Are we going to try to peek inside the head of every supporter or opponent of any piece of legislation, and scrutinize their statements in a court of law? I think not. Today's hostile witness could have believed that all homosexual people are murderers and that the Pope is the antichrist - it doesn't change what the law says. I'm sure were were plenty of "No on Prop 8" operatives who have some wacky ideas, and have said some pretty hateful things of "protected" groups.
What if the trial found that there were no false ideas, no bigotry, no prejudice, no animus held in any of the proponents or supporters of Prop 8 - would the marriage neutering folks then agree that the amendment isn't hateful or bigoted? Yeah, right. Like I said, what matters is what the law says.
From Leff's version:
Under questioning by Boies, Tam also said he agreed with a statement on the Web site for the Chinese-American Christian group that said if same-sex marriage was treated as a civil right, "so would pedophilia, polygamy and incest."It's a slippery slope argument, but then the "No on 8" side also had slipperty slope arguments - ones that actually ran in ads, implying that Prop 8 would lead to racial segregation and the like, and Mormon missionaries breaking into homes. Glad that those turned out to be wrong - I was so worried!
Tam said he drew that conclusion after reading an Internet article that claimed incest and polygamy were legal in the Netherlands, a country where same-same marriages became legal in 2001.This is parsing words. Not prosecuting something is only slightly different from making it legal. But I do have to wonder, why doesn't the Netherlands license polygamy or (consensual/adult) incest? Are they bigots, or something? I thought "love was love"? I'm serious. Give me a reason they don't, without invoking children, because if two men can get a state marriage license, then marriage ilearly not about children.Boies: "You are saying here that after same-sex marriage was legalized, the Netherlands legalized incest and polygamy?"
Tam: "Yeah, look at the date, Polygamy happened afterward."
"Who told you that? Where did you get that idea," Boies asked incredulously.
"It's the Internet," he said. "Another person in the organization found it and he showed me it. ... I looked at the document and I thought it was true."
Polygamy is not legal in the Netherlands, but the idea that it is became an urban myth of sorts in 2005 after a man and two women signed a private "cohabitation contract" while wearing wedding garb. Consensual incest between adults is no longer prosecuted in the Netherlands, but close relatives are not allowed to wed.
Under questioning by Boies, Tam also said he agreed with a statement on the Web site for the Chinese-American Christian group that said if same-sex marriage was treated as a civil right, "so would pedophilia, polygamy and ."
ReplyDeleteOK, my question is: How is this "bigotry"? How is this "animus"?
That is what Boies and Olson, and, sorry to say, Judge Walker, are hoping to prove, is it not?
"Bigotry" and "animus" are negative feelings toward the group in question themselves. A "slippery slope" argument is not a negative feeling toward a group themselves, but a logical (or perhaps illogical) connection of one argument to another possible argument.
Now, a person may be bigoted and also make a slippery slope argument, but a slippery smoke argument itself does not indicate bigotry. At least not toward those under the current proposal (in this case, gays and their "right to marry") who are the beginning of the "slope". If there is bigotry in a slippery slope argument itself, it is toward those at the end of the slope (in this case, polygamists and pedophiles).
Let's get this straight. The person who uses a slippery-slope argument is not attacking the supposed beneficiaries of the current proposal he is opposing by making the slippery-slope argument. He is stating that there is no logical reason, if their proposal is adopted, for it not to be extended later to others whom he assumes that most people currently just reflexively oppose.
In other words, he is assuming that most people currently are "bigoted" against polygamists, or against people in incestuous relationships, or relationships with the underaged. Which most people, including many or most supporters of SSM, currently are.
Some questions for Boies, Olson, and other supporters of SSM who think that this line of attack against Mr. Tom is going somewhere:
Now, if forty years ago, someone (who had no problem with interracial marriages in and of themselves) had argued that "if we allow interracial marriage now, someday it will lead to same-sex marriages", who would they then have been "bigoted" toward?
Would they have been "insulting" interracial couples by "comparing" them with same-sex couples?
Would they only have been "insulting" same-sex couples?
Or are you going to argue that "they were insulting both"?
I suspect most SSM supporters will claim the third.
In that case, though, what would that make those who argued that the comparison of interracial couples to same-sex couples was "insulting" to the interracial couples?
(That latter group would have included me. Though I also would have pointed out the very qualitatively different logical leaps in definition we would be making in adopting same-sex marriage, leaps which are not made in interracial marriage. No qualitative leap was required to allow interracial marriage. A qualitative leap is required for same-sex marriage. A different qualitative leap is required for polygamy, but it has not been logically argued why one leap is bigger than the other. The leap required for underage or close consanguinious marriage, by contrast, is quantitative, not qualitative, though I oppose both of those still).
And, to follow up from my last question:
And thus, what would that make those who argue now that the comparison of same-sex couples to any other combinations of persons currently prohibited from marrying is "insulting"?
Please, if you answer this at all, answer the last two questions as well.
You're completely missing the point. That line of questioning is showing that Dr. Tam was not motivated by a rational reason, but rather by unsupported and illogical fears. As you mentioned, there is absolutely no evidence that allowing ss marriage will lead to any of those things, but he not only believes it himself, he also widely circulated that information as 'fact' to influence others.
ReplyDeleteThe "bigotry" that you're looking for was painfully obvious in the rest of his testimony. Saying that the gay "agenda" is to have sex with children, or that allowing ss marriage will lead to social and moral decay, those are bigoted comments.
As far as your questions about interracial marriage and ss marriage, in your first scenario, if someone claimed they had no problem with interracial marriage but didn't support it because it might lead to ss marriage, they would be being bigoted towards both. They are clearly bigoted towards ss marriage, since they are implying by their statement that it is something undesirable or should be feared. However, by implying that interracial marriage will open the door to something they hate or fear, they are connecting those two things in their mind which is making them bigoted to interracial marriage as well, whether they mean to or not. If they fear one will lead to the other, they have to be imagining some connection between the two, which means they're connecting interracial marriage to something negative in their minds.
The point is, it's not about what we consider "insulting" (although, I imagine you'd also be insulted if someone compared your relationship to pedophilia or bestiality), it's about the fact that people are clearly presenting these things as negative, disturbing, disgusting, and perverted, and then comparing ss marriages to those characteristics in their minds. And that is bigotry, and it's also based on no rational or logical reasoning.
@lsfoster: You're completely missing the point. That line of questioning is showing that Dr. Tam was not motivated by a rational reason, but rather by unsupported and illogical fears.
ReplyDeleteIt appears LSFoster missed the point of a legal trial, which tries to discern illegal behavior rather then illogical or irrational motivations -- as judged by the ever changing whims of a cultural zeitgeist.
That said, LSFoster seems to have also missed the point as R.K. said...
"Let's get this straight. The person who uses a slippery-slope argument is not attacking the supposed beneficiaries of the current proposal he is opposing by making the slippery-slope argument. He is stating that there is no logical reason, if their proposal is adopted, for it not to be extended later to others whom he assumes that most people currently just reflexively oppose. [emphasis preserved]"
That is a statement which accurately reflects the purpose of the defense in this trial to show the accusing arguments to be arbitrary rather then legally based.
Which directly conflicts with LSFoster's judgement, "As you [R.K.] mentioned, there is absolutely no evidence that allowing ss marriage will lead to any of those things".
The evidence offered is exploring how bias exists, and would continue to exist against selected individuals. And if LSFoster wishes to condemn such selectivity, then his own arguments are simply hypocrisy as he is left to explain why we remedy "gays" and leave these others out in the cold.
Indeed, I've often wondered why gays want to extend marriage rights only to themselves when other same-gender couples or groups also wish to band together to form households. Examples include exceptions to LSFoster's rule of discust and which harbor absolutely no animus, like a mother daughter team who's husbands have died and wish to band together to have full recognition and status to aid their mutual trust and dependency in raising children together.
I don't think gays have any animus towards these groups they are excluding from marriage rights -- even from other same-gender couples -- in their drawn up plans of neutering marriage or civil unions or domestic partnerships. I think it is motivated by shear self-centered short-sightedness.
But it doesn't matter what motivates it, the presence of exception without any rational reason, itself shows the arbitrary and elitist nature of the movement to neuter marriage. That is their argument, and if it is valid it more fully condemns their own actions.
I didn't miss the point at all. The only legal way that they can take away my rights as an American, is if they can show that they not only had a rational or logical reason to do so, but that this reason somehow benefits society. They have so far failed to show any such reason, and instead continue to present false, irrational, or bigoted reasons, like this slippery slope argument.
ReplyDeleteAlso, this issue has nothing to do with the mother-daughter scenario you're proposing. That would not be related to a 'same-sex' partnership, but rather the part of the law which would not allow a similar father-daughter scenario to do the same thing. If you feel that a father-daughter relationship like that should be the same as a marriage, then that's up to you, it's just not the issue at hand here.
The issue is that the defense has failed, repeatedly, to produce a rational reason against ss marriage. Pointing out examples of misleading, illogical arguments is showing that they didn't have a legal right to remove the rights of others.
@lsfoster: The only legal way that they can take away my rights as an American [...]
ReplyDeleteYou first have to show that a right --as opposed to an entitlement or privilege -- was taken away. I have a question for you, is it the law or some other entity that is taking away the rights of gays to marry?
Example, a gay guy who wants to have children for himself, and wants to do so in a way that government recognizes and encourages equal recognition of rights for his children and the person he combined identities to create those children with, does so in the only natural way possible -- by marrying a woman.
Is it the law, or some other entity that would take that right away? With vigilante sites like ex-gay watch -- which embarass, harass, and stalk individuals who do make that choice outside of the law -- I do not find it a matter of law being biased and showing animus.
Do you?
Because to me the right to marry is simply (to re-emphasize it) ...
government recognition and encouragement of equal recognition of rights for children and the two people who combined identities to create those children with, who do so in the only natural way possible
Yes, and the SCOTUS as well as others have stated multiple times that the right to marry someone that you love is a Constitutionally protected right. That right was granted to same-sex couples in CA, then taken away.
ReplyDeleteSure, there are certain requirements you have to meet to get married, you both have to be willing and able to consent (which covers both the bestiality and pedophilia arguments), or you cannot be related in certain ways, but the law has not specified the gender of the two people involved. If it had, so many states would not have had to rush to change their Constitutions to suddenly include a sentence specifying it has to be a man and woman. By doing so, they have made their state Constitutions violate the US Constitution, which also includes no such clause.
The government and the US Constitution have also never required or demanded that couples entering into a marriage be able to or plan to have children. If you wish that they would do so, that is, again, a separate issue.
@lsfoster: Yes, and the SCOTUS as well as others have stated multiple times that the right to marry someone that you love is a Constitutionally protected right.
ReplyDeleteThat right being recognized in recognition of the responsibility of procreating, which I once again re-iterate:
government recognition and encouragement of equal recognition of rights for children and the two people who combined identities to create those children with, who do so in the only natural way possible
@lsfoster: That right was granted to same-sex couples in CA, then taken away.
And that is just a slight of hand. The right we are discussing is in recognition of the responsible use of a natural capacity between a man and a woman (and nature seems to have no concern to sexual orientation in that capacity).
California, as well as Massechusetts, only removed that right for everyone and replaced it with what appears to simply be the right to enter into a contract. Which, everyone already has and no one seems to be taking away from gays. California and Massachusetts even had DP's and CU's to aid same-sex couples (oops, I mean exclusively homosexual couples as we discussed many same-sex couples who could have benefited from such arrangements were also excluded).
So instead of preserving the marriage right, the simply got rid of it. The CA people re-instated it by popular constitutional amendment, for the sake of preserving marriage equality -- the quality of each gender's participation in ensuring the recognition of the rights and responsibilities of each gender in creating and raising children between them.
PW: It's a slippery slope argument...
ReplyDeleteNo, it isn't. A slippery slope argument is an argument that a chain of events cannot be broken, therefore taking the first step will inevitably result in the last step. Pointing out that the same argument applies equally to other situations in which it leads to an invalid conclusion is a refutation by contradiction. It says that if the argument cannot be trusted in those cases it cannot be trusted in this case, either. PW stated this best in his final paragraph:
"But I do have to wonder, why doesn't the Netherlands liscense polygamy or (consensual/adult) ? Are they bigots, or something? I thought "love was love"? I'm serious. Give me a reason they don't, without invoking children, because if two men can get a staste marriage license, then marriage is clearly not about children."
PW: ...the "No on 8" side also had slipperty slope arguments - ones that actually ran in ads, implying that Prop 8 would lead to racial segregation and the like, and Mormon missionaries breaking into homes.
Those actually are examples of slippery slope arguments. The same arguments against neutering marriage do not apply equally to Mormon missionaries or interracial marriage restrictions. Instead, the anti-8 proponents were trying to say that a yes vote on 8 would inevitably result in something else entirely.
R.K.: He is stating that there is no logical reason, if their proposal is adopted, for it not to be extended later to others whom he assumes that most people currently just reflexively oppose.
ReplyDeleteThat does not describe a slippery slope argument. That describes a refutation by contradiction argument. It says that a given argument applies equally to other situations and it leads to the wrong conclusion in those other situations. Since the argument cannot be trusted in those cases it cannot be trusted in the current case.
lsfoster: However, by implying that interracial marriage will open the door to something they hate or fear, they are connecting those two things in their mind which is making them bigoted to interracial marriage as well, whether they mean to or not.
ReplyDeleteHere lsfoster is simply trying to stretch the term "bigot" to the point of uselessness. An unintentional "bigot?" Puh-leeze! lsfoster works so hard to force the term bigot simply because it is a tenet of neutered marriage argumentation that anyone who disagrees must be a bigot. (That's argumentum ad hominem for those keeping score at home.)
Whenever someone works to stretch one's net out so it captures more people one needs to be careful to avoid snaring oneself. lsfoster should have been more careful. By his argument that invoking a slippery slope makes one a double (if unintentional) bigot against both the precedent and consequent of the slippery slope, lsfoster labels himself and other anti-8 activists as bigots against not only bride-groom marriage (the precedent), but Mormon missionaries as well (the consequent).
lsfoster: ...it's about the fact that people are clearly presenting these things as negative, disturbing, disgusting, and perverted, and then comparing ss marriages to those characteristics in their minds.
It is not the fault of the refuter that the arguers reasoning applies to other groups, even if those other groups may be "negative, disturbing, disgusting, and perverted." An arguer faced with such a situation should take responsibility for his own argument and tighten it rather than blaming the refuter for its holes.
Here, let me say this again, since you seem to have missed it. Neither the government or the US Constitution have ever required or demanded that couples prove they are able to or plan to have children. There is absolutely no mention of children in any law or statute relating to the ability of two people to get married. Couples who cannot conceive can get married. Couples too old to conceive can get married. Couples who simply don't want to conceive can get married.
ReplyDeleteYou keep asking for a reason that doesn't have to do with children, and you refuse to present one yourself.
First of all, I don't see how children would be an argument against polygamy in any way. Polygamists could certainly have children. The argument would be that our constitution defines marriage as being between two consenting, non-related adults. That includes ss couples, while it does not include polygamy, bestiality, incest, or pedophilia.
If you would like to present an argument against same-sex marriage which does not involve children (which I'll say again, are not required, demanded, or mentioned in the law in any way), I would love to hear it.
Maybe you're just not familiar with the actual definition of bigot. Being bigoted simply means that you think your views are superior to others'. It is actually very easy to unintentionally portray your views that way. Most people do it daily.
ReplyDeleteAlso, you are missing a crucial distinction between the two situations. By saying that we should not be able to get married because we will lead to negative things, you are casting a negative view on ss marriage. That it, by definition, bigoted. By claiming that we want the same access to something you already have, we are casting a positive view on straight marriage. That is, also by definition, not bigoted.
Personally, I have no idea what Mormon missionaries have to do with this, or what ad they appeared in. I also never invoked a slippery slope argument in any of my posts.
On another, unrelated note, I'm a 'she'. Not really all that important, it'll just help me keep track of when you're referring to me.
lsfoster: The only legal way that they can take away my rights as an American...
ReplyDeleteYou mean like the right to vote?
lsfoster: The issue is that the defense has failed, repeatedly, to produce a rational reason against ss marriage.
This is simply an argument from ignorance. For starters, the defense has not yet presented its case at all, therefore it is incorrect to say the defense "has failed," let alone "repeatedly," at presenting anything.
Not only is lsfoster ignorant of trial procedure, but if he believes the defense will not produce an argument in favor of preserving bride-groom marriage then he is simply ignorant of the arguments against him. This site alone is full of five years worth of arguments in favor of bride-groom marriage and consequently in opposition to neutering marriage, starting with our inaugural post The 800lb Gorilla in the Room, which lays out the basic argument very simply and clearly.
Ignorance of the contents of this site is just the beginning. The majority of court decisions on the subject have rejected neutering marriage. lsfoster is either ignorant of that fact or he thinks the majority of courts are irrational. In either case he clearly has not availed himself of the opportunity to read any of those opinions. Disagreeing with a ruling does not mean it is irrational or "bigoted."
Finally, neutered marriage has been rejected everywhere it has been allowed on the ballot. Again, lsfoster is either ignorant of this fact or he is so disdainful of his fellow citizens that he has deluded himself into thinking them incapable of rational thought. If the latter, then I doubt he can ever be happy in any society based on freedom and democracy.
lsfoster: Being bigoted simply means that you think your views are superior to others'.
ReplyDeleteSo what does that make you for wanting to overturn the vote of others?
lsfoster: That it, [sic] by definition, bigoted.
Not by the "definition" you just provided since it does not require one to make any kind of judgment on the relative superiority of one's views.
Fine, I'll rephrase. The defense has so far been unable to disprove any claims by our expert witnesses about the benefits that marriage would bring to the couples involved, the children involved, and society as a whole. They also have had to drop almost all of their expert witnesses who would be testifying against those claims since the majority of them were unable to stand behind their positions while under oath in their depositions. The fact that the plaintiffs have so far used three key defense witnesses on their side tends to bolster their case.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, I am well aware of the arguments in favor of discriminating against me, and how often they have been upheld. Similarly, I'm sure that the women's rights movements and interracial marriage supporters were aware of how often they were not supported or were rejected at the ballots. Luckily, our country established measures to protect the rights of the minority for constantly being under a majority vote. This case is an example of those measures.
lsfoster: I also never invoked a slippery slope argument in any of my posts.
ReplyDeleteAccording to the plaintiffs, whom you are attempting to defend, that doesn't matter. The plaintiffs in this case are trying to say that if they can show "bigotry" on the part of any voter that all voters must have been bigoted and therefore their vote should be ignored. That you are ignorant of the ads that were run or that you didn't make the argument directly, by the plaintiffs' reasoning, no more excuses you of bigotry than the fact that practically all of the voters had no idea what Mr. Tam voted, let alone why, excuses them.
lsfoster: Neither the government or the US Constitution have ever required or demanded that couples prove they are able to or plan to have children.
ReplyDeleteThere is also no requirement one plan on having an automobile accident in order to buy automobile insurance. That doesn't mean automobile accidents aren't the purpose of state insurance mandates. It's certainly not a reason to start calling life insurance auto insurance.
I suggest you familiarize yourself with the sterility strawman topic on the sidebar.
No, the plaintiffs are saying that if they can show animus in the people who ran the campaign and created the ballot, then the ballot itself was unconsitutional.
ReplyDeleteMy use of the word bigot in this thread was brought up because RK said he couldn't see the bigotry in Tam's statements, and because he asked a question about bigotry in another scenario. Personally, I don't think anyone would have to prove "bigotry" in any of these scenarios, it's kind of inherently there. Just like in this discussion we are both being bigoted towards each other, it just means we both think we're right.
In terms of the vote, the issue is whether the people who created, campaigned for, and represented this ballot were motivated by anything other than hatred, fear, or prejudice. So far, they haven't convinvingly shown otherwise.
lsfoster: Similarly, I'm sure that the women's rights movements and interracial marriage supporters were aware of how often they were not supported or were rejected at the ballots.
ReplyDeleteSuffrage and interracial marriage were both the result of votes on the subject. True, the Supreme Court did intervene in the case of interracial marriage, but the majority of states had already voted out anti-miscegenation laws. This does not support but rather contradicts your disdain for the results of democracy.
lsfoster: ...we are both being bigoted towards each other, it just means we both think we're right.
ReplyDeleteAs I said, you are simply working to stretch the term to the point of meaninglessness. I don't care thing one about you, how smart you are, or how capable you are of reasoning relative to me. I care only about the arguments you make and whether or not they are correct or sustainable. That is all I am responding to here.
lsfoster: ...the issue is whether the people who created, campaigned for, and represented this ballot were motivated by anything other than hatred, fear, or prejudice. So far, they haven't convinvingly shown otherwise.
So guilty until proven innocent in your book? I would argue that the plaintiffs, who are presenting their case, haven't convincingly shown the defendents were motivated by any of those things or that such a claim is even relevant. They haven't even attempted to present the sum of views held by "the people who created, campaigned for, and represented this ballot," nor shown what law prevents initiatives so motivated from being voted upon. The California Constitution is very clear on the requirements for a citizen driven initiative and a test for intentions is not included. Likewise, there is no intentions test or affidavit of intentions requirement for amending the U.S. Constitution. You may wish otherwise, but then you need to create such a law rather than just implying it into existence ex post facto.
@lsfoster: In terms of the vote, the issue is whether the people who created, campaigned for, and represented this ballot were motivated by anything other than hatred, fear, or prejudice.
ReplyDeleteIn terms of the vote, the issue is whether or not the right to marry is constitutional as a way to protect the liberty and mutual dependency natural to the relationship that potentially creates children, for the sake of the man and woman and child they potentially have together. You can't remove any member of that relationship (either the man or the woman) and still protect their rights and equality.
I've not seen you argue convincingly that responsible procreation is that not a just and magnanimous cause.
I've not seen you argue that marriage equality as the equal recognition of rights and responsibilities of each gender when they combine and potentially create children -- is unconstitutional to recognize and protect.
Instead of making that case that it should or should not exist, you've attempted to side-step that discussion by denying that such recognition exists at all. I have to be honest, that is more an argument from your own denial (which is prejudice and bigotry) then from rational observation.
In short, your ability to ignore the inconvenient arguments in favor of a narrative of ascribing evil-motives (a.k.a a witch hunt) does not in and of itself make for a legal case.
Please note again the questions I asked, isfoster:
ReplyDeleteNow, if forty years ago, someone (who had no problem with interracial marriages in and of themselves) had argued that "if we allow interracial marriage now, someday it will lead to same-sex marriages", who would they then have been "bigoted" toward?
Would they have been "insulting" interracial couples by "comparing" them with same-sex couples?
Would they only have been "insulting" same-sex couples?
Or are you going to argue that "they were insulting both"?
I suspect most SSM supporters will claim the third.
Which is exactly how isfoster has answered.
But then evades the next question.
isfoster, please answer this question I asked, which you evaded:
In that case, though, what would that make those who argued that the comparison of interracial couples to same-sex couples was "insulting" to the interracial couples?"
(That is, what would that have made supporters of interracial marriage who argued that?)
And my next question, which isfoster also evaded:
And thus, what would that make those who argue now that the comparison of same-sex couples to any other combinations of persons currently prohibited from marrying is "insulting"?
(That is, what does that make supporters of same-sex marriage who argue that now?)
Please attempt to answer and not evade. I will follow up with more afterward.
In response to the suffrage and interracial marriage issues, women's rights were put to a vote in the House and Senate, and consequently state legislatures. They never won in a people's vote. Similarly, interracial marriage was decided in a Supreme Court decision at a time when 70% of the population was against them. I doubt they would have done very well in a majority vote. The SCOTUS decision struck down remaining bans in 16 states, and many of the states which had already repealed those bans did so through state court rulings, not majority votes.
ReplyDeleteIn response to your "sterility" argument, you really only contradict yourself. If you really believed that marriage existed only as a result of procreation, you should be just as offended that couples who cannot procreate would want to marry, but you're not. You're only offended that somehow my wife and I could be married, even though we have every intention of having and raising children, and it has been shown again and again that those children will be safer and benefit from the protections of a legal marriage. If you want marriage to be a result of procreation, then you should be advocating against people who cannot or will not have children getting married. This includes a large number of straight couples. You also should be advocating against divorce, since this would clearly go against this argument that strengthening the 'pro-child' institution is the purpose of marriage. But you don't seem to care about any of those issues.
You say yourself in that post, "marriage exists to manage the procreative relationship of men and women and the consequences of this." Yet you refuse to admit that this "marriage" would not include any non-procreating straight couple, and it is clearly disproven by the fact that no court, state, or government has any requirements for procreation by the people that they marry.
RK, you don't seem to have understood my post, since I did answer both those questions. You seem to be implying that if I say they were bigoted towards both ss marriage and interracial marriage, that we are now being bigoted against pedophilia, bestiality, incest, etc...
ReplyDeleteExactly. But as I've already pointed out, bigotry is simply thinking your view is superior. I think most people would agree that there's a large difference between saying that you don't think people should marry an animal, and saying you don't think people should marry between races. You can't compare a healthy, consensual relationship between two adults to sex with an animal or child, regardless of their gender.
The difference is that we're not saying that straight people getting married is the same as bestiality. We're saying that us getting married isn't like bestiality either. I really don't think that's quite a hard concept to grasp.
@lsfoster,
ReplyDeleteDo you think homosexuals are disabled? Because your equating of the infertile and the disabled would indicate that to you they are one and the same group.
I do not think homosexuals are disabled. I think it is rather prejudiced and bigoted against them to assume they are.
Its true that two people of the same gender cannot have a child together naturally. But you can't say they are even trying. While couples who are infertile spend millions each year trying to do what they naturally should be able to do.
@lsfoster,
ReplyDeleteI want to also point out that CU's and DP's exist which do not presume procreation, so if you want such a program you need look no further. Don't destroy what marriage is, don't remove from marriage that altruistic attention, that would just hurt others.
lsfoster: They never won in a people's vote.
ReplyDeleteThat is because the amendment process for the U.S. Constitution doesn't include a "people's vote." Any other inference you might wish to draw would therefore be invalid.
lsfoster: ...70% of the population was against them.
One can disapprove of something and still agree it should be legal. The vast majority disapproves of smoking, but nobody is banning cigarettes.
lsfoster: If you really believed that marriage existed only as a result of procreation, you should be just as offended that couples who cannot procreate would want to marry...
False. If I "really believed that marriage existed only as a result of procreation" then I would oppose marriage if procreation did not exist. Procreation does exist, however, so any discussion about what should be done if it didn't is irrelevant.
If you think a sterile arrangement like a same-sex couple is identical to a couple struggling with fertility you are either hopelessly ignorant or hopelessly insensitive to the pains and struggles these couples go through.
lsfoster: ...even though we have every intention of having and raising children...
Two women "having children" overlooks the fundamental facts of human reproduction. "Raising children" can be, and in fact is, handled under a separate branch of family law. Lots of non-marriageable combos raise children together, such as polygamous and polyamorous relationships and mother-son or mother-daughter pairs.
lsfoster: ...it has been shown again and again that those children will be safer and benefit from the protections of a legal marriage.
False. No study has shown any benefit of "marriage" to the children of same-sex couples. In fact, as some read them, the studies show the opposite. Further, just to belabor the point and as OnLawn aptly states, any benefit that might accrue is available through other means than by neutering marriage.
[NOTE: One cannot mention procreation without conjuring John Howard to discuss the manufacture of embryos from the cells of two parents of the same sex. While child manufacture has important and potentially destructive implications, it is irrelevant to the discussion of marriage. Be forewarned.]
ReplyDelete[This post deals with several scorched earth dilemmas lsfoster is attempting to create. These are common among those wishing to neuter marriage. Effectively, they argue that if they can't have it, they want marriage to be completely unusable to anybody. This is more the approach of a spoiled child than of someone interested in the welfare of marriage or its role in society. As it's been a while since we've dealt with a scorched earther here on this blog I am going to deal with her points even though this is well worn territory for most readers.]
ReplyDeletelsfoster: You also should be advocating against divorce,...
Actually, virtually everyone, yourself included, disapproves of divorce. That doesn't mean they think it should be illegal, incidentally.
Also, exactly how easy it should be to get a divorce is not readily discernible strictly from an analysis of marriage's role in regards to children. Making divorce impossible would reduce the number of marriages since one would have no way of leaving an relationship if it proved to be abusive, for example. This would result in more illegitimacy, which would clearly not be in children's best interests.
The current regime of "no-fault" divorce, in fact, was advocated for in terms of its effect on children. Children, it was argued, are hurt living in a home where the parents do not love each other. Those children, it was claimed, would benefit if the marriage were allowed to be dissolved. The decades since have proved no-fault divorce to be bad for children, as lsfoster notes.
Note that most of the people arguing for no-fault divorce back then are the same people arguing to neuter marriage today. Their arguments then didn't take into account the potential for harm just as your arguments do not.
lsfoster: Yet you refuse to admit that this "marriage" would not include any non-procreating straight couple...
Any straight couple? You are clearly wrong. A female boss and her male employee are not considered a marriage because the employment relationship is presumptively non-reproductive even though the hirer/hiree may both be "straight." A sister and brother pair are presumptively not engaging in procreative behavior even though they may both be "straight" or even raising children together, and hence the sibling relationship is not a marriage. Finally, either member of a bride-groom marriage may have the marriage annulled, as in made as if it never happened, on the grounds that the marriage was never consummated, i.e., they did not engage in any behavior together that could possibly result in procreation.
lsfoster could argue that the government should oversee the consummation directly if marriage and procreation were really related, but self reporting could be argued as sufficient for the purpose society has in marriage without infringing on the privacy rights of married couples. Should lsfoster claim opposing neutering marriage required such direct government intrusion it would be another example of a false and scorched earth dilemma.
lsfoster: ...it is clearly disproven by the fact that no court, state, or government has any requirements for procreation by the people that they marry.
ReplyDeleteAlready refuted using the auto insurance example. It is irrational to repeat a discredited argument, let alone to claim it "clearly" proves or disproves anything.
There is no requirement that a licensed engineer engineer. There is no requirement that someone with a commercial driver's license operate a commercial vehicle. There is no requirement that a licensed realtor ever sell a house. There is no requirement that a licensed attorney ever write a legal document or set foot in a court room. lsfoster's "clearly" doesn't seem to "clearly" disprove anything, except perhaps that she has not read anything under the "sterility strawman" heading where all these points have already been made.
Marriage in the U.S. is a civil contract (not a religious one) that conveys certain specific state and federal legal rights to the parties in that contract. Being able to claim a more favorable status on state and federal tax filings; in many states, having a presumptive right of inheritance to a spouse's estate in the absence of a will - and in many cases even in the presence of a will that would otherwise eliminate that inheritance; in many states, the right to access to a spouse's medical and retirement benefits; in community property states, the right to presumptive claim of partial ownership of the spouse's property acquired during the marriage; the right to act as a legal representative for a medically incapacitated spouse; the right to access to medical information regarding an injured spouse, and also the right to access to the spouse in a hospital.
ReplyDeleteI could go on and on. There are a LOT of legal rights that are granted by the legal contract of marriage. There is no state in which domestic partnerships convey all of these same rights. In fact, there is no other legal contract in the U.S. that conveys all of the rights of a marriage.
It is true that legal documents can be executed granting to non-married people SOME of these rights. However, these documents don't give the parties access to the federal rights of a marriage contract. And in many cases, state legislatures can overturn or supersede the rights granted by those documents. Also, these documents usually cost significantly more than getting a marriage license and a justice of the peace to perform a ceremony (which is all that is legally required for a marriage). In other words - unfair burden on a select group.
No one has ever presented any evidence that granting this set of rights to same-sex couples will in any way degrade or destroy the existence of those same rights for opposite-sex couples, or that granting marriage rights to homosexuals will interfere with the civil rights of any other American. On the other hand, Prop 8 and other comparable laws have specifically denied an entire set of civil and legal rights to a portion of the U.S. population.
Refer to Roe v. Wade, as well as People vs. Larry Flynt. In both cases, the Supreme Court made it clear that even though they as individuals personally objected to the behaviors involved (abortion and pornography), they could find no civil basis for making those behaviors illegal. The only basis for outlawing either behavior was based on religious beliefs, and therefore by definition it was unconstitutional to outlaw the behaviors - because to do so would enforce the religious beliefs of one or more groups on the entire country. People who were offended by those behaviors could choose not to participate in them. But those people didn't have the legal standing to insist that others also be banned from participating in those behaviors.
The bottom line is this - rights that are given to some Americans are given to ALL Americans, unless there is a valid basis for denying those rights to a group. For example, if a cannibal cult tried to claim that they should be allowed to practice their religion free from interference, then what would be argued is that giving them the legal right to practice their faith would be at the expense of the civil rights of their victims. The same thing for sex with minors - since our legal system does not give minors the right to give consent on their own, laws must be put in place to protect their civil rights.
If you can find a valid civil basis for granting marriage rights to heterosexuals but not to homosexuals, then present that basis. Understand that for it to hold up in our legal and judicial system, you will have to demonstrate that granting these rights to homosexuals will somehow violate or interfere with the civil rights of others. If your basis for wanting to deny these rights to homosexuals is based on a religious belief, then by definition it's unconstitutional.
isfoster: RK, you don't seem to have understood my post, since I did answer both those questions.
ReplyDeleteNo, you did not. Read those last two questions again, and tell me just where you answered them.
You seem to be implying that if I say they were bigoted towards both ss marriage and interracial marriage, that we are now being bigoted against pedophilia, bestiality, incest, etc...
I don't think you understood my last two questions, as you are inacurately paraphrasing them above. Reread them.
But as I've already pointed out, bigotry is simply thinking your view is superior.
So, are you saying that you are thus bigoted against:
1) two adult siblings who love each other and want to get married but plan to adopt kids rather than have any of their own?
2) three adults who all agree to be in a three-person marriage and commit to each other?
3) an intelligent 17-year-old annd a 15-year-old of more than average intelligence who want to get married?
I think most people would agree that there's a large difference between saying that you don't think people should marry an animal, and saying you don't think people should marry between races. You can't compare a healthy, consensual relationship between two adults to sex with an animal or child, regardless of their gender.
Because there's something big missing here, and that's the matter of consent. But consent is not missing from the three examples I gave above.
We're saying that us getting married isn't like bestiality either. I really don't think that's quite a hard concept to grasp.
Note that I never even mentioned sex with animals in my above post. You're erecting a straw man argument.
Rydar: Marriage in the U.S. is a civil contract (not a religious one)...
ReplyDeleteWhat would be an example of a "religious contract?"
Rydar: If you can find a valid civil basis for granting marriage rights to heterosexuals but not to homosexuals...
"Heterosexuals" and "homosexuals" already have the same "marriage rights."
Op-ed, you are correct about the difference between a "slippery slope" argument and a refutation by contradiction argument. Thanks for pointing it out, it's a more appropriate term.
ReplyDeleteSaying that an argument for one situation applies no less to another situation is not the same thing as saying that one situation will lead to the other, although of course once the argument for one situation is accepted it makes it so much harder to avoid it for the other. If one is accepted, and the other not accepted, this is done under a contradiction.
And it is not bigotry or animus to point this out. If it is, then argument and logic themselves are "bigoted" if they lead to conclusions someone does not like.
And once this attitude is accepted, and logic and argument themselves are dismissed as bigotry, what is left to make our determinations by? Passion?
I think that's what many want, and history has plenty of examples of where that leads.
There's a lot going on in this comment section and some very good points raised about the offered reasoning of SSMers.
ReplyDeleteDoes anyone detect a sexual basis for licensing SSM? or for justifying eligiblity to SSM?
I don't think that SSMers have proposed a sexual basis for licensing those who'd SSM. Nor for drawing the lines of eligiblity to SSM.
Surely they would not depend on borrowing the opposite sexed basis for consummation, annulment, adultery-divorce, and marital presumption. Afterall, such borrowing would openly contradict the pro-SSM complaint that marriage discriminates on that very basis.
They would not depend on moral disapprobation, nor on continuing to do it the way its been done in the past, nor on tradition. SSM argumentation has discarded such notions as insufficient for deciding who is eligible and who is not.
The effect of SSM argumentation is to explode the boundaries around marriage. So this is not merely about tinkering with the basis of marriage; nor is it merely tinkering with the edges -- with the restrictions for age, relatedness, marital status, and the like. This is starting from scratch, at least in argumentation.
No boundary for the SSM-merger can be justified with the opposite-sexed sexual basis of marriage. So SSMers need to provide a different sexual basis, or lacking that provide a nonsexual basis for licensing and for establishing new boundaries.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteI'll try to deal with your main points in turn, op-ed.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, you stated that "suffrage and interracial marriage were both the result of votes on the subject", and commented on my "disdain for the results of democracy". When I pointed out that you were incorrect, and that no general vote had taken place for either, you seemed to agree. So I'm assuming you agree now that putting the rights of a minority up to a popular vote is something that has historically been protected against in this country, and that the courts have almost always stepped in to protect those rights.
You're also missing the point of the statements by putting them up as "scorched earth arguments". I'm not advocating any of those things. I'm pointing out that your logic is inconsistent since you don't seem to believe any of them.
How about this, if two people know before getting married that one of them is infertile and they will never conceive a child, can they still get married? Of course they can. And you don't seem to be arguing that they should be able to. So the inability of ss couples to produce a child should, according to you, be a non-issue.
I also found your comment about "having children" to be kind of funny. I may not be a biologist, but I'm pretty sure that I'm way more equipped to "have" a child than you are. So I will, in fact, be both "having", and "raising" my children. And if my wife "has" children as well, I will be just as involved in that process as you would be. I'm sure you'll reply that I will not be contributing the genetic material if she has them, but I really shouldn't need to point out that there are plenty of straight couples who are married and have children thanks to strangers' genetic contributions, so this should again be a non-issue.
Also, I would imagine that many infertile couples would take offense to you suggesting that because their actions could not lead to procreation, that they did not, in fact, consummate their marriage.
RK, I'm really not sure how else you want me to answer your questions, but I'll try again.
ReplyDeleteYour first question, "What would that make those who argued that the comparison of interracial couples to ss couples was 'insulting' to the interracial couples?" You start by asking about someone who had no problem with interracial marriage, but didn't approve of it because it would lead to ss marriage. (Since op-ed seems to have a huge problem with the word "bigoted", I'm going to ignore that for now, and deal with the emotions involved, which was what I had tried to explain.) In my mind, since they clearly think negatively of ss marriage, they would be relating interracial marriage to something they think negatively of, which would lead me to believe that they believe negative things about interracial marriage as well.
If, as in your question, they argued to comparing interracial couples to ss couples was "insulting" the interracial couples, then, in my opinion, they only think negatively about ss couples.
Similarly, for your next question, "And thus, what would that make those who argue now that the comparison of ss couples to any other combinations of persons currently prohibited from marrying is 'insulting'?" Again, since there is an attempt to separate the groups being compared, I would say that this would portray the people in question as thinking negatively of the "other combinations of persons".
It's a question of association. If you associate thing A with thing B, and you think negatively of think B, you probably don't think too highly of thing A.
If, on the other hand, you think negatively of thing B, and don't want thing A associated with it, that's probably because you think positively about thing A.
This is why it's insulting to say that ss marriage will lead to any of the things that Dr. Tam claimed it would. If you really think that ss marriage will open the door to pedophilia, then you are essentially equating that to ss marriage. And saying that there is no clear difference between the relationship I have, and someone who wants to have sex with children is incredibly insulting.
I wasn't saying that you had made those claims, but that Dr. Tam did. You had asked where the bigotry and animus in his statements were, so I was pointing it out.
In response to your questions about other people who might want to get married, I still don't see the connection. There are certain restrictions on marriage, and those three examples (incest, polygamy, and child marriage) do not meet those restrictions. But the restriction on gender has been added because it was not there to begin with. The same way that the SCOTUS ruled that the bans that were added against interracial marriage were removing a right that they had which was taken away from them, my right to marriage was taken away by the bans placed into states' constitutions.
If you would like to have a separate discussion about all those issues, fine, but they really have nothing to do with this.
lsfoster: So I'm assuming you agree now that putting the rights of a minority up to a popular vote is something that has historically been protected against in this country...
ReplyDeleteYou assume wrong. First you tried to limit the discussion of women's suffrage to how it was adopted in the U.S. Constitution. This was a false limit. Many states granted suffrage before the 19th amendment. Now you are trying to "assume" a generalized conclusion based on your false limitation. This is like the old fable of the blind man grabbing the elephant's tail and trying to argue that elephants are ropes.
lsfoster: I'm not advocating any of those things. I'm pointing out that your logic is inconsistent ...
Then you are arguing (advocating) that logical consistency requires anyone defending marriage impose these other onerous conditions on it. That is exactly what I said you were doing with your scorched earth arguments, and exactly what you say you are doing.
Logical consistency does not require that I or anyone else impose any restriction on marriage just because it might reinforce the already well established link between marriage and procreation. (This was also covered in a previous link.)
lsfoster: ...if two people know before getting married that one of them is infertile and they will never conceive a child, can they still get married?
First off, how do they know they are "infertile?" Had you read any of the articles I had pointed you to you'd realize that it is actually quite common for "infertile" couples to later procreate.
Second of all, how does the government know they are "infertile?" Like I said, scorched earth.
lsfoster: I may not be a biologist, but I'm pretty sure that I'm way more equipped to "have" a child than you are.
You are no more equipped than I. No single human is procreatively complete. You may not be a biologist, but you should have known this basic fact of human biology.
lsfoster: And if my wife "has" children as well, I will be just as involved in that process as you would be.
Agreed. I will not be having children with your "wife," and neither will you.
lsfoster: ...there are plenty of straight couples who are married and have children thanks to strangers' genetic contributions...
The important fact is that no same-sex couples "have children" without "strangers' genetic contributions." The vast majority of bride-groom couples do.
Arguing that doing something a married couple might do makes you married is like arguing that drinking milk, which a cat might do, makes you a cat. Even if you drink milk, you are still easily distinguishable from a cat and in important ways that make it unreasonable, for example, to grant cats the right to vote.
lsfoster: Also, I would imagine that many infertile couples would take offense to you suggesting that because their actions could not lead to procreation, that they did not, in fact, consummate their marriage.
Imagine away, I argued no such thing. I argued that couples that do not consummate cannot procreate and therefore their marriage can be annulled. This was in response to your (tired and well-worn) argument that marriage, if procreation related, must exclude at least some non-procreative couples even if they are man and woman. It does, and I gave many examples of that. One is all it takes to refute your argument.
Every one of your responses involved trying to insert a fundamental logical flaw into the discussion to try and buttress one of your claims that has been refuted. This discredits you and the cause for which you are arguing. It makes it look like you are willing to sacrifice integrity to achieve a particular agenda. A better response would be to abandon unsupportable claims and instead throw something new up to see if it might stick.
isfoster, thank you for answering my questions as best you could. Though I don't think you've yet dealt with the implications of your answers. More on that later.
ReplyDeleteIn my mind, since they clearly think negatively of ss marriage, they would be relating interracial marriage to something they think negatively of, which would lead me to believe that they believe negative things about interracial marriage as well.
Let me ask you first, isfoster. Do you believe that the arguments for SS marriage are ultimately the same as the arguments for interracial marriage were? Let me say right away, I don't. But too many people think that they are, and use that as their basis for supporting neutering marriage. Do you agree with them?
It's a question of association. If you associate thing A with thing B, and you think negatively of think B, you probably don't think too highly of thing A.
ReplyDeleteNo, this is not necessarily true, and I'll gladly explain why after you answer my question from the above post.
This is why it's insulting to say that ss marriage will lead to any of the things that Dr. Tam claimed it would. If you really think that ss marriage will open the door to pedophilia, then you are essentially equating that to ss marriage.
Please refer to these other areas in terms of the examples I gave, not the extremes. As I said, the issue of consent is a qualitative difference. But at what age is a child in fact (as opposed to legally) capable of consent? That's where the gray areas come in.
In any case, your statement is false in a generic sense. Saying that A may lead to B does not have to mean that A is no better than B; it can mean that there is a logical reason why A could lead to B, or that the argument for A could apply just as well to B. In the latter two cases, that has nothing to do with what the person thinks of A or B morally. It could imply, of course, that the advocates of A haven't thought about how it affects B and need to start thinking about it.
And saying that there is no clear difference between the relationship I have, and someone who wants to have sex with children is incredibly insulting.
Again, consent is the big difference. As for the difference between a same-sex relationship and the relationship between an 18-year-old and a highly intelligent 13-year-old who is capable of and has given consent, well, there's a big difference between them too....far more than the difference between the latter couple and two opposite-sex adults with average or slightly lower than average intelligence.
There are certain restrictions on marriage, and those three examples (incest, polygamy, and child marriage) do not meet those restrictions. But the restriction on gender has been added because it was not there to begin with. The same way that the SCOTUS ruled that the bans that were added against interracial marriage were removing a right that they had which was taken away from them, my right to marriage was taken away by the bans placed into states' constitutions.
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely untrue. Same-sex "marriage" has not been allowed anywhere in the United States before 2003, and essentially anywhere in the world before 2000, not because it was specifically prohibited in the law, but because marriage as an opposite-sex institution preceded the Constitution and the law. Because it was simply understood by universal human definition that marriage was opposite-sex, it was thought totally unnecessary to codify this in the laws.
To demonstrate the absurdity of your argument here, I will go out on a limb, knowing that you will probably try to say that I am morally "equating" your relationship or "comparing" it, which I am not. The comparison is only to demonstrate the flaw in the argument.
Let me say right off, thus, lest I need to: Neutering marriage is not morally comparable to marrying animals. Nor should it logically lead to that. Animals can't consent, and there is a big difference between the leap between same-sex and opposite-sex, on the one hand, and the leap between inter-species and trans-species. And I'm certainly not arguing that any SSM advocates are arguing for "marriage" between humans and animals, or that they have any future plans to do so. I'm not arguing any of those things.
But you're argument is that because there were no specific clauses in the law prohibiting same-sex marriages, therefore they should have been perfectly legal and allowed, and that what was simply understood for thousands of years should not have been codified when challenged.
So, how many states even have anything in their laws stating that humans can't "marry" animals?
For those that have no such laws, does this mean that it's really been legal all along, and should be allowed?
And that if a state decides to codify this universal understanding by making it officially legal, they are therefore taking away this "right"?
Of course not. Don't use such a bad argument. That's all I'm saying, and the analogy was the best way to point it out.
LSFoster is incorrect on a number of points.
ReplyDelete1) No state was ambiguous about marriage being between a man and a woman. No state would have been able to issue neutered marriage licenses without a change in the law, either legislative or judicial.
So wasn't it clear enough? Just to exemplify forces at work against clear language, even the clear language of prop 22, (which was the same language as Prop 8 many years later) did not stop the California Legislature from claiming (in two different years, there was enough wiggle room to pass a law neutering marriage. The fact that the majority of voters had so freshly endorsed protecting marriage equality (the recognition of the contribution of a man and a woman to each marriage) was cited by Gov. Arnold as a reason that it was vetoed.
2) LSFoster noted above that a "general vote" hadn't taken place for woman's suffrage or inter-racial marriage. This is false, in 1856 Idaho held a state-wide election adding an amendment to their constitution granting women the right to vote.
Also note that other states granted woman's suffrage before becoming states with a constitution debated and voted on by caucus and direct vote of the people.
3) The supposition that we've never put rights to a vote is disproved in #2 with contradictory examples. It would be a rather ignorant and short-sighted retelling of history to make such an accusation.
For starters, the federalist papers do not condemn the populous as unworthy of granting rights, in fact it holds the populous -- especially the majority -- as the most trustworthy keeper of our rights. A move re-affirmed by Abraham Lincoln who argued that the Supreme Court was not the eminent protector of our rights, it was the people.
The federalist democratic system was not argued as a way to keep the plebes from preserving rights. Arguments for the representative democracy included...
1) Logistics, it took to long to travel everywhere counting votes.
2) Focus, the machinery of agriculture would not allow everyone to focus on politics and plant and harvest.
3) if anything, people would over-protect their liberties, creating a government that effectively could not do anything (as in the articles of confederation).
How about this, if two people know before getting married that one of them is infertile and they will never conceive a child, can they still get married? Of course they can.
ReplyDeleteAnd, some (believe it or not) have had kids together. A non-married but well publicized example was Lance Armstrong.
So the inability of ss couples to produce a child should, according to you, be a non-issue.
I read where Op-Ed said it was an issue, and is for even infertile couples.
I've heard of beating a dead horse, but it is clear you are spending too much time making hay where once stood your doted strawman.
If you are going to "imagine" who you are talking with, then are you really going to understand the issue?
Your imaginations, to this point, have been easily dealt with.
Even the expert historian brought in to prosecute Prop 8 admitted that procreation held a great importance to marriage. And also admitted that neutering marriage (i.e. removing its expectation of equal gender participation by naming both genders) means that importance is completely lost as a government and society as a whole.
Besides, Ryder above pointed to Pornography and Abortion as precedent for neutering marriage. That alone should be a wake up call to the harm wished on the kin-altruism of marriage.
You also mistake that affirming marriage is banning gays from anything. It isn't. You can tell gays they can't get married but I won't. You can tell gays that they cannot integrate with the other gender in any meaningfully marital way, but I won't. I think that whole segregation-by-genetics argument was dispelled by the civil rights movement.
You can be the segregationist, you can claim we need to support your segregation and no longer recognize any unique value for the government to oversee the equality of integration -- and perhaps George Wallace would be jealous that the argument worked for you and not for him.
Go ahead, its your call. But I will not follow you down that already discredited path.
LSFoster, you also make the argument that one is bigoted if they don't affirm what another is doing. You've made the argument that if one cannot come up with a valid reason to recognize rights, then there is no reason to remove them.
ReplyDeleteWell, if that is the case then I win and you lose.
I can affirm everything you believe your relationship to be with a program called "reciprocal beneficiaries", and include many non-sexual but still mutually dependently headed households. I have no problem with gays or lesbians being fully in love with each other. I have no problem with them gaining government recognition. I have no problem with that program having nothing to do with procreation.
But, marriage is about responsible procreation -- and you are unable to affirm that. Not for lack of evidence ... even the popular children's rhyme states that "first comes love, then comes marriage, then comes " .... I bet I don't even need to finish it for you to know exactly what is expected next.
You are dismissing that the concern for responsible procreation can even exist in marriage if we bear any sympathy for the disabled to try to give them everything the otherwise could have -- as they are trying their hardest in that regard. That is a doubly anti-social slash at both the disabled and those who seek protection of their in-tact procreational relationships.
You are the one dismissing my marriage, and one of the main reasons I got married, though I'm affirming your relationship entirely for what you consider it to be (just with a different name to preserve the distinction).
You then are the one who is on the wrong end of the magnanimity and affirmation.
Pity, you have imagined who you are talking with to with such degradation and insensitivity that you perhaps even felt justified doing so. And in unconscious guilt, couldn't help but accuse others of the exact same thing.
But hey, its not up to me to explain why you don't follow your own rules. You might have very good reasons to do so, so never mind that I think you are just a poor hypocrite. I'm not as important a judge as yourself. And I'm no where near as harsh as reality when it comes up and bites you.
To clarify, my 1/24, 9:25 PM post above should read as such:
ReplyDelete"As for the difference between, on the one hand, a same-sex relationship, and on the other hand, an opposite-sex relationship between an 18-year-old and a highly intelligent 13-year-old who is capable of and has given consent, well, there's a big difference between them too....far more than the difference between the latter couple and two opposite-sex adults with average or slightly lower than average intelligence."
Also, in my 1/24, 9:29 post, I said:
ReplyDeleteAnd that if a state decides to codify this universal understanding by making it officially legal, they are therefore taking away this "right"?
That should read: "And that if a state decides to codify this universal understanding by making it officially illegal, they are therefore taking away this 'right'?"
Well I had written out a much longer post, but it got deleted by some error on here, so I'll just hit the main points.
ReplyDeleteOp-ed, you seem to think that because a small number of couples who believe they are infertile conceive, this makes your logic sound. It really doesn't. I know (and I'm sure you do as well) plenty of women who have had hysterectomies. They will never, under any circumstances, have a child. From what I understand, you would not claim that one of these women should not remain married, nor that she should not be able to marry.
So let me say this again, if you think that two people who are absolutely incapable of procreating should be able to get married, I fail to see your point.
The fact that your logic is inconsistent, however, is still secondary to the fact that I think your argument in fundamentally wrong. Again, no laws mandate procreation for marriage, or marriage for procreation. Also, the vows that must be taken in order for a marriage to be legally binding make no mention of children, or the ability or intention to have children. Finally, the SCOTUS has already commented more than once on the purpose of marriage. I strongly recommend that you read the decision made in Loving v. Virginia, and also Griswold v. Connecticut. Especially the latter.
lsfoster,
ReplyDeleteWant to know why infertile couples are allowed to marry, even though they have little to no chance of procreation? Simple. Equality. Every man and woman is allowed to marry -- even the gay and lesbian ones. There doesn't need to be a medical fertility test, or a "sexual orientation test" (lol, as if) for the man+woman combination to be inherently procreative, and for that fact to be at the heart of Marriage. But no one is coerced into procreation, and NO ONE is prohibited from marrying.
Intersting you mention the Loving v. Virginia ruling, which noted:
"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... "
I can't help but wonder what you think that whole "existence and survival" bit is all about, if they werent referring to procreation.
lsfoster: ...a small number of couples who believe they are infertile conceive, this makes your logic sound.
ReplyDeleteNo, the absence of logical errors is what makes one's logic sound.
I actually asked two questions about your "infertility" scenario. Your answer to the first is that fertile couples who thought they were infertile is too small a minority to have rights. What is your answer to the second question?
lsfoster: From what I understand, you would not claim that one of these women should not remain married, nor that she should not be able to marry.
You would? Scorched earth.
lsfoster: ...if you think that two people who are absolutely incapable of procreating should be able to get married,...
Asked and answered. See the cat example, above, among others. Unless you are going to argue that you are the same as a woman with a hysterectomy, how such a woman is or should be treated is irrelevant to the discussion.
On that vein I believe OnLawn already asked if you think your situation is due to a handicap.
lsfoster: Again, no laws mandate procreation for marriage, or marriage for procreation.
Also asked and answered. See the auto insurance examples, above, as well as the other licensing examples. Seat belts neither require you to have an accident, nor are they required in order to have an accident. That doesn't mean seat belts aren't for accidents.
So, this time you've managed to repeat your same old tired arguments instead of fortifying them. You didn't make any new arguments or add anything you hadn't already brought up. You just repeated yourself. Bad arguments are at least as easy to repeat as good ones, therefore your ability to repeat yourself has no bearing on the validity of your claims.
Don't bother responding if that's all you're going to do. I'll just concede right now that you are probably plenty capable of repeating an argument indefinitely no matter how bad it happens to be.
lsfoster: Finally, the SCOTUS has already commented more than once on the purpose of marriage.
Oh, my mistake. You also threw in a fallacious appeal to authority. Live by the fallacy, die by the fallacy. SCOTUS has already ruled that not licensing same-sex couples as marriages does not violate the U.S. Constitution. Do you submit to the authority of the SCOTUS, or don't you? Also, the fact you think we haven't read Loving just proves you don't do your homework.
Some of SCOTUS's comments on the purpose of marriage...
ReplyDeleteIn 1885, the U.S. Supreme Court issued the following statement in the case of Murphy v. Ramsey, Page 114 U. S. 45 (Emphasis ours).
"[C]ertainly no legislation can be supposed more wholesome and necessary in the founding of a free, self-governing commonwealth . . . than that which seeks to establish it on the basis of the idea of the family, as consisting in and springing from the union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony; the sure foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civilization; the best guarantee of that reverent morality which is the source of all beneficent progress in social and political improvement.”
As noted in a previous discussion:
"The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that Marriage in the State of Minnesota was limited to One man and One Woman. Upon Baker and McConnell losing their case they appealed to the United States Supreme Court Invoking the Supreme Court's then-mandatory appellate jurisdiction, in 28 United States Code ' 1257(2) (repealed in 1980).
"Upon review, the United States Supreme Court dismissed the appeal "for want of [a] substantial federal question." 409 U.S. 810 (1972)."
Going along with Marty's note...
"Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race. Skinner V State of Oklahoma Ex Rel Williamson, 316 U.S. 535 (1942)
Dan Vindice (who provided many of these quotes) also noted...
"There is a very simple and inescapable fact that the homosexual activists cannot overcome. It is a fact that cannot be ignored. The very existence of the institution of marriage does indeed "privilege procreative heterosexual intercourse." In fact, Marriage is a privileged state and that is precisely why homosexual activists are waging this battle. No matter how hard anyone tries to escape reality, Procreative heterosexual intercourse is and has been historically through all times and cultures an important feature of that privileged status, and that distinct characteristic is a fundamental, originating reason why the State privileges marriage. (For more detail on this please refer to Dean v. District of Columbia, 653 A.2d 307, 337 (DC 1995)."
More legal decisions:
ReplyDelete“[T]he first purpose of matrimony, by the laws of nature and society, is procreation.” Baker v. Baker, 13 Cal. 87, 103 (1859).
“he procreation of children under the shield and sanction of the law” is one of the “two principal ends of marriage.” Sharon v. Sharon, 75 Cal. 1 (1888) (quoting Stewart on Marriage and Divorce, sec. 103.
“Procreation, if not the sole, is at least an important, reason for the existence of the marriage relation.” Davis v. Davis, 106 A. 644, 645 (N.J. Ch. Div. 1919).
“The great end of matrimony is . . . the procreation of a progeny having a legal title to maintenance by the father.” Laudo v. Laudo, 197 N.Y.S. 396, 397 (App. Div. 1919);
Poe v. Gerstein, 517 F.2d 787, 796 (5th Cir. 1975) (“[P]rocreation of offspring could be considered one of the major purposes of marriage. . . .”);
Singer v. Hara, 522 P.2d 1187, 1195 (Wash. App. 1974) (“[M]arriage exists as a protected legal institution primarily because of societal values associated with the propagation of the human race.”);
Baker v. Nelson, 191 N.W.2d 185, 186 (Minn. 1971), appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question, 409 U.S. 810 (1972) (“The institution of marriage as a union of man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis.”);
Heup v. Heup, 172 N.W.2d 334, 336 (Wis. 1969) (“Having children is a primary purpose of marriage.”);
Zoglio v. Zoglio, 157 A.2d 627, 628 (D.C. App. 1960) (“One of the primary purposes of matrimony is procreation.”);
Frost v. Frost, 181 N.Y.S.2d 562, 563 (Supr. Ct. New York Co. 1958) (discussing “one of the primary purposes of marriage, to wit, the procreation of the human species.”);
Ramon v. Ramon, 34 N.Y.S. 2d 100, 108 (Fam. Ct. Div. Richmond Co. 1942) (“The procreation of off-spring under the natural law being the object of marriage, its permanency is the foundation of the social order.”);
Stegienko v. Stegienko, 295 N.W. 252, 254 (Mich. 1940) (stating that “procreation of children is one of the important ends of matrimony”);
Gard v. Gard, 169 N.W. 908, 912 (Mich. 1918) (“It has been said in many of the cases cited that one of the great purposes of marriage is procreation.”);
Lyon v. Barney, 132 Ill. App. 45, 50 (1907) (“[T]he procreating of the human species is regarded, at least theoretically, as the primary purpose of marriage . . .”);
Grover v. Zook, 87 P.638, 639 (Wash. 1906) (“One of the most important functions of wedlock is the procreation of children.”);
Adams v. Howerton, 486 F. Supp. 1119, 1124 (C.D. Cal. 1980), aff’d 673 F.2d 1036 (9th Cir. 1982) (observing that a “state has a compelling interest in encouraging and fostering procreation of the race”);
“Lord Penzance has observed that the procreation of children is one of the ends of marriage. I do not hesitate to say that it is the most important object of matrimony, for without it the human race itself would perish from the earth.” Turney v. Avery, 113 A. 710, 710 (N.J. Ch. 1921)
No matter how hard anyone tries to escape reality, Procreative heterosexual intercourse is and has been historically through all times and cultures an important feature of that privileged status, and that distinct characteristic is a fundamental, originating reason why the State privileges marriage.
ReplyDeleteThis summarizes it, and may I add this is true whether or not the couple actually reproduces (as the State cannot order what they do in the future), and whether or not the couple actually can reproduce (as the State knowing this requires an invasion of their private medical information).
What is more, an infertile couple, or a couple who married after their reproductive years, do not publicly sever the link between procreation and marriage in the way that a same-sex couple would. If you see an infertile heterosexual couple in public, there is nothing about them that looks any different than a couple who can or have had children. You would only know they were infertile if they chose to tell you. (A woman with half a body has married and given birth to two children).
Similarly, if you see a couple who married in old age in public, there is nothing about them that looks any different from an elderly couple who had their own adult children. You would not know otherwise unless they told you.
By contrast, a same-sex "married" couple visibly and obviously severs the link between marriage and procreation for all to see.
Also, equality arguments are about the equality of individual persons. Privacy arguments are about leaving people alone without government interference. But where in the Constitution or any legal rulings does it say that all types of sexual contact must be regarded as equal, or that something cannot privilege one unless it privileges all? That would be what a decision mandating same-sex "marriage" would be saying, as much as its proponents try to evade the issue.
Good citations from judicial precedents, On Lawn.
ReplyDelete* * *
As I think you've noted, RK, imposing SSM would severe the fundamental constitutional right to marry from the deep roots of the social institution.
* * *
Marriage is not created by government licensing. The issuing of licenses, and the special status accorded, arise from the societal significance of marriage that pre-exists government.
I don't mean that marriage pre-dates government, though marriage does pre-date the state constitution of California and the establishment of the US Constitution.
I mean that government rests upon civilization; and civilization organically grows upon the unity of the sexes and the solidarity of fatherhood and motherhood. The sexual basis of the marriage idea is what makes marriage both a public and a private type of relationship. This is the societal significance of the conjugal union of husband and wife, as a type of relationship, as a social institution.
Whatever merits might be attributed to SSM, it is not a foundatinal social institution. It lacks a public-sexual aspect from which a preferential status could be deeply rooted and justified.
Chairm, it was all very handy in our archives. No compiling needed. Much of it came from you, for which I owe much grattitude.
ReplyDeleteAnother point to pick with LSFoster, who said of Op-Ed, "...a small number of couples who believe they are infertile conceive, this makes your logic sound."
LSFoster greatly over-estimates the logic of the contradiction she offers. For LSFoster's contradiction to be valid (that same-sex relationships are not a marriage, but infertile equal-gender-representation couples are) we have to hold three basic tenants...
1) The law is a perfect enforcer of purpose (like mathematical logic). Otherwise laws are not 100% enforceable and concerns like privacy, and government resources come to bear. That means that some couples will slip through the cracks being to the government indiscernible from the other couples, but we do the best we can anyway.
Not unlike the court system which tries its hardest to find people innocent, just for the sake of those few who are innocent who would unjustly be punished. Allowing people to get married, even if they surprise us, is a valid reason to admit the infertile. Because the infertile are innocent, even if they never do have children.
Though that answer concerns the differences between reality and logic, there is yet a logical demand that her argument by contradiction cannot satisfy.
2) That demand is that for the contradiction to be valid there must be no valid distinction between a same-sex couple and an infertile couple that includes both genders. If there is no distinction, then the they are the same and joining a same-sex relationship is a disability. The inability to integrate with the other gender in any meaningfully marital way, if they wish to argue that point, is also a disability. If there is a distinction, then it can explain the difference in treatment, but if they aren't then they must be the same.
....
In my estimation, LSFoster seems to understand both of these points as she shows an aware and selective aversion of dealing with them. Even after multiple attempts to illicit her disclosure on this matter.
A lot of people on this discussion keep referring to historical precedent, talking about how marriage "always has been" a privileged status. The response to that is - just because something has "always been that way" doesn't make it right or fair.
ReplyDeleteThe same argument was used to support the institution of slavery, which had existed for hundreds of years in Western society - and that was struck down. The same argument was used to support the prohibition against interracial marriage - and that was struck down.
Interracial marriage is a good comparison here. The argument was used at the time that "Caucasians and people of color are all allowed to marry - they just can't marry each other; so no one is being denied the right to marry." That argument was struck down by the Supreme Court. It's a very close parallel to the idea of, "Heterosexuals and homosexuals are all allowed to marry - but homosexuals can't marry each other. So no one is being denied the right to marry." It's bogus, and the Supreme Court rejected it as such.
The basic issue here is that many people confuse the religious institution of marriage with the civil legal contract of marriage. A lot of gay people aren't asking for a church-sanctioned ceremony. In fact, it would be unconstitutional for any church or religious group to be forced to perform same-sex marriages in violation of their beliefs.
People, THIS IS NOT ABOUT RELIGION. This is about civil contract law. Gays are asking for access to the same civil legal contract that heterosexuals have access to, with the same benefits. To the extent that heterosexuals have access to a civil contract granting them state- and federally-recognized rights and privileges, homosexuals must be granted access to the same civil contract unless it can be shown that granting that access will somehow interfere with or violate the civil rights of other Americans.
No one has given any proof or evidence or explanation for how a gay couple getting married in a civil ceremony - or giving gay couples access to the same state and federal benefits - will violate the rights of anyone else. It's a simple request - just demonstrate how allowing a gay couple to get married would violate anyone else's civil rights, and you've got the argument you need.
Chairm raised the question of justifying eligibility to same-sex marriage. I don't see any conflict here between gay and straight marriages.
ReplyDeleteDon't confuse the concepts of religious marriage and civil marriage. They are different and separate. Religious law is not binding in U.S. courts.
In the U.S., ministers of most religions are given sanction to perform civil marriages - so when a minister conducts a religious marriage, the civil marriage is ruled to have taken place at the same time. But from a legal standpoint, the two are different. When a minister of a non-recognized religion performs a marriage ceremony, it is not legally valid in the U.S. unless the couple also conducts a separate civil ceremony.
When you talk about marriage, consummation, annulment, etc., there are religious overtones to those ideas that do not have standing under U.S. law. To discuss this issue in terms of civil law, you have to separate the legal aspects from the religious aspects.
For example - if a couple has their marriage annulled by the Catholic Church, they still have to go through the process of civil annulment. The Church annulment does not have legal standing in civil court. And while the Catholic Church says a divorced person cannot remarry, that religious prohibition does not exist in civil law. RELIGIOUS LAW IS NOT BINDING IN U.S. COURTS.
If a couple has sex after they are married, then from the point of view of civil law, they have consummated the marriage. If one partner is unwilling or unable to have sex, then the marriage has not been consummated and the other partner has grounds for divorce. Legally speaking, how is that different for a gay couple than for an straight couple?
Same thing for adultery. If one of the partners of a civil marriage has sex outside the marriage, then he or she has committed adultery. It doesn't matter whether he or she is gay or straight - they have violated the terms of the civil contract, and the other partner has legal grounds for terminating that contract.
The bottom line here is that we're talking about a legal contract. Don't drag religion into this. RELIGIOUS LAW IS NOT BINDING IN U.S. COURTS.
Two people want to enter into a contract under civil law that is called "marriage." This contract gives them a host of legal rights at the state and federal level - as well as a host of legal obligations.
Just like any other civil contract, if either party violates the terms of the civil marriage, then the other party has the right to terminate the contract. For a marriage contract, the termination process is called "divorce," and may include reparations or reimbursement for damages, such as alimony or settlement of estate or division of jointly owned property.
How is any of that different if the two people involved happen to be the same gender? WHY should it be any different in a legal sense?
The fact is, a lot of same-sex couples are already living in this arrangement, where they have pledged themselves to each other. But because they are the same gender, they don't have access to a civil contract that gives them certain legal rights. And the only reason they aren't allowed access to that contract is because of their sexual orientation.
I don't see how same-sex marriage "explodes the boundaries around marriage." It is a civil contract, and there's nothing in the civil contract that would be treated differently if both parties to the contract are the same gender.
I think what Chairm meant to say is that same-sex marriage explodes the boundaries around RELIGIOUS marriage. But that's not the problem of the U.S. legal system. Our legal system exists to establish and protect civil rights, not to govern rights within any specific religion.
If a gay couple is committed to each other and is willing to take on the legal responsibilities and obligations of the civil contract, then what is the harm of allowing them access to that contract?
I don't see how same-sex marriage "explodes the boundaries around marriage." It is a civil contract, and there's nothing in the civil contract that would be treated differently if both parties to the contract are the same gender.
ReplyDeleteRyder/Grey, I will respond to your posts in more detail shortly. But first tell me, under your understanding of the "civil contract", exactly what reason do we then have to deny marriage to three consenting adults, or to two adult siblings, or to those underage who are old enough to intelligently consent?
Before you claim "red herring", "straw man", or something like that, just keep in mind, what we're talking about is whether or not this explodes the boundaries around marriage. Since you claim that it does not, I'd be interested to know what you think the boundaries around marriage are. Or do you really think that violating the terms of the marriage (by nonconsummation---and by the way, this leads to more questions which I will get to later---or by adultery) are the only things which are outside these boundaries?
It's a simple request - just demonstrate how allowing a gay couple to get married would violate anyone else's civil rights, and you've got the argument you need.
ReplyDeleteIt's already led to the chipping away of the right of free speech in Canada.
But you seem to think the question is one only of "rights".
To give an analagous example, if we were to continue to spew excesses of chemicals into the air, believing them to be economically beneficial but not knowing their long-term effect, and their long-term effect turns out to severely affect the atmosphere, just whose "rights" have been violated, in the strict Constitutional definition of the term?
More coming. However, Ryder, I suggest you really comb through our archives to see if we have not already provided some answers to your questions, rather than just come here assuming we couldn't have. If you don't find our arguments satisfying, at least pick out the better ones and tell us what's wrong with them.
Ryder, welcome to our comment sections. Thanks for taking the time and making the effort to write extensive remarks here.
ReplyDeleteWe are discussing marriage qua marriage. Start with the essential feature(s) without which marriage would not be marriage. Boundaries might be varied, but when society discriminates between marriage and nonmarriage, the lines are justified by the core meaning -- the essentials -- that make the conjugal type of relationship different from the rest.
That's the starting place, before you or anyone else can pin a license (signifying a special status) on the type of relationship you may have in mind.
I'll not respond to your previous comments, point by point, because, as RK suggested, you can find your answers in our archives here at Opine. We use tags -- see the rightmost column. We've discussed marriage as a social institution that cuts across religious, cultural, historical lines. We do not argue for a religious definition of marriage.
In the meantime, I'll leave you to respond to RK's attempt to enter a productive discussion with you on the boundaries as per your notion of civil marriage.
Cheerio,
Chairm
First of all, Ryder, let me thank you for the civility and thoughtfulness in your posts.
ReplyDeleteStill, your arguments raise many questions.
If a couple has sex after they are married, then from the point of view of civil law, they have consummated the marriage. If one partner is unwilling or unable to have sex, then the marriage has not been consummated and the other partner has grounds for divorce. Legally speaking, how is that different for a gay couple than for an straight couple?
Uh, a lot, but I'll skip most of the many questions that this raises for now and jump to just one:
Under the rule of consummation as you have outlined here, would a wife have grounds for annullment on the grounds of nonconsummation if her husband refuses to have heterosexual intercourse with her but does want to have anal or oral sex, and she is not satisfied with this or does not want it?
My apologies to all for the bluntness but this is one of those questions that really springs out and is very much relevant to this debate, as are other questions related to this.
Rydar: ...just because something has "always been that way" doesn't make it right or fair.
ReplyDeleteAgreed. The fact that something "always has been" merely asks the question: Why? Why do you think marriage has never been a same-sex proposition, across borders, beliefs, and time?
The same argument was used to support the institution of slavery, which had existed for hundreds of years in Western society...
Slavery existed pretty much everywhere around the world not just "Western society," and for most of human history not just "hundreds of years." The basic argument for slavery was not its persistence, but rather that its economic benefits were of more importance than any principled or moral objections to it.
"Caucasians and people of color are all allowed to marry - they just can't marry each other; so no one is being denied the right to marry."
That's more the argument being made by "gay" activists. "Gays" should be allowed to marry each other but if they marry "straights," their marriage is supposedly, at best, a "sham."
That argument was struck down by the Supreme Court.
No, it wasn't. The Supreme Court did find anti-miscegenation laws unconstitutional, but they never addressed the argument you just raised.
"Heterosexuals and homosexuals are all allowed to marry - but homosexuals can't marry each other. So no one is being denied the right to marry."
That's nothing like the previous argument you raised, and it's not even true. There is nothing in the law that prevents two people from marrying just because they may both be "homosexuals."
The basic issue here is that many people confuse the religious institution of marriage with the civil legal contract of marriage.
Take that up with them. Nobody here is confused on the topic. Do you have a quote that leads you to believe otherwise?
...it would be unconstitutional for any church or religious group to be forced to perform same-sex marriages in violation of their beliefs.
Tell that to Catholic Charities in Massachusetts.
This is about civil contract law.
Marriage is covered under family law, not contract law. There is nothing prohibiting two men, two women, three men, etc., from entering into a contract now. Why should we reduce marriage to just a contract when contracts are already just a contract?
No one has given any proof or evidence or explanation for how a gay couple getting married in a civil ceremony - or giving gay couples access to the same state and federal benefits - will violate the rights of anyone else.
No one has given any proof or evidence or explanation for how giving uneducated people college diplomas will violate the rights of anyone else.
Rydar: When you talk about marriage, consummation, annulment, etc., there are religious overtones to those ideas that do not have standing under U.S. law.
ReplyDeleteFalse. Annulment and grounds for it are legal concepts and supported in some form in every state in the union.
RELIGIOUS LAW IS NOT BINDING IN U.S. COURTS.
Nobody is suggesting that change.
Don't drag religion into this.
You're the only one doing that.
I think what Chairm meant to say is that same-sex marriage explodes the boundaries around RELIGIOUS marriage.
You think wrong. Go re-read. Chairm was clearly talking about state licensed marriage.