Comment Policy

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

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

Tuesday, March 9, 2010

DC Now Issuing Neutered Marriage Licenses

Washington, D.C. has become one of the few places in the U.S. issuing and registering neutered marriage licenses. Most states, of course, will not issue licenses to brideless or groomless couples. Associated Press writer Jessica Gresko reports, bringing us the usual feel-good article that quotes participating couples.
The Rev. Darlene Garner married her partner, the Rev. Candy Holmes, both of Metropolitan Community Churches, a Christian group that primarily serves the gay and lesbian community.
Most churches serve people who identify as homosexual. The difference is that MCC apparently rejects consistent application of Biblical principles in regards to marriage and sexual behavior. You know, it's like a synagogue that primarily serves pork-and-shellfish-eating polytheists, an Amish store that sells all the latest software, or a Gay Pride Festival organized by NARTH.
"Equality and justice for all now includes us," Garner said.
It did a month ago, too, and a year ago.

Rebecca and Delia Taylor picked up their license early Tuesday and immediately were married outside the courthouse by a minister friend. The couple said they long ago exchanged rings and considered themselves married. Still, they were grinning after picking up their certificate back inside the courthouse following the ceremony.

"We've referred to each other as wives," Rebecca Taylor said. "It's just a legal document, so if anything happens to one of us, we have rights."

She is apparently uninformed about all of the other legal mechanisms available, and the article does nothing to inform the reader of those mechanisms.

[More after the jump.]

But Delia Taylor said she found it moving to recite the vows. "My parents have a wonderful marriage," she said.
Notice anything different about your parents? Like, say, one of them is a man?

Young and Townsend married in a room with about 100 guests sitting on white chairs and standing next to bouquets of white snapdragons and yellow chrysanthemums, roses and carnations. A cellist played before the ceremony, and cream and gray programs announced the names of the three pairs along with: "Congratulations to the couples on this historic day."

D.C. bakery Cakelove supplied a three-tiered butter-cream frosted cake with a fresh strawberry filling for each couple.

All of those things were possible a year ago, five years ago, ten years ago.
One couple planned to marry Tuesday at All Souls Church, the Unitarian Universalist house of worship where Mayor Adrian Fenty signed the bill legalizing the unions in December.
I missed the "separation of church and state" and "keep churches out of it" objection to that location.
The court's official marriage booklet has been updated so that the ceremony will end by pronouncing the couple "legally married" as opposed to "husband and wife."
That's a sad dismissal of the importance both of husbands and of wives.

151 comments,:

  1. This is so mean-spirited, to mock people's wedding day. Let them enjoy their wedding cake and their snapdragons and their vows!

    As for there being other legal mechanisms to get around not being allowed access to civil marriage, read the nightmare that Ron Hanby had to go through in Rhode Island just to get his partner's body back from the morgue so that he could give him a proper burial. How anyone can think this is okay is beyond me, as it seems extraordinarily and unnecessarily cruel.

    http://wakingupnow.com/blog/kafka-and-nom

    ReplyDelete
  2. Emma,

    Thanks for commenting. I wrote about the situation in Rhode Island here: http://opine-editorials.blogspot.com/2010/01/rhode-island-devalues-marriage-and.html

    I don't mock people for having their own religious ceremonies. I point out that there is a difference between a wedding and other ceremonies, even if a local government stops noting the difference.

    What's mean spirited is to advance a personal agenda when it is harmful to society, then use the power gained to try to silence all dissent.

    As a husband/groom, I am offended that a law would deliberately dismiss my value, and the value of my wife/bride.

    ReplyDelete
  3. She is apparently uninformed about all of the other legal mechanisms available, and the article does nothing to inform the reader of those mechanisms.

    Playful Walrus,
    Are you aware that there is no way for a couple to contract for all of the rights, benefits, and privileges that come automatically with marriage?

    As a husband/groom, I am offended that a law would deliberately dismiss my value, and the value of my wife/bride.

    By performing a legal marriage with which you disagree, the law dismisses your value? You realize that you're talking about someone else's marriage, right? How would you like it if random critics from around the world cited your specific marriage as an example of a marriage that should be invalid?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Phil,

    She didn't say "all" rights. She said rights "so if anything happens to one of us". That's already possible to handle without a marriage license.

    As far as dismissing my value, I was referring to..."The court's official marriage booklet has been updated so that the ceremony will end by pronouncing the couple 'legally married' as opposed to 'husband and wife.'"

    ReplyDelete
  5. Okay, but given that Washington DC does now in fact give equal legal recognition to gay married couples, it would be worse, and ridiculous, for the official (by which we are speaking governmental, not religious) marriage booklet to say "husband and wife."

    As a straight woman, I do not feel demeaned or threatened by the term "legally married."

    ReplyDelete
  6. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Phil, society discriminates between marriage and non-marriage. So, of course, there is no reason that non-marriage should automatically be assigned "nall of the rights, benefits, and privileges" of marriage.

    That's why it is necessary to start with the essentials that make the type of relationship known as "marriage" of significance to society such that license and special status are justified. That means starting with clearly identifying that type of relationship before you pin the label on it.

    If you can provide no justification for marital status, then, "all of the rights, benefits, and privileges" would be automatical for any type of relationship that is in the nonmarriage category. There would not be two categories.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Emma, why would it be worse?

    And you are mistaken -- there is no such thing as "gay married couples". There is no gay criterion for eligiblity when two persons of the same sex show up for registration.

    You are doublely mistaken -- DC has now replaced recognition of the social institution of marriage; its new law (which is probably going to be corrected soon enough) instead recognizes a specious substitution and that substitution has unjustly appropriated the label, marriage, and "of the rights, benefits, and privileges" of marital status.

    It is an arbitrary exercise of governmental power to impose such a merger of nonmarriage and marriage in the laws of DC. It is unjustified.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Typo correction: "all of the rights, benefits, and privileges" of marital status.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Emma, my husband and I are getting married this month in DC. Some friends marriages became official today, by the end of the month we are going to be so "partied out" it will take the rest of the year to recover!

    A huge hug and thanks are due to Mayor Fenty for his determination and will to make sure the reactionary forces of intolerance were soundly defeated.

    Also big thanks to the DC Council and the People of DC!

    ReplyDelete
  11. She didn't say "all" rights. She said rights "so if anything happens to one of us". That's already possible to handle without a marriage license.

    There's no reason to dig your feet in the sand on this point, Playful Walrus.

    If I can identify at least one right that would be useful for a couple "in case anything happens to one of us" that cannot be handled without a marriage license, will you change your position and support legal same-sex marriage?

    As far as dismissing my value, I was referring to..."The court's official marriage booklet has been updated so that the ceremony will end by pronouncing the couple 'legally married' as opposed to 'husband and wife.'"

    Do you personally feel that you are now no longer a husband?

    ReplyDelete
  12. So sad.

    I'm sure the slave owners celebrated the victory of their rights to oppress another group of people into being slaves when the compromises of the US constitution allowed that to be so.

    Now Caleb celebrates his own gain for his own segregation, at the expense of marriage equality.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Do you personally feel that you are now no longer a husband?

    Phil, if personal feelings were all that mattered, their private ceremonies would be enough without neutering the marriage license.

    It is not consistent to claim that people need to be recognized as a marriage (when they clearly are not) to affirm how they see each other, and then claim that Playful's personal feelings about his own relationship are enough protection for who he is in his marriage.

    Its all about marriage equality, qualified and quantified between the two people who combine to create the children they need to equally share responsibility for, which is impossible in a same-sex marriage. In fact, same-sex relationships are the opposite of marriage equality.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Phil, society discriminates between marriage and non-marriage.

    Yes. And when people suggest that nonmarried couples who wish to marry should just go ahead and pursue those rights through other means, it is accurate to mention that not all of those rights can be pursued through other means, correct?

    ReplyDelete
  15. Phil, what entitlement, benefit, or recognition, or even right, cannot be obtained through "other means"?

    ReplyDelete
  16. "So sad.

    I'm sure the slave owners celebrated the victory of their rights to oppress another group of people into being slaves when the compromises of the US constitution allowed that to be so.

    Now Caleb celebrates his own gain for his own segregation, at the expense of marriage equality."


    On Lawn; here's what I want you to do.

    Repeat what you've just stated at every possible opportunity, please I beg you, waste neither effort nor energy, full speed ahead, get the word out, run with it.

    GO!

    I think there's a possibility you have a "game changer arguement" for your cause here.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I think there's a possibility you have a "game changer arguement" for your cause here.

    I didn't need you to tell me so :)

    But the sad truth is many "achievements" have come at the expense of others. It is all to sad, and all to often, that the tyrants of the earth have celebrated their gains at the expense of others. They even called it "justice" to their own way of thinking.

    While it is quaint that you assume to give me permission to do so, I am happy to continue to repeat -- for the sake of marriage equality -- that separate is not equal.

    The man, and the woman, create a child and all three of them deserve the government's recognition of their entitlement to equality. That benefits every man, woman, and child. And such is the necessity that is the mother of the invention we call "marriage".

    It is sad that right after the civil rights movement enshrined the importance of integration to provide equality, that the segregationists now attack the oldest institution for equality and integration -- marriage. It isn't fair to them that it expects gender integration, they want to be segregationists. They want everyone to know they cannot tolerate, love, honor or charish a person of the other gender in any meaningful way.

    I know you hope that whatever you don't care about won't hurt you. But then, you are the one showing how little you care about anything but everyone else's concerns about marriage taking their place in the back of your bus.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Phil, you indicated your agreement that society may discriminate between marriage and nonmarriage.

    But your pro-SSM view does not justify that discrimination.

    You'd require society to accord marital status to a type of relationship that lacks the essentials of marriage.

    Wishing, as per your reply, is no trump card. Not all who "wish to marry" are eligible. And eligiblity is based on what marriage actually is.

    ReplyDelete
  19. "I know you hope that whatever you don't care about won't hurt you. But then, you are the one showing how little you care about anything but everyone else's concerns about marriage taking their place in the back of your bus."

    Oh my God its so creepy, its like you can read my mind, all true!

    ReplyDelete
  20. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Oh, when I was thanking people above, forgot to thank Bishop Jackson. A big thanks for all money spent, time expended, effort made, lawyers paid.

    Keep it up!

    ReplyDelete
  22. I'm sure they appreciate your thanks Caleb :)

    ReplyDelete
  23. Yeah, definitely a big hug for the Bishop.

    ReplyDelete
  24. As with anything, the test really begins when the euphoria wears off. Yes, that can be the scary part. Gloating's a good way to deal with (or deny) the fear of that.

    ReplyDelete
  25. If you're talking about maxin' out the credit cards for the wedding yeah thats gonna be scary next billing cycle. Otherwise, not.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Oh, just keep telling yourself that, caleb. Repeat it at every possible opportunity, full speed ahead, get the word out, run with it. My euphoria will not wear off! My bliss will last forever! Even after I get what I want! I don't fear the future at all!

    See, we're not here to argue that same-sex marriage won't happen, but that it will be a bad thing for all of us, probably even yourself. Sure, we think it thus shouldn't happen, and will work against it. But the test on what its effects are will only begin, really, after the national euphoria over its passing subsides into mere routineness, and won't end for at least a generation. So, you see, it's the end product you've got to wait for, not the battles. If you lose the battles, you'll be able to cry about how great it would've been otherwise, without really knowing. If you win the battles, you'll really know in 30 to 40 years. You'll risk having to sing a Bee Gees tune to yourself. (Do I have to specify which one?)

    ReplyDelete
  27. RK,
    Don't hold out that they will realize what they did (or even care, really). No single drop thinks it is responsible for the flood.

    ReplyDelete
  28. I'm proud to be part of a bold new social experiment. Dang the consequences, full speed ahead. Carpe diem.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Caleb, my heartfelt congratulations to you and all of your loved ones! Go forth and be wed! We are fighting here in New York for the same thing (and trying to oust our idiot state senator who thinks it's okay for men to beat up their girlfriends but not okay for women to marry their girlfriends). Yay for DC!

    ReplyDelete
  30. Funny, Caleb was being cheeky (but honest, I presume) and Emma turned it serious.

    I like these new commenters, if not just for the amusement value, their "you are right in everything you say about us" style shows the same bluster and bravado as Miles and Phil, only even more comical.

    ReplyDelete
  31. RK, I don't think that Caleb is saying that marriage is forever and always euphoric. What we are saying is that we all have the right to discover that for ourselves.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Emma,

    Weddings are very euphoric, yes. It is one of the rare times that we celebrate an accomplishment before it's made. In fact, it is a celebration only as it begins.

    Such celebrations are easy to fill with the euphoric thoughts of always being happy together. But such euphoria discounts the real measure and accomplishment of marriage.

    I've known many couples who struggled, essentially, with what happens after the euphoria wears off in a marriage. They think they've done something wrong when the same rush as their wedding day wears off. Some even try searching for it again by finding new partners, or trying ever more "new" but ultimately diverting things from their marriage with their spouses.

    That is the reality. And that is the reality marriage is supposed to address, for the sake of the children they already have together. That love comes and goes, but those children's needs from their parents do not. They are constant, even into adulthood.

    Finding the real meaning in marriage only happens with someone of the other gender, because the equality of marriage only happens integration with the other gender. It is fulfilling those humanitarian goals that the real joy, the real accomplishment, and the real meaning of marriage is met.

    If I thought that same-sex couples could find that real meaning, I'd celebrate too. But in the end, I only morn the fact that they've even more fully invested in a counterfeit.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Emma: RK, I don't think that Caleb is saying that marriage is forever and always euphoric.

    And I wasn't just referring to individual marriages, but societal or legal changes as well. Euphoria followed by commonness followed by boredom is the rule, along with an increasing perception that the change was "not enough".

    Then there is the question, in something done in the name of "equality", of whether or not what works best for one really works for the other.

    (Indeed, this relates to why one gay person I know opposes neutering marriage).

    ReplyDelete
  34. I've never heard of this phrase "neutering" marriage before coming to this particular blog. Is it a common phrase?

    It seems to imply a fear of castration -- at the hands of gay men and lesbians? At the hands of our government? At the hands of religious organizations that disagree with your own? (There are, after all, millions of religious Americans who support marriage equality, or "neutering" marriage, if that's how you prefer to phrase it.)

    This is backed up by Playful Walrus's sense of feeling personally demeaned and negated by DC's edited marriage handbook and their changing the language to "legally married" rather than the no-longer-accurate "husband and wife."

    Do women also use this term "neutered marriage" or is it predominantly a guy thing? (I have assumed, though obviously have no way of knowing, that most of you folks are male -- Playful Walrus has said as much, but also Fitz, RK, On Lawn, etc. -- is this correct?)

    I'm just curious as to the actual meaning behind this phrase, and the scope of its use.

    As far as your holding up the one gay person you know who opposes marriage equality as if this proves your point -- that really doesn't mean much. I'm sure there are other minority individuals who believe they are better off being segregated ("keep to your own kind," "not in my back yard," etc.), but that wouldn't justify allowing governmental segregation. Your gay friend doesn't have to get married if he or she doesn't want to.

    ReplyDelete
  35. I'm just curious as to the actual meaning behind this phrase, and the scope of its use.

    It means making gender irrelevant to the cultural perception of marriage. Are you denying that that is your intent?

    Your gay friend doesn't have to get married if he or she doesn't want to.

    Actually, part of his argument, as I recall, is that he thinks that may not be entirely true. Before I go more into this, I'll have to talk to him to get his permission to relay his views, and to be sure I'm not misunderstanding him. I've asked him to blog, but he says he regards it as a waste of time.

    ReplyDelete
  36. "Neutered" describes the change in marriage from how we see it, to how you see it. Or more importantly from how it is understood by government now, and how a few governments are starting to see it.

    In essence, the legal concept of "man and woman" is removed from the expectations of marriage. Removing that gendered reference is neutering the term.

    The notion of castration, for the institution as a whole, is also mirrored by the many marriage neuterists who claim marriage no longer needs to be rooted in responsible procreation. Removing the importance or tie to procreation is also, in that sense, neutering marriage.

    And, don't miss the point of RK's comment. It is not that he is holding up anyone, but the argument itself. You are right, it is not newsworthy that there are gays and lesbians out there against neutering marriage. But only because it is far too common to be newsworthy.

    ReplyDelete
  37. "If I can identify at least one right that would be useful for a couple 'in case anything happens to one of us' that cannot be handled without a marriage license, will you change your position and support legal same-sex marriage?"

    No. People have all sorts of problems due to their choices (and these relationships are choices - they are not forced) and it doesn't obligate that basic laws be changed to try to deal with it. Perhaps you can demonstrate that a new law would be helpful, but I doubt you can demonstrate that removing the bride+groom requirement from state/district marriage licensing is the only way to address the problem.

    "Do you personally feel that you are now no longer a husband?"

    Someone else answered this well already. I'm a husband. That means something specific. That the term would be removed is an insult.

    ReplyDelete
  38. "Caleb, my heartfelt congratulations to you and all of your loved ones! Go forth and be wed! We are fighting here in New York for the same thing (and trying to oust our idiot state senator who thinks it's okay for men to beat up their girlfriends but not okay for women to marry their girlfriends). Yay for DC!"

    Thanks Emma! I'm aware of the shenanigans in NY. I hope marriage equality/neutering soon comes to NY, I'm sure it will! We are very excited here its like a dream come true, respectable and bourgeois at last. The real hero here is Mayor Fenty, he fought the good fight over the long haul and has come through for all of us. Politically he is much the feared pol around here, you better watch out if you cross him, poor Bishop Jackson never had a chance. Speaking of the good Bishop my contacts tell me that of the phone calls of his that even get returned here most just make a few sympathetic noises followed by a lot "eye rolling" when he exits. Same sex marriage here in DC will rapidly become a non-issue as it will in due course in NY. The Washington Post just ran a cute front page pic of two man celebrating their wedding by having a little kiss, ooooooohhhh so daring and provocative. They got their share of predictable subscription cancellations and calculated outrage, no doubt a good deal of it of the faux variety but the heartening news is when they reported the response they picked up even more subscriptions pointedly made to offset the cancellations by those with "delicate 1860 sensibilities"

    ReplyDelete
  39. That the term would be removed is an insult.

    Perhaps you perceive it as an insult.

    Would it be a greater insult if you were told that, because of the appearance of your body when you were born, you would never be allowed to marry the woman you now call your wife?

    Or would that be insignificant, because you could choose to marry someone else? Based on your writings, the specific woman you call your wife doesn't matter, as long as you get to choose _someone_ from the population.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Actually, part of his argument, as I recall, is that he thinks that may not be entirely true.

    Phew! Thank goodness no state is seriously considered forced gay marriages.

    Thankfully, there is a neutral, reasonable, middle ground that all reasonable people can support: legal, optional same-sex marriage. Same-sex married couples and mixed-sex married couples will be able to live side-by-side, in harmony.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Phew! Thank goodness no state is seriously considered forced gay marriages.

    Again, I have to contact him and talk to him before I can give his views here in more detail, but for now I can just say that it is not legally forced marriage but social pressure to marry that he means. Sorry for not clarifying that earlier.

    Can I ask, though, that you wait until I've talked to him and can be sure I'm essentially accurate in relating his views before you try to refute him? I should say I think his views are a lot different from mine, but they are at least another perspective to consider. I'm hoping to talk to him this weekend, but I'm not certain I'll get in touch with him.

    Anyway, you can scrutinize my views all you want, but before you attack those of someone I know who (so far) doesn't wish to come here let me at least get his permission for that.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Would it be a greater insult if you were told that, because of the appearance of your body when you were born, you would never be allowed to marry the woman you now call your wife?

    So now your gender is merely the appearance of your body when you were born? See, that's the root of why you and I just don't see things the same way.

    ReplyDelete
  43. So now your gender is merely the appearance of your body when you were born? See, that's the root of why you and I just don't see things the same way.

    Oh? Unless you can put your money where your mouth is and tell me what you see as the difference between men and women, you haven't got the standing to criticize my view.

    I've been accused of "reducing people to their genitals" for, paradoxically, pointing out that you and your ilk have nothing beyond genitals.

    I've acknowledged that sex/gender has meaning to individuals, but you cling to the notion that there is a general meaning that we all should share. So what is it?

    ReplyDelete
  44. Can I ask, though, that you wait until I've talked to him and can be sure I'm essentially accurate in relating his views before you try to refute him?

    I feel like you're a generally civil poster on here, and I'm happy to wait based on your request.

    It's fair to note that a viewpoint or claim is different from a person, however. Since you brought up your friend as an example of a coupled gay person who doesn't believe same-sex marriage should be legal, can we still talk about that concept?

    ReplyDelete
  45. R.K., you are a good friend to be so committed to not misrepresenting your gay friend's viewpoint (though now that I think about it, I was the one who called him a friend - you just said this was a gay person you know. Is he a friend?)

    I would be curious to hear his specific argument mostly because I have many gay friends, none of whom are opposed to being allowed to get married. Not that they all want to or will get married, mind you, but I don't think a one of them would say they want the government dictating that they are not allowed to do so if they choose.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Phil: > Unless you can put your money where your mouth is and tell me what you see as the difference between men and women, you haven't got the standing to criticize my view.

    Oh, yes. I've scrutinized your view plenty, and the gnats you are straining at to define someone as gay, and the camels you are swallowing to challenge the definition of man and woman are striking.

    We've already presented two pages outlining many differences between men and women.

    A car that is red, and a car that is black, are different by appearances only. A car and a truck are different by appearances and function. So is also true with the man and woman, a biological fact we've already reviewed with you.

    Folks, when we say that these marriage neuterists are simply throwing everything under the bus to make their sexuality the most important consideration, this is a prime example of this. It doesn't matter their gender, that is "appearance". Millions of years of evolution have diverged two genders, and the higher order of species the more the two genders mean.

    Marriage equality is only possible when the two genders are integrated with an eye to each other's responsibilities and entitlements in having and raising children. One on one, each integration for life, because the children the physical and sentient reality of their combination, and they live on. And they deserve our first attention in marriage.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Emma: > I have many gay friends, none of whom are opposed to being allowed to get married.

    I know too many gays and lesbians who are completely incensed when a gay or lesbian gets married. They consider it a "sham" or a lie against who they are.

    I'm glad your friends are supportive of everyone who gets married, no matter what label they put on them.

    But I confess I must clarify, do you mean they don't care if they get married only if they re-define marriage into a gay relationship? Or do you mean as I do, that they can get married to someone of the other gender, and should be supported and celebrated in their decision?

    ReplyDelete
  48. Caleb: > The real hero here is Mayor Fenty, he fought the good fight over the long haul and has come through for all of us.

    Wow, how Machiavellian of you. Disobeying the DC charter which allows the citizens to veto any legislation by vote, among other games of shutting out the minority leaders pleading to reconsider this disastrous change (including Walter Fauntroy who was right up there with MLK Jr in fighting for minority rights).

    Dancing on the graves of their liberties to determine their government... way to go Caleb.

    "Marriage is neither a conservative nor a liberal issue; it is a universal human institution, guaranteeing children fathers, and pointing men and women toward a special kind of socially as well as personally fruitful sexual relationship. Gay marriage is the final step down a long road America has already traveled toward deinstitutionalizing, denuding and privatizing marriage. It would set in legal stone some of the most destructive ideas of the sexual revolution: There are no differences between men and women that matter, marriage has nothing to do with procreation, children do not really need mothers and fathers, the diverse family forms adults choose are all equally good for children. What happens in my heart is that I know the difference. Don't confuse my people, who have been the victims of deliberate family destruction, by giving them another definition of marriage."
    Walter Fauntroy-Former DC Delegate to CongressFounding member of the Congressional Black CaucusCoordinator for Martin Luther King, Jr.'s march on DC

    ReplyDelete
  49. Yes, you've without a doubt got Walter Fauntroy on your side, but we've got Coretta Scott King, a forceful and articulate and vocal advocate of gay rights, including the right to marry. (I know I know, you're going to say that gay men and lesbians already have the right to marry -- someone of the opposite sex. But really, would any of you want to marry a lesbian? Seriously).

    You fellows put so much sacred value on marriage, I'd think you'd take the beliefs of MLK's spouse over one of MLK's many many colleagues when it comes to knowing what he might have thought today.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Emma: > Yes, you've without a doubt got Walter Fauntroy on your side, but we've got Coretta Scott King

    Funny, I mention that the government is shutting out minority leaders, and denying the people a right protected in the DC charter, and you take it like these people are chips in a poker game. Well, I'll see your CSK, and raise you a Jesse Jackson, and Lois Farrakahn.

    Because both of them, like MLK Jr, have noted the importance of Fathers as primary to the use of marriage in the minority communities. I doubt MLK would have buckled from that overriding interest in marriage.

    But really, would any of you want to marry a lesbian? Seriously

    Why should I discriminate based on sexual orientation? To be honest, I wouldn't. To me the main qualifier of someone I want to get married to, is someone who sees the same importance in marriage that I do. The same importance to serving a humanitarian ideal of marriage equality, for the benefit of the children that marriage creates as well as the man and the woman who created them.

    Is there a reason that a lesbian couldn't understand that? I know those that do. Why should I discriminate, you suggest that I should...

    I'd think you'd take the beliefs of MLK's spouse over one of MLK's many many colleagues

    Again it is sad to see you treat them like poker chips. I respect both, and find that the quote from Fauntroy to be more compelling then what CSK said on the issue. Or perhaps you could provide a quote from her that we can compare with what Fauntroy said?

    ReplyDelete
  51. By the way Emma, I'm serious about my inquiry about what your friends meant by celebrating their marriages. I'll repeat it here for your convenience...

    ____________________

    I know too many gays and lesbians who are completely incensed when a gay or lesbian gets married. They consider it a "sham" or a lie against who they are.

    I'm glad your friends are supportive of everyone who gets married, no matter what label they put on them.

    But I confess I must clarify, do you mean they don't care if they get married only if they re-define marriage into a gay relationship? Or do you mean as I do, that they can get married to someone of the other gender, and should be supported and celebrated in their decision?

    ReplyDelete
  52. We've already presented two pages outlining many differences between men and women.

    The comment was directed at R.K., though you're free to pipe in.

    But, you're not correct. You (individually and collectively) haven't presented pages outlining the differences between men and women that you believe are meaningful. Linking me to a Wikipedia page doesn't tell me what you're actually basing your position on, and it presents a shifting ground.

    I'm asking for an example of a difference between men and women that is sufficient to justify discrimination. I've already been criticized for suggesting that y'all think it's "genitals" or "the appearance of your body when you're born."

    So, if not those things, what is the difference that matters?

    ReplyDelete
  53. You (individually and collectively) haven't presented pages outlining the differences between men and women that you believe are meaningful.

    You are very presumptuous about what we feel is not meaningful. I believe I said every one of them is meaningful, and never said otherwise.

    Now, please try to do better. Re-writing the history of the conversation is intellectually dishonest, and you've already been called on it numerous times.

    Linking me to a Wikipedia page doesn't tell me what you're actually basing your position on, and it presents a shifting ground.

    Again, it doesn't matter what you think it does or doesn't do. What I accomplished by doing it was to provide pages of collected referenced material on the differences, both gender and sexual, between men and women. Fundamentally, it is a fallacy of division to take any single dimorphism and say in and of itself is not meaningful, as a collective whole it shows there is a complementary relationship they were meant to have.

    It isn't one, its all of them.

    I'm asking for an example of a difference between men and women that is sufficient to justify discrimination.

    And we already provided that a man and a woman make up the reproductive relationship that biologists recognize as sexual relationship.

    Do keep up.

    ReplyDelete
  54. I should also note that the pages show that the differences are not in "appearance" like the paint job on a car, but in function and purpose as far as sexual dimorphism is meant to play in biology.

    Just because Phil left that unanswered for a new tangent :)

    ReplyDelete
  55. I believe I said every one of them is meaningful, and never said otherwise.

    On Lawn,
    Here are some of the meaningful differences that you are choosing to stand by. These are listed on the Wikipedia page previously linked.

    "Such undisputed sexual dimorphism include gonadal differentiation, internal genital differentiation, external genital differentiation, breast differentiation and body/facial hair differentiation."

    The "undisputed differences" include gonadal differentiation, internal genital differentiation, external genital differentiation...

    So, while I've been criticized as "reducing" sex differences to genitals, it appears that criticism applies to both of us, because you've clearly stated that genital differences are among the meaningful differences that justify sex discrimination.

    The page also cites this as a difference:
    "Comparative and social psychologists have observed that males and females, in general, differ in the way they carry books while walking."

    That's another difference that you have claimed is "meaningful." According to you, we should discriminate on the basis of sex because men and women carry their books differently while walking.

    If you really believed that, it would be stupid. But I suspect you're not really that vapid, you're just unwilling to be specific, because specific claims can be refuted easily. Your logic doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

    And we already provided that a man and a woman make up the reproductive relationship that biologists recognize as sexual relationship.

    You had to word that carefully, On Lawn, because "the reproductive relationship" is completely insignificant when you're discussing the issuance of marriage licenses to mixed-sex couples, while it constitutes the entirety of your argument when you're discussing the issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

    Essentially, here's what your argument is:
    "The meaningful difference between men and woman is that a woman can enter into a reproductive relationship with a man. This difference is so important that it never, ever matters, anywhere in the country, whether a woman can actually reproduce with a man."

    Further, you have provided additional evidence of my earlier claim: there isn't a meaningful difference between a man who can't reproduce with a man and a woman who can't reproduce with a man. If it's all about reproduction, then the woman loses her singularity.

    Unless what you meant to say was that the carrying of books is the big meaningful difference that you have been talking about all along?

    ReplyDelete
  56. Phil: > it appears that criticism [reducing the male/female difference to genitals] applies to both of us

    No, since the page offered more then that. You even quote more then just genital differences.

    Are you just throwing nonsense hoping something sticks?

    According to you, we should discriminate on the basis of sex because men and women carry their books differently while walking.

    Already answered, do keep up...

    "Fundamentally, it is a fallacy of division to take any single dimorphism and say in and of itself is not meaningful, as a collective whole it shows there is a complementary relationship they were meant to have."

    For instance, in America if there is something heavy to lift they give it to the man who has superior upper body strength. In the west coast of Africa, they give it to a woman because she has the "sway" that helps her efficiently carry the load.

    The point is, the divergence shows that the two are capable doing many of the same things in different ways. And that diversity makes for the most meaningful connection to the parents, each child having their gender identity and can see the unity as an example of love and tolerance later.

    because "the reproductive relationship" is completely insignificant when you're discussing the issuance of marriage licenses to mixed-sex couples

    There you have it folks. Miles worked hard while he was here to establish that neutered marriage doesn't affect at all the link between procreation and marriage. Here you argue that the link is "completely insignificant" to marriage licenses.

    there isn't a meaningful difference between a man who can't reproduce with a man and a woman who can't reproduce with a man.

    And here you equate homosexuality with a handicap. While you are trying to win friends and influence people, perhaps you could learn a bit more sensitivity.

    ReplyDelete
  57. In terms of the legal arguments made for SSM, the claim that the man-woman criterion of marriage is unjust sex discrimination has been abandoned and has not won majorities even on pro-SSM court opinions.

    The cultural argument that a woman should be entitled to do whatever a man may do is one thing. But trying to transform that into a legal basis for changing marriage is quite different. This argument stumbles because the first question is, what is marriage? Because the answer is the platform from which one might answer the question, what right is at issue?

    However, the cultural argument, that an all-male scenario may be deemed a bonafide marriage, depends on taking the sex out of the public sexual relationship known as the marital relationship. Not one instance at-a-time, mind, but for the type of relationship formed by the prototypical husband and wife.

    Remove the sexual aspect and the gayness emphasis of the SSM campaign is evaporated. Hence, even in terms of the possible cultural arguments made for SSM, this complaint about so-called unjust sex discrimination also has fizzled out.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Here you argue that the link is "completely insignificant" to marriage licenses.

    I'm not "arguing" that it's insignificant to marriage licenses; I'm describing the status quo, On Lawn. Nothing about reproduction is used as a criteria in issuing marriage licenses. No facet of actual reproduction matters one whit when we're talking about mixed-sex couples.

    Don't pretend I'm the one positing that. That's simply the way every state in America works.

    Or is there some example of a state where being "reproductive" is required for a relationship to merit a marriage license?

    And here you equate homosexuality with a handicap. While you are trying to win friends and influence people, perhaps you could learn a bit more sensitivity.

    First, inability to reproduce isn't necessarily a "handicap." Many perfectly healthy people are incapable of reproducing: for example, post-menopausal women. And many perfectly healthy men and women are unable to reproduce with their chosen partner.

    Second, how would that be insensitive even if it weren't true? There's no shame in having a disability (or a "handicap"), and there's no shame in being a homosexual.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Sorry, guys, was out all day yesterday and may be for most of today.

    Just a few things right now:

    Phil: Since you brought up your friend as an example of a coupled gay person who doesn't believe same-sex marriage should be legal, can we still talk about that concept?

    Emma: though now that I think about it, I was the one who called him a friend - you just said this was a gay person you know. Is he a friend?

    Emma, I would call him a friend because we respect and are civil with each other, and respect each other's viewpoints. He's someone I know through contacts at work. I don't see him very often, approximately every few months, sometimes more, sometimes less. When I do, however, I find him a very interesting conversationalist. To me, that's an important thing. Yet, Phil, I never said he was partnered, and to be honest, I don't know and have not asked if he was. I know he's gay, but have not discussed his personal life with him.

    And, as On Lawn has already noted, my point in bringing him into this is his argument (though I still want to talk to him and clarify that first), not simply to hold him as an example of a gay person who opposes SSM.

    That's all I'll say regarding my friend until I've had a chance to talk to him again.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Phil: Oh? Unless you can put your money where your mouth is and tell me what you see as the difference between men and women, you haven't got the standing to criticize my view.

    Phil, I can give you plenty, and will, but could you just tell me what you mean by "meaningful", since so much depends on your use of that word?

    I've been accused of "reducing people to their genitals" for, paradoxically, pointing out that you and your ilk have nothing beyond genitals.

    Join the club. We've been accused of this throughout this debate.

    I've acknowledged that sex/gender has meaning to individuals, but you cling to the notion that there is a general meaning that we all should share. So what is it?

    It "has meaning to individuals" but it isn't "meaningful"? I know most individuals don't even know what the X and Y chromosomes are (and yes, I do know about this), so I suppose that isn't "meaningful" either.

    I will have more later today.

    ReplyDelete
  61. BTW, Phil, you've been pretty civil here, but when you sart saying things like "you and your ilk", you're losing your cool.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Phil: > Nothing about reproduction is used as a criteria in issuing marriage licenses. No facet of actual reproduction matters one whit when we're talking about mixed-sex couples.

    Don't pretend I'm the one positing that. That's simply the way every state in America works.


    So are you positing that or not? Yes, you are positing that, whether or not "America works" that way.

    I can and have quoted plenty of judicial decisions, legislature debates, that have noted that marriage is directly linked to the need for responsibility in procreation.

    Misunderstanding my opinion, and the stated opinion of American legislators and judicial officers on the purpose of marriage, is not a favorable position for you.

    First, inability to reproduce isn't necessarily a "handicap."

    Which is exactly why your equivalence of gays and infertile people is so shoddy.

    for example, post-menopausal women.

    Many infirmities come with age, which is one of the reasons there is retirement and it is managed (along with other disabilities) under social security. That it is naturally expected with age doesn't change the fact that it is a disability.

    And many perfectly healthy men and women are unable to reproduce with their chosen partner.

    Wow, your shell games are pretty laughable sometimes. So since one member is healthy, the cause is no longer disability? It is fun watching how acrobatic your attempts at dodging simple facts can be.

    No, all you've really discovered is that the a unit of man and woman is required for procreating. Something I think is funny considering how much you are trying to back away from it.

    However, marriage doesn't and shouldn't back away from that fact -- for the children's sake. Because it is only by acknowledging that fact openly and specifically that we can protect true marriage equality, the quality of representation of each gender in how they create children, and the proper responsibility being placed on the raising of those children.

    There's no shame in having a disability (or a "handicap"), and there's no shame in being a homosexual.

    So are you saying that if you walked into your GLBT community center and pointed out that you think homosexuality is a handicap -- and there is no shame in that, that you will be warmly received by your community members?

    ReplyDelete
  63. Phil, I can give you plenty, and will, but could you just tell me what you mean by "meaningful", since so much depends on your use of that word?

    Sure. There are probably better ways to phrase it, but I'm asking you to provide an example of a difference that is sufficient to justify discrimination; don't cite a difference unless you are putting it forth as a factor that you actually believe is a quality that women have that men don't, or vice versa, such that every marriage ought to have that quality.

    For example, don't say "Women have vaginas and men have penises," unless what you mean is that it really is about the vagina and the penis. Don't say "women carry their textbooks differently" unless you really mean that sex differences in book-holding are sufficient reason to ban a consenting adult couple from marrying. And so forth.

    It "has meaning to individuals" but it isn't "meaningful"?

    Yes, that's right. My friend is married to a woman with very large breasts. For some reason, he really, really likes large breasts. I am certain, and he will admit, that he probably would not have married his wife if she didn't have large breasts. Does this make him shallow? Perhaps. But large breasts have meaning to him as an individual. That does not, however, mean that "large breasts" are a meaningful difference between men and women. In fact, I would go so far as to say that "breasts" are not a meaningful difference; no reasonable person would say that a marriage is incomplete if neither partner has breasts.

    ReplyDelete
  64. BTW, Phil, you've been pretty civil here, but when you sart saying things like "you and your ilk", you're losing your cool.

    That's fair to point out. I didn't mean to use the term in a dismissive way, but I can see that it reads like that. I was looking for a quick way to say "you and the other people who support the same position that you do on this blog."

    I've heard people use the phrase "the home team" for that purpose.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Phil: > no reasonable person would say that a marriage is incomplete if neither partner has breasts.

    Now that is funny.

    You realize even the anti-8 witness that was bent on dismissing any gendered benefit to raising children gave an exception that breast feeding was shown to be beneficial.

    So what you asserted as reasonable, not even the anti-8 expert trying to stack the deck in your favor would agree with.

    Don't say "women carry their textbooks differently" unless you really mean that sex differences in book-holding are sufficient reason to ban a consenting adult couple from marrying. And so forth.

    Its like a stack of cards that we knock down, and hoping no one notices you stack them up again hoping it stands. Same stack, same problem, same collapse of your argument.

    Repeating your fallacy of division does nothing more then show how recalcitrant that fallacy is to your entire argument.

    To add to what I've already said above, this again points to the function of having children. For having wider hips has advantage to one way of distributing upper-body loads, while upper body strength has another (noted above). The need for the difference is that the woman needs to carry and bear a child, so taking advantage of the wider hips in that way was the natural thing to do.

    While some want to quibble over individual fettishes, having a diverse capacity to handle environmental challenges is environmentally meaningful. Having the diversity in identity of a child united as a single unit as is the man and the woman who created that child in marriage, is meaningful at the most basic humanitarian level.

    :: Note :: However shallow Phil's friend is or is not, Phil has continually asserted appearance as the only dimension he sees. The discussion of function has not even been met with formal dismissal by Phil, instead he tries to neatly tuck it under the rug and pretend everyone is talking appearance like he is.

    I am, however, happy to continue to note his own shallowness in his meaning of marriage as a key indicator of how valueless he wishes marriage to become. The difference here is simply, marriage defenders see marriage as a responsibility, something we give to others. Something of great value to society.

    Phil, and the others, seem to want marriage to simply be their usufruct ::

    ReplyDelete
  66. You realize even the anti-8 witness that was bent on dismissing any gendered benefit to raising children gave an exception that breast feeding was shown to be beneficial.

    It's true that breast feeding is beneficial. So are hundreds of other things.

    My statement was that no reasonable person would say that a marriage is incomplete if neither partner has breasts, and my statement was true.

    If a woman has a double mastectomy, you might consider that a "handicap." But no reasonable person would then say that this woman now lacks the right to get legally married. Breasts are beneficial, but no one says they're crucial to a marriage.

    For having wider hips has advantage to one way of distributing upper-body loads, while upper body strength has another (noted above). The need for the difference is that the woman needs to carry and bear a child, so taking advantage of the wider hips in that way was the natural thing to do.

    But women without wide hips can still get married, and so can men without upper body strength. Cross it off the list, On Lawn, unless it is crucial.

    The discussion of function has not even been met with formal dismissal by Phil, instead he tries to neatly tuck it under the rug and pretend everyone is talking appearance like he is.

    If functioning breasts are crucial for a marriage, On Lawn, such that no marriage can be valid unless exactly one partner has functioning breasts, then say so. Otherwise, cross it off the list. It's a red herring--it may be a statistical difference between men and women, but it's not a difference on which we actually base the decision of who can marry.

    While some want to quibble over individual fettishes, having a diverse capacity to handle environmental challenges is environmentally meaningful.

    The only way that you can argue that two lesbians do not present "a diverse capacity to handle environmental challenges" is if you contend that all women are exactly the same.

    Repeating your fallacy of division does nothing more then show how recalcitrant that fallacy is to your entire argument.

    It's not the fallacy of division unless you ignore the fact that marriages always involve individual people, not "women" or "men" collectively.

    I understand that you refuse to list a single quality that women have such that every marriage requires that quality. I also understand that your claim is, basically, that there is no single trait that is absolutely necessary for a valid marriage; rather, we must consider the sex differences that women exhibit, in general, as crucial.

    This argument is convenient, because it can't be refuted. I can say "book-carrying is not essential to marriage" and you can reply "Oh, but it's not that, specifically, it's just the sex differences in total that are crucial."

    Your reasoning suggests that, book carrying is a fraction of the crucial sex differences that exist between men and women, and that wide hips are another, etc. But that is incorrect.

    Book-carrying doesn't have little weight in terms of what's absolutely necessary for marriage. It has zero weight. Thus, it's not a portion of the crucial sex differences; it can be present, absent, or reversed--it doesn't matter at all.

    So stop suggesting that I'm creating a straw man. If a trait has zero relevance; if it has no weight in terms of adding up the qualities that are absolutely relevant to marriage, then be honest and dismiss it. No matter how many things with zero weight you add together, you are still left with zero weight.

    You are obscuring, perhaps even from yourself, the fact that you don't have an argument. You have zero.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Phil: I'm asking you to provide an example of a difference that is sufficient to justify discrimination; don't cite a difference unless you are putting it forth as a factor that you actually believe is a quality that women have that men don't, or vice versa, such that every marriage ought to have that quality.

    So, what you are saying now is that "meaningful" is not enough. You want, I gather, an example that is absolutely true for every single married couple. Hence, the argument is, if it isn't true for every single marriage then it is not "meaningful" and as such the state should extend its boundaries way beyond those it now has to encompass situations which clearly and obviously send the message that the quality is not meaningful to the institution.

    Is this a fair way of summarizing your view here?

    You do realize, of course, that this doesn't work for "commitment" either. How does the state test for "commitment"? Why does the state not dissolve marriages when it becomes obvious that those in the marriage are not "committed"? Does any state (as opposed to a church) even make a vow of "commitment" (as opposed to mere legal obligation) a legal requirement?

    I will put it this way. Reproduction is central to, and yes, meaningful to the institution of marriage. But because reproduction cannot be predicted beforehand culture has drawn the line more loosely around reproduction so that it more tightly encompasses those who, together, can perform the act which does produce children. Hence, the line is most tightly around those couples who are of the two types of individuals who the society obviously recognizes as reproducible or able to perform a reproductive act. Culturally and legally, this means men and women; if we must define this at the scientific level, to be specific, it means one with a Y chromosome and one with only X's, or to be really precise, one with an activated Y chromosome and one without. This thus encompasses special, and rare, exceptions for those who cannot possibly do the act which produces children but who, except for a misfortune or disability, would be able to.

    To the culture, for the sake of the institution of marriage, yes, this distinction is meaningful. Not recognizing this distinction would remove the sense of reproduction's impotance to marriage from the culture as a whole.

    Phil, I think what our real disagreement is is that you (and most SSM advocates) don't really see the importance of marriage having a cultural meaning. You say it's "commitment" but you can't any better say that commitment is required for marriage than we can say that reproduction is. What is more, I don't think you would hold that all people committed to each other must be allowed to marry.

    ReplyDelete
  68. Now, to that, you will probably argue that I and others here at Opine do not argue that all combinations who are able to bear children should be allowed to marry either. And you'd be right about that, but here's the difference. In the cases where we would still not allow people to be married even though they are physically capable of having children, our reasons for denying them include that for certain reasons they should not have children. In those cases where you would still argue that a combination should not be married, is your argument that for some reason they should not commit to each other? Or is it, like us, that they shouldn't have children? If it's the latter it does not square with your contention that it is commitment, not procreation, that marriage is primarily buit around.

    For example, don't say "Women have vaginas and men have penises," unless what you mean is that it really is about the vagina and the penis.

    It's what the two do together, and what they produce. This is not of "zero weight" as for the cultural understanding of marriage.

    Before, you have said that any distinction must be "legally meaningful". This brings up a question. Is it your contention that the whole notion of consummation, where it relates to annulment, should be removed from the laws, and thus that non-consummation should have no bearing on whether a marriage can be annulled? Or are you saying that it can still apply to all marriages, same-sex and opposite-sex? If so, does it then not become necessary to define somehow just what is and is not consummation, and does this not become much more problematic when applied to non-reproductive acts? If we are to hold legally that non-reproductive acts are just as much "consummation" as are reproductive acts, does this mean that a wife cannot ask for an annulment if her husband refuses to perform reproductive sex with her but is very willing to perform non-reproductive sex, and she is not satisfied with this? Would the law have to tell her that if it's consummative for homosexuals, it must be considered consummative for heterosexuals also? Or would the law find it necessary to treat homosexual couples and heterosexual couples differently in this regard?

    And, temporarily going off on a tangent, if it were to be found that what worked best for the maintenance of long-term opposite-sex marriages was not the same thing that worked best long-term for same-sex couples, would this not mean that we would have to treat the two types differently after all?

    Again, Phil, I might list hundreds of differences between men and women which are indeed meaningful. But I think where you and I disagree is in your contention that what is culturally meaningful should never be taken into account legally.

    And if you continue to insist that any contention of a core meaning for marriage must mean that that core is satisfied for every couple that is married, then you cannot attack us for being illogical or irrelevant in asking you where you would then draw the line, since by the criterion you are using there really can be no line.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Phil - I have to agree that your approach is to human sex differnces is mad. To two halves of humanity coming together is so unique, complex, and varied and profound as to be sublime.

    Yet you are atempting to reduce this too a spread sheet like analysis.

    http://www.faculty.virginia.edu/sexdifferences/

    ReplyDelete
  70. This single book is a generally good resource for the approach you are attemting to use. However it represents the approach that should be far from your mind.

    To really get what we are talking about you need to realize that (for instance) the Yin and Yang symbol represent, amoung other things, male & female. We are talking about Romeo & Juliette, Tristan & Isolde, Lancelot & Guinever, and yes Adam & Eve...

    These are deeply profound archtypical understanding rooted deep within culture and tradfition.

    Same-sex "marriage" represents a crude leveling of this central and indespensable language between men & woman.

    ReplyDelete
  71. BTW, Phil, I'm going to have to pair back to just administrative tasks for the moment.

    But no big deal, as the conversation has come along you've not added anything new. You've already discredited yourself with contradictions (the newest being holding your friend up as an example of someone who wouldn't marry someone without big breasts, and then turning around and saying no reasonable person would require breasts at all in a marriage).

    With contradictions like that, who needs me to point them out?

    You may have concluded (with fallacies noted along the way) that marriage can't be about procreation, while Miles is still arguing at another site that he is the one true messenger that the link is not only there, but would remain if same-sex marriage persists. He's just as sure of himself as you are, apparently. You both are going to have a hard time reconciling the demands of the logic behind your conclusions.

    You are both simply opportunists, propping up your biased and self-centered opinions that marriage is your usufruct with whatever seems to work at the moment. And that is the story your contradictions, both self inflicted and between you, tells.

    Marriage is a responsibility. It is a gift. It is the gift we give our children. It is the best way children can understand their identity, and learn to love and tolerate others. Because just as two identities combined to make them, those two identities love and cherish each other and are committed to helping each other.

    And the best you can do is try to convince us that is illogical. Well, it is logical, but more importantly it is human.

    ReplyDelete
  72. "Wow, how Machiavellian of you. Disobeying the DC charter which allows the citizens to veto any legislation by vote, among other games of shutting out the minority leaders pleading to reconsider this disastrous change (including Walter Fauntroy who was right up there with MLK Jr in fighting for minority rights)."

    Thanks, your welcome.

    Yeah "The Prince" is a classic, I recommend the Everyman's edition, has an excellent introduction. Dont know if Mayor Fenty has read it, he definitely lives it, poor little Bishop Jackson outmaneuvered at every turn.

    "Dancing on the graves of their liberties to determine their government... way to go Caleb."

    Dang that DC Human Rights Charter, those human rights thingies get you every time.

    "What happens in my heart is that I know the difference. Don't confuse my people, who have been the victims of deliberate family destruction, by giving them another definition of marriage."

    Well, if he knows it in his heart, case closed (well for him I suppose). I guess if marriage has to be neutered and dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century we might as well do it. Someone has to. I have to say I find the thought of marriage neutering very energizing and empowering.

    "Don't confuse my people, who have been the victims of deliberate family destruction, by giving them another definition of marriage."

    His people, very patronizing! I though slavery had been abolished. Does he have written permission to think and speak for an entire demographic. Thought not.

    ReplyDelete
  73. "Dang that DC Human Rights Charter, those human rights thingies get you every time."

    Caleb - I'm afraid you know very little about human rights law and its application...


    (EXAMPLE)
    U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights

    Article 16

    1.Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

    2.Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.

    3.The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.



    The use of the D.C. Human rights charter to attempt to nullify the the right to a vote by the citizens of the district is a transparent abuse & will be overuled.

    ReplyDelete
  74. So, Caleb, do you intend to encourage monogamy among same-sex couples who take advantage of DC's new rule? Or if you do not, do you think monogamy should be encouraged for them?

    ReplyDelete
  75. Since we're talking about human rights, let's talk about where human beings comes from.

    From HowStuffWorks "Where do babies come from"

    "To make a baby you need a sperm cell and an egg cell. The sperm cell comes from the daddy and the egg cell comes from the mommy. When the sperm and egg meet, they make a tiny baby that is smaller than a grain of salt. The baby grows in the mommy's tummy for nine months. Then the baby is ready to come out. "

    Also you mentioned slavery, let's talk about African Americans then.

    A blog entry from May 2009 on break down of the family by Robin Wright King

    "I authored a book titled “Papa Was A Rolling Stone: A Daughter’s Journey to Forgiveness” that examines some of the factors related to father absence and the outcomes for children especially in urban areas where out-of-wed-lock birth rates are higher than the national average. When I saw this article title, I was immediately concerned.

    The article says nearly 40 percent of babies born in the United States in 2007 were delivered by unwed mothers, according to data released last month by the National Center for Health Statistics. The 1.7 million out-of-wedlock births, of 4.3 million total births, marked a more than 25 percent jump from five years before. For the second year in a row, the teen pregnancy rate increased after a 14-year decline. Looking closely at the data prepared by the NCHS, it is apparent that the most significant increases in the rate of out-of-wedlock births are among black women, followed closely by American Indian and Latino women. Conspicuously lower are the increased rates for White and Asian women, both generally middle to upper class."

    "Is marriage really for White people? Are we as African American’s ‘culturally’ allergic to marriage vows? The picture is this. There is a link between out-of-wedlock births and poverty. There is a link between out-of-wedlock births and father absence and there is absolutely a link between poverty and father absence. The statistics are very clear. In the city of Detroit, and in other large urban areas, 70 percent of children are born to single mothers; more than half of these children will never know their fathers. More than half of these children will live in poverty and potentially go on to believe that culturally speaking “taking vows is not expected” and will repeat the cycle. Anyone, especially an African American female, who thinks that culturally “taking vows is not expected” is asleep at the wheel.

    Children absolutely need the love and attention of two involved parents who are hopefully married. The statistics also are very clear that unmarried fathers traditionally are not as involved as fathers who are married and in the home. There are plenty of outstanding unmarried fathers who live their ‘father role’ responsibly and more importantly with love and commitment, but they are far too often the exception and not the rule. At the end of the day, our children pay the price. Our children grow to believe that fathering children outside of marriage is the norm because it is what they see.

    We have a responsibility to behave and conduct our lives in a way that provides for the long-term emotional growth and development of our children. They are watching us." (my emphasis

    ReplyDelete
  76. "EXAMPLE)
    U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights

    Article 16

    1.Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

    2.Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.

    3.The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.


    The use of the D.C. Human rights charter to attempt to nullify the the right to a vote by the citizens of the district is a transparent abuse & will be overuled."


    Actually political philosophy is my main reading interest, so I'm well up on the literature from the pre-socratics/Plato/ Aristotle onwards through Locke/Hume to Popper, who I suppose would be the most recent philosopher to make significant contributions to the field. I didn't include Rawls, influential I know, but remain unimpressed by his arguments.

    What you quoted is standard UN boiler plate and has zero relevance to DC and same sex marriage, would also have precisely zero traction in a US court. I also have to say if you're going to the UN for moral guidance well, good luck with that...

    My lawyer friends say otherwise; same sex marriage is here to stay in DC. But of course you're free to think differ on this, dont matter to me. By the end of next week we will be officially married.

    ReplyDelete
  77. "What you quoted is standard UN boiler plate and has zero relevance to DC and same sex marriage, would also have precisely zero traction in a US court. I also have to say if you're going to the UN for moral guidance well, good luck with that..."

    What you call "boilerplate????" is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights- written by the most liberal minds of the post WWII generation and the worlds first & best example of Human Rights Law.

    All international human rights law refrences this declaration & the most liberal judges are intent on refrencing foreign law in their decisions.

    So to dismiss this linch-pin & milestone of human rights law is to undermine your argument.

    ReplyDelete
  78. "So, Caleb, do you intend to encourage monogamy among same-sex couples who take advantage of DC's new rule? Or if you do not, do you think monogamy should be encouraged for them?"

    I have neither interest nor desire in providing advice to others regarding the arrangement of private and personal matters within their marriages.

    ReplyDelete
  79. Caleb, that answers my first question, but not my second. You don't have to do it yourself, but do you think monogamy should be encouraged for same-sex couples?

    ReplyDelete
  80. "What you quoted is standard UN boiler plate and has zero relevance to DC and same sex marriage, would also have precisely zero traction in a US court. I also have to say if you're going to the UN for moral guidance well, good luck with that..."

    What you call "boilerplate????" is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights- written by the most liberal minds of the post WWII generation and the worlds first & best example of Human Rights Law.

    All international human rights law refrences this declaration & the most liberal judges are intent on refrencing foreign law in their decisions.

    So to dismiss this linch-pin & milestone of human rights law is to undermine your argument."

    As I said standard UN bolierplate from an institution that legally, and morally as far as I'm concerned, as no traction within the US.

    And if you truly think the UN represents the apex of Western thinking on ethics and morality then you really need to get out more, intellectually speaking.

    ReplyDelete
  81. If it is private or personal, then why a public record or a license?

    I want my marriage to known publicly as monogamous. I want my husband to only have sex with me, and mutually my husband wants only me to have sex with him.

    Sex for women bond, it's the oxycontin in our body that is released in orgasm, childbirth, and breast feeding. We need emotional/physical monogamy for the well being that 'the man' will bring all of his resources equally into the relationship.

    Why wouldn't a society (even a secular non-religious one) would want to promote this, to reduce strains on the welfare system and running around for a man who father children from several women?

    ReplyDelete
  82. Caleb: I have neither interest nor desire in providing advice to others regarding the arrangement of private and personal matters...

    If it's a "private and personal matter," why do they need a public license? Caleb hasn't a clue why the government licenses marriage to begin with.

    ReplyDelete
  83. "If it's a "private and personal matter," why do they need a public license? Caleb hasn't a clue why the government licenses marriage to begin with."

    Thanks for that two-sentence non-sequitur.

    Dont have to understand nuthin', we'll still be officially married next week.

    ReplyDelete
  84. Caleb, I'm not saying anything about encouraging it on an individual basis (that is, coming to individual couples to persuade them). Just asking if you think there should be a general public encouragement of monogamy for same-sex "married" couples, a message that monogamy is best.

    ReplyDelete
  85. "Caleb, that answers my first question, but not my second. You don't have to do it yourself, but do you think monogamy should be encouraged for same-sex couples?"

    On this; disinterested.

    ReplyDelete
  86. Well, if it is held that all marriage is the same, and the consensus of society at large is that monogamy should be encouraged, then that will apply to same-sex "marriages" as well. Is this OK with you? Would you have a problem with monogamy being encouraged if this is applied to same-sex "marriage" also?

    ReplyDelete
  87. Caleb: Thanks for that two-sentence non-sequitur.

    False. Sentence one demonstrates you don't understand. The second sentence draws the conclusion that you don't understand. You clearly haven't a clue even what non-sequitur means.

    Dont have to understand nuthin', ...

    And you're doing a bang up job at that!

    ...we'll still be officially married next week.

    *yawn* This is what passes for argument from Caleb. Constantly talking about himself in place of the discussion at hand proves nothing except narcissism.

    ReplyDelete
  88. The link posted by Renee at 3/14, 6:59 a.m., is sad and profound. Thank you for that. In the original post, a boy says, "Marriage is for white people." The breakdown in that subculture has already transformed family structure tragically, and there probably isn't much interest in rebuilding a culture of marriage.

    A legal document and public ceremony is not essential to cohabiting and coparenting children, but it certainly makes a public statement about the importance of doing so, and supports the intact family in our culture. The need, however, is the intact family - not the document. The marriage license is a strategy to support it. I wonder if, where marriage has broken down to this extent, a different strategy should be promoted to re-create intact families?

    I don't know, but I doubt that simply promoting marriage in this situation will be enough. I think there needs to be a cultural shift, and it has to come from that community. I pray, for sake of both parents and children, and for all our society, that they find it.

    ReplyDelete
  89. "False. Sentence one demonstrates you don't understand. The second sentence draws the conclusion that you don't understand. You clearly haven't a clue even what non-sequitur means.

    Dont have to understand nuthin', ...

    And you're doing a bang up job at that!

    ...we'll still be officially married next week.

    *yawn* This is what passes for argument from Caleb. Constantly talking about himself in place of the discussion at hand proves nothing except narcissism."


    Yeah am a bit of a narcissist, but already knew that, still be married by the end of the next week though. Next project, start a family.

    ReplyDelete
  90. congrats on your coming nuptials, Caleb!

    ReplyDelete
  91. "Well, if it is held that all marriage is the same, and the consensus of society at large is that monogamy should be encouraged, then that will apply to same-sex "marriages" as well. Is this OK with you? Would you have a problem with monogamy being encouraged if this is applied to same-sex "marriage" also?"

    Have no problem with anyone opining on any subject they wish, max out that First Amendment.

    ReplyDelete
  92. "congrats on your coming nuptials, Caleb!"

    Thanks Seda!

    We're gonna show everyone how this marriage thing is done.

    ReplyDelete
  93. Have no problem with anyone opining on any subject they wish, max out that First Amendment.

    Not asking just about people expressing their opinion. I'm asking whether you'd have a problem with society as a whole sending out the message encouraging monogamy among same-sex as well as opposite-sex couples, and discouraging "open marriages", and indeed even enacting policies to this end.

    ReplyDelete
  94. But shouldn't there be a word for such a concept? Here in Massachusetts any reference that is heterosexual in nature may be a labeled as unconstitutional by law or hate speech by individual. This is a control and distortion of language more then anything else, at the expense of an individual who deserve that society protects their ability to be raised by both their mother and father.

    Why didn't the Massachusetts court in Goodridge, simply void out all marriage laws as unconstitutional? We can't make any reference to the natural family or the differences that are brought upon heterosexual activity compared to homosexuality or other non-sexual relationships.

    I would be glad to make a new word, but I don't think that may the gay community upset and we would be back to square one on this.

    ReplyDelete
  95. R.K. @8:37

    Initially this was one of the reason I was OK with gay marriage several years ago, I though promiscuity for homosexuals was because they were in the closet and afraid to have stable relationships. With AIDS and other STDs inflicting the community at a higher rater, I felt promoting monogamy was an important value to society in general.

    I'm surprised we don't here it as often, or as in Caleb case doesn't think safe sex means monogamy to protect love ones from disease.

    ReplyDelete
  96. We're gonna show everyone how this marriage thing is done.

    I wish you well, Caleb, but since this sentence (along with much else of your attitude here) strongly hints that its more about showing us (SSM opponents), and hence about the opponents, than it is about you and your partner, I have my doubts. But maybe that can carry you over fifty years, especially if SSM never happens nationwide, as if it did it would deprive you of your biggest motivator.

    ReplyDelete
  97. "Society as a whole" is an abstraction, usually deployed merely to signal a consensus opinion and de facto absent other normative considerations.

    But:


    First part: none.

    Second part: policies that abridge/violate negative rights every kind of objection but that's what the courts are for.

    ReplyDelete
  98. Seda, Do you realize the nuptial references breeding in the animal kingdom? Differ from the word nubile, when a woman is ready for marriage?

    Caleb, You happen to be gay, that's fine. You want to acknowledge your relationship with another man, that's fine too. The problem is you think you're no different then a heterosexual couple. You can't fool mother nature, and you can't hijack all references to human reproduction in the process.

    ReplyDelete
  99. Maybe we need a word of the day here on Opine,

    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/nubile

    nu·bile (nbl, -bl, ny-)
    adj.
    1. Ready for marriage; of a marriageable age or condition. Used of young women.
    2. Sexually mature and attractive. Used of young women.
    [Latin nbilis, from nbere, to take a husband.]
    nu·bili·ty (n-bl-t, ny-) n

    ReplyDelete
  100. First part: none.

    Even if what works best for opposite-sex unions doesn't work best for same-sex ones?

    Second part: policies that abridge/violate negative rights every kind of objection but that's what the courts are for.

    Just talking about policies that encourage, or discourage.

    ReplyDelete
  101. Renee: I'm surprised we don't here it as often, or as in Caleb case doesn't think safe sex means monogamy to protect love ones from disease.

    So far, to my knowledge, not one advocate of SSM here has yet said that they would support doing anything to encourage monogamy among same-sex couples if SSM is legalized. And I know, you would think that though confidence of paternity is not a factor that would encourage them to this end, concern about STD would be.

    But not so, it seems.

    I also would have thought that as monogamy is more conducive to long-term opposite-sex relationships, it would also be to same-sex relationships as well.

    But not so, it seems. As the article linked to above apparently indicates.

    If all marriage, opposite-sex and same-sex, is held to be the same when what works for one doesn't work for another, who will drag who into the other's solutions?



    I also

    ReplyDelete
  102. "Caleb, You happen to be gay, that's fine. You want to acknowledge your relationship with another man, that's fine too. The problem is you think you're no different then a heterosexual couple. You can't fool mother nature, and you can't hijack all references to human reproduction in the process."


    The Gayest!

    Critical thinking isn't your forte. The first part of your post essentially recognizes my sexual orientation as gay as distinct presumably from a heterosexual orientation from your point of view. The second part accuses me of failing to make a distinction between those sexual orientations, go figure. I can only assume you mean I fail to acknowledge a normative difference and that I certainly do.

    "Mother nature", again the phrase is an abstraction, gets "fooled" all the time, Western medicine is almost entirely founded on this "deception".

    The remainder of your post is incoherent.

    ReplyDelete
  103. Renee,
    As an LGBT and marriage equality activist, I'm a lot more interested in gaining equal access and participation in society than in "marriage" per se. The problem I've encountered in the course of the gay marriage debate is that inevitably, those who oppose marriage equality also oppose a broad spectrum of equality for LGBT people. An example is the recent referendum in WA to grant domestic partnership that was nearly equal in benefits with marriage, but only at the state level. Even then, marriage equality opponents opposed the measure, and it passed by a fairly narrow margin. So my perception, and the perception of every lesbian, gay, bi, or trans person I know, is that "marriage defenders" are really more interested in marginalizing LGBT folks than any specific defense of marriage. With such broad effort focused on keeping us marginalized, how can we trust in establishing a "separate but equal" institution that is so clearly less equal than marriage? Joining the institution of marriage then becomes the means to end the marginalization - as well as an effective way to support and defend our own families.

    If you're willing to work to end the discrimination and marginalization of LGBT people, and the creation of a nationally-recognized union genuinely equal with marriage but different from it, I think you'll find plenty of allies within the gay community. If not, can you suggest a strategy to gain those things that would be more effective than marriage equality? Because I know I won't settle for less, and I believe the same for most LGBT people and our growing number of allies.

    And is it too late?

    ReplyDelete
  104. not one advocate of SSM here has yet said that they would support doing anything to encourage monogamy among same-sex couples if SSM is legalized.

    Doesn't marriage inherently and implicitly encourage monogamy?

    ReplyDelete
  105. Renee,
    Do you realize the nuptial references breeding in the animal kingdom? Differ from the word nubile, when a woman is ready for marriage?

    No, I didn't! Thanks for the info. It's always nice to see from where words are derived.

    Cross referencing three online dictionaries, the current definition of "nuptials" was consistent: "the social event at which the ceremony of marriage is performed."

    ReplyDelete
  106. caleb: still be married by the end of the next week though. Next project, start a family.

    And I hope everyone who worked to neuter marriage for D.C. residents feels somewhat responsible for any children you may choose to raise without a mother. Nobody wishes they were raised without either parent, but its easy to wish that on somebody else.

    President Obama wishes he had not been abandoned by his father. That Caleb is using the actions of the D.C. council as encouragement to create children to be abandoned with malice aforethought is probably why President Obama continues to oppose neutering marriage.

    ReplyDelete
  107. Seda: Doesn't marriage inherently and implicitly encourage monogamy?

    Not if the culture has lost its sense of what it means, no.

    ReplyDelete
  108. "And I hope everyone who worked to neuter marriage for D.C. residents feels somewhat responsible for any children you may choose to raise without a mother. Nobody wishes they were raised without either parent, but its easy to wish that on somebody else.

    President Obama wishes he had not been abandoned by his father. That Caleb is using the actions of the D.C. council as encouragement to create children to be abandoned with malice aforethought is probably why President Obama continues to oppose neutering marriage."


    Its gonna be via adoption or surrogacy or maybe both, will assess our options later.

    As far as Obama is concerned, dont like him, didn't vote for him.

    But whether you think his public position on same sex marriage is grounded on religious convictions or merely on a cynical political play to capture votes is something I will leave you to decide.

    ReplyDelete
  109. Caleb

    "As I said standard UN bolierplate from an institution that legally, and morally as far as I'm concerned, as no traction within the US."

    Thats simply false on a number of levels. The United States is a signatory to the Universal Declaration on Human Rights...it is therefore as binding as any other treaty...Just exactly as the Geneva Conventions is or Global Agrement on Tariffs & Trade.

    It is sighted in U.S. Supreme COurt decisions as secondary authority regularly.

    Your caveat: "as far as I'm concerned" is just your personal Idiosyncrasy and carries no weight beyond that post.

    "And if you truly think the UN represents the apex of Western thinking on ethics and morality then you really need to get out more, intellectually speaking."

    I noted the International Declaration on Human Rights, not the U.N.... This document spearheaded by Elenore Rosevelt as the U.S. Delegate to its framing and is credited amoung the human rights community as being the basis of all international human rights laws.

    You make a fool of yourself when you tout Dang that DC Human Rights Charter, as somehow a important & binding document - But dismiss thw worlds premier human rights law as (somehow) irrelevant.

    "Dang that DC Human Rights Charter those human rights thingies get you every time."

    It seems clear that you want to wrap yourself in the language of human rights when it suits your purpose; but dont understand what it is a where it comes from.

    It seems clear you got caught here, and are now in a position of having to dismiss human rights law when it contradicts your agenda.

    ReplyDelete
  110. Please, I would just love it, try using that "International Declaration of Human Rights" document in a DC Court. Would lay down good money to see that one.

    Those documents have zero traction in US Jurisprudence unless incorporated into US law by Congress and the ultimate authority on civil rights in the good'ol US of A is the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Should've paid more attention in civics class.

    ReplyDelete
  111. And I might add, any legislation approved by Congress and signed into US Law, derived from foreign sources or otherwise, is ultimately subject to review by SCOTUS and their ultimate frame of reference is the US Constitution.

    ReplyDelete
  112. .... and not some ghostly residue of Eleanor Roosevelt.

    When you said "Elenore Rosevelt" I take it you did mean her.

    ReplyDelete
  113. caleb: But whether you think his public position on same sex marriage is grounded on religious convictions...

    Religious convictions? I only mentioned the humanitarian concerns. In your world view, is religion the only institution interested in humanity?

    ...or merely on a cynical political play to capture votes is something I will leave you to decide.

    Hmmm. The "cynical political play" theory would depend on the belief that neutering marriage is wildly unpopular and thus in opposition to the democratic principles on which this nation depends for its continued success. Thanks for highlighting yet another problem with neutering marriage.

    ReplyDelete
  114. Caleb...

    #1. Its secondary authority and is not binding but persuasuve, ...but neither is your D.C. Human Rights Charter binding U.S. law..even in D.C.

    The council simply envoked it when it refused to allow a vote..

    #2. Your not really up on Legal issues infront of SCOTUS because it is all the rage now amoung the left wing members of the court to site foreign law and international law in their opinions....

    #3. Your ellision to the binding nature of the International Declaration on Human Rights is off subject... The point in making you aware of this important Declaration that has been ratified by the U.S. Senate was to counter your obvious ignorance concerning human right law....

    as encapsulated in your statement

    "Dang that DC Human Rights Charter those human rights thingies get you every time."

    Apprentley human rights law flies right over your head when it dosent suit your ends.

    ReplyDelete
  115. For example see a recent SCOTUS ruling on US legal obligations to abide by international treaties and decisions rendered by the International Court of Justice:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Medell%C3%ADn

    ReplyDelete
  116. I take it you meant "allusion" when you used "ellision" (no such word) or did you mean elision (correct spelling); the act of omitting something?

    ReplyDelete
  117. Renee, I'd like to send you a personal, and friendly, message. Would you be willing to write me at seda.ore@gmail.com so that I can do so? Thanks.

    Apologies to opiners for the personal message, I don't have other good means to contact.

    ReplyDelete
  118. Seda: I'll email you

    Doesn't anything think it is rather 'creepy' someone that is claiming human rights, is willing to human traffic a baby away from its mother and father? Many adult adoptees are upset, that society has removed their identities from their birth certificate or to learn that their mothers were coerced or completely abandoned and ultimately forced to 'give up the baby'. And yes this is with heterosexual couples.

    But if you go the way of surrogacy, then you just treating a baby like a consumer product. Again human trafficking, denied any opportunity to be raised by his/her parents. To own a child like property, to prove how equally married you are.

    Sorry to break it to you Caleb, but you can't even consummate a marriage, but that's OK we can just change the definition of sexual intercourse and copulation while we're it too.

    This is pretty sci-fi nutso here. Too bad all this Orwellian stuff is true.

    ReplyDelete
  119. Oops The comment is in reference to Caleb 'starting a family'.

    ReplyDelete
  120. Caleb.. I'm afraid you rdeath penalty case is way off the mark. As stated previously - when human rights law is used in court opinions it is secondary persuausive authority.

    Article 16 is the basis for multiple Human Rights Law including...

    The High Commission for Human Rights & the Convention on International Rights of Children.

    The Convention states in Article 7 that the child has "as far as possible, the right to know and be cared for by his or her parents".

    Article 7
    1. The child shall be registered immediately after birth and shall have the right from birth to a name, the right to acquire a nationality and. as far as possible, the right to know and be cared for by his or her parents.

    2. States Parties shall ensure the implementation of these rights in accordance with their national law and their obligations under the relevant international instruments in this field, in particular where the child would otherwise be stateless.

    Article 8
    1. States Parties undertake to respect the right of the child to preserve his or her identity, including nationality, name and family relations as recognized by law without unlawful interference.

    2. Where a child is illegally deprived of some or all of the elements of his or her identity, States Parties shall provide appropriate assistance and protection, with a view to re-establishing speedily his or her identity.

    Article 9

    1. States Parties shall ensure that a child shall not be separated from his or her parents against their will, except when competent authorities subject to judicial review determine, in accordance with applicable law and procedures, that such separation is necessary for the best interests of the child. Such determination may be necessary in a particular case such as one involving abuse or neglect of the child by the parents, or one where the parents are living separately and a decision must be made as to the child's place of residence.

    2. In any proceedings pursuant to paragraph 1 of the present article, all interested parties shall be given an opportunity to participate in the proceedings and make their views known.

    3. States Parties shall respect the right of the child who is separated from one or both parents to maintain personal relations and direct contact with both parents on a regular basis, except if it is contrary to the child's best interests.

    Also
    International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

    Article 10.1 on family and marriage states that: "The widest possible protection and assistance should be accorded to the family, which is the natural and fundamental group unit of society, particularly for its establishment and while it is responsible for the care and education of dependent children." The expression "the natural and fundamental group unit" refers to the natural combination of a man and a woman required to create a child.

    ReplyDelete
  121. Hey Fitz,

    You are dead wrong, and I was dead on target.

    I checked today with a lawyer friend. As I suspected none of your cut and pastes are part of the US legal code or are part of US Jurisprudence. They are merely extra-national pieces of well, as I said before UN boilerplate, and have no intrinsic legal force in a US courtroom. But hey, try it on, I hear our local ranting Bishop is gonna be back in court in April for his next smackdown, maybe you could tip him off with your "sure to win" legal strategy.

    But meanwhile, congratulate me, gettin' hitched this week!

    ReplyDelete
  122. Your "lawyer" friend shouls have told you the truth..

    As I have multiple times..(above)

    "when human rights law is used in court opinions it is secondary persuausive authority."

    "Its secondary authority and is not binding but persuasuve, ...but neither is your D.C. Human Rights Charter binding U.S. law..even in D.C."

    "The United States is a signatory to the Universal Declaration on Human Rights...it is therefore as binding as any other treaty...Just exactly as the Geneva Conventions is or Global Agrement on Tariffs & Trade. It is sighted in U.S. Supreme Court decisions as secondary authority regularly."

    You can get "hitched" all you want - what you cannot do is get "married" - that is an insitution between a man & a woman.

    ReplyDelete
  123. Hey Caleb,

    Just so you know, I do support you having a committed life long relationship. I have no problem with it.

    But I do worry about people who get married in order to get recognition for their relationship. I know many hetero couples who've had opposition to their relationship who felt that "marriage" was the way to get their support. Some pulled through, but most have ended already.

    I certainly hope that is not what you are after by asking over and over for people to 'celebrate'. For your sake.

    ReplyDelete
  124. But Fitz, where in the UN Declaration or Human Rights does it forbid same sex couples from marrying? To the contrary, it says that all men and women of full age have the right to marry. No where does it specify that men are limited to marrying women, or that women are limited to marrying men. Child brides are, of course, a no no and a main concern for the UN human rights groups. But that's neither here nor there.

    ReplyDelete
  125. Emma: it says that all men and women of full age have the right to marry.

    Emma, what do you think marry means? Inventing new definitions doesn't invent new rights.

    Child brides are, of course, a no no...

    Clearly one just needs to redefine the word child to eliminate your concerns.

    ReplyDelete
  126. Op-ed, I guess that depends on what period in history you are referring to. It's not as if marriage has always been limited to being between a man and a woman.

    ReplyDelete
  127. Emma (writes)

    "But Fitz, where in the UN Declaration or Human Rights does it forbid same sex couples from marrying? To the contrary, it says that all men and women of full age have the right to marry. No where does it specify that men are limited to marrying women, or that women are limited to marrying men. Child brides are, of course, a no no and a main concern for the UN human rights groups. But that's neither here nor there."

    This is were the thing called integrity kicks in. What do you think thoughfull intellegent people think when you try and manipulate well established human rights law like you did???

    Do you think this helps your cause?

    What do you think this makes supporters of same-sex "marriage" look like?

    Laws are interpreted by their plain meaning at the time they were written, no repectable person thinks that article 16 stands for anything other than what it plainly states.

    ReplyDelete
  128. Emma: Op-ed, I guess that depends on what period in history you are referring to.

    No, it doesn't, but for the sake of staying relevant to the discussion, let's say it's the period of time in which the U.N. wrote the declaration in question.

    It's not as if marriage has always been limited to being between a man and a woman.

    This has been debunked enough times on this site already. Suffice it to say that if your position rests on this revisionist nugget that you have no position at all.

    ReplyDelete
  129. R.K.,
    You want, I gather, an example that is absolutely true for every single married couple.

    Well, that's one way to interpret what I said, though it seems from the text of what I wrote that you could come up with an example that every married couple ought to have.

    That still leaves room for debate. The problem is, you don't really have anything beyond the abstract qualities of "maleness" and "femaleness." Every single person is unique; every single person is different from every other person, and every woman is different from every other woman, etc. Your side contends, generally, that the abstract quality of being male trumps every possible human variation within females, and vice versa.

    If "maleness" is not an abstract quality, of course, then it follows that there is something specific that makes men men, in all cases. Something across-the-board. But that's not the case.

    On Lawn:
    Phil, what entitlement, benefit, or recognition, or even right, cannot be obtained through "other means"?

    Spouses cannot be required to testify against each other, for example. Spouses can file their tax returns as a married couple. You can't contract for rights like that, they must be bestowed by the state.

    Further, contracting for rights, generally, is more expensive than marriage. As such, the mindset that you can just "achieve these through other means" creates a class system in same-sex couples that doesn't exist in mixed-sex married couples. Wealthier couples get more rights than the poor.

    ReplyDelete
  130. Phil: ...it seems from the text of what I wrote that you could come up with an example that every married couple ought to have.

    Now, by "ought to", do you mean that society or the law should require it or something?

    Yes, married couples ideally "ought to" have their own children, though we don't force them to or stigmatize them when they don't. See, you hang a lot on the fact that we don't force married couples to adhere to the core after their marriage.

    The problem is, you don't really have anything beyond the abstract qualities of "maleness" and "femaleness."

    The "abstracts" are what are most meaningful culturally. And it's the culture that changes to marriage affect.

    If "maleness" is not an abstract quality, of course, then it follows that there is something specific that makes men men, in all cases. Something across-the-board. But that's not the case.

    And the specific is, of course, usually not meaningful culturally. Which leaves you a way to damn us if we do and damn us if we don't. But I gave you an example of a specific regarding maleness.

    Other than that, Phil, I'll leave it to the judgement of other readers whether or not you have sufficiently answered my last post here.

    ReplyDelete
  131. Phil: See, you hang a lot on the fact that we don't force married couples to adhere to the core after their marriage.

    By Phil's reasoning, that something is not related to something else without being forced, seat belts are not about crash safety because not everyone who uses a seat belt is forced to have a crash.

    The "abstracts" are what are most meaningful culturally.

    What is meaningful culturally is the hard scientific fact that human reproduction requires both a male and a female.

    Phil: If "maleness" is not an abstract quality, of course, then it follows that there is something specific that makes men men, in all cases. Something across-the-board. But that's not the case.

    This is actually Phil's refutation of his own standard of proof since it refutes even such established scientifically valid terms as "male."

    ReplyDelete
  132. The "abstracts" are what are most meaningful culturally.

    You value the cultural interpretation over each individual's interpretation, as if it is better for the culture to decide what a woman should consider crucial in a spouse, instead of that woman herself.

    op-ed:
    Phil: See, you hang a lot[...]

    Op, you're misquoting me. I didn't write that.

    ReplyDelete
  133. And the specific is, of course, usually not meaningful culturally. Which leaves you a way to damn us if we do and damn us if we don't.

    R.K.,
    I've already said that you have nothing to go on. That indicates that I already think you're damned if you do and damned if you don't.

    But it is certainly possible that when someone is trying to support an unsupportable argument, they would also experience the sensation that they'll be "damned if they do, and damned if they don't," by the person with whom they're debating.

    Culturally and legally, this means men and women; if we must define this at the scientific level, to be specific, it means one with a Y chromosome and one with only X's, or to be really precise, one with an activated Y chromosome and one without.

    You seem to have chosen, by way of being specific, the least meaningful trait that men have: their Y chromosome. I can't be sure, of course, but I suspect that you and I have something in common, in that we have never, ever, in our lives, checked another human being's chromosomes to see if they had an activated Y.

    What, in your opinion, should be the legal status of people who are gender indeterminate, or intersex, or who may have a Y chromosome that isn't activated?

    I submit that the person best qualified to choose the sex/gender that an individual shall marry is that individual. You contend that you are better qualified to make that determination, and thus you advocate that the state should be empowered to choose for each person.

    ReplyDelete
  134. Phil: Op, you're misquoting me.

    No, I mislabeling the quote, it was not a misquote. R.K. wrote that about what you are demanding. My response builds on R.K.'s criticism of your argument.

    But it is certainly possible that when someone is trying to support an unsupportable argument,...

    You're the expert on what supporting unsupportable arguments feels like. You have merely discredited your own standard of proof by showing how it fails to identify even simple and scientifically well established terms such as "male" and "female".

    ReplyDelete
  135. Phil: But it is certainly possible that when someone is trying to support an unsupportable argument, they would also experience the sensation that they'll be "damned if they do, and damned if they don't," by the person with whom they're debating.

    Or when the person with whom they're debating continually resorts to circular argument.

    In your case, Phil, the circularity is in your constantly shifting ground between what is meaningful to individuals....which includes many differences to be sure which collectively add up to what I refer to as cultural differences depending on how many people they are important to....and what is meaningful scientifically or legally. See, your method is as such: If we point out a scientific difference between men and women, you claim it's irrelevant because it lacks meaning to individuals (again, if many individuals, this is what I mean by "culturally"). If we point out a difference which does have meaning, not only to individuals, but to most individuals such that it indeed can be called "cultural", well, then you claim that's irrelevant because it's not an absolute, set-in-stone, scientific way of telling the difference.

    So, I guess you want a difference that is both absolute scientifically and culturally meaningful. Well, by this standard, virtually nothing in the universe then is different from another, as you can always find, if you look hard enough, some examples which fall "in-between".

    Example: Phil, do you agree that there is a difference between rocks and trees, or not?

    What, in your opinion, should be the legal status of people who are gender indeterminate, or intersex, or who may have a Y chromosome that isn't activated?

    Those with total androgen insensitivity syndrome are treated as females, though they are infertile. As for other "intersexed", usually there is enough to go on to call them one or another, and give them at least a sense of gender identity early on (which, contrary to androgynist propaganda, is very important to children). Thus, those with Klinefelter's syndrome, who have 2 X chromosomes and one Y, are regarded as males, while those with Turner's syndrome, who have only one X chromosome and no other, are regarded as females. I have met several of each, all of whom are comfortable with their gender identity.

    I submit that the person best qualified to choose the sex/gender that an individual shall marry is that individual.

    In the rare cases where a determination of gender identity is so difficult to make that one can be called truly hermaphroditic I am perfectly willing to grant that. However, I suspect that you are talking not just about people who are physically intersexed but about perfectly normal males and females who simply don't "feel" like their gender and more like the other, for reasons psychological or related to extreme non-conformism or boredom (the latter two being highly related, and no I'm not an advocate of rigid conformism either). In other words, you are using the extremely rare case to justify a much broader deconstructionism.

    ReplyDelete
  136. By the way, Phil, one way one really shows they have nothing to go on is when they evade queastions which they know would demonstrate that.

    ReplyDelete
  137. "Hey Caleb,

    Just so you know, I do support you having a committed life long relationship. I have no problem with it.

    But I do worry about people who get married in order to get recognition for their relationship. I know many hetero couples who've had opposition to their relationship who felt that "marriage" was the way to get their support. Some pulled through, but most have ended already.

    I certainly hope that is not what you are after by asking over and over for people to 'celebrate'. For your sake."


    Oficially married, (and consumated)!

    Now where do we go to do some more of that "marriage neutering"?

    ReplyDelete
  138. Congratulations, Caleb!
    Have you and the hubby had a 3-way with a farm animal yet? :)
    All the best to you.

    ReplyDelete
  139. "Congratulations, Caleb!
    Have you and the hubby had a 3-way with a farm animal yet? :)
    All the best to you."

    Thanks!

    Regrettably, our newfound bourgeoise respectablity precludes such activities. That and it might wake up the neighbours.

    I see Roger Scruton's name has cropped up. Read a few of his books, have a signed copy of one. Think he's wrong on the same sex marriage issue but generally he is a worth while read on some of the foolishness and pretensions of postmodernism. Also an excellent writer, a talent rare amongst philosophers.

    ReplyDelete
  140. Gay, and well-read, too. It's a shame you're off the market, Caleb!

    ReplyDelete
  141. op-ed:
    You have merely discredited your own standard of proof by showing how it fails to identify even simple and scientifically well established terms such as "male" and "female".

    Um, my standard of proof fails to identify even scientific differences between "male" and "female," and that somehow is discredited, based on my contention that there is no meaningful difference between "male" and "female?" I think what you meant to type is, "Your standard of proof is consistent with what you've been writing all along."

    Perhaps you'd even want to add, "Actually, come to think of it, I've been wrong all along; I'm making a big deal out of this for no reason. The person best qualified to determine what gender their spouse should be is each individual person." But somehow, I doubt that will happen.

    ReplyDelete
  142. Example: Phil, do you agree that there is a difference between rocks and trees, or not?

    Sure, there are lots of differences, although there are differences between rocks and differences between trees, too. Additionally, there are some objects which possess both treelike and rocklike qualities.

    For your question to really reflect our current discussion, you'd need to state a purpose for differentiating between rocks and trees, and then we'd need to both agree that there are both trees and rocks that fail to meet that purpose.

    For example, if you said, "I need to build a fire, bring me some trees!"--and I brought coal--then you'd be foolish to say that rocks were always inappropriate. Similarly, if you gave huge tax breaks and a list of more than a thousand rights and privileges to the people who brought you petrified wood, because it's a tree, then I'd be justified in pointing out that there is no meaningful difference between petrified wood and a rock.

    As for other "intersexed", usually there is enough to go on to call them one or another, and give them at least a sense of gender identity early on (which, contrary to androgynist propaganda, is very important to children).

    And in the instances where the child raised with a gender identity early on exhibits traits of the other gender, or evidences a desire to be considered a different gender, whose view deserves to be heeded? The individual in question, or other people?

    However, I suspect that you are talking not just about people who are physically intersexed but about perfectly normal males and females who simply don't "feel" like their gender and more like the other

    Re-read the text of my statement. I'm not talking about people determining their own gender; I'm talking about people determining the sex/gender of the person they marry.

    The person best qualified to determine the sex/gender of the person you marry, R.K., is you. If I felt that I was more qualified than you to make that decision, what kind of person would I be?

    I could, of course, suggest some choice adjectives, but I suspect that you and the home team would think I was calling you names. Would you agree?

    ReplyDelete
  143. OK, Phil, you just made an excellent argument as to why you feel that we can, through deconstuctionist arguments, whittle away and split hairs until we can maintain that there is really no difference between anything and anything else.

    So why are you stopping this line of argument with same-sex marriage?

    The person best qualified to determine the sex/gender of the person you marry, R.K., is you. If I felt that I was more qualified than you to make that decision, what kind of person would I be?

    And one could argue, the person best qualified to determine the number of people you marry, Phil, is you. One could argue, also, that the person best qualified to determine how closely related you want the person you marry to be, Phil, is you. One could argue that the person best qualified to determine the age of the person you want to marry, Phil (provided they are mentally capable of consent), is you.

    If I (or the state) felt that I was more qualified than you to make those decisions, what kind of person would I be? No better or worse than I (or the state) would be for telling you what gender to choose. Or, at least, I'd ask you to show logically how I would be any better.

    Phil, if you want to call opposite-sex marriage to be "discrimination", let's at least be clear on what type of discrimination it is....discrimination based on the type of sexual act the pair is capable of performing, and the fact that one is the type capable of reproduction, and others are not. That, after all, is what is at the root of the gender "discrimination", as you call it.

    Now it's fine if you want to argue that there is some reason why we should not discriminate between sexual acts in marriage. But I understand why you don't want to frame the question in that way, as this lays bare the absurdity of arguing that there is really "no meaningful difference".

    ReplyDelete
  144. Caleb,

    Usually, I think your dancing monkey routine is charming and quaint.

    However, I was serious. I worry about your relationship because you work so hard to get people to acknowledge it.

    I've never seen that be a sign of a stable and healthy relationship. If you seek marriage as a way to get recognition, you are misusing marriage. Well technically you've missed the marriage boat anyway, but even if you are looking for stability you are missing the boat.

    Just saying, you can play the fool all you want, but sometimes it isn't funny, it is concerning.

    ReplyDelete
  145. Phil: ...that somehow is discredited, based on my contention that there is no meaningful difference between "male" and "female?"

    Exactly. You have shown your standard of proof fails to find meaningful differences where they obviously exist. That's what "discredited" means.

    The person best qualified to determine what gender their spouse should be is each individual person.

    Choices are not free of consequences. One is free to choose one's associates. One is not free to choose the basic laws of nature nor the definition and purpose society sees in an institution. As I have pointed out before, your argument is identical to saying that each person is best qualified to determine for themselves the meaning of "sky."

    ReplyDelete
  146. Now it's fine if you want to argue that there is some reason why we should not discriminate between sexual acts in marriage. But I understand why you don't want to frame the question in that way, as this lays bare the absurdity of arguing that there is really "no meaningful difference".

    Are you kidding? I would be more than happy to discuss discrimination based on sexual acts, but I was told it was crass.

    [...]let's at least be clear on what type of discrimination it is....discrimination based on the type of sexual act the pair is capable of performing.

    What is that type of sexual act, R.K.? What does it involve?

    ReplyDelete
  147. Phil : > I would be more than happy to discuss discrimination based on sexual acts, but I was told it was crass.

    You were told that function of sexual acts is not a crass subject. Please be honest.

    What is that type of sexual act, R.K.? What does it involve?

    Reproduction which is the function by which "Sexual" is defined. Which involve more organs then just two :)

    ReplyDelete
  148. You were told that function of sexual acts is not a crass subject.

    R.K. was talking about the "type" of sexual act. I'm interested in hearing specifics; why dance around the subject so we have to make assumptions about what this type of sex act is?

    Please be honest.

    It's not "dishonest" if I don't parrot what you say. Why is it that you inject insults and ad hominem attacks into the vast majority of your responses?

    ReplyDelete
  149. Phil : > [...] we have to make assumptions about what this type of sex act is?

    The type is what is in accordance to a function. How ever much you want to engage in cyber-sex-talk here, it is amply specific to denote the function rather then the "how-to".

    That isn't dancing, its simply being discrete. You'll have to convince me how that is insufficient.

    It's not "dishonest" if I don't parrot what you say.

    But what I said is honest. And just because the way you went about it was crass, doesn't mean the subject matter has to be. You can treat it with more discretion, as advised.

    ReplyDelete