Following Up On Ashburn - State and Marriage

The middle of this month, the Los Angeles Times printed an interview between columnist Patt Morrison and Republican California State Senator Roy Ashburn, who was outed after drunk driving. Until then, Ashburn had a history of voting against things like marriage neutering. I’m finally getting around to commenting on a few parts of that interview.

I truly believe the conservative philosophy as embraced by Goldwater: that the government has no role in the private lives of the citizens.

I know that there is a lot of talk about what people ought not do in their private lives, but most marriage defending commentators and politicians and I know of, if they identify as Republicans or conservatives, want government out of the private lives of citizens. As such there are things we think are immoral or destructive but we don’t want to outlaw them. Of course, nor do we want to be on the hook financially for what we see as the sins of others. I don't want to stop two men from living together and considering themselves married and asking others to consider them married. I believe they should be free to do that. However, I recognize that state marriage licensing is not a private matter.

And that gets into...

When it comes to marriage, I'm getting the feeling that you're mulling over whether government ought to be in the marriage license business at all.

It's a very complicated issue, marriage, but it seems to me that the government's role is to protect a civil contract, whether it's to purchase a home together, enter into whatever financial or legal arrangement, including marriage. The whole issue of marriage as a 5,000-year-old tradition, a religious context, a historical context - what government's role is, is the sanctification of the legal bond. Then it seems to me a matter for a church or some other societal organization but not for government.

In the USA, government and church are two distinct entities, and as such we don't give churches the power to settle property disputes, determine custody and child support issues, or alimony. The state has an interest in marriage, in large part because it usually involves children, who do not consent to the arrangement. When it comes to these issues, adoption, inheritance, and others, the state should make a distinction between marriage and nonmarriage. Should a friend who takes to crashing in an spare bedroom of my house have the same rights as my wife should I die, especially without a will?

It was my choice to keep it secret; it was my choice to be a gay man and be married and have children. It was my choice to build a life on lies in order to conceal myself. That obviously had a big effect on my marriage and my children in ways that I don't fully comprehend, but it's my responsibility and not something to be talked about in interviews.

I'm glad he says he takes responsibility. It appears to a lot of people that he used his family to further his political career – which a lot of heterosexual politicians do as well. In any case, it isn't right. I hope his problems with alcohol are left in the past, if for nobody else's sake but his own.

Previously: Letter Writer Gets it Right

"No sex please, we're middle class"

Op-Ed in NYT by Camille Paglia

No Sex Please, We’re Middle Class

In the discreet white-collar realm, men and women are interchangeable, doing the same, mind-based work. Physicality is suppressed; voices are lowered and gestures curtailed in sanitized office space. Men must neuter themselves, while ambitious women postpone procreation. Androgyny is bewitching in art, but in real life it can lead to stagnation and boredom, which no pill can cure.

Meanwhile, family life has put middle-class men in a bind; they are simply cogs in a domestic machine commanded by women. Contemporary moms have become virtuoso super-managers of a complex operation focused on the care and transport of children. But it’s not so easy to snap over from Apollonian control to Dionysian delirium.

Nor are husbands offering much stimulation in the male display department: visually, American men remain perpetual boys, as shown by the bulky T-shirts, loose shorts and sneakers they wear from preschool through midlife. The sexes, which used to occupy intriguingly separate worlds, are suffering from over-familiarity, a curse of the mundane. There’s no mystery left.

Significant Court Ruling in Europe

Marriage neutering advocates and marriage defenders both have things to like and dislike about a ruling by the European Court of Human Rights. Jill Lawless, Paisley Dodds, and George Jahn reported on the story for the Associated Press.

Seven judges at the European court ruled unanimously that two Austrian men denied permission to wed were not covered by the guarantee of the right to marry enshrined in Europe's human rights convention.

Interesting. I wonder what all the people who say the USA should be more like Europe say to this?

The judges acknowledged "an emerging European consensus" that same-sex couples should have legal recognition but said individual states may still decide what form it should take because marriage had "deep-rooted social and cultural connotations which may differ largely from one society to another."

Based on what we've seen, most Americans would support keeping marriage a bride+groom institution, but also having domestic partnerships or civil unions, mostly for same-sex couples. This is a compromise. Even some people who disapprove of homosexual behavior are open to this, but others aren't. However, advocates of marriage neutering refuse to accept this compromise, and will support domestic partnership or civil union laws primarily as a Trojan Horse, as we've seen.

[Read more after the jump.]

Six EU states - Belgium, The Netherlands, Sweden, Portugal, Norway and Spain - have legalized gay marriage. About a dozen others, including Britain, Germany, France and - since January - Austria, have legal partnerships, which carry much the same status as marriage.

Vote with your feet.

Despite Thursday's ruling, there was little to cheer opponents of gay marriage. The judges noted that the European rights charter was drawn up in 1950, when "marriage was clearly understood in the traditional sense of being a union between partners of different sex." They said that was lo longer automatically the case.

"The Court would no longer consider that the right to marry ... must in all circumstances be limited to marriage between two persons of the opposite sex," the judges said.

In other words, they would not force Sweden to restore the bride+groom requirement.

Legal experts said the European Court ruling would not have a significant impact.

"It just means that questions of marriage are within the margin of discretion of particular states," said British human rights lawyer Geoffrey Robertson. "Each state is entitled to have its own marriage law. I don't think it will have many implications here or elsewhere."

Where have we heard talk like that before?

Dr. Laura Supports Inclusive, Married Parenting

Nothing gets Dr. Laura Schlessinger more obsessed and rabid enemies than her statements that children should be raised by a married mommy and daddy. This gets her slandered and libeled as a hateful homophobic bigot day in and day out, often with people copying & pasting a ridiculous "Letter to Dr. Laura Schlessinger" in addition to listing a series of charges against her. To me, it is one of the best examples of homofascism in action, with people who are ill-informed or somehow otherwise deficient doing the truth - and therefore everyone, including gays and lesbians - a disservice.

She addressed this ongoing attack recently. My analysis of this is over at my namesake blog.

While the "Mommie Wars" can be brutal, and passions remain high over abortion law 37 years after Roe v. Wade, what will really get someone like Dr. Laura savagely attacked on an ongoing basis is that she dares to express an opinion contrary to those of the homosexuality advocacy organizations who put their political agenda over the best interests of children. She dares to say that children should have a mommy and daddy – not because people who are gay or lesbian are bad people, but because there is a real difference between men and women, boys and girls – something that just about anyone, gay or straight, inherently knows.

A response to a response on sperm donation

This excerpt from Jenifer Lingeman from 'The Nation' acknowledges that adults have obligations to offspring and children have natural rights to be raised by their biological parents. This is in reference to the recent results from "My Daddy's Name is Donor" Study

What disturbed me the most about Ms. Douglas's response was her dismissal of the voices of the donor-conceived children. I cannot help but see, once again, parallels to the experience of adult adoptees, particularly transracial and transnational, whose multitude of voices have been silenced by need of the affluent, white and Western market for adoptable children, and the huge profits that follow, similar to the big business interests of sperm banks. There is a growing rights movement of donor-conceived children advocating for their rights, most vehemently (and successfully in Sweden and the UK) for an end to anonymous donation. Sadly, their voices are frequently silenced in the United States. It saddens me to see the gay rights and feminist movements in such seeming opposition to the welfare of children. The truth of the matter is that in sperm and egg donation, as well as adoption, children simply have more complex kinship than in the traditional Western nuclear family. Is the right of adults to start families as they choose more important than the right of children and the adults they become to know their genetic heritage should they choose to? I don't think so, nor does the Hague Convention, the United Nations, the open records movement, or the donor-conceived person's movement, or the countries of Great Britain, Sweden and Croatia.

The appropriate response to the Marquardt study is a bigger, more comprehensive study on donor-conceived outcomes, an open ear to the voices of those whom this affects most, the offspring, and an openness to the complexity of heritage that is inherent in this kind of reproduction. Gay- and lesbian-headed families, interracial families, those created by adoption, and families created by assisted reproduction are different from the traditional American family; shouldn't we embrace that truth, study it, understand it, and not suppress and deny it? The rights of adults to start families as they choose is surely not more important than the rights of children to their heritage. There is simply insufficient information to really assess the long-term outcome of egg/sperm donor-conceived persons, but to throw out the largest and most longitudinal study to date because one does not like the conclusions is not the answer. The donor-conceived children, and the adults they become, should be the most powerful voices in this debate, as they have become in other countries. Perhaps you will feature some of their viewpoints soon.

Love without Lust

Via LameBook

Divorce Rates Lower Where Marriage is Neutered

In discussions about preserving the bride+groom requirement in state marriage licensing or related discussions, I have repeatedly seen the claim that the USA, which has the federal DOMA, where majority of states have rejected the neutering of marriage, and where Judeo-Christian religions are more prominent in the public discourse - has a higher divorce rate than European countries that are decidedly more secular and recognize same-sex pairings as marriage or darn close to it. The same is said of "red states" and states that have rejected the neutering of marriage as compared to "blue states" and states that have neutered their marriage licensing. See here, here, and here.

Granting that the claim is true, I think Dennis Prager brought up an important point on his radio show today. In those European countries it is socially acceptable for husbands to have mistresses. A married person, especially a man, having sex with someone other than his spouse, having nights out on the town and vacations with others isn't considered problematic in the same way as it is in the USA. Prager muses that there would be a lot less divorce in the USA if husbands here had the same social leeway.

[Much more after the jump.]

I think that to some extent, the same principle may also be at work between the states.

The Bible does not encourage divorce, but it permits divorce when there are certain conditions, such as infidelity. Even someone who is socially conservative but not inclined towards Biblical religion may look at marriage as something you stick with unless the monogamy is forsaken. Someone who takes her (or his) vows seriously and sees infidelity as a grave violation may understandably be motivated to file for divorce when the spouse steps out.

Are legal marriages in which the spouses are essentially just housemates really marriages? If a woman has been all but abandoned by her husband and desperately wants a real marriage doing a bad thing by divorcing him and seeking a new husband – rather than taking on a lover and staying legally married?

It is possible that there is less infidelity in red states (especially if you count it as infidelity even if both spouses were aware and consenting or even participating) but more divorce because infidelity is less tolerated.

Yes, I want the divorce rate to go down. But I want it to go down because people prepare themselves to be good spouses, marry the right person, and then live as good, faithful spouses – not because married people simply stop taking marriage seriously enough to divorce when their spouse has essentially moved on. If people do not take marriage seriously, they aren't likely to put in the effort to oppose the neutering of marriage, either.

Blankenhorn on Maverick Motherhood and the importance of fathers

Q: Could society adjust? Hillary Clinton did tell us about the village, after all.

A: Not easily. Very few people, or civic institutions, are willing to invest as much in a child as a biological father. And, especially now, the state has fewer economic resources to invest in fatherless children.

Answers to many more questions found here...

Let Fathers Father

The Chicago Tribune's Christi Parsons reported on today's statements on fatherhood by President Obama. Here is the Los Angeles Times story.

President Obama on Monday pledged a series of new initiatives to support responsible fatherhood, but called on fathers to recognize the limits of government to achieve what only they can do in the home.

It seems to me that various levels of government have done much to discourage responsible fatherhood, including perpetuating paternity fraud, and I doubt more government involvement will make things better.

In his annual Father's Day event, Obama urged fathers to mentor their own children – and to reach out to those in the community who don't have strong parental or guardian support.

While I admire people who are mentors, coaches, troop leaders, etc., I will not put my own children at risk for losing their father by doing anything where anyone could possibly make a false allegation against me that could then be taken seriously by the authorities. Men who look to provide leadership to the children of other people are looked at with suspicion by too many people, unless he's sleeping with the mother of the children. Which is strange, considering the guy who is sleeping with the mother is more likely to be a child abuser than the coach.

"We can't legislate fatherhood," Obama told a crowd gathered on the southeast side of Washington. "But what we can do is send a clear message to our fathers that there is no excuse for failing to meet their obligations."

Yes, there are excuses. They are called courts not preventing mothers from moving the kids across country, false allegations of abuse that result in restraining orders, etc.

[Read more after the jump.]

The White House is kicking off a program to recruit mentors and give them support, administration officials said.

If these are going to be mentors of children instead of mentors of fathers, does this mean that federal taxpayer will be on the hook when one of the mentors is sued for molestation?

The Department of Justice is starting a fathering reentry program for ex-offenders, which officials plan to institute in courts across the country to help ex-convicts find jobs and pay child support.

Will this mean that ex-cons will have an easier time of getting jobs than people who have clean records?

There were some comments on the paper's website.

"lounsbury" at 10:17 AM June 21, 2010:

You want to fix fatherhood Mr. Obama? Great! Then create the conditions for marriage to survive by ending the system that rewards women for walking away from her family with everything, and punishes men by default.

"marioW." at 10:27 AM June 21, 2010:

Mr. President, first we have to recognize that most of these issues are from kids having kids, and tax payers will almost always have to foot the bill not only for the children but the residues associated with kids having kids.

How much better off would everything be if people:

1. Waited to have children until after they, being prepared to be a spouse, married an emotionally healthy person also prepared to be a spouse with whom they were basically compatible (goals, priorities, values, personality, lifestyle), giving a child up for adoption into such a marriage if the child was born to a woman not in such a situation?

2. Modeled loving marriages, parenting with minimal government interference?

3. Stay married at least until the children were raised?

Men could be better fathers if they weren't competing with the government to be daddy and paying the government to do it, if their children weren't being told fathers are irrelevant or even detrimental, and if women weren't financially and socially rewarded for divorcing good husbands.

Men - Don't risk making a baby with a woman unless you are in a healthy, stable marriage with her and she is mother material. This includes refusing to donate sperm. Then, when you do become a father, stand up for your children and be there for them. Do not allow strangers, hired help, or government employees to raise your children.

3 Really Pernicious Messages behind the “Lesbians Make Better Parents” Story line

My last post dealt with the sampling and reporting problems associated with the latest study purporting to show that the children of lesbians are doing just fine. The fact is, that the study claims that the children of lesbians are doing better in every dimension than the children in the general population. The underlying message of this story is not simply, “leave us alone to have kids the way we want.”

Herewith, are the 3 Really Pernicious Messages behind the “Lesbians Make Better Parents” Story line:

1. Women are better parents than men. Therefore, two women are better for kids than a mother and a father. Men are unnecessary and possibly dangerous.
2. 2. The only problems that the children of lesbians experience are really caused by straight society.
3. 3. The children of lesbian parents were intensely planned and deeply wanted. Therefore, manufacturing children through Donor Insemination is superior to conceiving children through an act of sexual intercourse.

Ask yourself if you really believe any one of these messages. Ask yourself if you really want to create a society in which people believe, or are required to act as if they believe, these messages.

I hope Dr J forgives me for reprinting the whole thing. As noted in the link, she's done a great job (along with our own Playful Walrus) to discredit the study on its own merits.

I think these points are particularly insidious, but so obvious at the same time. While we can dig deeper and find that the fallacies of the study are many, the most potential for harm is written on the face of it. What it says about marriage, from here on out, is what I primarily find reason for concern.

The Choice

The nature of logic, it is simply a rigorous school of thought that ultimately acts like a sieve to catch what is logical and dismiss what is illogical. Like mining for gold, it helps us capture valuable golden nuggets of truth from the muddy depths of human reasoning. However, it doesn't do any excavation to find any new truth on its own.

So it is no surprise that logic comes across as dismissive. If one is looking for empathy and understanding, it seems evident that it would be futile to look to logic for that.

If you want a clear guide to tell you want to do when decisions become between two goods, or two evils, logic will not aid you there either. The greatest decision makers in history are heralded not for being logical though their mental workings were very logical. When we talk of the people who made the right decision at the right time, we laud them for being wise. Wisdom is the ability to see the value in the here and now, before the events play out to prove them such.

All I'm saying is that if you are looking for logic, and you've read this site, you've found it. If you are looking for understanding, you'll see that you have it too. If you are looking for wisdom, that will require a journey to discover your own values, your own morals. It was my own journey that lead me to defend marriage. (read on...)

In my years of looking at this issue with an eye for what is of value for everyone, I've found that both sides bring something of worth, something of aiding dignity and welfare of people around us. I've found that both sides have their good points, and bad points.

But one thing I've found is that the needs of both camps cannot be met with the same program. And there is no reason to. You cannot serve the needs of marriage equality by neutering it, you cannot serve the needs of equal recognition of rights and responsibilities of the child and the father and mother by re-creating marriage into something that is purposefully blind to the meaning of that intrinsically natural relationship to begin with.

To put it in a proverb, an uprooted tree can give shade to many different people. But an uprooted tree will die.

Our families need that definition of marriage. Our children need that because that is the only way to adequately recognize their rights. Mothers and fathers need that because by recognizing the equality of one man and one woman working together to that mutual end is the only means of marriage equality.

The core needs of families which are not marriageable can also be met. The mutual trust and dependency they share in each other can be recognized. I think it should be. But should it be recognized at the detriment of a program suited specifically to the needs of the man, woman, and child who all share that natural bond which we expect mutual trust and dependency to exist?

In the end, that is not logical. It is also cold and misunderstanding. But it is wisdom that is venerated with thousands of years of human civilization to let marriage be marriage.

BYU study: Good parenting all about the right 'dad-itude'

In fact, a dad's attitude is so important that it beat out birth order, the child's gender and even the child's language and social skills as one of the strongest predictors of a happy parent-child relationship, said Erin Holmes, lead author and assistant professor in the School of Family Life.

Oh yes, it is.

Male Desire to Be Strong and Protect Family Key to Preventing Suicides, Study Finds

Male Desire to Be Strong and Protect Family Key to Preventing Suicides, Study Finds via Science Daily

"Support from friends and connecting to other things including spirituality is often the conduit to men seeking professional help to overcome the suicidal thoughts that can accompany severe depression" says lead author Oliffe, an associate professor in the School of Nursing.

Men die by suicide at least three times more than women although it is women who are diagnosed at twice the rate of men for depression. Men aged 20-29 have the highest rate of suicide. Statistics Canada reports that in 2003, the last year for which data is available, more than 2,900 men committed suicide.

The investigators found that most study participants expressed a strong commitment to their families and turned away from suicide for the hurt and trauma it would cause loved ones.

"Here, men's strong sense of masculine roles and responsibility as a provider and protector enables men to hold on while seeking support to regain some self-control," says Oliffe.

Prop 8 Trial: Evening Update

From Lisa Leff's Associated Press update:

[Olson] told Chief U.S. Judge Vaughn Walker that tradition or fears of harm to heterosexual unions were legally insufficient grounds to discriminate against gay couples.

So even if something harms marriage, we can't refrain from doing it by treating different kinds of voluntary associations differently - even though we do precisely that in so many other examples?

"The plaintiffs say there is no way to understand why anyone would support Proposition 8, would support the traditional definition of marriage, except through some irrational or dark motivation," Cooper said. "That is not just a slur on the 7 million Californians who supported Proposition 8. It's a slur on 70 of 108 judges who have upheld as rational the decision of voters and legislatures to preserve the traditional definition of marriage."

Thank you.

Cooper used his closing argument to try to persuade the judge that it was up to the plaintiffs to prove that voters lacked justification for [restoring the bride+groom requirement in state licensing of] marriage, even if they acted only out of fear of the unknown. He urged Walker to sidestep the "judicial tsunami they are asking you to sail into."

"The plaintiffs have to negate every conceivable rational basis that might explain the policy at issue," he said.

The burden of proof is on the plaintiffs.

Cooper answered that it would be impractical for governments to test couples to see if they were capable of having children before they marry or to require those that were capable to sign pledges that they would have children.

Right, and a violation of privacy and reproductive freedom.

During Olson's rebuttal, the judge seemed to wrestle with whether he should declare Proposition 8 unconstitutional when public opinion appears to be moving toward accepting same-sex marriage, which is legal in five states and the District of Columbia.

A premature judicial edict, Walker said, could harden public opinion in the same way as the high court's 1973 decision legalizing abortion.

I do think that is a problem, especially if it happens nationwide. However, I think that was something the complaintants should have considered before filing the lawsuit; I don’t think that should be the consideration of the judge in this case, just like I don't think it matters what someone's motivation was in the voting booth. What matters is – does the amendment violate the federal Constitution in a way that requires the court to act?

From Peter Henderson's Reuters update:

Walker subjected Cooper to a barrage of questions, turning the lawyer's closing arguments into a cross-examination about the purpose of marriage, the state's role, and whether gays deserve special court protection akin to racial minorities.

Cooper contended that the only way to invalidate Prop 8 was to prove there had been absolutely no good reason, or rational basis, for millions of Californians to back it.

Proving a universal negative is very difficult.

Some [marriage neutering] advocates opposed challenging the ban in federal court, fearing that even if they win this round, they are likely to lose in the conservative Supreme Court, setting back their agenda for years.

I pray SCOTUS defends marriage.

Opponents of the [the California Marriage Amendment] compare it to laws which outlawed interracial marriage in some state. Walker noted that the high court ruled on that questions only after many states began reversing their bans.

"Why are we not at that same tipping point here with respect to same-sex marriage?" he asked.

Because the ban on “interracial” marriage was a fleeting and scattered attempt to stop a time-honored worldwide practice in order to maintain segregation, while keeping the bride+groom requirement in state marriage licenses retains a historically universal, foundational thing that makes marriage marriage, and encourages integration.

From Maria L. La Ganga’s LATimes.com update:

Walker asked Cooper why marriages are public matters in the first place. (If a state marriage license is a fundamental right, why would a judge ask that question?)

Walker: “Why is it that marriage has such a large public role? What is the purpose?”

Cooper: “This relationship is crucial to the public interest.… Procreative sexual relations both are an enormous benefit to society and represent a very real threat to society’s interest.”

Walker: “Threat?"

Cooper: “If children are born into the world without this stable, marital union … both of the parents that brought them into the world, then a host of very important, very negative social implications arise.... The purpose of marriage is to provide society’s approval to that sexual relationship and to the actual production of children.”

The quashing of disapproval of illegitimacy and fornication has led to more people being willing to go along with the neutering marriage.

Olson’s viewpoint, Cooper said, “denies the good faith of Congress, of state legislature after state legislature and electorate after electorate.”

Right.

To which Walker responded: “If you have 7 million Californians, 70 judges and this long history, why in this case did you present but one witness? ... You had a lot to choose from. One witness, and it was fair to say his testimony was equivocal.”

Calling judges and elected officials to the stand would have been difficult. Besides, the burden of proof was on the other side, and they failed to prove their case.

Prop 8 Trial and Coverage: Afternoon Update

From Lisa Leff's Associated Press update:

Cooper said societies around the world have always seen marriage as a way to keep children from being born out of wedlock.

"The historical record leaves no doubt, your honor, none whatsoever, that the central purpose of marriage in all societies at virtually all times is to channel procreative relationships into stable relationships to ensure that offspring that result from those relationships are raised in those stable relationships," Cooper said.

Some people try to discount this by citing out-of-wedlock births, including "third-party" reproduction. But that people mess up and fail to give children a home headed by bride and a groom is a problem itself, and shouldn't be used to justify the replacement of marriage.

Walker asked if people get married to benefit their communities or themselves.

It doesn't matter why individuals get married, unless they are doing so under fraudulent pretenses. What matters is – does the law benefit society? There are many examples of laws and government programs that are offered for a purpose that may not be the reason a given individual uses that law or program. Some people recycle cans and bottles to get money, but the purpose of the program isn't to give individuals money – it is to recycle materials and reduce litter. Some people join the Army to make a living, but that is not why we have an Army.

And if procreation is so central to marriage, why doesn't the state refuse to sanction marriage by infertile couples or couples who choose to remain childless?

Because those are private decisions and conditions; medical information is private. We know that no same-sex couple will naturally produce children alone, but be know that bride+groom couples may, and usually do.

Walker also heard from lawyers for the city of San Francisco, which joined the case to argue that [restoring marriage licensing’s bride+groom requirement] has negative economic consequences for local government.

"Government and taxpayers in part pay for the cost of that discrimination," Chief Deputy City Attorney Therese Stewart told Walker, citing lost wedding revenue and increased public health costs "created by stigma introduced by measures like Proposition 8."

Homosexual behavior causes increased public health costs, should we outlaw it? Local governments lose out on revenue because of bans on cockfighting, child-selling, polygamy, incestuous marriages, prisons, and nuclear waste dumps. So what? Local governments lose money to lawsuits by injured persons - should we ban lawsuits against government? Local governments don't have a right to a certain level of wedding revenue, and same-sex couples were having ceremonies years before Prop 22 was struck down, and they can still have ceremonies. Why is this testimony even allowable?

Peter Henderson's Reuters story had this headline: "No Good Reason for Gay Marriage Ban, Court Told"

Sure there’s a good reason not to license brideless or groomless pairings as marriage: That’s how the people voted. The time to convince someone there was no good reason was before Proposition 8 passed.

Same sex weddings would not harm traditional marriages and California voters had no good reasons to ban them, a lawyer said on Wednesday at the end of a six-month trial likely headed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Right, and counterfeiting the dollar doesn't hurt the dollar, either. Issuing actual UC diplomas to nonstudents wouldn't hurt students, would it?

Allowing same sex marriage would do nothing to prevent heterosexuals from continuing to marry and would in fact heighten the institution's value and reputation, Olson told the court on Wednesday.

"Eliminating invidious restrictions on marriage strengthens the institution of marriage," he said.

Okay, then let's get rid of the restrictions on bigamy and incest. If the arguments apply to those, then how can you not argue for those, too? Simply saying, as some marriage neutering advocates do, that you're not calling for those changes as well and that's why it isn’t necessary undermines your claims about rights and strengthening marriage.

Prop 8 Trial and Coverage: Mid-Day Update

Lisa Leff's mid-day update for the Associated Press is here.

Olson said the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized marriage as a fundamental right - one afforded to prisoners serving life sentences and child support scofflaws - while refusing to make procreation a precondition of marriage, as evidenced by laws allowing divorces and contraception.

SCOTUS has never recognized that a brideless or groomless pairing is marriage and that such a couple has a right to a state-issued license. If a state-issued marriage license is truly a fundamental right in such a way that restrictions are not allowed to deny that license to someone based on their choice of partners, then it can't be denied to first cousins (as it is in some states) or closer relatives, or more than two people.

"It is the right of individuals, not an indulgence to be dispensed by the state," Olson said.

Actually, that’s clearly false. State licenses, by definition, are issued by the state on behalf of the people of a state. Fundamental rights are things you are born with. Bans on "interracial" marriage literally denied people the ability to live together. That's not the case anymore - you don't have to be married to live together. Individuals do have the right to freedom of association (although that has always been restricted in some way throughout our history). But today, consenting adults do have the right to associate as they wish – living together, celebrating their relationship, etc. What they do not have is a right to force the rest of us to give them anything.

"The right to marry, to choose to marry, has never been tied to procreation."

The ability to naturally procreate is a major, if not the only, reason for the state to be involved in a voluntary personal relationship between adults. Absent that ability, the state interest isn't the same.

Sponsors of the proposition had failed to prove that the ability of heterosexual couples to procreate without reproductive technology provided justification for denying marriage to same-sex couples, Olson said.

This is backwards. This implies that the government should do something (in this case, issue marriage licenses to brideless or groomless couples) unless it can be demonstrated to be harmful. Our entire Constitution was written on the premise that the government should not be involved in anything - certainly not voluntary personal relationships - unless someone’s rights are being threatened, such as through assault or theft... or unless it was specifically instructed by the Constitution to be involved in something. Nobody's right is threatened when they have the same access to a license as anybody else - even if they don't want to get that license under current conditions.

Olson also stressed that Proposition 8 sponsors had failed to prove allowing gay marriages would harm the institution of marriage or society as a whole.

It is up to those suing for a change to demonstrate that they are somehow impaired or harmed by the state constitutional amendment in a way that compels the federal government to get involved. They have the burden of proof. Homosexuality advocates are apparently are so used to getting something simply because they ask for it that they are under the delusion that the rest of us can only say "no" to their demands of us if we demonstrate to their satisfaction grave harm would result. That's not the way the law works, unless they get a judge to go along with them.

The lawyer argued that Proposition 8 was based on prejudice because the main campaign message its sponsors used in 2008 warned voters the measure was needed to prevent children from learning about same-sex marriage.

I've seen demonstrably false campaign ads about propositions, and ads that focused on minor points with specific talking points - because those talking points worked with focus groups. Lies such as that kids and the elderly would die if the proposition passed, or wasn't passed, or whatever. So what? What matters is the text of the law.

"Protect our children from learning or being taught that gay marriage is OK, and that means that gay people's marriage is not OK, and that means gay people are not OK," Olson said.

Really? Haven't you ever thought a friend's marriage (or even one of your own) was a bad one – and if so, did that mean you thought that person was bad, or that you hated the person? Hasn't anyone ever told you something they thought about themselves that you didn't believe to be true? You thought the person was mistaken, but did you think they were "not OK"?

UPDATE: From LATimes.com's report by Maria L. La Ganga...

And would the case before him now be different if [neutered] marriage hadn't been legal in California for five months, if an estimated 18,000 couples hadn't legally married and remain legally married today?

The constitutional amendment was drafted to protect existing law. Thanks for the California Supreme Court's refusal to wait until the vote they knew was coming, it ended up restoring law. As such, the resulting disparities are their doing.

Theodore Olson, who represents the gay and lesbian couples suing for the right to wed, gave a passionate closing argument in favor of overturning the measure and spoke about the importance of marriage in society.

But why is it important, Ted? It's like saying a diploma is so important, so everyone should get one even if they haven't chosen to meet the requirement.

He showed an emotional video from the 2-1/2 weeks of testimony earlier this year of the four plaintiffs talking about how painful it is to be denied what they call a fundamental right and what it would mean to them to be able to marry their long-term partners.

Said Kris Perry, who lives in Berkeley with Sandy Stier, her partner of more than a decade: “There is something so humiliating about everybody knowing you want to make that decision [to marry] and you don’t get to. It’s hard to face the people at work.… I have to still find a way to feel OK and not take every bit of discriminatory behavior against me personally.”

That I don't like a condition for state licensing does not obligate a change in that licensing. Even if I cry about it.

While I am against humiliating someone in front of others, the rest of us are not obligated to try to structure our laws so that you don't feel humuliated - in fact, it would be forcing my morality on others to try to outlaw humiliating someone else. Feelings are not always rational or based on reality. People will still look at your relationship differently, even with a marriage license. Do you want thought police?

LA Times Reminds Us: We Hate 8

In its ongoing effort to supplant homosexuality niche publications, the Los Angeles Times editorial board reminded us that they are in favor of marriage neutering and judicial tyranny in support of marriage neutering. The headline for today's editorial is:

Parenting should be a nonissue in gay marriage debate Supporters of Proposition 8 have made child-rearing a focus of the trial. But no other group is prohibited from marrying because of parental abilities, or lack thereof.

Off we go...

It wasn't surprising that the federal trial on Proposition 8 in January confirmed that the same-sex marriage ban is destructive to family life and discriminatory toward a group that has historically been subject to abuse.

How did it confirm that?

They go on to recount some of their favorite moments of the trial, then say that it is the motivation of voters that matters. If that is true, we should have secondary ballot spaces with multiple choices and write-in options so that voters can explain why they are voting for or against a certain law. Better yet, how about lie detector sessions?

They then cite the study I discussed earlier in which lesbians who deliberately made babies without a father around (through sperm donation) reported to people interested in planned same-sex or single parenting by lesbians that their children have turned out great.

Just as we wouldn't propose taking marriage away from heterosexual couples even though their children might not do as well as those of lesbians, there is nothing reasonable about denying marriage to same-sex couples based on judgments about child-rearing or anything else concerning the perceived quality of their marriages.

This statement ignores the fact that they haven't made the case why it is reasonable to change marriage licensing in the first place. There is nothing reasonable about it – it is purely based on emotions and feelings. Homosexual people feel attracted to people of the same sex. They want to change state marriage licensing so they can get a license without forming the kind of relationship for which the license was created. The burden of proof is on the side that wants to change something so ingrained in law.

[Much, much more after the jump.]

Despite what Proposition 8 supporters have tried to argue during the trial, marriage is not solely about procreation and raising children; for many couples, that's not even a factor.

Hello, Strawman. My argument is that the state has an interest in the uniting of a bride and groom in marriage that is doesn't have with other kinds of relationships, because it is the only kind of relationship that may naturally (and usually does) produce children, in a cohesive partnership that unites both basic elements of society, and provides the next generation of citizens with a legally, financially, socially, spiritually bonded role model, guardian, nurturer, and provider from each of the two sexes. Bride+groom pairings are demonstrably, objectively different from same-sex pairings, and the state is allowed to treat different kinds of voluntary associations differently.

And same-sex couples who want children will have them whether or not they have a marriage license.

That's what domestic partnerships are for. But we should not encourage people to create children in situations where they know the child will not have a mother or not have a father. As I've asked before, why are people who normally appeal to nature and naturalistic evolution so quick to advocate ignoring nature when it comes to sexual reproduction? There is such thing as asexual reproduction. Nature didn't give that to human beings.

Society doesn't force single parents to marry, even though there's a general presumption that having two parents would be better for the children. It doesn't force teenagers, still children themselves, to give up their children to older couples, or forbid people with kooky parenting theories to wed.

Yes, people have "reproductive rights" and marriage is voluntary, and people have parental rights unless they prove themselves so unfit that the state takes away their children. But until the gender confusion advocates change this, the fact is that the state has birth certificates with two categories – male and female. Despite what our confused critics say, in general, it is an objective fact that almost everybody is either male or female. When someone applied for a marriage license from the state, it can be objectively verified that one of them is male, and the other is female, and there is no right to a state-issued license in the first place. So, while it would be great if we could ensure that everybody would be good parents and would raise children within wedlock, there are only so many things we can do. One of them is keep marriage distinct from nonmarriage.

Only gay and lesbian couples are singled out for this judgment of whether they're good enough to marry and have children.

It is not a matter of "good enough" – it is a fact that same-sex pairings are not the same as the uniting of a man and a woman, and a fact that no such pairings will ever naturally produce children or provide children with both a mother and a father. Their statement is like saying that only lactose intolerant people are singled out for not being able to drink milk. They can drink milk if they want to – but we're not going to force them to drink milk. But they shouldn't be able to insist to the rest of us that water is milk, and they shouldn't be able to force the FDA to label water as milk.

The millions of people who have been watching with intense interest as the story of same-sex marriage unfolds have a legitimate stake in seeing and hearing the arguments that will determine whether gays and lesbians in California are granted the basic right to form families with the same legal status as all other families.

There is no "basic right" to form a family without a mother or without a father. You can naturally form a family, or at least a parent-child relationship, if a biological mother and a biological father interact, even if just for a moment.

The paper is taking comments, and I urge you to leave one. There was only when posted when I read the editorial, from “David in Houston” at 6:04 AM June 16, 2010:

Animus and bigotry are the only reasons that people voted for Prop. 8.

This is an assumption, one that I can say with certainty is wrong. It is also bigoted itself.

People CHOOSE to be religious.

Now hold on there. A lot of people insist they have always known their religion, or felt an irresistible call to that religion. Who are you to sat that is any less valid than someone knowing they are gay or lesbian? Also, some researchers claim to have found parts of the brain and brain functions related to religious belief, as if that is proof that someone was born with a tendency towards their religious beliefs. Also, there is an enumerated Constitutional right to freedom of religion. There is no such enumeration of a right to a state license or homosexual behavior.

A religious belief (homosexuality is immoral) is not a LEGAL reason to deny same-sex couples the opportunity to marry.

One need not believe that homosexual behavior is immoral to support the notion that the state should keep the bride+groom requirement in marriage licensing. People are allowed to vote based on any or no reason. That is their legal right. Some people feel attracted to voting for marriage defense. How can you deny their freedom to their sexuality?

Maggie Gallagher on Prop 8 Trial: Right to Vote

There have been a lot of columns I've wanted to link to lately, and I'm finally pointing to one. Gallagher's latest column is out, in time for the resumption of the trial over the California Marriage Amendment. She uses the term "gay marriage", which I disagree with.

But that is the heart of the case against Prop 8: Gay marriage advocates believe there isn't any difference between two men in a sexual union and a husband and wife, and those of us who see this difference are blinded by hatred and prejudice. They delegitimize opponents, brand us as haters, and then try to strip us of our rights.

That's an excellent summary.

For these Americans, gay marriage does not merely expand marriage to more people, it abolishes the historic core conception of marriage and replaces it with a new government-mandated genderless marriage. Gay marriage means that our maleness and femaleness does not matter, our capacity to create new life is irrelevant to the public project of marriage. Henceforth by government decree marriage will mean a commitment of any two people; marriage will become a product of individual desire not rooted in any natural order, not rooted in our history or traditions and, incidentally, also not rooted in any coherent vision of constitutional limits on what government courts can do.

If a brideless or groomless pairing is marriage, then marriage can't be about children. If marriage isn't about children, then why should anyone say that children should be raised within marriage? Why should any man feel an obligation to the mother of his children? If a judge can change the meaning of words describing something that long predates our union, then how can any law have meaning – since laws are written with words? We should reduce our elected legislators and executives to mere judicial appointment roles, and let the judges dictate our lives.

If we don’t have the legal right to vote to restore limitations on state licenses – which are issued on our behalf – limitations that treat people equally regardless of their birth, then how can we vote on anything?

California Marriage Amendment Trial Resumes Tomorrow

The closing argument phase of the federal trial over the California Marriage Amendment (Proposition 8) starts tomorrow. Maura Dolan covers the story in the Los Angeles Times, referring to it as a "ban on same-sex marriage", of course.

A federal judge who will decide the constitutionality of California's ban on same-sex marriage wants lawyers during closing arguments Wednesday to discuss the meaning of "choice" in sexual orientation and a possible finding that Proposition 8 attempted to "enforce private morality."

Like I've said, what is relevant is: 1. Did the people of California follow due process in voting for this constitutional amendment? (The answer is yes - even the state Supreme Court that neutered marriage in the first place agreed.) 2. Does the amendment violate the federal Constitution? (The answer is no... it treats all individuals equally under the law.)

Someone's feelings are not relevant in this case. Someone could have been born with a feeling, but it doesn't obligate the rest of us to change anything. Keeping the bride+groom requirement in state marriage licensing in no way enforces private morality. It doesn’t prevent anyone from shacking up, engaging in sex and sex-like behaviors, or whatever. It enforces a public standard for licenses that are issued on behalf of the public.

Among the questions asked of attorneys for the Proposition 8 opponents is how much importance should be placed on the motivation of voters who approved the marriage ban.

Registered voters are allowed to vote or refrain from voting based on any or no reason, and that is their private decision to make. What matters is what the law says. If someone voted to neuter marriage because they want same-sex couples to be "as miserable as heterosexual couples", would that make a law neutering marriage invalid?

Even if a ban on gay marriage has no rational purpose, Walker asked, is it legal if voters truly believed it would prevent harm?

It is legal because a majority of the vote adopted it, in accordance with the state constitution.

[Much more after the jump.]

"Why is legislating based on moral disapproval of homosexuality not tantamount to discrimination?" Walker asked both sides. "What evidence in the record shows that a belief based in morality cannot also be discriminatory?"

All laws discriminate. But one need not disapprove of homosexual behavior to favor the bride+groom requirement in state marriage licensing. As I have said before, I personally know at least one same-sex couple that is against the neutering of marriage.

There are comments on the article worth noting.

"Romgtr" at 8:16 AM June 15, 2010:

the reason the state should forbid gay marriage because it doesn't make any sense. It's like saying "I'm a married bachelor." It's an oxymoron!

"dejapooh" at 9:22 AM June 15, 2010:

So, because the way some people live makes no sense to you, it should be illegal?

Homosexual behavior, cohabitation, and ceremonies are not illegal, and maintaining that state-issued marriage licenses shouldn't be given to groomless or brideless couples is a far cry from calling for the recriminalization of homosexuality.

"Carrot Cake Man" at 11:19 AM June 15, 2010:

Rom, YOUR marriage "doesn't make any sense" to me. Can I take away YOUR equality based on my dislike for your "lifestyle choice"?

If you can get enough people to vote for it, then yes, you can change the marriage laws. There is a difference, however: heterosexual behavior is how we all got here.

"P-Funk" at 8:55 AM June 15, 2010

If marriage is redefined, could someone explain why the bounds must then end with marriage between only TWO, NON-IMMEDIATELY-RELATED, CONSENTING ADULTS?

Because most LGBTQQUAI??? Activists aren't arguing for that. It is a matter of who is making the most noise, not logic.

What is the great barrier between homosexual marriage and "sibling" marriage? Or, a union of two versus a union of three?

There isn't one, according to these people. Actually, polygamy and incestuous marriages do have a long history in various places around the world, unlike same-sex "marriage". But they are not recognized by state licensing, nor should they be.

"joe31183" at 9:23 AM June 15, 2010:

When "sibling" marriage and polygamous marriage are on the table, then deal with it then.

Notice he doesn’t make an argument against them. Instead, he appeals to numbers. "P-Funk" points on the double standard:

You argue that "a large group of people" have pushed for homosexual marriage. That's why we should allow homosexual marriage and, at this time, preclude the lessor supported types of marriages which I mentioned. The constitutionality of homosexual marriage, then, would be because of the large number of supporters pushing for it, right?

He continues in another comment:

Assuming that a critical mass is needed for an issue to become constitutional, I have two questions:

#1 At which point is critical mass reached? ("...a large group of American citizens requested gay marriage.")

#2 Would the large group of American citizens pushing "against" the constitutionality of homosexual marriage be equally valid?

"joe31183" at 10:29 AM June 15, 2010:

1) If the group is large and it is shown that to prevent the group equal treatment would be harmful, then legalization should be approached. Denying families equal protections under the law is obviously detrimental to the family in question.

2) I don't believe that we should ever vote on the rights of couples that do not affect ourselves. It's just cruel. I believe it should be left up to the courts to decide if something of this nature be legalized. In history, the courts were the most powerful when it came to approving civil rights. You just can't leave these things up to the public because they vote with bias and not out of what's right and wrong.

Unfortunately for Joe, the people of California are allowed to vote.

Last I checked, nobody pointed out a logical reason why same-sex pairings should get marriage licenses but the others shouldn't.

Please see my Handy Dandy Marriage Neutering Plea Repellant

Newsweek Covers Marriage

A book could be written on the topics touched upon in three pieces in Newsweek, and several have been. The articles themselves use some links, and I will be using some links myself in an effort to keep this post from being any longer than it needs to be.

The three articles are:

'I Don't': The case against marriage - by Jessica Bennett and Jesse Ellison

I Do. Here’s Why: Marriage isn’t the problem—nor is it the solution. But it is a legitimate—and joyous—decision for many women. Including me - by Kate Dailey

I Do, Too: A modern man’s perspective on why marriage isn’t dead - by Andrew Romano

It would have been nice to have a piece from someone who would actually argue for the ideal of lasting, happy, traditional marriage and reserving sex and childrearing for marriage.

[Read my extensive analysis after the jump.]

Let's look at 'I Don't': The case against marriage - by Jessica Bennett and Jesse Ellison, who blog frequently on women's issues at The Equality Myth.

Once upon a time, marriage made sense. It was how women ensured their financial security, got the fathers of their children to stick around, and gained access to a host of legal rights.

Most women still marry men who earn more than they do, and some women stop earning income while married. As such, marriage still provides some level of financial security for women.

But 40 years after the feminist movement established our rights in the workplace, a generation after the divorce rate peaked, and a decade after Sex and the City made singledom chic, marriage is—from a legal and practical standpoint, anyway—no longer necessary.

Necessary for whom? While I agree that women are more able to have full lives today without ever being married, marriage still benefits men, women, and especially children, and as such, benefits society.

The two of us are educated, young, urban professionals, committed to our careers, friendships, and, yes, our relationships.

What exactly is the objective commitment in the relationship?

But we know that legally tying down those unions won’t make or break them.

No, they won't. But that doesn't mean marriage isn't necessary.

[Women are] the breadwinners (or co-breadwinners) in two thirds of American families.

That's a very squishy statement. First of all, this means that in one out of every three families (however you are defining that), the woman earns no income (for some of those, there isn't a woman). However, "co-breadwinner" means what, exactly? Does working a job four hours a week count? Like I said, the significant majority of women marry men who earn more than they do. Also if a woman has primary custody of children, then isn't she automatically the breadwinner – but how much money are these women getting in child support and tax-funded benefits?

In 2010, we know most spousal rights can be easily established outside of the law, and that Americans are cohabiting, happily, in record numbers. We have our own health care and 401(k)s and no longer need a marriage license to visit our partners in the hospital.

Yes, I have covered all of this. After decades of working to devalue marriage, the Left now – ta-da – says there is little value in marriage. Imagine that.

Current data may not yet identify our feelings as a so-called trend, but they certainly show we’re on to something: the percentage of married Americans has dropped each decade since the 1950s, and the number of unmarried-but-cohabiting partners has risen 1,000 percent over the last 40 years. At 28 for men and 26 for women, the median age at which Americans are marrying is at its highest point ever—and even higher among our cohort of urban and educated.

See here.

Which brings us to this question: if you’re going to wait, why do it at all?

For one, to give children the best environment in which to be raised. Also, because it is good for both spouses, provided both spouses are prepared to be spouses. I know I also like having sex in a constructive context rather than a destructive context.

We know that having children out of wedlock lost its stigma a long time ago: in 2008, 41 percent of births were to unmarried mothers, more than ever before, according to a Pew study.

It may have lost its stigma, but it hasn't lost its sting in that is bad for children and bad for society.

And the idea that we’d “save ourselves” for marriage? Please. As one 28-year-old man told the author of a new book on marriage: “If I had to be married to have sex, I would probably be married, as would every guy I know.”

There's no doubt in my mind that the easy access to free casual and nonmarital sex has had a profound impact. Not everyone is unchaste, though. There are attractive, educated, well-adjusted people who marry in the later 20s and later as virgins.

Even the legal argument for tying the knot is easily debunked.

And yet despite all of these claims, there are people insisting that getting a marriage license is a necessary right for brideless or groomless couples. So which is it?

Thanks largely to the efforts of same-sex-marriage advocates, heterosexual couples have more unmarried rights to partnership now than ever.

Are you sure you want to blame homosexuality advocates for that?

And for the rights we don’t have—well, “if you have enough money,” says Jennifer Pizer, a senior attorney at the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, “you can pay lawyers to litigate just about anything.”

You mean, like when they argue that two men make a marriage, Ms. Pizer?

Boomers may have been the first children of divorce, but ours is a generation for whom multiple households were the norm. We grew up shepherded between bedrooms, minivans, and dinner tables, with stepparents, half-siblings, and highly complicated holiday schedules.

And do you think this shouldn't be discouraged?

Men’s contributions to housework and child rearing may have doubled since the 1960s, yet even among dual-earning couples, women still do about two thirds of the housework. (One study even claims that the simple act of getting married creates seven hours more housework for women each week.)

Ah yes. I think this blog does a good job on that one.

In the workplace, meanwhile, women who use their partner’s name are regarded as less intelligent, less competent, less ambitious, and thus less likely to be hired.

Yeah, I'm looking forward to names like Jane Jones-Smith-Farmer-Baker. Say, isn't that prejudice based on sexual orientation?

Research shows that the more education and financial independence a woman has—in other words, the more success she has outside the home—the more likely she is to stay married.

Well, sure. If she earns more, she will be the one paying alimony. There's much less incentive for her to file for divorce. Women are the ones more likely to file for divorce. Take away some of the reward for doing so, and they do it less. No shock there.

And for all the talk of marriage being good for families, a study of the Scandinavian countries—where a majority of children are born out of wedlock—found that kids actually spend more time with their parents than American children do.

If we were a country that mandated shorter work hours and more vacation time and paid for it by letting some other country do the heavy lifting in defending the free world, then we could do the same. And wouldn't that be nice? Right up until we were all put in chains by fascists.

The piece feels like it was written by people who want to justify their promiscuity and fears of having responsibility. If someone wants to sleep around more than they want to a good parent, then I’m all for them not marrying (and not raising kids). But I don't want to be forced to pay for their fertility/IVF treatments when they change their mind (which they admit might happen).

Now, on to...

I Do. Here’s Why: Marriage isn’t the problem—nor is it the solution. But it is a legitimate - and joyous—decision for many women. Including me - by Kate Dailey

After only eight months together, my boyfriend and I made plans to find a place of our own.

Shacking up, statistically, is bad for marriage.

Why get married? Why not just see how it goes, or enter into some kind of legal partnership? Because I believe that my relationship with Brett is important, and I want to publicly recognize that. Because I want to go through life as part of a partnership, and I want to kick off that partnership in a meaningful way. Being a couple is hard, even when you’re in love, and having the institutional support, as well as the support of my friends and family who recognize what it means to be married, matters to me. There’s a reason that weddings transcend most cultures, and that so many people are now fighting with whole hearts to earn the right to marry: those reasons go far beyond property rights and health-insurance issues.

At least she has an explanation. A lot of people these days have no idea why they get married, aside from the wedding stuff. It is just something they think they are supposed to do and they feel pressure to.

Marriage is how you define it - it doesn’t define you.

That may work in your home, but it doesn't work in law.

While she argues for neutering marriage, she seems to contradict herself:

I’m not gaining any sort of social status or political legitimacy, but I’m not sacrificing any part of myself either: it wasn’t until I was settled in my career that I even felt ready to get married.

And, finally, theres...

I Do, Too: A modern man’s perspective on why marriage isn’t dead - by Andrew Romano

In the year 2010, anyone who denies that marriage has become impractical probably hasn’t paid much attention to the numbers. But while Bennett and Ellison get the details right, I think they miss the big picture. Or at least my big picture. For them, the irrationality of marriage is the reason why modern men and women shouldn’t get hitched. For me, it’s the reason they should.

Yes, he argues that marriage is more romantic because it makes less sense. Okay.

The truth is, neither of us had thought all that much about the question that both the priest and Bennett and Ellison were posing: why marriage?

That bodes well, now doesn’t it?

He gets something very right:

But the problem is that my colleagues aren’t really criticizing marriage here. They’re criticizing bad relationships. People don’t cheat because they’re married; they cheat because they’re unsatisfied, or selfish, or impulsive. Women don’t cook and clean because they’re married; they cook and clean because their partner doesn’t (or because they actually like to).

But then goes on to say:

Divorce occurs outside of wedlock as well; it’s called “breaking up.”

Oh, there's a big difference. Hopefully you won't find that out.

Cheating and chauvinism are bad. Period. It doesn’t matter whether they happen within or without the bonds of matrimony.

Well, yes, it does. Someone who has sex with another person other than their boyfriend or girlfriend may or may not be breaking a promise to someone with whom they are already fornicating. But when they are married and have sex with someone other than their spouse, they not only fornicate, but they commit adultery, usually breaking vows – and they expose their spouse to being financially responsible for someone else’s offspring. It's called paternity fraud perpetrated against husbands, and on the flip side is child support paid by a husband (and his wife) to his partner-in-adultery. In some places, alienation of affection law still applies in marriage, but it doesn't apply in nonmarriage.

As women become more powerful in our society and economy—see the new Atlantic Monthly cover story, “The End of Men,” for the stats—men will have to abandon the old, Clint Eastwood model of masculinity and embrace a newer, nondominant mode of manhood if they hope to keep up.

Actually, as much as some women have told you that is what they want, Mr. Romano, most of them, deep down, do want a man who will earn more than they do (even support them as they raise their own children instead of having them raised by strangers and hired help), do want a man who can physically and socially protect them, and do want a man who takes charge to some extent. Women (not all) tend to end up resenting the guy they are with if he doesn't fulfill these roles.

To really alter the dynamic of male-female relationships in America, we’ll have to redefine marriage from the inside out.

Or vice-versa.

There you have it. Narcissism, hedonism, moral relativism, gender confusion; shortening of attention spans, divorce and the breakdown of the family/kinship support structure, separating sex/childbearing/childrearing/marriage/cohabitation, lack of strong fathers in the home, kids being raised in institutions, secularization, and women being told they don't need a husband to be a good mother and that they can have it all at the same time – it's all tied up in the same mess.

Men can be emotional about love too.

Something much different then the 'misogynistic thuggery' of young teenage boys, which is a study from Science Daily "Young Men More Vulnerable to Relationship Ups and Downs Than Women". Lot of interesting explanations on how genders are emotionally different in breakups entering the threshold of adulthood managing possible marital relationships.

Closing Arguments in CMA Trial

Closing arguments will happen this coming week in the federal trial over the California Marriage Amendment. As usual, Lisa Leff's Associated Press article refers to it as a "gay marriage ban".

The presiding judge wants them to answer 39 questions before he delivers his verdict.

I wonder what those are going to be. Here are my questions: 1. Did the people of California follow due process in voting for this constitutional amendment? (The answer is yes.) 2. Does the amendment violate the federal Constitution? (The answer is no... it treats all individuals equally under the law.)

Dismissed!

The judge expects to hear, too, whether he can find that withholding marriage from gays constitutes unlawful discrimination if voters "genuinely but without evidence" believed there were legitimate reasons to limit marriage to a man and a woman.

From former U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olson, who will be arguing on behalf of two same-sex couples, Walker wants to know what empirical proof there is that allowing gay men and lesbians to marry would reduce discrimination against them.

Yes, there are legitimate reasons to have requirements for state licensing of anything. Without requirements, why have a license? Notice that nobody is preventing anyone from having ceremonies, or employers other than the government from considering those relationships as marriage.

What evidence have they produced to support their claim that same-sex marriage would have negative consequences to the institution of marriage? Conversely, how does denying marriage to gays and lesbians improve the odds that children born in California will be raised by a married mom and dad?

How about we not tear down a wall if we're not sure why it is there? In this case, we know why the wall is there. But if you don't, how about erring on the side of caution?

The veteran jurist, a Republican appointee, has indicated he does not plan to rule from the bench. Lawyers say they are preparing for him to hand down his ruling within weeks after the closing arguments.

We'll be watching.

Andy Pugno, a lawyer who served on the Protect Marriage executive committee, acknowledged that the ban's backers faced an uphill battle in addressing one of the key questions that preoccupied Walker — whether there was any proof that sanctioning same-sex marriage harms traditional heterosexual unions.

"The difficulty with that question is it's asking the defense to speculate about a harm that is likely but would occur only if we were to experiment with redefining marriage," Pugno said. "It's hard to disprove something that hasn't happened yet."

Hey, but it is only marriage, right? What could go wrong with eliminating the core meaning of the core building block of society? How about this - it is harmful for a federal court to strike down a duly adopted state constitutional amendment that does not violate equal protection or any other aspect of the federal Constitution? The people already voted on this. It doesn't matter if a judge agrees with the people or not, since it does not go against the Constitution. If it did, he wouldn't need to ask any more questions. He had his turn to vote in the election - just like everyone else.

"Fact of Nature: Men Willing to Die for Sex"

Fact of Nature: Men Willing to Die for Sex By Robin Nixon, LiveScience Staff Writer

Willing to risk it all for sex (and kids)

"The name of the game in evolution is to get your genes in the next generation," said study researcher Daniel Kruger of the University of Michigan.

Reproductively speaking, men have more to gain, and less to lose, from risk-taking behavior than women, researchers have long said. Essentially, it's okay if the guy dies, because at least once he's done the initial deed, there a chance his offspring will survive.

While having an involved father increases the odds of a child's social and reproductive success, not having a mother, even if she disappears after weaning, is often fatal, especially in developing countries, several studies have shown. Therefore, women, unlike men, may have evolved to avoid physical risks, theorizes researcher Anne Campbell of Durham University in England who was not involved with the study.

Without a sound respect of marriage in our youth, all we will have is mysogynistic thuggery .

Via Feminine Genius

For once, I share the outrage of Maureen Dowd, who brings to light a horrific case of mysogynistic thuggery in a prestigious a boys' school:

A group of soon-to-be freshmen boys at Landon, an elite private grade school and high school for boys in the wealthy Washington suburb of Montgomery County, Md., was drafting local girls.....

Before they got caught last summer, the boys had planned an “opening day party,” complete with T-shirts, where the mission was to invite the drafted girls and, unbeknownst to them, score points by trying to rack up as many sexual encounters with the young women as possible.

In the larger context, we now have a generation introduced to intimacy as an act devoid of meaning, separated from commitment (either to partner or offspring) and ubiquitous in the mass media (run by adults and funded by this wider community). Those who decry porn are tarred as prudes and those who try to set standards of decency are dismissed as myopic and judgemental.

So the boys imbibe the wider culture, watch how the adults around them act and apply their boy genius to the rules of the "game." Why the shock? Our post-Christian culture is in a process of decay and the structures that were once formed by Revelation are now empty constructs peopled by non-believers. The dignity owed to girls as persons in the image of God has been eliminated and cannot be effectively replaced by book learning on secular models. Anything short of a religious revival will be inadequate to slow the decline.

Yeah, there is religious opinion here, but I hope no matter theist or atheist you see what is going on. We're teaching our children not to respect sex in the proper context of a healthy relationship with all of emotional and physical consequences. I've guess as long as a woman doesn't physically give birth to a breathing child and get good grades for college, nothing else matters in her well being.

I guess I should praise though Planned Parenthood, because these girls are safe with STD testing/vaccines, condoms, birth control, emergency contraception, and abortion. Because that is what really matters keeping them in business, not the well being of women. Otherwise... I'm not surprised by the actions of the young men ready to gang rape. Duh, it's common place for a young man to think of one thing, which is hooking up as a game.

I'm more surprised people were clueless this happen.

Lesbians Report That Lesbians Make Good Mothers

Alice Park reports on a study that claims children do better with lesbian mothers than heterosexual parents, whether or not the mother has a partner. Now, before any men try to get out of their fatherhood obligations by bringing this to the attention of family court judges, let's take a closer look at what is really being claimed here. After all, it can't just be a celibate straight woman raising the child by herself. No, according to this, it is important that the woman be attracted to other women. That a child's mother is attracted to other women makes the kid do better in math. Right. Now golf, I could believe.

That is the question researchers explored in the first study ever to track children raised by lesbian parents, from birth to adolescence.

I'm not sure what the wording of this means. Does this mean the kids were raised from birth to adolescence by lesbians, or that they were only tracked through adolescence? From the rest of the article, it appears to mean both. I suppose I should know from the comma.

Although previous studies have indicated that children with same-sex parents show no significant differences compared with children in heterosexual homes when it comes to social development and adjustment, many of those investigations involved children who were born to women in heterosexual marriages, who later divorced and came out as lesbians.

One important detail is what exactly is meant by social development and adjustment, and how that is determined.

For their new study, published on Monday in the journal Pediatrics, researchers Nanette Gartrell, a professor of psychiatry at the University of California at San Francisco (and a law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles), and Henry Bos, a behavioral scientist at the University of Amsterdam, focused on what they call planned lesbian families - households in which the mothers identified themselves as lesbian at the time of artificial insemination.

So it appears none of these children were "surprises" or conceived via rape, or otherwise "crisis pregnancies". This is very important. Perhaps the real message is that waiting to have children until you believe you are ready to be a parent makes things better for the child? A child born to a partnered lesbian impregnated through third party reproduction is going to have two women who consider that child their child, unlike how it often can be when a man has been cuckolded and is bitter or comes into a situation where a woman is raising a child from a past lover.

[Much more after the jump.]

The authors found that children raised by lesbian mothers - whether the mother was partnered or single - scored very similarly to children raised by heterosexual parents on measures of development and social behavior.

There are so many factors consider for both the homosexual and heterosexual parents – divorce, strife in the relationships, individual flaws, etc.

These findings were expected, the authors said; however, they were surprised to discover that children in lesbian homes scored higher than kids in straight families on some psychological measures of self-esteem and confidence, did better academically and were less likely to have behavioral problems, such as rule-breaking and aggression.

Self-esteem and confidence aren't necessarily good things – especially when they are unwarranted. Rule-breaking can be a good thing when the rule is unjust. Aggression is not necessarily a bad thing. For example, if a bully is about to beat up a smaller child, perhaps citing that smaller child’s mother being a lesbian, then aggressive intervention on the part of a witness can be a good thing even if the school has a rule against intervening.

In addition, children in same-sex-parent families whose mothers ended up separating did as well as children in lesbian families in which the moms stayed together.

Does anyone really believe this? It means that same-sex divorce has no effect on children. Really, rather than getting this study widely publicized, if I had come up with these results, I would realize that the study is flawed. But due to politics, and the funding already spent by homosexuality advocates on the study, the study gets wide publicity.

The data that Gartrell and Bos analyzed came from the U.S. National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study (NLLFS), begun in 1986. The authors included 154 women in 84 families who underwent artificial insemination to start a family; the parents agreed to answer questions about their children's social skills, academic performance and behavior at five follow-up times over the 17-year study period. Children in the families were interviewed by researchers at age 10 and were then asked at age 17 to complete an online questionnaire, which included queries about the teens' activities, social lives, feelings of anxiety or depression, and behavior.

Where to start?

1. That's an extremely small sample.

2. What about when these kids get older, especially when they consider starting their own family?

3. Are the misandry levels in these children higher than the general population?

4. Is it possible that the researchers doing the interviews were biased?

5. Is it possible that the self-reporting could have been defensive?

Not surprisingly, the researchers found that 41% of children reported having endured some teasing, ostracism or discrimination related to their being raised by same-sex parents.

Unfortunately, some children bully other children for anything they perceive as different. Bullying for whatever reasons is not good, even more so when it is something over which the child has no control.

But Gartrell and Bos could find no differences on psychological adjustment tests between the children and those in a group of matched controls.

This could mean that everyone is getting bullied at pretty much the same rate, regardless of the sexual identity of parents.

I do think is entirely possible that a child raised by two stable women (or one woman) would be better off than one raised by a woman who has a series of bad boys parading through her bedroom and past the breakfast table, possibly taking a detour through the child's room between. But what about situations where a mother and grandmother are raising the children, or a mother and aunt?

Apples need to be compared to apples. Of course a child is likely to be better off raised by a generally good, financially stable woman who planned the pregnancy over an abusive mother and abusive father who are in and out of police custody and spend their money on their substance abuse habits rather than food for the kid. But what about all other things being equal?

The study does not past the smell test. Homosexual people KNOW there is a difference between men and women in interpersonal relationships - that is why they indentify as homosexual and not neutrally bisexual. Parenting is an interpersonal relationship. Therefore, there has to be a difference between mothering and fathering. All children, gay or straight, will grow up to deal with both men and women. As such, they benefit from having a parent of each sex parenting them and modeling cooperative interaction between the sexes.

Use common sense. Does the fact that a woman is attracted to a woman matter? What matters is the behavior towards and in front of the children. Of course a lesbian can be a good mother. What she can't be, though, nor can another woman, is a father.

Because the research is ongoing, Gartrell hopes to test some of these theories with additional studies. She is also hoping to collect more data on gay-father households; gay fatherhood is less common than lesbian motherhood because of the high costs of surrogacy or adoption that gay couples face in order to start a family.

But I thought they were just like bride+groom couples? If they are, some of those couples should be able to make babies without third parties.

Would the same publication publish a study that was funded and released by Focus on the Family in which evangelical Christian parents raised children according to the principles of Focus on the Family, and the study said that such children are better off?

Family Fail via Fail Blog

Family Fail via Fail Blog

Portugal's Marriage Neutering Advocates Celebrate

Two female marriage neutering advocates in Portugal now have the government designating them as married. Associated Press Writer Barry Hatton reports.

Teresa Pires and Helena Paixao, divorced Portuguese mothers in their 30s who have been together since 2003, married in a 15-minute ceremony at a Lisbon registry office.

I generally think it is a good idea for parents of minor children to refrain from bringing new partners into the lives of those children – regardless of the sex of the new partner. Wait until the kids are raised. They already have broken homes. They don't need new competition for your affections, or more chaos, or bonding with a new "parent" who may not stay.

"Now we're a family, that's the important thing," Pires said, adding they would continue to fight for equal rights for homosexuals, including adoption.

Interesting. So they weren't a family before? That's not what a lot of LGBTQQUIA??? activists and shacking-up advocates have said before. Does Pires take the position that conservative family groups do – that people are only family through marriage, formal adoption, and birth?

The ceremony came less than a month after Portugal's conservative president ratified a gay marriage law passed by Parliament in January. His approval made Portugal the sixth in Europe to let same-sex couples wed.

"Let" probably isn't the right word. How many of the other European countries actively prosecute same-sex couples for having ceremonies? Perhaps the ones with significant Muslim populations? "Government designition as marriage" is more accurate.

Pires and Paixao, the lesbian couple, had campaigned for a change in the law since a registry office turned them away when they first tried to marry in 2006.

Officials argued the law stipulated that marriage was between people of different sexes. The women appealed to Portugal's Constitutional Court because the constitution forbids discrimination based on sexual orientation.

The court rejected their appeal, but left-of-center parties in Parliament supported the government bill which removed the reference to marriage being between different sexes.

How's the Muslim population there these days?

10 Things Every Woman Should Know About a Man's Brain

From Live Science 10 Things Every Woman Should Know About a Man's Brain

#2 Daddy Play

Fathers that actively parent tend to have lower testosterone levels, report several cross-cultural studies. While it is not known if the hormone levels cause the behavior or vice versa, researchers theorize that evolution has favored involved dads. Human children are among the neediest of the animal kingdom and good dads optimize the chance that their offspring -- and their genes -- survive.

#3 Father to be

The male brain becomes especially primed for cooperation in the months before becoming a father. Fathers-to-be go through hormone changes -- prolactin goes up, testosterone goes down -- which likely encourage paternal behavior, found a 2000 study in Evolution and Human Behavior.