What Marriage Neuterists don't understand, can't hurt them?

In a frank admission, a marriage neuterists I've been conversing with in another forum has listed the things that he doesn't understand. Remember the old phrase, "what you don't know can't hurt you?" Well lets look at what they claim they don't know from this one very frank admission from a marriage neuterist.

I've organized it this way. The author of the comment enumerated his points, and they are the primary numbers associated with the arguments. I've further divided them into sub-points, and that enumeration correlates to the responses below the main points. So in the future, I will refer to these by their numbers. For instance argument 1.3 will correlate to Sean's argument 1, and the 3rd subpoint I replied to within it.

1.I don’t understand how marriage is legally linked to procreation[1], since elderly couples who can’t make babies anymore[2], and other infertile couples[2], are free to marry. And nobody has to get married who has kids[3]. Yet same-sex couples, who also can’t make babies, aren’t allowed to get married[4]. How are a gay couple’s non-babies different from an elderly couples non-babies[5]?

1. The legal link was already shown in the judicial decisions which explicitely recognize that link, and how that link is a valid and rational state interest in making such an institution be about the procreative type relationship. So that Sean doesn't understand this, even after the link was shown with third party authoritative sources, is a frank admission indeed!
2. Neither of these couples provide an exception for marriage's recognition of the procreative type of relationship, since they are (you guessed it) procreative types of relationships. Infertility only happens in the procreative type relationship where fertility is expected. For more on this, refer to the Arizona decision previously noted on Opine.
3. There is no legal requirement of totalitarian enforcement for an institution to be recognized as having an explicit purpose. So why does Sean expect it here, as if it were? Sean doesn't explain, but then again this is simply where he admits it is something he doesn't understand. A frank admission, I think, so perhaps if he doesn't understand it then to try to find any reason in it is fruitless.
4. A same-sex couple isn't even a procreative type relationship, so it would provide the exception to the rule that Sean has read into infertile couples. Because if he finds that exception in the infertile, then why wouldn't he and others find it in the same-sex relationship? But again, the point is Sean is admitting to what he doesn't understand -- even when it is so clear and understandable.
5. As R.K. recently said to a similar argument, "[D]o you understand basic mathematics? Do you understand the difference between every positive number and zero? Or do you believe every number less than 100 is equal to zero (where percentages are concerned)? To say that a form of sex which very frequently produces new human beings is no more important to society than a form of sex which never does has to involve nothing less than an act of personal denial." Children may be found created in smaller numbers among some procreative types than others, but the number is still not zero.

2.I don’t understand how, if we know that being married is good for people and the children they’re raising[1], why we would let some couples with children marry, but not others[1]. If marriage is good for children, shouldn’t we want ALL couples raising children to get married (unless there’s some reason for them not to marry)[2]?

1. Marriage is good for the man, woman, and child they potentially have together. That is the core of responsible procreation. As Op-Ed noted: "The State and I cannot ignore the responsibility of what my wife and I can create. My marriage is a commitment to my spouse, but even more relevant to the state it is a commitment to my children. Barring death, I will be there for my children even after they are capable of caring for themselves and their own children. "Same-sex partners want to marginalize the commitment to my children with a definition of marriage as simply an acknowledgement that my wife and I love each other. Inviting government to take an interest in my feelings for my wife opens up a Pandora's box of unprecedented government intrusiveness. The fact that government has had no interest in feelings to date is reflected by the fact that the word "love" is not in current marriage law anywhere. Even when two people are divorcing they cannot use a lack of love as grounds." And that is quite the difference.
2. The difference noted in 2.1 shows how helping one can undercut the other, they are contradicting models of marriage which produce differences in what we recognize and protect about relationships. It doesn't mean that both can't be protected, but they can't be protected with the same program. I explore this in more depth in my "Parent Trap" series.

3.I don’t understand how marriage has to be limited to opposite-sex couples when five states and the nation’s capital allow same-sex couples to marry too[1]. Doesn’t that “redefine” marriage to be between two consenting adults not otherwise ineligible[2]? Are those states and DC gonna get in trouble for not knowing that marriage has to be between opposite-sex couples only[3]? What about the other states poised to legalize same-sex marriage, or who recognize same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions[3]?

1. Because when you replace one institution with another, you no longer have the former institution even if you call the new one with the same name. Those places no longer have access to the former institution, and you've given no real rational reason that people should be limited from entering into what was formerly called marriage. In short, the commeter doesn't understand because his language has become inadequate to describe exactly what change took place between marriage formed in the recognition of responsible procreation, and the one formed out of just what same-sex couples can do.
2. Yes. The definition of marriage is neutered in two ways with the same action. By removing the reference to "one man and one woman" in the definition, you remove its reference to its constitution of gender integration. And by removing "man and woman" from the definition you are losing the ability to explicitely reference those rights and responsbilities which arise from what men and women can do together, in this case that is "procreate".
3. The harm seen in those states is already evident.

4.I don’t understand how it’s legal to let straight couples get married, but not gay couples[1], if the country’s constitution says that all citizens have to be treated equally[2], unless there’s a rational public purpose to do otherwise[3]. Aren’t gay Americans citizens, too[2]?

1. It isn't illegal, it isn't a ban. Hence the problem in understanding comes from the bad premise in the question. If one asks instead, how are procreative type relationships recognized and regulated with marriage licenses and certificates, when same-sex couples are regulated with CU's, DP's or RB's? The answer is much more clear, because marriage targets the unique needs of procreation for those who engage in it, and those created by it. And CU's (etc...) target the more general need for mutual trust among adults.
2. Is the relevance of constitutional protection being accurately recognized? Again as R.K. noted, it is a matter of relationships that are different -- not people. R.K. shows a more accurate description of the equality claim, one that is more consistent between denoting what is a relationship and what is an individual. In it, one sees more clearly just what the constitution protects (in this case, marriage expecting both a man and a woman in each marriage), and what it does not (discrimination against a gender). "1) gay individuals are legally equal to straights, therefore 2) gay individuals should have the same right to marry the individual of their choice. But gays cannot be satisfied with marriage as traditionally defined, as they cannot enjoy the type of sexual intimacy around which marriage is defined. Therefore the type of sexual activity which gays can be comfortable with must be treated as equal to the type which marriage has been built around, and hence marriage must be redefined accordingly, and all types of sexual acts must be regarded as equally consummative, or equal in their centrality to marriage."
3. Acknowledging a purpose is simply acknowledging that an opposite sex couple can do something unique, and society has an interest in that unique quality. The law doesn't have to require enforcement of that purpose with mathematical precision (law enforcement is never that perfect), nor does it have to violate the privacy of the couple involved. It simply means it is important enough to encourage good behavior, and in this case good behavior is taking responsibility for how we procreate, in case that happens -- for the sake of the spouse you create the child with and the child themself.

5. I don’t understand why judges in Iowa are bad for doing their job[1], that is, interpreting their state’s constitution and the constitutionality of the state’s laws. Why do we have judges if we are just gonna get mad at them for doing what we pay them to do[1]?

1. If they intepreted it fairly in respect to the arguments given to both sides, then they would be doing their job. But as it is, only made its decision in complete contempt of the purpose of responsible procreation, a purpose that has been ruled as rational and constitutional by numerous state and constitutional laws. Where is Iowa's constitution different than those of the states that have affirmed the equality of marriage in expecting both a man and a woman in each marriage?

The case against polygamy

Via Science Daily "Two People Can Learn to Cooperate Intuitively, but Larger Groups Need to Communicate, Research Shows"

In the game of life, while two people may 'develop an understanding' or work intuitively together -- this scenario is easily distorted once a third person becomes involved. Without effective planning and ground rules, even the best of working relationships between two people can become undone once a third is involved.

"Married couples or pairs of business partners may be able to rely on this type of intuitive cooperation, to an extent, but larger groups need explicit communication and planning. Mechanisms need to be put in place to facilitate it. Intuitive cooperation is really a case of two's company, but three's a crowd."

The example in the study were not married couples.

Define 'Whole Family'

As quoted from my son's 1st grade social studies book.

"Not all families are like mine. Some are bigger. Others are smaller. Sometimes a whole family does not live together."

A person doesn't have to be coupled to be in a family, by nature each individual has a family via kinship on maternal and paternal lines.

Michael Coogan Tries to Neutralize Bible Believers

Although one need not invoke the Bible or disapproval of homosexual behavior to defend marriage, someone who does take The Bible as an authority is more likely to be compelled to defend marriage from neutering and other attacks.

Michael Coogan, a lecturer on Hebrew Bible-Old Testament at Harvard Divinity School, professor of religious studies at Stonehill College, and director of publications for the Harvard Semitic Museum, tried to discourage such defense in a commentary that ran on CNN.com. Since the commentary deals with other issues as well, my analysis is over at my namesake blog.

Jesus and the writers of the New Testament promoted the equality of individuals, freedom from bondage, and improved the status of women. Nowhere do they record a call to change the prevailing understanding and longstanding Biblical prohibition against sex and sex-like behavior outside of marriage, nor the cultural and Biblical rule that marriage unites a bride and a groom. Jesus challenged the culture and certain traditions and practices, yet did not challenge the Biblical teaching that sex is for marriage and that marriage unites the sexes.

I Want to See the Results of This Poll

I'm tired of the poll dancing headlines that claim that most people support marriage neutering, especially when you analyze the actual poll and find out that it isn't true. So here is the poll I would like to see, with questions posed in this order. This one is written for California, but it could be changed for other states. It might be helpful to send some or all of this poll to someone you know. These are "yes" or "no" questions.

1. Are you are aware that adults, regardless of sexual orientation, are allowed to live together without being married or being domestic partners?

2. Are you aware that adults, regardless of sexual orientation, are allowed to have commitment or marriage ceremonies regardless of whether or not they get a license from the state?

3. Are you aware that California's Domestic Partnership law allows same-sex couples to register as Domestic Partners?

4. Are you aware that California law treats Domestic Partners as spouses, as if they were married?

5. Do you believe that there is a difference between men and women? (If the answer is "no", ask respondent if they have dated both men and women, and then ask the question #5 again.)

6. Do you believe that the pairing of a man and a woman is different than the pairing of two men or two women? (If the answer is "no", ask respondent if any other kind of relationship other than the pairing of a man and woman can naturally produce children, and then ask question #6 again.)

7. Are you aware that the Supreme Court held in Baker v. Nelson that a state law denying same-sex couples a marriage license does not violate the U.S. Constitution?

[Much more after the jump.]

8. Are you aware that in every state where the voters have voted on the issue, they have voted for the bride+groom requirement in state marriage licensing?

9. Are you aware that thirty of the fifty states have the bride+groom requirement as part of their constitution, ten more have it as part of their law (but not as part of the constitution), and only five of the ten other states currently issue marriage licenses to brideless or groomless couples, primarily because of a state court order?

10. a) Given that all laws treat different behaviors and kinds of associations differently, do you think it is okay for the law distinguish between relationships that unite a bride and a groom and other kinds of relationships? b) Are you aware that it would be impossible for the law to do so if the legal definition of marriage is changed to any two people instead of a man and a woman?

11. a) Do you believe that, all other things being equal, adoption agencies should be able to give preference to placing children with a married man and woman, giving the child both a mother and a father, over placing that child with two men or two women? b) Are you aware that it would be difficult or nearly impossible for an adoption agency to do so if the legal definition of marriage is changed to any two people instead of a man and a woman?

12. a) Do you believe that public schools should be able teach children that there is a difference between homosexual sodomy and heterosexual intercourse, and a difference between a brideless or groomless relationship and a marriage? b) Are you aware that it would be difficult or nearly impossible for a public school to teach there is a difference if the legal definition of marriage is changed to any two people instead of a man and a woman?

13. Are you aware that none of the great moral thinkers or civil rights activists in history, all the way up through Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., and none of the Founding Fathers or Presidents, all the way up through President Obama, ever claimed there was a right for a brideless or groomless couple to be recognized as a marriage?

14. Do you personally believe that marriage unites a bride and a groom?

15. Given that state marriage licenses are issued on your behalf, isn't it better that Californians be allowed keep the bride+groom requirement for such licensing, which is how the people of California have twice voted, rather than having a federal court impose a new definition of marriage on them?

Is the wording of the poll biased? No more biased than some of the others.

False Claims of Equality

The 14th Amendment does not require us to neuter marriage licensing. Those trying to impose neutered marriage via the 14th Amendment are simply hoping the courts will cut short the public debate and impose neutered marriage. To these wishful thinkers, just one question: Does the 14th Amendment allow the government to tax one citizen at a different rate than another? Explain your answer. Be careful not to provide an explanation that would contradict the rationale you hope neuters marriage without a vote.

Woman "Marries" Self in Taiwan

Ralph Jennings of Reuters reports on a woman who married herself. Haven't we seen this before?

Uninspired by the men she's met but facing social pressure to get married, the 30-year-old Taipei office worker will hold the reception next month in honour of just one person.

It's great as a publicity stunt, whether or not it is a extreme exercise of narcissism. Like brideless or groomless "weddings" and "same-sexmarriage", "marrying herself" is an oxymoron.

"Age thirty is a prime period for me. My work and experience are in good shape, but I haven't found a partner, so what can I do?" Chen said.

How about not mocking marriage? Then again, there are some brides whose attitude towards the wedding and the groom make the groom almost as much as a nonpresence in her mind as this woman.

Only 40 percent of women surveyed earlier this year by the education ministry said they imagined married people could live better than singles, local media said.

I wonder if the other 60% expect that both spouses will have full-time careers even with young children in the home?

"I was just hoping that more people would love themselves," said Chen, who will go on a solo honeymoon to Australia.

People who love themselves in the right sense of the word don't need to do things like this. I do commend her for not marrying the wrong man. But I question whether she is really ready to be a wife in the first place.

What is the most important human adaptation?

"What is the most important human adaptation?" via Science Blogs

From some time several months after birth through about the age of five or six (or more) humans engage in developmental activities not seen (or not as extensive or intensive) in other apes, during which humans learn a number of important things and engage in a number of neural developmental processes.

It is during this period that humans develop their knowledge of the kinship systems they will live with for the rest of their lives. Western populations tend to have poorly developed kinship systems,(my emphasis) so this is easy to overlook, but virtually all other human cultures have complex and pragmatically significant kinship systems, and it is easy to observe children becoming aware of them and learning how to engage in them during this time. It is during this time that human children develop gender identity and gender roles appropriate to their society. They may learn class, caste, or ethnic roles as well. They start to learn the basics of the things they will need later in life, and what they learn is based entirely on what their society or culture requires: Being a blacksmith, a forager, a western/professional, whatever.

Committed lifelong monogamous heterosexual relationships open and supportive of procreational abilities as an adaptation. No religion. No morality. Read on in the link about how culture become the adaptation, not genes.

Churches Trying to Influence Courts

Rick Rojas reports at LATimes that "Christian and Jewish Clergy Voice Support For Gay-Marriage Ruling". Well, yeah. You can find clergy that supports or opposes just about anything.

A dozen Christian and Jewish clergy offered support Wednesday for a U.S. District Court ruling in August that found California's ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional.

It's not a ban. But hey, a whole dozen clergy can't be wrong!

At a Los Angeles news conference, the group said it planned to file an amicus brief in support of Judge Vaughn Walker's decision to strike down Proposition 8, the 2008 initiative that banned gay marriage.

It's not a ban. And it is a state constitutional amendment. Does everyone who files an amicus brief hold a press conference? Would the Los Angeles Times cover a news conference held by twelve clergy supporting the bride+groom requirement in state marriage licensing?

Representatives from the Los Angeles Episcopal diocese, the United Church of Christ, the Progressive Jewish Alliance and other liberal religious groups spoke of marriage equality as part of religious freedom Wednesday in the gathering at the St. Paul Cathedral Center, the Episcopal diocese headquarters.

"Marriage equality"? It isn't. It is marriage neutering. As far as religious freedom - haven't we been told we have to keep religion out of this? Aren't churches supposed to stay out of this? I'll be waiting for the other marriage neutering advocates to condemn this involvement by these clergy, and demand an investigation into their organizations. I'm sure a critical documentary is right around the corner, as well as derisive plays.

The Rev. Fernando Santillana, pastor of Norwalk United Methodist Church, called it a Christian responsibility to speak up for equality.

Neutering state marriage licensing is not a matter of equality. We already have equal treatment of individuals. Actions and associations that are not equal are not to be treated equally by laws.

"We are all divine creations. Some are heterosexual and some are not. But we are all God's creatures," Santillana said.

I agree, but that does not require the neutering of state marriage licensing.

"We have to be the voice that speaks for God in a society that is divided."

Looking over the Christian Scriptures, I see that the God Santillana claims to represent has already made it clear that marriage is something that always unites a bride and a groom.

More on Olson’s Argument

Maura Dolan had an article in today's Los Angeles Times based partly on yesterday's blog entry. In addition to the stuff I already addressed, the article had more interesting coverage of Olson’s argument.

Olson also argued that striking down Proposition 8 would not require the court to create a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. The 9th Circuit is considering an appeal of a district court ruling in August that found Proposition 8 unconstitutional.

Just as the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a Virginia ban on interracial marriage without creating a new right to interracial marriage, the court could overturn California's gay marriage ban on the grounds that all persons are free to decide whether or whom to marry, Olson wrote.

Oh, were to start?

1. It's not a ban.

2. It would be news to most people that there is no right to "interracial" marriage, and quite a few marriage neutering advocates that there is no right to "gay marriage". Rights are things we are born with, not things the government bestows. There is a right for someone of darker skin to marry someone of lighter skin because that is a natural thing that has existed for all of history. There is no "right" for someone to marry someone of the same sex, because it is an oxymoron. It's like saying men have a "right" to give birth. Two (or more) men, or two (or more) women can live together. Freedom of association is a right.

3. If Olson really believes that "all persons are free to decide... whom to marry" in the sense that they are owed a marriage license by the state regardless of the person they want to "marry", then how can we tell a married man that he can't marry a second woman? How can we tell first cousins they can't marry (as some states do)? How can immigration officials claim that people who have a marriage license together aren't really married simply because they don't live together?

4. Are all persons free to buy rifles? The Second Amendment would seem to say yes, but there are conditions and restrictions that SCOTUS allows.

5. How can a federal court strike down a state's marriage amendment unless it is doing so to protect a right? Is Olson not playing at semantics? If Olson is not asking the court to find a right to a brideless or groomless marriage specifically, then he must be asking for a right to marriage that would be strong enough to remove the other limitations on state marriage licensing.

He conceded that voters who supported Proposition 8 were not necessarily motivated by malice.

How big of him.

Quoting from an opinion by Justice Anthony Kennedy, Olson said prejudice may result "from insensitivity caused by simple want of careful, rational reflection or from some instinctive mechanism to guard against people who appear to be different."

It's not prejudice. We can demonstrate that a bride+groom union is different than other kinds of unions. There is no pre-judging involved.

Olson wrote: "But whatever the reason that voters supported Proposition 8, the fact remains that it embodies an irrational and discriminatory classification that denies gay men and lesbians the fundamental right to marry enjoyed by all other citizens."

They have the very same right as anyone else, and should the marriage amendment ultimately lose, they will still have no more or fewer rights than anyone else. Not wanting to exercise a right doesn't mean it isn't there. It is discriminatory – all laws are. But it certainly isn’t irrational.

[Comments analyzed after the jump.]

I wrote after the article:

Really? If California was passing out marriage licenses to brideless or groomless couples, the suicide and gang beatings back east wouldn't have happened? Give me a break. A straight person wouldn't have committed suicide if their privacy has been violated in the same way? Suicides and bullying will stop because bridless or groomless couples can get a state license

1) Men and women are different.

2) The paring of a man and a woman is different than the pairing of two men or two women.

3) Men and women are different in personal relationships. 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.

"Dan_Doe" at 4:34 AM October 20, 2010 failed to read my comment closely and responded:

Your logic on this point lacks any proof. It not only blatantly discriminates against homosexual parents, but also judges some heterosexuals as “unfit” for marriage (those who cannot or will not reproduce), i.e., elderly, cancer survivors (chemotherapy = sterile), single mothers.

I didn’t say reproduction was a requirement of every marriage. Read point #4 carefully.

As you say, a couple "...legally bound to each other as well as the children; generally, this is good for children." By that logic, denying gay couples the right to marry would actually HURT their legally bound/adopted children...

He left out the important phrase "a role model, guardian, and bonding partner from each of the two sexes that comprise all of society", thereby missing the point.

because there is no legal contract to create a binding family environment.

California has domestic partnerships.

Therefore, you are actually creating a "problem child", rather than a loving "legally bound" family.

No, except for relatives dying or otherwise losing custody of their children and those children ending up in the care of a same-sex relative, no same-sex couple ends up with children without a conscious decision to bring them into a situation where there isn't both a mother and a father, and a decision to bring them into a situation where there isn't a marriage license. Same-sex couples are not obligated to bring children into such situations. It is their choice to do so. We are not obligated to change our laws because of this. Either they use third-party reproduction, or make a child with someone of the opposite sex, then enter into a same-sex relationship, or they seek out an adoption. No faithful same-sex couple has ever had a situation where one partner nervously surprises the other with "We're pregnant. How are we going to handle this?" Children are not a natural result of homosexual interaction.

Laws like Prop 8 single out homosexuals, and make society look at them as "unfit citizens."

Laws (including programs) relating to pregnant women and selective service and many others single out one sex or other. The California Marriage Amendment doesn't place any objective restriction on a homosexual person that it doesn't also place on a straight person.

"TruthSeeker_Two" at 4:51 AM October 20, 2010 also fails in reading comprehsion:

Who you sleep with does NOT determine how good a parent you are.

Where did I say it did? (Although, I wonder if this person would argue that a woman who choosed to bring a pedophile into her home isn't demonstrating herself to be a bad parent... and NO, I'm not equating homosexuality with pedophilia.)

State marriage licensing of same-sex couples provides their children with role models and guardians legally bound to each other.

But not a parent of each of the two sexes. Cite all the studies you want, the fact is you live in a way that shows there is a difference between men and women in personal relationships. Parenting is a personal relationship.

It is unconstitutional to treat same-sex couples differently than mixed-sex couples. (See Iowa Supreme Court ruling in Varnum and the judge’s ruling in Prop 8 case.)

See higher court rulings that say otherwise.

"Dan_Doe" at 5:32 AM October 20, 2010 pats TS2 on the back:

Walrus, NOTICE how TruthSeeker sited COURT approved, UN-BIASED documented fact.

I have "court approved" fact that says racial segregation by government force is okay. Guess what? Other court decisions supersede. What documented fact was used? I used facts that just about everyone knows or lives by, and they weren't refuted. They were ignored.

If you have any "proof" that isn't the Bible verses or "hearsay" from a biased "religiously funded" study/source... I'd love to get those links.

I didn't cite the Bible, religion, or any funded source. I used basic reality that even homosexual people demonstrate in their daily lives.

Bride+Groom Marriage Licensing Kills Puppies

Ted Olson, like many marriage neutering advocates, apparently has no qualms about exploiting a suicide and gang violence to further the pathological need to have federal courts impose the neutering of marriage licenses on unwilling states. He did this in written arguments filed with the 9th District Court of Appeals in the Proposition 8 case. Maura Dolan writes at LATimes.com.

Olson said the "unmistakable purpose and effect" of Proposition 8 was "to isolate gay men and lesbians and their relationships as separate, unusual, dangerous, and unworthy of the marital relationship."

The purpose of Proposition 8 was to add an amendment to the state constitution that kept/restored recognition of the very important distinction between the only kind of relationship that produces new citizens and provides those new citizens with a parent, role model, bonding partner, provider, protector, and nurturer from each of the two sexes that comprise all of society, legally bound to each other – and other kinds of relationships.

Olson's arguments referred to the suicide of Tyler Clementi, 18, who jumped off the George Washington Bridge after his roommate streamed video to the Internet of Clementi in a gay sexual encounter.

Yes, no straight person would ever commit suicide for having their privacy so viciously, widely, and irrevocably violated. And Clementi, and no other homosexual people, would have ever commited suicide if brideless or groomless couples could get marriage licenses in California. Right.

The other incident a few days later involved an alleged anti-gay attack by a gang in an unoccupied apartment in the Bronx.

The gangs of New York would stop their criminal ways if, and only if, brideless or groomless couples could get marriage licenses in California. Riiiiight.

So by this line of reasoning, Judge Walker and marriage neutering activists must be responsible for arson at LDS churches.

I do believe bullying and suicides are horrible and wrong, but I'd like marriage neutering advocates to tell me why they think people should not bully or commit suicide.

California’s Election Matters

Voting us underway in California for the November election. Maura Dolan at LATimes.com reminds us about one reason why this election is important to marriage and family.

A law professor who supports [neutering state marriage licensing] said Thursday that the race for California attorney general "could end up mattering so much to the future of Proposition 8," the 2008 voter measure that reinstated a ban on same-sex marriage.

The constitutional amendment that was adopted was not a ban.

Los Angeles Dist. Atty. Steve Cooley, the Republican candidate for attorney general, has promised to defend Proposition 8. His opponent, San Francisco Dist. Atty. Kamala Harris, a Democrat, has said she would not challenge a federal court ruling that found the measure unconstitutional.

I'm voting for Cooley.

UC Irvine Law School Dean Erwin Chemerinsky, speaking at a news conference sponsored by Equality California, a [marriage neutering] group, said a decision by the next attorney general to defend the [constitutional amendment] would "significantly" delay a federal appeals' court decision on the proposition's legality and probably influence the ultimate ruling.

I hope he's right.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown clearly have authority to appeal, but have decided against it.

Remember that Brown is running for Governor.

Chemerinsky said the election of Meg Whitman, the Republican candidate for governor, also could help Proposition 8's chances on appeal. Whitman, who as governor could intervene in the case, has said the state should be defending Proposition 8.

I'm voting for Whitman.

Minnesota Fighting Back!! : NOM"s strongest add yet...

This add is running in Minnesota and is part of the succesfull effort to keep marriage front and center in crucial campaigns across the country. NOM, the National Orginization for Marriage has gone from nothing to a national player in politics by selecting crucial battlegrounds for marriage and placing its money and orginizational support behind candidates who support marriage.

It is exciting to be part of an effort that is proving so succesfull, - so join NOM, sign their petition and get envolved.... it's fun to be winning!

Cowan and Wolfson on GOP and Marriage Neutering

In the Los Angeles Times, a "moderate" and a marriage neutering advocate try to make a case that the GOP is hurtling itself towards supporting marriage neutering.

Since the commentary and my analysis is heavy on GOP party issues, my full analysis is over at my namesake blog.

What exactly is considered "anti-gay"? This is a common tactic of marriage neutering advocates. They want the average person to picture mobs of people beating people because they identify as gay, and say, "I'm not anti-gay!" Then the marriage neutering advocates do a bait and switch and equate that definition of "anti-gay" with "defends bride+groom requirement in marriage".

We can't legally define love, but we can define other concepts.

I wanted to add this post regarding some of the elements legal marriage protects, one is objective the child as an individual to ensure each one of us is raised by both biological parents and that our parents care for us. Also legal marriage can work in a manner to protect women (and men), with acknowledging the need for entering a marriage with one own's freewill and consent.

This is a segment of an article via Feminine Genius talking about a double murder of a mother and her daughter who fought against a forced marriage.

Warning disturbing....

A Pakistani woman has died in Italy after her husband beat her with a brick for opposing the arranged marriage of her daughter, triggering a wave of outrage among Italian politicians on Monday.

The daughter, 20-year-old Nosheen Butt, was admitted to hospital with a cranial traumatism and a broken arm after her 19-year-old brother beat her with a stick in the courtyard of their building in Novi, near the north Italy city of Modena.

According to Modena prosecutors' initial findings, the father Ahmad Khan Butt, a 53-year-old construction worker, threw his wife to the ground and beat her with a brick while the brother Umair attacked his sister.

"The victim did not want her daughter to have an unhappy relationship like the one that had been forced on her," said deputy Modena prosecutor Lucia Musti, who is in charge of the investigation.

"The mother and the daughter were on the same side and this could be called a 'cultural' homicide because in addition to domestic violence there is the issue of the traditions that may have motivated the crime," Ms Musti said.

'Because we're mammals'

I talking to my eight year old daughter this week, and while I had the eggs out of the refrigerator I informed her that, 'You know we have eggs to inside our bodies.'

'I know because we're mammals, but ours aren't hard like chickens. Ours are like turtles soft and squishy.'

Mammalian Reproduction and Offspring Care

All mammals reproduce sexually, which produces offspring that are unique because they have a mixture of genes from both parents. Offspring with strong genes are more likely to survive environmental extremes in weather, predation, disease and competition for resources.

Sexual reproduction does take time and effort, from finding a suitable mate to caring for young. Male mammals must compete for female attention. Because females want the fittest and strongest males, males will display their strength and fitness in ways such as fighting or elaborate ritualistic displays, in addition to physical characteristics, like having large antlers or a big mane.

Mammals generally invest heavily in raising their offspring and this determines how often they can breed. Many reptiles leave after laying eggs and never even meet their young compared with mammals that suckle their young and care for them for months or even years.

Renee Aste

Feminism and Gender Relations

PersonalFailure commented on my previous entry:

And then we have reality.

What is unrealistic about what was in the previous entry?

Feminism boosts sexual satisfaction for both men and women, a new study suggests.

Who said feminism didn't? Let’s take a look as this story from three years ago by Jeanna Bryner to which PF linked.

Feminists (and their men) have more fun Relationship study contradicts negative stereotypes about strong women

I'm definitely in favor of strong women.

Feminism boosts sexual satisfaction for both men and women, a new study suggests.

What is the definition of feminism being used?

Busting stereotypes that peg feminists as man-haters, a new study shows that having a feminist partner is linked with healthier, more romantic heterosexual relationships.

This could be true, depending on the definitions of "feminists", "healthier", and "more romantic". I never said that all feminists were man-haters. But some self-identified feminists do express hatred for men and disdain for masculinity.

[Much more after the jump.]

The study, published online this week in the journal Sex Roles, relied on surveys of both college students and older adults, finding that women with egalitarian attitudes do find mates and men do find them attractive.

I'm for equality.

Psychologists Laurie Rudman and Julie Phelan carried out a laboratory survey of 242 Rutgers undergraduates and conducted an online survey of 289 older adults who had an average age of 26 and typically had been in their current relationship about four years.

That's a small sample, and I wouldn't exactly call Rutgers undergrads a cross-section of the general population. Also, "relationship" is term that can have a wide range, one that includes marriage (and not necessarily monogamous), girlfriend/boyfriend, friend with benefits, and whatever else.

Older adults have more life experience "and thus may be more likely to show an incompatibility between feminism and romantic relationships," Rudman and Phelan write. While younger females likely grew up with the attitude that "women can have it all," the researchers note older women may have come of age in the era following U.S. women's suffrage (1919) or during the women's movement that emerged in the 1960s.

So the people with more life experience are down on whatever is being defined as feminism, and the younger ones are more likely to hold fantasy as reality?

For example, relationship quality was measured with questions such as: How often do you and your partner laugh together? And how often do you and your partner quarrel? For stability measures, participants answered how often they considered terminating the relationship, as well as how often they thought their romantic relationship had a good future.

Did they even ask about monogamy? For example, a man who has "a relationship" with a woman who stays in that relationship even as he has sex with other women has little reason to end that relationship. Likewise, a woman who has sex with others has little reason to turn down a date with a man who doesn't give her grief over it.

College-age women who reported having feminist male partners also reported higher quality relationships that were more stable than couples involving non-feminist male partners.

This is no surprise. College age women think they like it when all he says is "Whatever you want." It is a different matter out in the trenches of life.

College guys who were themselves feminists and had feminist partners reported more equality in their relationships.

But what does that mean? College guys are pretty much happy as long as they are getting some. They're not looking for a wife.

While they aren't sure how feminism works to enhance relationship health, the researchers have some ideas. Feminist men might be more supportive of their female partner's ambitions than are traditionalists.

I am very supportive of my wife's ambitions. Her ambitions, as stated by her, were to 1) have a career until she became a mother; 2) become a wife; 3) become a mother who raises her kids, rather than hiring someone else to do it; 4)buy a house. I was supportive of all four. I played an essential role in the last three.

Men with feminist partners may enjoy the extra breadwinner to share the economic burden of maintaining a household.

How sexist. Maybe men enjoy being stay-at-home fathers? How much money is left over from that second income after taxes (many of which go to support those "independent" women who made brilliant choices that rendered them with children and no husband and dependent on government aid; and to incarcerate people who grew up without their father); commute and wardrobe costs, daycare bills, and therapy bills? I like that my wife isn't stressed out and upset about something that happened at work and too tired or too busy for family dinners and some good lovin'.

It is an interesting study, but doesn't negate what was said in the previous entry. Someone can call themselves a feminist and recognize the differences in the sexes and how they like to be treated.

As for me, I know that I wouldn't be happy with a woman who wanted hired help to raise her children rather than either her or myself, a woman who was unwilling to ever let me make a decision, a woman who would have her own child dismembered because it was inconvenient, or a woman who refused to accept that men and women are different and to revel in that difference. I know my wife wouldn't be happy with a man who would expect her to work away from their kids even though he had a job – thus requiring warehousing the kids, who would always let her make the decisions, who would support the dismembering of his own children or anyone else's, or who thought that women were just like men.

A Virus Has Corrupted the Binary Code

Those of us who are happily married can be thankful that we’re not experiencing some of the worst aspects of the current culture when it comes to relations between the sexes. However, we all have loved ones who probably are, to some extent. Academia and mainstream media have been thoroughly awash in antimasculine philosophy for many years now, denigrating fathers, husbands, men in general, and normal boyhood traits. Men have fought back in the blogosphere.

From Everything Must Go!:

It seems that the differences between men and women are real, and it really does matter how boys are raised and how girls are raised, and it is important how men and women socialize separately and with each other. Treating men and women identically (which is not necessary in order to treat them equally) in every way makes both miserable or angry. Showing favoritism towards women while or after insisting on equality fosters bitterness. Some of the traditions we have abandoned were doing a lot of good, and haven't been replaced by suitable substitutes – perhaps because, in some cases, none exist. Walls were removed and now we're finding out in a very painful way why some of those walls were there in the first place.

Largely for political reasons, some people deny the differences between the sexes, to the detriment of both.

We can't survive as a healthy society if this is the norm for male-female interactions; when irresponsibility, incivility, and malignant narcissism are rewarded and their opposites punished. Not when it happens in gender relations, not when it happens as government policy in general. Many would say we already lost our societal health long ago.

We must foster a culture that values both masculinity and femininity, motherhood and fatherhood, wives and husbands, men and women. (Crossposted to The Playful Walrus and The Opine Editorials)

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.

Judge Walker Cuts and Runs

Judge Vaughn Walker, the infamous judge who overrode the votes of millions of Californians in August, announced recently that he will retire. According to a media representative for the court, Walker's retirement is just a remarkable coincidence and is completely unrelated to his ruling against Californians' right to vote. Walker joins a slew of such coincidental retirements by government officials acting against the public interest of late.

Ed Whelan notes that Walker had been set to retire last year, when he became eligible for generous pension benefits, but postponed his plans when the Prop. 8 case "fell into his lap."

Walker’s decision to retire is no surprise. Indeed, the buzz from local courtwatchers is that Walker was going to retire last year (when he first became pension-eligible) but changed his mind when the anti-Prop 8 case, through the wonders of supposedly random assignment, fell into his lap.

DVD Extra:

It's fun to read the exchange between Whelan and the agenda driven (pronounced "propagandist") Media Matters. Whelan correctly notes that Media Matters gets exactly backward what he said, claiming Whelan jumped to the "feathering the nest" conclusion when in fact Whelan specifically claims it is more likely Walker simply acted out of ideology.

Media Matters also discredits itself in the first paragraph of that article claiming Whelan thought Walker should have recused himself for identifying himself as "gay." If you follow the links in that first paragraph, Whelan actually thought Walker should have disclosed that fact to the parties, not that he necessarily should have recused himself. Self identifying as "gay" doesn't mean one wants to overthrow marriage or the vote, many if not most "gay" individuals oppose both. But given the vocal "gay activist" organizations that do want both marriage and the vote to be overthrown, a disclosure by Walker was certainly warranted. One wonders why Walker did not follow the norms of judicial conduct in this case.

Divorce Is Not Marriage, Even In Massachusetts

How many times have we heard the trope that the low divorce rate in Massachusetts shows something about neutering marriage there? It doesn't matter to people who trot this statistic out that the divorce rate in Massachusetts was low before marriage was neutered there. It similarly doesn't matter that "divorce rate" is a population statistic and that it wasn't the population there that neutered marriage. In fact, the population there was specifically blocked from voting on neutered marriage by its supporters. As we said before, the neutered marriagists didn't block that vote because they thought they were going to be handed a stunning victory.

One wonders why marriage neuterists cite divorce statistics instead of marriage statistics in the first place. When one realizes Massachusetts has among the lowest marriage rates in the nation, it becomes clear why they avoided that statistic. A good rule of thumb is to suspect misdirection whenever someone tries to substitute one statistic for another. In this case, that suspicion is exactly right.

[More below the fold...]

Divorce rates are obviously a function of marriage rates. This has a significant effect in Massachusetts, but that is not the biggest effect. More significantly, divorce rates are a function of divorce laws.

Divorce laws are not constant between states and divorce rates are not a measure of marriage success in a given state. Rather, divorce rates measure where divorces are filed. States (like Massachusetts) that make divorce harder, particularly on non-residents, will have lower divorce rates. Nobody is going to go to a state with tough residency requirements and strict divorce laws specifically to obtain a divorce. One would expect individuals looking for easier divorce to file in a state with more lax divorce laws and low residency requirements like Nevada which, it turns out, has the highest divorce rate in the nation.