Reality, Opinion, and Influence

Laura D. Davis brings us some poll dancing and fauxmentum when it comes to neutering marriage.

Two recent polls were the first to find majority support for same-sex couples having marriage rights.

What does that mean, exactly? Do the polls make it clear that the law won't distinguish between bride+groom couples and brideless and groomless couples? Do these polls include the options of domestic partnerships or other existing legal possibilities?

Gay marriage is legal in five states (Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, Vermont and New Hampshire) and in Washington, D.C.

It is "same-sex", not "gay". Sexual orientation is not a determining factor.

But each of those states allowed the practice only after courts or legislatures stepped in. A popular vote on gay marriage has never resulted in legalizing the unions.

Yes, and most states have constitutional amendments or laws that expressly define marriage as bride+groom.

The article goes on to cite the recent Massachusetts and California cases, then the recent news on Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.

Any one of those court cases could wind up at the U.S. Supreme Court.

Yes, and SCOTUS may rule that federal courts should not define marriage for states, leaving it up to each state to have its own laws as long as they don't violate Loving v. Virginia and other SCOTUS rulings. I think this is more likely than SCOTUS neutering state marriage licensing nationwide or knocking down state decisions to neuter marriage licensing.

Amid all this activity, Ask America has been collecting people's thoughts on the issue. So far, more than 17,000 responses have come in, and it's currently split 50-50.

That it is even split that much is a testament to the power of homofascists and other marriage neutering advocates. Too many people can't articulate a decent explanation of the purpose and nature of marriage, or why a state would license marriage.

Yahoo! user lamme, who voted in favor of gay marriage, said, "If you don't believe gay marriage is right, then don't have one. Leave the gays who wish to marry alone."

This completely ignores the fact that state marriage licensing is inherently a public concern, Those licenses are issued on our behalf.

Also present in the gay marriage debate is whether or not full marriage rights nationwide for same-sex couple are inevitable.

They aren't inevitable unless SCOTUS creates a new right out of thin air. Marriage neutering advocates chant "inevitable" like they think it is a magic incantation, hoping we believe it.

Polls show there is a significant age gap in feelings about the issue; younger people tend to be for it compared to older people.

Studies also show that younger people tend to get older, get married, and have kids, and notice the profound differences between boys and girls, men and women.

"This battle is over," David Boies, one of the lawyers who worked to get California's Proposition 8 overturned, said at a panel discussion in New York City on Saturday. "It's just a question of how soon people get equal rights."

I'm all for equal rights. Everyone has them already.

To keep public opinion our way, we need to point out some simple truths to those in our sphere of influence:

1) Men and women are different. Even most of the people who try to deny this demonstrate that they understand this to be true. After all, if men and women were not different, all, or at least three, of the terms in "LGBT" would have no meaning.

2) The paring of a man and a woman is different than the pairing of two men or two women. This automatically follows if #1 is true. But we know that the pairing of a man and a woman is the only kind of pairing that is able to naturally produce new citizens (who, unlike the adults, do not consent to the relationship), even if not all do. This alone is enough to give the state more interest in the pairing of a man and a woman.

3) Men and women are different in personal relationships. Again, even the people who try to deny this demonstrate that they understand this to be true. If that difference matters enough to someone in picking a lover, how can it not matter when it comes to the parent-child relationship?

4) State licensing of bride+groom pairings provides children with a role model, guardian, and bonding partner from each of the two sexes that comprise all of society, legally bound to each other as well as the children; generally, this is good for children.

5) It is constitutional, moral, common, and necessary to treat different kinds of relationships differently.

6) One need not believe homosexual behavior, relationships, or people to be harmful, sinful, or inferior to accept any or all of #1-5.

We all have an interest is shaping our culture, including our laws. Let's not abdicate our responsibilities and allow others to decide these things for us.