side? Is it really unreasonable for us to fight for that recognition for its own merit?
3. Marriage is not a referendum on homosexuality, but if you want to make it one I can only watch on in dismay. Lets leave our own feelings for homosexuality out of our concern for marriage, both feelings in defense or offence against it. Is it really unreasonable to simply let it be a separate subject which can be worked out on its own without tying to it a demand like I discuss in point #2?

Can anyone deny any of these three points? Can anyone deny that these points lead safely and reasonably to the need to preserve exactly how important and responsible we are in procreation?

You may be furious, but we just want to help society, everyone who is born and who may have a child born between them. Last I checked that was everyone, with no one excluded.

So don't be furious. Just be friends.

Will Marriage Matter in Federal Employment Benefits?

Recent moves by the Obama administration to treat federal employees' same-sex partners, at least in some respects, like married spouses is – surprise, surprise – encouraging both-sexes couples who are unmarried to ask for the same treatment. Paul Richter had a recent story in the Los Angeles Times.

They have approached the State Department's personnel office and the diplomats' union, arguing that they are entitled to equal treatment. At least one couple has threatened to challenge the rules in court as discriminatory.

We were treating people equally when marriage was the requirement, as every individual has the same freedom to marry, even if not all have the same desire to marry. Once you start moving beyond marriage, where is the line drawn and why? What is your objective criteria for extending benefits? If we are going to operate on the premise that all couples should be treated equally, then how can unmarried both-sexes pairings be excluded? But why is the premise based on couples anyway?

The U.S. Office of Personnel Management, which is responsible for policy on federal workers, is weighing such an extension of benefits, U.S. officials say -- to the consternation of conservatives.

Taxpayers should get ready to pay more. Marriage (bride+groom) brings benefits to society and so a legitimate argument can be made for extending benefits to spouses. The same can't be said, at least not to the same extent, when it comes to other kinds of voluntary relationships.

Benefits include paid travel for the partner to and from overseas posts; visas and diplomatic passports; emergency medical treatment; shipment of household possessions; emergency evacuation in times of danger; and education benefits for minor children. Health insurance is not included for [same-sex] partners, although spouses are covered.

That will change.

Nationally, most employers -- including almost all public employers -- that extend benefits to same-sex partners also offer them to unmarried, opposite-sex partners, said Ilse de Veer, a principal in the international consulting group Mercer.

I do believe it should be a private employer's choice whether or not to extend benefits and how. That is different from a federal government workplace.

Those that offer benefits to same-sex partners but not to opposite-sex mates typically cite heterosexual couples' option of marriage, de Veer said.

Interesting – shouldn't the "freedom to marry" also honor and support the freedom not to marry?

[Continued after the jump.]

Unwed heterosexual couples in the United States comprise about 10% of opposite-sex couples living together, census data show.

And most individuals in that situation have been, plan to, or will be married at some point if not with the person they are paired with now.

Schohn said her group supported extending benefits to unmarried heterosexual couples. "They're our natural allies," she said.

Why not trios, quartets, and so forth?

A senior State Department official said any benefit extension was up to the White House.

"We're prepared to take that step if that's what the White House wants to do," the official said.

In June, Obama signed a presidential memorandum extending family benefits to same-sex partners -- a concept opposed by Bush's administration.

I remember. As the article points out, DOMA may be used to prevent further moves, but Obama has stated his desire to be rid of DOMA, and it has been challenged in court.

Obama's June memorandum omitted health insurance and pension benefits for same-sex partners.

What? How could that be? You mean – he discriminated against them? How is this not hatred and bigotry, according the definition of many who support marriage neutering on the grounds of "equality"?

They are two, but they are one... um three, now four...

Folks, I'll be honest here. Marriage is one of the hardest things I've ever had to do. It is also the most rewarding thing I've ever done. If you were to ask my or my wife that the most remarkable aspect of our marriage, we might say with a big smile of accomplishment it is the fact that we are still married.

Because even on those occasions when everything else is lost between us, and we have those special marital moments where we feel our lives would be better off without the complexity, love saves the day. But not love of each other, love of our children. We love our children and are very keen to the fact that they want us to stay together as the unbeatable duo of best Mom and Dad in the world. And we know they deserve nothing less.

Seeing their reactions to the various moods my wife and I may harbor towards each other affirms to me every day the importance of marriage is not what I get from it, and not what my wife gets from it. The importance of marriage is what my kids get from it.

If I could have my wish, we would all enter the new year and remember this message above all others in regard to marriage. While we adults can often confuse ourselves about what marriage means, kids know it because they know what we mean to them. Marriage is to enjoy not just a few moments, but lifetimes knowing and loving. And those lifetimes add up to something much bigger then our short lives give us a glimpse of. Together they add up to a heritage of improvement, devotion, love, honor and respect which empowers our progeny to reach higher then we could ever dream.

Have a happy new year everyone.

Heather's Other Mommy Wants Custody

The birth and custodial mother of a seven-year-old girl has been ordered by a Vermont judge to turn over custody to her former lesbian partner after "disappearing" with the child to avoid complying with a court-ordered visitation/custody arrangment. Associated Press writer Wilson Ring has the story. Actually, calling the lesbian lover her a "mommy" might be strecthing it.

Vermont Family Court Judge William Cohen ordered Lisa Miller of Winchester, Va., to turn over daughter Isabella to Janet Jenkins of Fair Haven at 1 p.m. Friday at the Virginia home of Jenkins' parents.

This is going to be scary for the girl.

Miller and Jenkins were joined in a Vermont civil union in 2000. Isabella was born to Miller through artificial insemination in 2002. The couple broke up in 2003, and Miller moved to Virginia, renounced homosexuality and became an evangelical Christian.

So Jenkins was only present as a custodial parent in the girl's life for how long? Less than two years max, and possibly a lot less time - while the girl was too young to form lasting memories. The girl is with the woman who gave birth to her and has been rasing her. She is seven now. Miller is her mother in every respect.

Cohen awarded custody of the girl to Jenkins on Nov. 20 after finding Miller in contempt of court for denying Jenkins access to the girl.

Why is it important for the girl to see Jenkins? What does Jenkins offer the girl that Miller can't?

The judge said the only way to ensure equal access to the child was to switch custody. He also said the benefits to the child of having access to both parents would be worth the difficulties of the change.

How, I wonder? The girl already has a mommy.

When Cohen dissolved the civil union, he awarded custody to Miller but granted liberal visitation rights to Jenkins.

The supreme courts of Virginia and Vermont ruled in favor of Jenkins, saying the case was the same as a custody dispute between a heterosexual couple. The case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which declined to hear arguments on it.

What a mess. The same as a heterosexual couple? How? Jenkins did not carry her, did not raise her, and as far as I can tell, is not biologically related to her. At least a father would offer the girl a... father! We're not talking a twelve-year-old who, for the past twelve years, has been raised by both women.

I would like to know if Miller has a husband or fiance - if she is providing her girl with a father figure, such as her grandfather.

If Miller does not turn over Isabella, the most likely scenerio is that she would be held in contempt of court and a warrant would be issued for her arrest, said Cheryl Hanna, a professor of constitutional law at Vermont Law School.

"I think the underlying thing is the fact that they are a lesbian couple doesn't mean that the court's going to treat this any differently than if they were a heterosexual couple," she said.

There is a difference. And actually parenting makes a difference. I suspect the article would tell us if Miller literally kidnapped the girl in 2003, went into hiding, and thus prevented Jenkins from parenting for the last 5+ years.

The lives of children are more important than the political agenda of pretending the pairing of two women is no different than the pairing of a man and a woman.

This is yet another example of one reason why my advice to my fellow men is to never, ever donate sperm. That girl, by court order (and the mistakes of her mother), is going to be prevented from having a father.

Year in Review: 2009

Brian S. Brown, Executive Director of the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) wrote a blogpost in which he compared what the SSM campaign had promised to achieve versus what the defense of marriage actually achieved.

2009 has been a great and historic year in this ongoing marriage battle. Now is a good time to reflect on what we have done, together.

Make no mistake: gay marriage advocates had big plans for 2009. This was supposed to be the year the gay marriage debate was over, that gay marriage definitively won.

[...]

That’s what they hoped the year 2009 would mean: the year opposition to gay marriage crumbled.

What happened instead was very different, thanks to your prayers, your sacrifices, your letters, emails, calls, and financial support: 2009 was the year the politicians learned that they cannot ignore the people’s voices and values. They cannot ignore truth, decency, common sense, or the will of the majority of Americans.

In Maine, a secular blue state with a history of approving pro-gay legislation, the people once again decisively rejected gay marriage–by an even bigger margin than in California. In New York, gay-marriage advocates were stunned when on the very day they announced they had the votes to pass gay marriage, the New York Senate instead lopsidedly rejected gay marriage by 38 no to 24 yes votes. In New Jersey, gay-marriage advocates had to pull a bill unexpectedly just days before the scheduled votes to avoid another lopsided loss. The defeat of Dede Scozzafava in New York’s 23rd district demonstrated in a big, public, visible way at least one core political truth: It’s a very bad idea for a Republican to vote for gay marriage. The defection of 8 Democratic senators under the brave leadership of State Sen. Ruben Diaz (D-Bronx) proved the rejection of gay marriage was a bipartisan endeavor.

In New Hampshire, voter outrage over the gay marriage bill damaged the governor badly, and has helped pave the way for a voter rebellion in 2010. Even in Connecticut, a people’s rebellion forced the leadership to accept some substantial religious liberty protection they never wanted to even consider (why accommodate bigotry?).

NOM, of course, does not work alone. Key leadership by the Catholic bishops in Maine, New York and New Jersey, the tireless efforts of groups like the New Jersey Family Policy Council and New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms, and the sweat, blood and tears of many others went into these great victories.

2009 was the year we proved that together, with God’s help, we can win this fight for marriage.

Down Mexico Way

As long-established newsrooms continue to shrink and thus are able to cover fewer stories, one things that is always covered these days is when even the government of a city – it doesn't have to be a state or country – makes a move in favor of marriage neutering. Mexico City made the latest headlines. The mayor still has to sign the legislation for it to be officially adopted. Tracy Wilkinson covers the story for the Los Angeles Times.

Mexico City's initiative goes further than any other in Latin America by rewriting the law to redefine marriage as a "free union between two people," not only between a man and a woman. It gives homosexual couples the same rights as heterosexual pairs, including the right to adopt, inherit, obtain joint housing loans and share insurance policies.

Why just two people?

Mexico City, as a rule, is less conservative than much of the rest of the country, relatively open to sexual freedoms and expressions.

Is sexual activity outside of marriage illegal in Mexico City? If not, then these changes to the law were not necessary to protect those freedoms.

Under Ebrard and his Democratic Revolution Party, or PRD, which controls the legislature, Mexico City has been at the forefront of social policy, often taking stances a far distance from other parts of the country.

The "forefront"? Why is it the forefront, and not, say, the extreme?

Before Monday's vote, Mexico City already had on the books a law that allowed a kind of legal union between unmarried people, under which they could avail themselves of a limited number of services and benefits. Only 680 couples have done so since the law took effect in 2007.

Pry away all of the noise, and the fact remains that all of society is being told it has to reorder itself for the sake of massaging the feelings of a tiny few. It is bad public policy.

What Comprimise?

Recently a commenter posted at his own site a response to a compromise I offered at his request.

His wasn't a serious attempt, but since my proposal is a serious outreach I will add needed clarification. In fact, since I am serious about this compromise I cannot allow such malicious attempts to hijack this message without a response.

The following is a brief record straightener on where I see both sides as best getting what they both want.

Seda starts out in an attempt to educate his readership on one of the points of my proposal, using Reciprocal Beneficiaries to fit the need of a mutual-trust catch-all relationship recognition. But the attempt is not without problems...

Gay people can become Reciprocal Beneficiaries, which essentially means the states pass a law that grants any two adults who are restricted from marriage by law "access to a limited number of rights and benefits on the state level."

Three problems with that statement.

The first is regarding the specific and the general. The real Wikipedia quote says, "Since 1997, the U.S. state of Hawaii has offered reciprocal beneficiary registration [...]". States need not follow the exact formulation provided by another state. Hawaii doesn't match, exactly, the formulation I would enact either.

For me RB's are a way of assigning mutual trust across non-marital lines. And by non-marital I mean mutual trust strictly independent of the compelling expectation of mutual trust which is imperative to fostering the equal recognition of rights and responsibilities of the man, woman, and child they potentially have together. I think Hawaii meets that goal, though I would have made a few differences myself (for instance recognizing in-family trust relationships).

The second and third problems in Seda's statement are about limits. Please note that while the emphasis on "limited number of rights" is technically true, it is also technically true of marriage. Marriage, or any other institution (including the constitution) only gives a limited number of rights and benefits. My expectation is that RB's can contain every right which is needed and useful. I don't see or set any particular limit to the possibilities.

And most importantly where I (and potentially RB's) see a large target group, apparently Seda sees the same old exclusive interest. You see, to me it is one of the real benefits of RB's that they are not limited to "gays".

It's not clear whether OnLawn would allow the reciprocal beneficiaries to extend to the federal level.

I can clarify that by re-iterating that I set no limits on what entity can or should recognize RB's.

So that should do it, I hope that explains better the attempted compromise. Of course it does not speak to many GLBT issues that Seda raises. Marriage is about ensuring equal recognition of rights and responsibilities between the man, woman, and potential child they procreate together. We can address those other issues with a variety of means, but lets not throw marriage equality out the window to do so.

---

DVD extras:

Of course Seda engaged more in GLBT issues then marriage issues. It is always a point of sadness to see marriage as a hostage to unrelated causes, because that simply means marriage must sell or lose its identity as the terms of release. But these DVD extras try to walk the fine line of propriety in discussing these orthogonal issues, while maintaining independence from the overall marriage debate.

But as I try to walk that fine line, you can see the wrestling of the knife behind the back and the subtle controlling jerks towards one direction and another, taking my statements to assumptions which are simply not true. But if that is all he wants to do, I'm okay with that. My views of gays are more fair and reasonable then Seda can bring himself to acknowledge let alone truthfully relate.

No age-appropriate educational materials reflecting LGBT families in schools.

Again, it isn't a marriage issue. If Seda would like to argue that neutering marriage would be a way to introduce such materials in the school-room, Seda would have to take that point up with the GLBT marketers who denied any such agenda exists. But is this a matter of censorship or simply curriculum priority? But just to make sure we understand the design of that sentence lets look at the parallel drawn up by Seda. Especially the design of how absolute and far reaching Seda intends it to be. When translating that to a policy about Mormons (Seda presumes I am one) Seda says:

No educational materials mentioning Mormons will be allowed in schools.

Wow that sounds like complete censorship. Now immediately following is the original question Seda asked. Does this sound like a question which is asking about complete censorship?

Would you trade supporting age-appropriate educational tools (such as the book “Heather Has Two Mommies” and movies like “Southern Comfort”) for teaching your children

I invite the reader to the exercise of how that statement can be considered an invitation for complete control or censorship. To me it sounds like Seda was either being dishonest about the question, or my answer. But who am I to stop debate on such a petty issue? Lets run with this comparison anyway.

The only reference I saw about Mormons was in US History, which was in the 5th grade (IIRC) and again Junior and Senior High School. Maybe "polygamy" isn't age appropriate for kindergarteners (and I'd agree about that, by the way). I don't see a book called "Heather's Dad Has Two Wives" being any more accepted for pre-school to 1st grade.

The book in question is neither a work of history or any literary value. It is simply one-sided script written in an effort to inculcate according to a minority group's special interests.

In comparison, I've never read about Mormons in school except in relation to settling the state of Utah. Mormon's are not allowed to promote their self-scripted tools of indoctrination in the school room under separation of church and state. Either way, if gays settled a large portion of the western United States, I'd have no problem mentioning them.

Material which is designed for no other purpose then to promote one group of people to the youngest children possible is not something I wish censor, but I can't support it as established curriculum either. School is about education, plain and simple. As a student I especially disliked being inculcated, but I enjoyed education. As an adult I feel it important to lay down that same standard for what we teach students.

That said, homosexuality as an alternative lifestyle is already presented in the schools. I remember learning about it in 6th grade and Junior and Senior high school as a part of a specially devoted class we called "sex-ed". I support the honest discussion of the homosexual lifestyle in such venues, I even support making it even more honest. I don't support sex-ed as a how-to manual, mind you, but there is a certain amount of context which needs to be developed through trusted channels to help process all of the un-structured inculcation that floods the media today.

You may or may not agree on my stance on that GLBT issue. That is fine, since I don't think it as critical to the foundations of society as marriage I have a large degree of open tolerance for other views. I don't think we as a society have quite the right answer for that yet as much as we do for marriage. But the reason I outline it is because I don't believe anyone can reasonably interpret that to be censorship. I don't appreciate Seda attempting to wrestle it that way.

I think this is enough to draw a line between Seda's fiction and the reality of what I said. My point is, admittedly, a further cataloging of the attempts to breed ill feelings through deliberate misrepresentation. It is, in part, a way to set the record straight. It is not, to me, important to this debate whether or not such materials are left in the schools though I'm happy to share my opinion on it. As marriage is about what is best for those intending (or engaging in acts which might lead to) procreation, it stands or falls simply on our ability to recognize the importance of that protection.

So all in all, I feel sorry for Seda. I actually have no idea what about Seda prevents him from being respectful and honest about true attempts at compromise. I mean, the least one can ask is for a fair and honest re-telling of my position. In fact I encourage the reader to go re-read my response. As always what is said is far more reasonable and fair then what the dishonest keep trying to say it said.

Common Questions Answered

From the blogsite, A Banner is Unfurled:

With regards to religion, same-sex marriage, politics, Democracy, and free speech, the following questions were posed to me. Here is my response:

The blogpost covers a lot of ground in a succint, generous, civil, and forthright manner. Well-worth a read -- whether you are an SSMer, a defender of marriage, or undecided on the subject. See, "Question and Answer", here.

For the Record

I know there are a few posts recently on Opine about the following off-topic subjects: Homosexual discussion in the schools, Freedom of Religion, etc..

I personally do not support getting anyone fired for having a frank discussion of sensitive topics. And I especially do not support trying to get someone fired because we don't like their political affiliations.

Children today are inundated by a number of outside sources. While I encourage discretion towards venue and presentation, even with the threat of professional disciplinary action for impropriety. Yet, assuming you can control the message children are presented with is a dangerous fantasy. Take the lead, do it right, and do it as soon as you can. Read the advice of experienced professionals who tackle that task on a daily basis. And support those who are trying their best to help children already exposed to degrading content.

I also support freedom of religion.

However, I do not advocate bringing these orthogonal subjects into the debate about marriage policy. They will ultimately lead you to grounds where you are no longer supported by reason and compelled to defend problematic policies.

Marriage policy is ultimately about a human right and liberty. As humans we create children in a very specific way. Marriage is how we best attempt through socialization to recognize there needs and rights. It is also how we attempt to level the playing field between the man and the woman by having them use their indisputable capacities to best compensate and provide for the other.

Originalism and Judicial Review

For judges who wish to exercise the power of judicial review, adherence to the original meaning of the Constitution is the only choice that is justifiable.

--From "How to Read the Constitution: Self-Government and the Jurisprudence of Originalism", by Keith E. Whittington, fifth article in a series on first principles which is available on the website of The Heritage Foundation.

A few introductory snippets:

One important point should be clarified early. The commitment to originalism is not a commitment to the particular practices, plans, and expectations of particular framers or of the founding generation. We are bound by the constitutional text that they adopted and by the principles embodied in that text.

[...]

The members of the founding generation were as aware as anyone of the limits of human reason and of the temptations of political power. They drafted constitutions precisely because they knew that they and their successors would need constant reminders of the principles that they held dear and of the foundational agreements that they had struck.

[...]

A jurisprudence of originalism is entirely consistent with traditional doctrinal analysis, engagement with constitutional text and structure, and attention to constitutional purposes and values. [...] Originalism does insist that such interpretive aids be recognized as the tools that they are. Their value lies in their ability to help us in the process of discovering and applying the original meaning of the Constitution. They become inimical to originalism only when the interpreter forgets that they are mere tools, when the manipulation of precedent becomes an end in itself, or when a focus on larger constitutional purposes leads us to ignore the specific ways in which the original Constitution was designed to achieve those purposes.

Whittington's essay continues with discussion of the following topics: Why Originalism?, Fixed Principles, The Constitution As Law, An Instruction from the People, Originalism and Judicial Activism, Constitutional Self-Government. He includes a very useful list of footnotes and references.

For more of the series on first principles, go here.

De-normalizing Faith in the UK

Dr Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, talks to George Pitcher [of the Daily Telegraph] about schism, Rome, politics and conservation.

The trouble with a lot of government initiatives about faith is that they assume it is a problem, it's an eccentricity, it's practised by oddities, foreigners and minorities. [...] The effect is to de-normalise faith, to intensify the perception that faith is not part of our bloodstream. And, you know, in great swathes of the country that's how it is."

Also see the BBC's report, "Religion seen an 'oddity' by ministers, Archbishop says."

Leave Those Kids Alone

Just another brick in the wall?

Here are some links to Opine blogposts on the topic of public schools:

"Brainwashing" school children, video clips.

The videos below are from It's Elementary, a 78-minute feature film produced by homosexual activists. These are actual scenes from elementary schools in Massachusetts and New York. It's Elementary is meant to be a training video for homosexual activist teachers across the country. In addition, the film itself has been shown to schoolchildren in public schools in Massachusetts and elsewhere.

Tearful Weddings in Grade School and Dressing Up in Junior High.

It's not until the last princess arrives with her brother that the prince feels something—but it's not for the princess. He falls in love with her brother. The queen approves, and they get married and become “king and king.” My students loved this story because the ending is NOT what they expected at all! They also appreciated hearing a picture book that has gay characters because they know gay people exist. They wondered why there aren't more gays and lesbians in picture books.

Rethinking an Oxford Reputation.

The British Are Coming!! The British are Coming!!

Schools and SSM.

Kevin Jennings and GLSEN and Public Schools

This teacher's account provides an explosive harbinger of things to come in public schools.

After years of silence a traumatized Massachusetts teacher spoke out in an interview about what she witnessed at GLSEN’s Fistgate Conference in 2000. She also describes Barack Obama’s Safe Schools Czar Kevin Jennings’ role at the infamous conference that discussed “fisting” and “watersports” with children. The Massachusetts teacher in this interview attended the conference and actually took the photo of Obama’s Safe School Czar Kevin Jennings sitting and holding a conference program during a break. Jennings was the keynote speaker at the conference.

--Massachusetts Teacher Speaks Out, posted by Jim Hoft, Gateway Pundit.

Go to Gateway Pundit for the audio of the interview with the teacher and for a partial transcription; also read Hoft's frank series of blogposts on this painful story.

And checkout Ed Morrissey's blogpost at HotAir.com:

Some have suggested that Jennings did not know what kind of materials would be included in the curriculum for the conference, and contemporaneous reporting on the outrageous materials resulted in GLSEN firing one of the presenters. However, Jim interviews a Massachusetts teacher who attended the conference, and she tells Jim that Jennings not only was one of the presenters himself, he also was clearly in charge of all aspects of the presentations.

What might SSM and Abortion have in common?

In New York, a Catholic nurse was forced to participate in abortion, despite the fact that her supervisors knew of her moral objection to it. When she initially refused, they threatened her job.

-- Pro-life nurse forced to assist an abortion, posted by Cassy Fiano at HotAir.com:

A few snippets:

As explained in the article, the hospital is claiming that the patient was a Category II case, meaning the operation needed to take place within six hours. That would have been more than enough time to find a nurse without moral objections to perform the abortion. Yet instead, they sought out the Catholic nurse who they knew had moral and religious objections to abortion, and forced her to do it.

[...]

Unfortunately, this is all too common and in a variety of ways. It’s mostly thanks to feminists who howl in rage if anyone has a moral objection against anything they feel is a “reproductive right”. Doctors and nurses who don’t want to perform abortions, pharmacists who don’t want to dispense the morning after pill or contraception… they’re all told that they’re required to do these things and if they don’t like it, to get out of their field.

[...]

[But] if they [i.e. the customers] don’t like a pharmacy that refuses to sell contraception, or a doctor’s office that won’t perform abortions, they can go elsewhere. Some people though — ironically, most so-called pro-choicers — don’t want people to have that choice, though. Abortion is legal, so therefore, all doctors and nurses must be willing to perform it, no matter what their religious and moral principles tell them.

* * *

Also see:

"Tolerance" lasts a second and a half.

Marriage Equality and Reproductive Rights.

Blogposts on Topic of "Harms To Society".

* * *

UPDATE: Lies About Fetal Development, posted by La Shawn Barber.

A Planned Parenthood worker tells an undercover “pregnant” woman her baby has only “heart tones” at seven weeks. “Heart beat is when the fetus is active in the uterus…can survive…which is about 17 to 18 weeks.” [...] Then the counselor says the life growing inside her isn’t a baby. “So when does it become a baby?” the woman says. “At birth,” says the counselor.

Truthtelling gets very hard in the Orwellian world in which words are emptied of their useful and legitimate meanings and we lose the ability to even conceive thoughts that reflect reality.

Queering of Society: Reverse Assimilation

Regarding my previous blogpost, "Consequences Deriving From Contraceptive Sex", here are a few bits quoted from SSMers in blogposts at Opine:

Quote: What is quite remarkable is that the majority heterosexual culture is increasingly coming to resemble gay culture."

-- Quoted in Polyamory as part of the "justice agenda".

Also:

Quote: "Can’t we embrace the fact that the nuclear family structure is no longer useful for so many people in this country and legislate to be able to support and be supported by who(m)ever we want and choose?

[...]

"I have to acknowledge that over the last half-century we have been carried along in the wake of some deep and broad transformations in the patterns of everyday life in the U.S. [...] Since the early 1960’s, the lives of many, many heterosexuals have become much more like the imagined lives of homosexuals."

--Both quoted in Beyonders and the SSMers

Consequences Deriving From Contraceptive Sex

Consenting adults, told not to use birth control? Preposterous. Third World parents deprived access to contraception and abortion? Positively criminal. A ban on condoms when there's a risk of contracting AIDS? Beneath contempt.

Hasn't everyone heard Monty Python's send-up song “Every Sperm Is Sacred”? Or heard the jokes? “You no play-a the game, you no make-a the rules.” And “What do you call the rhythm method? Vatican roulette.” And “What do you call a woman who uses the rhythm method? Mommy.”

-- The Vindication of Humanae Vitae, by Mary Eberstadt, First Things, Aug/Sept 2008.

Snippets:

With each passing year, it seems safe to assume, fewer priests can be found to explain the teaching, fewer parishioners to obey it, and fewer educated people to avoid rolling their eyes at the idea that anyone in 2008 could possibly be so antiquarian as to hold any opinion about contraceptive sex—any, that is, other than its full-throttle celebration as the chief liberation of our time.

And yet ...

Four decades later, not only have the document's signature predictions been ratified in empirical force, but they have been ratified as few predictions ever are: in ways its authors could not possibly have foreseen, including by information that did not exist when the document was written, by scholars and others with no interest whatever in its teaching, and indeed even inadvertently, and in more ways than one, by many proud public adversaries of the Church.

Forty years later, there are more than enough ironies, both secular and religious, to make one swear there's a humorist in heaven.

The article goes on to discuss the consequences of the contraceptive revolution, the decrease in married fatherhood, the radical changes in marital and fertility patterns, the disasterous social cost of widespread family breakup, the massive public consequences of private sexual actions, the improverishment of women, the causal link between contraceptive practices and increased abortion, and how these are all social indicators of diminishment of child well-being and thus point to societal ills.

And that touches on just one part of this six-part article.

Whether one is a Catholic (in devotion or merely in name), or a person of another religious tradition, or someone with irreligious inclinations or an individual with a purely secular belief system, this article is well-worth a looksee.

For more, go to First Things, here.

* * *

See this Opine blogpost, too.

Framework for Protecting Freedom of Conscience

The no-establishment rule [of the US Constitution] protects the liberty of conscience primarily by respecting and protecting the independence of non-state authority.

-- How the No-Establishment Rule Does (and Does Not) Protect the Freedom of Conscience, by Richard W. Garnett, The Public Discourse, April 3, 2009.

Snippets:

[S]ome have suggested that political resistance to same-sex marriage is in tension with the no-establishment rule—and so also with our commitments to conscience and equal liberty—because the reasons for this resistance rest in religious teaching rather than public reason.

There are good reasons -— indeed, there are religious reasons -— to avoid overreaching when it comes to morals legislation. [...] The disestablishment of religion does not limit the kinds of reasons that citizens and legislators may deploy when debating the proper use of the police power, and the constraints on morals legislation to which the political authority should submit are not tethered to church-state separation.

[...]

The no-financial-aid-to-religion rule -— to the extent it still exists -— is not how church-state separation in fact protects and nurtures the formation and freedom of conscience because the expenditure of public funds does not, in fact, meaningfully burden the “conscience” of taxpayers.

Every taxpayer furnishes money for the “propagation of opinions which he disbelieves.” Indeed, every taxpayer pays for all kinds of government actions to which they have serious objections in conscience. At the end of the day, as Steve Smith has observed, good explanations simply have not yet been given “for why the burden on conscience applies when a taxpayer objects . . . to expenditures that may benefit religion but not when a taxpayer objects on religious or conscientious grounds to expenditures that run contrary to the taxpayer’s beliefs.”

For the full essay, see here.

Moral Significance and Legal Importance

Though there is no hope of having a morally neutral definition of marriage, it is possible to have one based on human nature and supported by sound reasoning.

-- From: All in the Family by Gerard V. Bradley, Public Discourse, October 6, 2009.

Snippets:

Anyone who makes a pro-same-sex marriage argument dependent upon the state’s obligation to be morally neutral about the meaning of marriage misunderstands the nature of the argument.

[...]

Here I aim to answer two questions: Why is it morally significant that children come to be as fruit of their married parents’ sexual acts? And, why is it legally important? In other words, on what grounds does public authority base marriage law upon the procreative understanding of marriage?

[...]

The metaphysical and philosophical structure of the family is a standing moral corrective for the cultural (and legal) distortions of the family which are all too familiar to students of history and current events: subordination of wives to husbands; parents’ treatment of children as extensions of their own plans and desires, almost as their property; children’s indifference to their parents who vouchsafed them life and whose marriage they (the children) embody. Recovering and burnishing the truth about the family is the sure first step towards genuine reform of family practices.

The entire essay is worth reading. Find it online, at Public Discourse, here.

So this is Christmas, and what have you done?

What he said:

So Larry Grard is now fired. (His union has filed a grievance and our friend Bill Donohue has taken up the legal case.) To add to the outrage, Maine Today stepped in an abruptly canceled his wife’s cooking column.

“I mean, it’s small is what it is. It’s just absolutely astonishing that they did that. We could not believe it,” he says. “My wife, who absolutely did nothing wrong, [just] because she has the same last name as I do, they discontinued her cooking column, which was enormously popular,” Grard told One News Now.

HRC maintains that it did not try to get Larry or his wife canned. So what did it hope to accomplish? Why exactly did that gargantuan organization devote time and energy to track down Larry Grard, find his boss, and then get this small-town reporter in trouble with his boss because he shot off an email disagreeing with gay marriage?

Small, low and mean–but sadly not atypical. Gay-marriage advocates are using their class power and backroom networks to try to take jobs away from people who disagree with them, from waitresses to business tycoons… and now teachers and reporters. Why is Don Mendell, a Maine high school guidance counselor, facing charges that could result in the loss of his job solely because he appeared in a TV commercial saying marriage is the union of husband and wife? Even if he is ultimately exonerated (which we trust he will be, since the people of Maine repudiated gay marriage), what kind of movement permits, encourages, or even tolerates this kind of mean-spirited attack on the livelihoods of those who disagree?

I will believe HRC didn’t want this reporter fired when Joe Solomonese expresses any kind of regret for the widespread attacks on people, property and livelihoods that occurred after Prop 8. It’s just that usually this stuff occurs behind the scenes. When it happens in front of the camera gay-marriage advocates try to deny their role.

Women on testosterone only think they're macho

"Almost everybody believes that testosterone has these aggression-enhancing effects," says Ernst Fehr, a neuroeconomist at the University of Zurich, Switzerland, who led the study.

This platitude may be true in some situations, but not all. The hormone's real role is to push men and women to seek higher status, says Fehr. His team tested this hypothesis in women because previous research had established for women how long an external dose of the hormone remains in the body.

The findings were interesting...

Women who receive a boost of the potent sex hormone act more generously than women on a placebo, a new study finds. But the hormone's reputation seemed to precede itself. Those who suspected they had received bona fide testosterone acted more selfishly than those who believed they got the bogus treatment, no matter what they actually received.

Extra Long Fifteen Minutes

Meghan Daum, columnist at the Los Angeles Times, decided to give more attention to the satire-driven "ban divorce" signature gathering in California. LATimes.com is taking comments on the column, and I recommend leaving your own.

Daum starts the piece by describing her own wedding, then gets to the meat.

Marcotte's project is a political statement designed to call the bluff of the very group it's pretending to embrace: those seeking to protect marriage by limiting it to heterosexuals.

This is a strawman. We voted to restore (it would have been keep if a court hadn't jumped the gun) state marriage licensing to uniting a bride+groom. The amendment doesn't discuss sexual identity or orientation in any terms.

The measure, of course, isn't meant to pass but rather to expose the hypocrisy of those who see gay marriage as a threat to their own unions.

Most California Marriage Amendment supporters did not consider neutered marriage licensing so much as a threat to their own union – but rather a threat to the institution of marriage, and detrimental to society.

[Continued after the jump.]

Once again, the "h" word is being misused. If someone says they believe divorce should be illegal, but refuses to support this effort, then they are probably a hypocrite. Let me know how many of those you find.

"Prop. 8 only attacked the problem from the edges," Marcotte writes. "I'm going after the heart of the matter. . . . If you can't get divorced, you can't destroy traditional marriage."

This is not true. There are all sorts of attacks on marriage, such as adultery.

He's fighting not just for the rights of gays and lesbians, who surely deserve to be feted as they parade down the street in post-wedding rapture, but also for the cause of irony itself, which -- in this often painfully literal society -- needs all the help it can get.

Especially in California, homosexual people have the same rights as anybody else. Nothing is stopping two men or two women or trios or groups of people of one or both genders from having a "wedding" and being feted by supporters. It happens already.

Some of the comments so far:

"Aviking" wrote 12/10/2009, 8:29 AM:

Hmm, it might be tougue and cheeck, but not a bad idea IMO. Only grant divorce in cases of infidelty, or abuse.

That's not what the text says, though.

"Swift2" wrote 12/10/2009, 9:29 AM:

What the Prop 8 people want will take us back to the dark ages.

Really? The year 2003 and every year before that – Dark Ages? In California, this would mean any time before 2008 would be the Dark Ages.

Is marriage an unchanging human institution, that hasn't changed for 5,000 years?

For all of history, it has united a bride and groom.

It changed just 50 years ago.

Not really. Some states prevented "interracial" marriage, which also prevented freedom of association (which isn't an issue anymore). That prevention was itself a change that ended up being reversed. It is absurd to compare that temporary, scattered restriction to the worldwide bride+groom requirement which has existed throughout history.

"shadowman72" wrote (12/10/2009, 9:59 AM ):

Homosexuality is not a choice.

He then goes to provide a lot of links and info. But this is irrelevant. Age is not a choice, either, but the state still treats people of different ages differently. The state isn't even treating individuals differently based on their identity or feelings – it is treating different kinds of voluntary associations differently. We choose our friends and lovers in this state – or whether or not to have friends or lovers. We choose whether or not to form associations, and what kinds of associations we'll form.

Again, click through, read the whole thing, and offer your own comments.

Marriage defenders could engage in this sort of satire, too – pushing for sibling marriage using the same arguments used by marriage neutering advocates. "There's no reason to ban sibling marriage, as love is love; marriage isn't about kids! Don't want sibling marriage? Don't have one! Marriage has always been changing."

Previously:

Banning Divorce Part 1

Banning Divorce Part 2

Banning Divorce Part 3

SSM Bill Revoked in NJ Senate

Of the 27 Democrats in the New Jersey Senate, at least 9 stood ready to vote against the bill that would have merged SSM with marriage in that state. Had its sponsors not revoked the pro-SSM bill from the Senate's agenda at the last moment, it inevitably would have gone down to defeat in the 40-seat Senate.

Once again, the defense of marriage has shown itself to be bipartisan in New Jersey. In the Senate about one-third of Democrats joined Republicans in opposition to the merger.

Governor Corzine, the lame-duck pro-SSM Democrat defeated in his re-election bid, will leave office on January 19, 2010. This means that the SSMers in the Assembly and Senate are running against the clock. Corzine was defeated by a pro-marriage Republican who has promised to veto a pro-SSM bill should one ever reach his desk. It is looking much less likely that such a bill would get beyond committee work in the legislature.

For more, including recent polling information, see: Gay "Marriage" Vote Killed in NJ Senate; Same-sex marriage advocates switch focus to Assembly.

Is SSM Inevitable?

At The Corner, a blogsite of National Review Online, Maggie Gallagher answered the question, Is SSM inevitable?

Maggie's Top Eight Reasons Why Gay Marriage Is Not Inevitable.

* * *

Also see: "Will gay marriage win?"

UPDATE: In the comment section, Fitz suggests reading the following article: Is gay marriage 'inevitable'?

Delusional quote from the puff piece:

It’s still inevitable. It’s always been inevitable,” said Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, a national gay rights group, who said he now views this period as a “marriage decade.”

Yeh, whether we like it or not, right Joe?

Homosexual selection: The power of same-sex liaisons

As the title suggests, this is an evolutionary look at homosexual activity. Or rather how such activity can influence, or be influenced by evolution. This is a compare/contrast opportunity.

From the female perspective there are possible evolutionary consequences too. Consider the procedure for deciding which of the two eggs in a female-female partnership is incubated. It appears to be random: in a population with only opposite-sex pairs, females never need to distinguish their own eggs, so the ability to do so is unlikely to have evolved. But imagine if a genetic mutation arose in one member of a female-female pair that enabled her to distinguish her egg from that laid by her partner, says Bailey. "The mutation would probably spread through the population and tip the dynamics of female-female relationships more towards conflict rather than cooperation."

Ealier it noted the observation that rampant same-sex pairing among a certain bird species found, "like female-male pairs, each year they raise a single chick. Both females will have laid a fertilised egg and randomly shunted one aside"

Marriage Equality and Reproductive Rights

One of the most curious confluences of euphemisms by opponents of "traditional values" is between the phrases "Marriage Equality" and "Reproductive Rights". These euphemisms are so effective that they, and the ideas they really represent, have become fashionable even among many self-described conservatives.

If the uninitiated person takes the phrase "reproductive rights" at face value, he may mistake it for the right for a two people who can naturally reproduce together – a man and a woman – to do so, unencumbered by government restrictions.

However, many people who claim the phrase as one of their major causes mean nothing of the sort; their main concerns are ensuring easy legal access to - and often taxpayer funding for - contraception, which prevents reproduction, and abortifacients and surgical abortion, which kill a human being after she has been created through reproduction. In a paradox, many champions of "reproductive rights" call for - or remain complicity silent when others call for – peer pressure or government restrictions on how many children to whom a person may give birth, or government-funded incentives to use contraception or abortion. Their heads explode when they think of the Duggar family.

Also, very few of them would support "reproductive rights" for siblings or other close relatives. (My own philosophy has no conflict in this area – I believe we are born with and naturally develop our rights, but just as it is wrong to say certain things – even though we have freedom of speech – it is also wrong to reproduce with a close relative, and it is possible and sometimes necessary for government to regulate behavior between two people that has a negative impact on a third person who does not consent.) I also don't see the organizations supposedly championing reproductive rights speaking up about paternity fraud, even though reproduction involves paternity.

[Continued after the jump.]

So then the phrase "reproductive rights" really means the right not to reproduce even though one is engaging in reproductive behavior, the right to kill a baby, and the right to taxpayer money to provide these things. Throw in the right to donated eggs, sperm, IVF, and womb time.

Actually, the donated eggs, sperm, IVF, and womb time become very important when we discuss the other euphemism, Marriage Equality. This is one of those noble-sounding terms (aren't most of us for equality?) that is really nonsense. "Marriage equality", when used as a call to make brideless or groomless unions equal to marriage, is a ridiculous term and people who use it should be called on it every single time. No two marriages are actually equal. Some things, though, are objectively observable - such as behaviors and the composition of organizations. The government should only treat equal behaviors and equal situations and the same kinds of organizations equally. Bride+groom marriage is different from the pairing of two men or two women. This is demonstrably true.

However, many in our society confuse principle of equal access or equal protection with equal outcomes. A married couple certainly has reproductive rights insofar as they are able to naturally conceive. But what about two men or two women? This is where "reproductive rights" actually comes to mean, to some, the right to reproduce, and where the "right" to donated egg, sperm, womb time, or IVF becomes important. Combined with the demand for "marriage equality", how could these concepts not compel taxpayers to pay for same-sex couples' access to "third party" reproductive assistance?

Sure, for now the euphemisms are really about marriage neutering and easy access to abortion, and thus don't mix because same-sex couples do not get pregnant together. However, the people pushing for marriage neutering have a history of changing the meaning of terms to suit their purposes, and it wouldn't be a stretch for them to change the phrase "marriage equality" from a focus on neutering state marriage licensing (especially if they accomplish that nationwide) to a focus on the state making their state-licensed marriages "equal" to those of bride+groom couples, by paying for third party reproduction. After all, don't we all have reproductive rights? Doesn't our Constitution's principle of equality, in their thinking, demand that the government (and thus taxpayers) remove any obstacles same-sex couples would have to equality with bride+groom couples?

My philosophy is that there is only a natural right to reproduce insofar as one is capable of finding an eligible, consenting partner of the opposite sex with whom to naturally conceive children. If either individual has some impediment to this process, or they are for any other reason unable to naturally conceive as a couple, nobody else should be obligated to mitigate this with money, expertise, sperm, eggs, or a womb. Also, children have a natural right to life and a mother and father in way that should prevent the exclusion of either the mother or the father from parenting the child unless the parent is a danger.

Previously: Is it Possible to Truly Achieve "Marriage Equality"?

Dafydd: "Marriage" Movement Muffing Magic Moment

A wallet full of money lines, regarding the news in New Jersey this week:

The vote is iffy; and if neighboring New York is any guide, support in an actual senate vote will be significantly lower than Democrats expect: The head-count in the New York state senate before the vote lured Democrats into believing that the vote would be close; the final vote was 38 to 24 against, a resounding defeat.

One suggestion making the rounds is that the New Jersey state legislature should pass the deal, and vote to put an SSM initiative on the ballot for November 2010. Let voters take responsibility for their own fundamental institutions! [...]

My guess, however, is that the Democrats in the state senate would never, ever agree to such a bizarre suggestion, allowing the people to vote. Supporters of SSM have historically shied from letting mere voters have a say in crafting the definition of marriage.

More Monogamy Musings

Sharon M. Scott responds in the Los Angeles Times to David P. Barash's take on monogamy, which I blogged about in this entry.

She starts out making the point that human beings are not like other animals, before going on to point out...

Unlike any other creature on Earth, raising a human child requires an exceptional amount of time and attention.

That is the heart of the matter, isn't it?

Few would argue with the fact that the long-term participation of both mother and father is essential to the development of the young human. Monogamy in humans, rather than being the unnatural behavior Barash describes, seems to be a naturally occurring virtue that helps our children grow and our complex species evolve.

There are some who argue with this. But I agree that children are better off being raised by a mother and father who are monogamous with each other. (By the way - if they aren't haven't sex with each other, that's not monogamy.) Monogamy reduces the possibilities of conflicts of interests between the parents and between parent and child, keeps loyalties and resources within the family, avoids paternity fraud and "illegitimate" half-siblings causing situational instability, and avoids STIs. It promotes bonding between the parents and keeps the parents focused on each other and in-tune with each other.

[Much more after the jump.]

As we Americans watch the high-profile marriages of Tiger Woods and David Letterman crumble, let us not forget to look in amazement at couples such as Goldie Hawn and Kurt Russell, and Oprah Winfrey and Stedman Graham, who have preserved their dedication to one another despite all of the world's temptations.

And despite (some would say "because of") not being legally married, too. Actually, although both couples have been together for a long time, we have no idea if they have actually been monogamous during those times. Russell, Hawn, and Winfrey all have had publicly noted past sexual relationships, as well, so they're not an example of lifelong monogamy, even if they are an example of long-term monogamy. But I don't think the writer is defending lifelong monogamy to begin with.

It is an understatement for Barash to say that "monogamy isn't easy."

It is easier for some than others.

Love is a battlefield.

It is a battlefield where people are supposed to work together in defense of each other and the family, not act like immature rival sibling children. Love battles evil such as neglect and inappropriate self-centeredness.

Monogamy is not for everyone; it is certainly not for the weak of heart.

For some, "non"ogamy is best - they are better off abstaining.

My husband and I get into arguments that make the Gosselins' look like the Cleavers'.

Just for the record – marriage isn't like that for everyone.

As rebuttal to Barash's statement that no one is "cut out for monogamy," I proudly assert, "I am."

Good.

I'm disappointed there wasn't a better response printed. You can offer comments on her response be clicking through and scrolling down. Here’s the first comment:

"Jianku" wrote 12/08/2009, 6:46 AM:

You make his point. If you were "cut out" for monogamy, it would be effortless.

There are fish that swim upstream, up waterfalls. That can't be easy, but they are cut out for it. Oops. That's an animal example. Giving birth isn't easy or effortless, but women are cut out for it.

Male and Female Shopping Strategies Show Evolution at Work in the Mall

Sex-specific strategies can be seen in the modern consumer environment, according to Kruger's new study, "Evolved foraging psychology underlies sex differences in shopping experiences and behaviors," scheduled for the December issue of the Journal of Social, Evolutionary, & Cultural Psychology.

The study examines shopping through the framework of evolutionary psychology to understand why so many more women enjoy spending a day picking through racks of clothes with friends, while most men can't get out of the mall fast enough.

Happy Holidays!

New Jersey Should Defend Marriage

Attention people of New Jersey:

There is no need to neuter your state marriage licensing so as to issue them to brideless or groomless couples.

Your civil unions, like California's domestic partnerships, should be more than enough, as they treat participants like spouses. That means the dispute is over the word "marriage". Why can't the state continue to have a word that distinguishes bride+groom couples from other couples?

Keep your marriage licensing for those partnerships that unite a bride and groom. You are under no obligation to neuter marriage licensing into a generic, arbitrary "two people who want legal recognition together and aren't closely related" licensing. It is legal, moral, fair, and good to distinguish between marriage (bride+groom) and other voluntary associations.

Do not allow yourselves to be intimidated by or subservient to the feelings of a minority within a minority. These people are asking for (or, in some cases, demanding) something from you, and you have the right to say "no". Bride+groom marriage licensing already provides equal access to individuals regardless of sex or sexual orientation. You are under no obligation to change your laws to cater to someone's feelings, or because they do not want to use what is already offered.

Most states have reinforced their bride+groom requirement in marriage licensing. In California, we amended our state constitution, and nobody was harmed as a result. California has yet to slide off into the Pacific.

For more in-depth analysis of related issues, search this blog.

Also see: Opine's Defend Marriage Resources

Previously:

Handy Dandy Marriage Neutering Plea Repellant

The Case For Prop 8

Marriage Showdown in California

Attention Voters of Maine

Do mice with two mothers spell the end for men?

Thank you New Scientist for writing this article so I didn't have to. Just a snippet:

If you believe some reports, the future of humanity is a super race of genetically-engineered women who can reproduce without men.

"Take men's genetic contribution to humanity out of the equation and – in theory – women could live a third longer," said the UK's Daily Mail.

The Mail – and a host of other outlets – was covering new research that created mice with two mothers – which lived much longer than those conceived normally.

But experts in the mechanisms of ageing say specific aspects of the way the research was conducted mean it's way too soon to declare men a genetic burden who are imposing limits on human lifespan. So before you ditch your boyfriend or husband, New Scientist answers a few questions about what this intriguing experiment really tells us.

Nothing follows, the content at the link.

And no, John Howard, this article is not about whether or not this practice should be legal or not. Feel free to discuss that at your site and we'll add it to our links.

Don't Cry For Them Argentina

A series of legal maneuverings and conflicts wound up thwarting (perhaps only delaying)a state-recognized brideless "wedding" in Argentina, according to this Associated Press story by Vanessa Hand Orellana, which also says it would have been Latin America's first. Jose Maria Di Bello and Alex Freyre are the two guys without a bride.

"We were not allowed to marry today, but it will happen for us soon," Freyre said, his arm around Di Bello.

Is that true? In Argentina, do they actually prevent ceremonies? Or is this like in the U.S., where people can go ahead and have a ceremony and the government does not interfere?

"I see old couples walking down the street together and I want that to be us," Di Bello said in an earlier interview. "I want to be able to turn to him when I'm old and wrinkly and call him my husband."

And... you can't do that without a government license or seal?

People who wait around for the government to make them happy are going to be miserable people most of their lives. Clearly, based on history and what we see around each other every day, state-issued marriage licenses don't make people happy. What makes people happy has more to do with what is inside of them and what they choose to do. If two unhappy people marry, they're going to be unhappy together, and perhaps toxic to each other, and probably not the best parents to any children brought into the situation.

If It Can’t Make It There... (Updated)

Start spreading the news. One of the last things New York needs to do is to neuter their marriage licensing. Apparently, the state senate agrees. Edith Honan has the Reuters article. I've had to edit the quotes to counter the bias and imprecision in the phraseology.

New York state lawmakers voted on Wednesday against [neutering] marriage, dashing gay rights activists' hopes it would become the sixth U.S. state to allow same-sex couples to [get a state marriage license together].

The New York state Senate voted down the legislation by 38-24.

Good for them.

Governor David Paterson, a Democrat who supports [neutering] marriage, had said he would have signed the bill into law if it had passed.

Boo on him.

Iowa, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont have [neutered] marriage, while 40 U.S. states have specific laws that [require bride+broom]. Last month, voters in Maine chose to repeal a law that had [neutered] marriage.

Thanks for reminding us.

New York is one of the most politically liberal states in the country.

As "liberal" as people think New York is, their divorce laws, at least on paper, tend to be more respectful of marriage than those of say, California. Let's hope they continue to resist marriage neutering.

[Much more after the jump.]

Recent polls showed a majority of New York voters favored allowing same-sex couples to marry, but one poll showed the public evenly split.

Yes, some polls have shown support for neutering state marriage licensing, but when it comes down to a vote of the people, we get the truth about what the voters believe. Will the next tactic by the activists be an attack on the private ballot?

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg said he was "deeply disappointed" the Senate had not [neutered] marriage.

"Historic change does not come easily, but this vote was a crucial step that, I believe, will ultimately lead the state to extend full marriage rights to all couples," he said.

All couples? Even couples like this one? Once again, the language used invites my response.

New York's Democratic-controlled state Assembly has easily passed the bill legalizing same-sex marriage three times, but the legislation had not been voted on in the Senate until now.

The Democrats hold a Senate majority of 32-30, but several Democratic senators opposed [neutering] marriage.

So much for the charge that marriage defenses is a matter of conservative Republicans being extremists, especially when you couple this when the Obama voters that passed the California Marriage Amendment.

"We will not accept defeat and we will not stop fighting until all New Yorkers are treated equally," said New York City Council Speaker Christine Quinn, who is gay.

All New Yorkers are treated equally when it comes to marriage licensing. I'll say it as often as their statements invite me to point it out.

"This is a painful loss for loving and committed same-sex couples in New York who want the same things all Americans do: to take care of each other and their families," said Jarrett Barrios, president of national gay advocacy and anti-defamation group Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation.

They can't do that without a marriage license? Notice the reactions cited in the article are all about feelings and the losers' perception of fairness - nothing about what benefit neutering state marriage licensing could possibly bring to society.

The article goes on to say that marriage neutering advocates in New Jersey are worried. They were hoping to get their wish before Governor Jon Corzine leaves office in January. He would sign a marriage neutering bill into law. Chris Christie, Governor-elect, said he would veto it.

California, Maine, New York - all states that have been depicted as "progressive" and willing to lead the way to social change. Do you see a trend here? Let's all celebrate by singing our favorite Broadway show tunes.

UPDATE: Paul Thornton, a supporter of marriage neutering, posted this LATimes.com opinion blog entry on the news. They take comments, so I encourage you to click the link and offer some.

Still, even the most optimistic equality advocates must acknowledge that progress on this issue seems to have hit a wall over the last few years.

Marriage neutering advocates ("equality" doesn't come into play when you are talking different situations) are mistaken, if not delusional if they don't see that we're a tolerant people, but we also value what's left of marriage. We're concerned enough about the feelings of others that many of us back legal recognition of same-sex partnerships, even though the state does not have the same interest in them as it does marriage.

It's a sordid thing for a straight man like myself who cares deeply about this issue to say to gay men and women. Their quality of life is at stake, not mine, and it's completely unfair for them to have to spend any more of their remaining lives as second-class citizens.

There nothing "second class citizen" about this. People, regardless of sexual orientation, are free to form voluntary associations with other consenting adults, but different kinds of voluntary associations are treated differently by the law – for good reason. Business partnerships are not nonprofits are not for-profit corporations are not domestic partnerships are not marriage are not homeowner associations.

Men and Women May Respond Differently to Danger

"The brain activation seen in the women might indicate stronger involvement of the neural circuit, which is associated with identification of emotional stimuli," Dr. Urbanik said. "The more pronounced activation of the insular cortex in the men might be related to the autonomic components, such as elevated heart rate or increased sweating, that accompany watching emotional material."

[...]

"In men, the negative images on the slides were more potent in driving their autonomic system," Dr. Urbanik said. "This might signal that when confronted with dangerous situations, men are more likely than women to take action."

Via Science Daily.

Faded Scarlet

The headline in this British news article says it all: Women 'Line Up to Claim Affairs With Tiger Woods'

There was a time when someone committing adultery was so ashamed of themsevles, or feared being shamed by others, or even feared legal sanctions, that they would vehemently deny fornicating with a married person.

Now, they'll eagerly line up to tell international media all of the details.

In the absence of shaming, the siren call of being infamous draws many, because "famous" is contained within that word. Being "famous" is more important to some people than being moral, respectful, honorable, or discreet.

Of course, the females in this instance would not get such infamy without the philandering of a husband, who also deserves to be shamed.

Marriage vows typically involve pledging to "forsake all others", and that is the one that gets the most attention. We're more likely to find out and endure tabloid coverage of a spouse's violation of that vow than we are of the other vows. We rightfully say that a cheating spouse broke vows, but it is entirely possible the other spouse broke some of the other vows (love, honor, cherish, etc.) first, and that deserves to be shamed as well.

Regardless, adultery is wrong - even if the relationship is mutually "open" (and we have no reason to believe it was open in this instance). In cases like that, they should have never bothered to marry in the first place, or make children.

Marriage and parenthood are voluntary. Society, by and large, will not shame you for remaining unmarried and fornicating, even though we still wag our fingers at spouses who stray as we reward their partner in immorality. You want to be a father or mother? You want to be a husband or wife? Do what is best for your spouse and children. Treat them with love and respect in a way that protects them. Adultery, even with spousal permission, is an attack on the home and puts your loyalty, resources, and health at risk.

Banning Divorce – Part 3

The satirical stunt campaign to remove divorce from California law is all over the media again. Here's Judy Lin's Associated Press article.

The effort is meant to be a satirical statement after California voters outlawed gay marriage in 2008, largely on the argument that a ban is needed to protect the sanctity of traditional marriage. If that's the case, then Marcotte reasons voters should have no problem banning divorce.

That we will dissolve something upon request does not mean we do not value that thing. This is like saying that if we ban a certain kind of vehicle from public streets because of safety issues, then we are compelled to take other steps in the name of safety as well.

"Since California has decided to protect traditional marriage, I think it would be hypocritical of us not to sacrifice some of our own rights to protect traditional marriage even more," the 38-year-old married father of two said.

Not at all. The California Marriage Amendment campaign did not express a belief that marriage couldn't undergo dissolution. "Hypocrisy!" is a favorite accusation of those who oppose standards in the first place, but it is rarely used correctly these days.

[Much more after the jump.]

But the odds are stacked against a campaign funded primarily by the sale of $12 T-shirts featuring bride and groom stick figures chained at the wrists.

I wonder if it escapes his wife that he apparently thinks that marriage is akin to imprisonment?

Even if his proposed constitutional amendment made next year's ballot, it's not clear how voters would react.

It is no coincidence that only after "easy" no-fault divorce without shame has become the norm that marriage neutering advocates have surfaced. As such, if divorce was removed from California, I'm certain that there would be a lot fewer same-sex couples seeking marriage licenses.

As much as everyone would like to see fewer divorces, making it illegal would be "impractical," said Ron Prentice, the executive director of the California Family Council who led a coalition of religious and conservative groups to qualify Proposition 8.

People would simply go to other states to get their divorce.

Marcotte stopped dozens of people during another signature drive in downtown Sacramento. Among them was Ryan Platt, 32, who said he signed the petition in support of his lesbian sister, even though he thinks it would be overturned if voters approved it.

How exactly does this support Platt's lesbian sister? Is she married and fearing she'd be worse off if divorced?

The U.S. divorce rate is 47.9 percent, according to data provided by the National Center for Health Statistics reports. That figure, however, does not include California, Georgia, Hawaii, Indiana, Louisiana and Minnesota because those six states no longer report their divorce rates to the center.

It is important to keep in mind that these rates include second, third, fourth, etc. marriages, which are more likely to end in divorce. First marriages are much more likely to last. Also, first marriages with a bride and groom who did not shack up before they married are less likely to end in divorce.

Let the pranksters have their fun mocking the deep convictions of others.

As for me, since divorce (via laws and court rulings), especially in California, is biased againt fathers, especially sole income earners, banning divorce would actually take away a legal tool that could be used against me. I’m definitely better off financially without divorce, unless my fiscally intelligent wife suddenly decides debt accumulation is a good idea.

Previously: Banning Divorce - Part 1, Banning Divorce – Part 2

Your Papers, Now!

Carol J. Williams has an update in this LATimes.com blog entry on a matter I wrote about in this posting – that marriage neutering advocates asking courts to force the campaign behind the California Marriage Amendment to hand over internal communications.

Lawyers for two gay couples challenging last year's Proposition 8 initiative banning same-sex marriage in California brought their case to a federal appeals court panel in Pasadena today, arguing that they need access to initiative sponsors' internal campaign communications to prove the ballot measure was passed with "discriminatory intent."

It never ceases to amaze me how they refuse to call Prop 8 what it is – an adopted amendment to the state constitution, and continue to refer to it as a ban on same sex marriage.

The request to review all messages pertaining to the campaign strategy of the Proposition 8 sponsors ahead of a Jan. 11 trial was approved by the San Francisco-based federal judge presiding over the case, prompting the initiative backers to turn to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals with claims that such disclosure would violate their 1st Amendment protections.

Can we see all messages of the marriage neutering advocates pertaining to their strategy? There's probably something negative in there about religious groups, voters, traditional marriage, perhaps even certain ethnic groups, and so forth.

[Much more after the jump, including the latest development.]

Charles Cooper, an attorney representing the Protect Marriage group behind the successful initiative halting same-sex marriages, warned the three-judge appellate panel that disclosing the campaign's internal communications would have a "chilling effect" on freedom of speech and association in future political contests.

The way this was written, with "halting same sex marriages" (Really? Did all ceremonies stop?), the reader might not pick up on the fact that the proposed amendment was headed for the ballot before the state's Supreme Court ordered the neutering of marriage licensing, and the court could have stayed their decision until after the vote. Yes, there was a five month window in which neutered marriage licenses were being handed out... compared to the almost 160 years the state wasn't handing out neutered marriage licenses.

Theodore Boutrous, arguing for the two couples denied California marriage licenses because they don't meet the Proposition 8 definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman, told the judges that getting access to the internal strategy discussions was essential to show how the Proposition 8 supporters plotted to "push the buttons" to fan anti-gay fears among voters.

It's not just the Proposition 8 definition. It is the definition of most of the world, most states, the federal government, and the official state definition. Do you notice the manipulation of language?

He produced one message obtained from a Proposition 8 proponent warning that the consequences of failing to pass the gay-marriage ban would include California "falling into the hands of Satan" and the next step in the gay-rights movement, including "sex with children."

Oooh, scary! The CMA supporters discriminate against Satan and child rape. I see a lawsuit by Satanists.

Here's the actual news of the day:

The judges, all appointees of President Clinton, expressed skepticism that the opponents of Proposition 8 needed to go beyond what was publicly available from campaign ads and Internet-based statements to show the strategy behind the initiative. But they also openly disputed Cooper's contention that much of the communication was entitled to 1st Amendment protection.

Maybe these campaigns should be staffed with doctors and their female patients. We know there is a right to privacy there.

I hope everyone is keeping in mind that if the campaign has to turn over the communications, then that is a precedent that can be applied elsewhere. A lot of marriage neutering advocates might like being able to force their way in to the private communications of their opponents, but they won't like it if they end up on the other end of such a demand on some other case or cause. If you say you're all about equality, then you have to understand that this won't apply only to marriage defenders.

Then again, for some marriage neutering advocates, everything must be sacrificed in their quest. It doesn't matter what bad precedents are set, what is torn down, or what tone is established – as long as they get that one goal.

Surely, if we don't have access to all communications made by and between public-servant lawmakers working with compulsory tax money - and we don't, despite sunshine and open-government laws - then there isn't a right to have access to the internal communications of a citizen-led ballot campaign funded with private, donated money.

Previously: Your Papers, Please

Marriage Neutering Advocates Doubt 2010

It's not looking good for those who want to repeal the California Marriage Amendment in 2010. In an article more suitable to a publication targeting homosexual readership, this piece by Maura Dolan in the Los Angeles Times discusses the squabbling inside of the movement to neuter marriage over the timing of a California ballot measure and a federal lawsuit.

A measure to reinstate marriage rights for gays and lesbians on next year's ballot has stirred anxiety and doubts among some gay rights activists.

So much unpacking to do in just that first sentence...

1) "reinstate marriage rights"? There are no marriage rights in the sense the phrase is being used. It is a matter of trying to remove the bride+groom requirement from state marriage licensing – removing the requirement that both sexes participate.

2) "for gays and lesbians" – no, for same-sex couples, or brideless or groomless couples. Everyone, regardless of orientation, has the same rights either way.

3) "gay rights activists" – more specifically, marriage neutering activists. I'm for "gay rights", if you're talking about privacy, freedom of association, property, protection from assault, etc.

The proposed measure, sponsored by a group called Love Honor Cherish, would overturn Proposition 8, last year's initiative that reinstated a ban on same-sex marriage.

It would repeal the California Marriage Amendment, which restored the will of the voters over the meddling of a court when it came to marriage licensing.

[Much more after the jump.]

"We want our rights back," said John Henning, a lawyer who is executive director of the group. "This is not about farm price supports. This is about whether I can be married or not."

Good news, Mr. Henning! You can be married, the same as anyone else. Find an eligible and willing woman. If you don't want to do that, you don't have to. But don't say you are being prevented from marrying by external forces. Only your own feelings and decisions are preventing you.

Despite their views, Chad Griffin, a Los Angeles-based political strategist, launched the federal lawsuit and hired legal giants Theodore B. Olson and David Boies to take the case. The suit is expected to go to trial next year in federal court in San Francisco.

Griffin questions whether a minority's constitutional rights should be determined by a majority.

First of all, who determines the Constitution? A handful of judges? No, they can interpret and apply. There was a process used to adopt it, and there is a process to amend it – involving popularly elected representatives. There is no right explicit or implicit in the Constitution for a state-issued marriage license. Secondly, everyone would have access to neutered marriage licenses – not just a minority. So this is not a "minority right".

The article then goes on to cite Loving vs. Virginia again, even though that case did not neuter marriage, nor was "interracial" marriage a novel concept antithetical to the core meaning of marriage. It was licensed in most states, and unlike today, denial of marriage licenses to a couple could often deny them the freedom of association.

An analysis based on polling and demographics by 30 groups found a four-point advantage [for marriage neutering advocates] in 2012 over next year, Kors said.

This is based, no doubt, on assumptions that 1) older marriage defender voters will die off at rates faster than supporters of marriage neutering; 2) teenagers supportive of neutering marriage will reach voting age and will register to vote and vote; 3) these things will happen at greater rates than current sideliners or supporters of marriage neutering will become more traditional in their thinking about marriage, as we've seen generations do as they age.

And maybe it will turn out that way. Marriage defenders should be actively persuading others to our viewpoint. We need to demonstrate the importance of marriage and the importance of distinguishing it from other kinds of voluntary associations.

According to this article from the Associated Press...

Rick Jacobs, founder of the Los Angeles-based Courage Campaign, said Monday that polling and other research his organization commissioned shows that gay marriage supporters do not have the financial backing, leadership or edge in public opinion to try to overturn Proposition 8 in 2010.

The announcement by Jacobs means that a coalition of small gay rights groups that is gathering signatures to qualify a gay marriage measure for the November ballot will be working without support from established organizations.

They're going to keep pushing. It is just a matter of when and where. Expect marriage neutering propaganda, both overt and heavy-handed, and subtle, to increase.