No one that I know of is better than Op-Ed for succinct and pithy responses to some frequently asked questions in the marriage debate. You can read our "FAQ" tag to find he's largely already closed the case on the socratically slewn arguments by marriage neuterists.
We often joke that his style is the Peterbuilt Truck that can thread the needle sized hole in their arguments. Me, I have the more laborious task of trying to exhaustively clean up the whole confusion and make it all look tidy, and hopefully make it entertaining for the kids. Below is a question I took on in just that style. Read on, see if you like it.
Q: I noted that a lesbian couple who I know got married last week in Massachusetts. According to Mass law they are married.
Do you believe they are married? Seriously, can you or “on lawn” provide a yes or no answer to this question? If not can you explain in clear language without using the term the “SSM idea” or “neutered marriage” how they are not married?
Sure I can...
A confidence man goes up to a mark, and asks if he is interested in buying a diamond for $500 that is really worth $50,000. He is in desperate circumstance and seems to trust the potential buyer for reasons he can't quite explain, could it be provenance in his hour of need that he is directed to this obviously trustworthy person?
The mark, however, happens to know a thing or two about diamonds and can spot a fake. But the confidence man is prepared, he has a $50,000 diamond on hand and gives it to the man for inspection.
Alas, a diamond! (<--- a little fanservice for the people coming from Barry's blog)
So the confidence man takes the diamond back, seeing the pleased smile and stars in the eyes of his mark. He gets out a small brown envelope, and with a slight of hand slips in the cubic zirconium of the same size, and hands it to his mark.
The mark happily writes out a check for $500 to the confidence man, snatches his prize and runs off. But he stops a moment, and realizes his vulnerable position. Perhaps he was just swindled? "Hey you" he shouts back at the confidence man.
The confidence man turns back, a little nervous at the attention. "What can I do for you", he replies with forced equanimity.
"I want a receipt, just in case this is a counterfeit diamond." Then man then produces a receipt according the legal codes of what a receipt should have and look like. It says, "1 diamond for $500".
The mark grins again, and walks off confident that the presence of the receipt is all he needs to prove it is a diamond to the next person he wants to sell it to for a profit.
What is that you say? That receipt isn't valid because it isn't a diamond? Well, imagine if the confidence man decides the way to fix that is to make congress declare it is a valid receipt, what happens then?
That little story highlights legal reality vs (well...) reality. Legal reality comes up with some zingers sometimes. Indiana (IIRC) wanted to institute a legal reality through its legislature that PI=3. That seems absurd, and didn't work. But later the Supreme Court ruled, against all scientific classification, that a tomato was a vegetable rather than a "fruit of the vine". The Supreme court even ruled that Long Island was an island.
So are they married? The legal reality is that they are, but they do not have the value of a real marriage, they've been tricked with a counterfeit and receipt just as much as the man leaving the scene of the crime with a cubic zirconium in the story above. For La Lubu's sake, lets even call it a first class cubic zirconium, all the desired fire and brilliance (if not more) than the real thing.
The reality of marriage, (which luckily is reflected in the law of a vast majority of states and the federal government) lies in marriage equality, the hardness of the stone, something that only comes from a lot of heat and pressure that forges true equality. Marriage equality is the equal recognition of the rights and responsibilities of the man, woman, and child they potentially have together. That is a difficult flame to manage, and puts enormous pressure on the people involved.
If marriage cannot explicitly target the need for equality between the man, woman, and child they potentially have together, then what program can?
Get the word out on the street that a cubic zirconium is just as good as a diamond, and what happens to diamonds? They become more rare, why go through all the extra work for them when the zirconium is just as brilliant and has the bonus of being manufactured? Why the number of newly minted "diamonds" brings diamond ownership to many more people, right?
"Render unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar's" the bible says. The government coins something and calls it valuable, then it is exchanged as such. Sure they are married in that legal sense, but what happened when a cubic zirconium is coined as a diamond is that true diamonds become more rare and less valued. But if they really want to be married in the sense that has brought joy and pain, changed the course of civilizations and perhaps civilization itself .. if you really want the marriage that nature seems to have created and promised as the most fulfilling part of your life ... if you really want to exercise your power to change history more than any other way you are likely to do, then you find someone of the other gender who feels the same way and you get married to them.
If there were any other way, I'd be for it. But only that way can you really fully realize the rights and potential of a human being born between you and the person of the other gender, that one event being your key to influence the future and make at least that one person's life as good as you can along with the person you created the child with. And hopefully in the process your life becomes something much more meaningful also.
On Lawn,
ReplyDeleteThe analogy makes no sense. A diamond is a physical object that can be examined and measured. A marriage is a purely social construct, one that has gone through many changes throughout history. The legal reality is all that matters.
I don't particularly care for polygamy, but I'm not going to say that all of the millions of people who engaged in that practice throughout history weren't "really" married, because I don't consider myself the King of Everything.
Your definition of marriage as not the only one. It's not even the most popular one, today or historically. Why do you think you get to be the arbiter of what constitutes "real" marriage and what doesn't?
The last paragraph should begin, "Your definition IS not the only one."
ReplyDeleteAlso, I am Chris from the Family Scholars Blog.
Souza/Chris:"It's not even the most popular one, today or historically."
ReplyDeleteWorldwide, today and historically, of course, not only polygamy, but marriage to children or even between children have been far more "popular" than a gender neutral concept of marriage has, so I take it that anyone who objects to children being married also considers themselves the "King Of Everything" and is just being judgmental. Or, if not, explain why not without lapsing into inconsistency. Oh, and don't just give theories as to why you believe child marriage is a bad idea but also give statistical proof that those cultures that historically practiced it had negative effects because of it.
The answer to the question in the blogpost title is, no, according to that state's marriage law.
ReplyDeleteSouz asked his question instead of offering his justification for imposing SSM.
I had also asked for his best example of such an imposition and so we can now reasonably take his answer to be,Massachusetts.
SSM remains unjustified by governing authorities and SSMers in that state.
Speaking of "historically":
ReplyDeleteI've posted this before. Basically, this is how we can already answer the future question "how were we supposed to know?":
1. When a change is proposed that has no historical precedent (or when what precedent there is is insufficient for determination) we have nothing to go on thus to determine whether its effect will be good or bad. We can theorize, we cannot know. It may be good, it may be bad. Disagree?
2. If a proposed change has historical precedent which shows apparent positive effect, it makes the case for its positive effect in the present time and situation more likely, though even with this it does not absolutely prove that the effect will be positive because there may be different factors in the present situation which may affect the success of the change differently from the factors which were present in the past situations.
3. Similarly, if a proposed change has historical precedent which shows apparent negative effect, it makes the case for its negative effect in the present time and situation more likely, though again, it does not absolutely prove that the effect will be negative because, again, of the possible different factors which may affect the change differently.
4. But when a proposed change has NO long-term historical precedent, while this tells us nothing about what effects the change may have, the question of why there is no historical precedent is a legitimate one to ask, and the answer—-if it is even possible for us to determine—is relevant.
5. If we can, with reasonable certainty, answer such a question, and determine that the reason for the lack of historical precedent is one that definitely does not apply in the present, then we have a better case for the change, though not a conclusive one, as the change can be vulnerable to other factors which we do not know about.
6. If we cannot answer the question of why a change has no historical precedent, we are taking more of a gamble with adopting the change.
7. Another question we may then ask, though, is if the lack of historical precedent, all else being equal, should be expected based on the amount of past information available to us, or if it goes against probability and hence needs an explanation. If the latter is true, are we not by adopting the change without the explanation for its absence taking a greater gamble than we would be if the historical absence were merely what we’d expect, let alone if we had an explanation for the absence which accounted for it?
This is where arguments based on tradition come in. Tradition may not always be helpful in telling us why a custom exists. Frequently those who hold to the custom no longer can tell us exactly why it exists, especially not in long-term cause-and-effect terms. To vastly generalize, however, the answer to why traditions exist are likely to be either 1) experience, or 2) some other factor irrelevant to experience.
ReplyDeleteNow 2) is usually not anything which if changed would affect survival (or, perhaps, a society’s progress).
As for 1), this may be due to a false association of a custom with a survival/progress value. Or the association may be true.
But if many cultures have the same custom, is this custom more likely to be of Type 1, or of Type 2? And if Type 1, is it more likely to be of the type which really affects survival or progress, or of the type which does not?
If most cultures have the same custom? If all known cultures have the same custom?
Usually, those opposed to ever using an appeal to tradition, even as an argument for skepticism or caution, base this belief on the assumption that the traditions of past cultures are always due to factors irrelevant to experience, or to a false association of a custom with survival, or progress.
In other words, they assume past cultures to be either irrational in their traditions, or to be drawing an erroneous association of a custom with survival or progress.
Because---or so the thinking goes---unlike today’s enlightened, who can figure out the truth with intellect alone, even over hundreds or thousands of years people of the past could not even learn anything from experience.
So anything they think they learned from experience can be readily dismissed.
Because they were backward, and unenlightened, and hence just plain stupid.
What is this starting to sound like?
Again, this is why I argue that while appeals to tradition may not be proof, they are relevant as arguments for skepticism or caution in regard to proposed changes.
Please, if you want to refute this, refute it point by point, not by quoting some line of platitude, or with a "Well what about this other tradition" diversion.
And, no, in regard to a cultural change ten years does not a historical precedent make.
R.K., you're twisting my argument. I never said it is wrong to object to a certain form of marriage. But On Lawn isn't simply saying that a certain form of marriage is a bad idea--he is saying that it is objectively not "real." This is problematic, because the definition of marriage has been extremely malleable throughout history. Of course, not all forms of marriage have been good. I don't feel the need to explain why child marriage is bad, as I think we all agree on that. But that doesn't make it any less "real." There are plenty of reasons to criticize child marriage, but the argument that it wasn't "real marriage" is essentially meaningless.
ReplyDeleteYour list of issues to consider before making social changes is important, and I think my side has considered them. We believe that much more rigid gender roles contributed to the lack of historical support for gay marriage.
Chairm, I did not ask the question that is the title of this blog post; I believe La Lubu did.
For a justification of SSM, see La Lubu's definition of marriage in the FSB thread. I believe Barry has also used this definition in several of his posts there. However, I suspect what you are actually asking is for us to justify SSM based on your definition of marriage. Since we don't agree with that definition, we can't do that.
Souza the justification for the imposition of SSM has not been provided by La Lubu nor by you. You said all that matters is the law. zread my previous comment.
ReplyDeleteAlso your pro SSM view is invalidated by your own premise that the lack of a legal requirement for something weighs decisively against that something being a justification for lawmaking on marriage.
Your own argumentation proves your SSM view to be unjust and thus its imposition would be arbitrary.
Dont blame my premises.
This is part and parcel of SSM argumentation.
Chairm,
ReplyDelete"Souza the justification for the imposition of SSM has not been provided by La Lubu nor by you."
What do you mean by "justification?"
What exactly is it that you're asking for?
"You said all that matters is the law."
In regards to whether or not a marriage is "real" or not, yes, the law is all that matters.
Whether the law is justified is a valid topic for debate.
"Your own argumentation proves your SSM view to be unjust and thus its imposition would be arbitrary."
Could you explain how that is, please? It's not a very good debating tactic to just make claims like this without backing them up.
Souza, if all that matters is the law then SSM is not marriage in Massachusetts.
ReplyDeleteYou think otherwise perhaps.
If you do, please backup the claim that the marriage law has been changed.
In addition, justify changing the law. The onus is on you to show that imposition of SSM is not arbitrary.
The pro SSM complaint has been that the marriage law is not just. Given SSM argumentation ... as illustrated in Luba's own words, the lack o a legal requirement for something is decisive. The are other terms of argumentaion that she and SSMMers insist upon when attacking the marriage law. But these same terms weigh against the profferred reasons to impose SSM in the law.
It comes down to the type of relationship in the law. SSM is just a part of nonmarriage. Aticking the label marriage on it is not justified even by the terms of reasoning that SMers insist upon. Why must society disriminate between SSM ... the type of relationship you have in mind ... and the rest of the types of relationships that populate sociey?
On Lawn's blogpost illustrates the issue.
Chairm,
ReplyDeleteSSM is legally recognized as marriage by the state of Massachusetts. I don't know why you think otherwise.
Perhaps you are trying to say that because it is not federally recognized, than it is not legal. That's obviously not the case.
But I just have to guess that this is what you're talking about, because you have a wonderfully appealing tendency of not making yourself clear and expecting your debating opponents to read your mind.
SSM is justified because the marriage contract need not require its participants to be of opposing genders in order for the contract to be implemented. The number of participants, the age of those participants, and whether or not the participants are already legal kin are relevant factors that the marriage contract can and should discriminate on. Gender is not. If the marriage contract as we currently understand it is to treat each participant equally without regard to gender, than it cannot at the same time discriminate based on gender. That is arbitrary and unjust.
You probably won't accept that justification, but at least I tried.
Souza backup your claim that SSM is marriage in Massachusetts marriage law.
ReplyDeleteSouza your attempted justification is that only relevant factors may limit elegibility. But that is not answering thw question. On what basis is do you claim that a relationship status must be imposed in the law?
ReplyDeleteSince you think SSM is marriage in the law you need to step back and show that disriminating between SSM/marriage is not arbitrary.
The problem you need to resolve is the arbitrary means and ends of imposimg SSM. Unjust means are not justified by a just end. And just means do not rehabilitate an unjust end. The query is about matching just means with a just end.
You also reduced marriage law to a subset of contract law. On Lawn's blogpost sheds light on your premise, I think. This reduction is at odds with the SSM argumentation used in courtrooms and elsewhere in Massachusets.
Your answer to the question of SSM in Massachusets marriage law cannot skirt the means and the end as profferred by SSMers in that state. Your comments suggest that this is your best example of justification for the imposition of SSM.
Chairm,
ReplyDeleteHere is one article (of thousands that exist) that reports on the legality of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts. I do not know why you are arguing this point; perhaps because the rest of us don't recognize your definitions of "marriage," "legal," or "is."
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2003/11/18/sjc_gay_marriage_legal_in_mass/
"Souza your attempted justification is that only relevant factors may limit elegibility."
Well, yeah. Would you prefer we limit eligibility based on irrelevant factors?
What other institutions besides marriage do you believe would be better served by arbitrary discrimination?
"On what basis is do you claim that a relationship status must be imposed in the law?"
I reject the premise of the question. SSM will not be "imposed" on anyone who doesn't want it.
"Since you think SSM is marriage in the law you need to step back and show that disriminating between SSM/marriage is not arbitrary."
I think you mean I need to show that discriminating between SSM and marriage IS arbitrary.
I think I have already explained this. If one accepts that marriage should recognize the equal rights of each partner, than one must accept that the law should not treat each partner differently based on gender. And if one accepts this, then one must accept that there is no reason for the law discriminate based on gender at all within marriage. The law should be gender-blind on this matter.
"You also reduced marriage law to a subset of contract law."
Actually, I think the U.S. government did that a long time ago.
"On Lawn's blogpost sheds light on your premise, I think."
It sheds light on nothing, because as I have already pointed out, it is useless to analogize a physical object with a social institution. No one so far has addressed this, even though it was my central problem with this article.
Siuza the marriage law has not been changed in Massachusetts. You feel it has changed. Okay we can go with that. Please cite the changed law. Please cite the justification offered. If you are true to your notion that only the law matters you will point to the changed law rather than to something else.
ReplyDeleteYou view, Souza, is that SSM is marriage and so I referred to SSM/marriage. Yor view appears to be that there are relevant factors that make SSM a form of marriage and that society may discriminate between SSM/arriage and all other types of relationships.
ReplyDeleteThis goes to On Lawn's blogpost and your dismal attempt to dismiss it. The analogy is apt. Your main complaint is a merely an attempted nitpick that you really have not made relevant.
What is the basis for a law governing the type of relationship you have in mind .... what are the relevant features of that type of relationship before the status and name are attatched to it? Distinguish it before you name it and before you claim that society must impose the change you demand.
If the relevant features are not required in law then you must strike those features from your list. If the relevant factors are not unique to this type of relationship then these, too, must be striked out. If you can offer no relevant feature that passes the tests that SSM argumentation insists upon then what is left but imposition via the arbitrary exercise of power?
SSMers rely on superficial thinking. Perhaps you will surprise with deeper thinking on the conflict between the SSM idea and the marriage idea. You might consider rereading On Lawn' blogpost to dig deeper.
Marriage law is not a subset of contract law. But if your view depends on SSMbeing such a subset then your are showing yet another significant difference between the SSM idea and the marriage idea.
ReplyDeleteGo with your view that SSM is a subset of contract law and explain the relevance of the line drawn against consenting adults to form a contract of related people, or previously married people, or groups of three or more people, or underaged people.
The basis for such lines would depend on contract that the participants design for themselves. What biz is it society to limit participation?
Chairm: Marriage law is not a subset of contract law.
ReplyDeleteExcellent point, Chairm. Neutered marriage activists are constantly arguing that marriage is just another contract. But contracts are already available to those who wish to neutered-marry. Point this out to a neutered marriage advocate and they will immediately reverse course and claim that marriage isn't just a contract.
Chairm,
ReplyDeleteThe Supreme Court of Massachusetts ruled in 2003 that laws limiting marriage between one man and one woman were unconstitutional.
Since then, the state has legally recognized thousands of marriages between same-sex couples.
I don't know why you continue to argue this point. Same-sex marriage is legal in Massachusetts, as everybody knows.
"What is the basis for a law governing the type of relationship you have in mind .... what are the relevant features of that type of relationship before the status and name are attatched to it? Distinguish it before you name it and before you claim that society must impose the change you demand."
I have explained to you the relevant features of marriage that I believe should be legally required and recognized. I believe society should define marriage as the legal recognition of two previously unrelated adults as each other's primary kin. This encompasses straight marriage and gay marriage, but not incestuous marriage or polygamy.
You do not agree with my position. That's fine. But pretending that I have not yet articulated my position--or that no proponent for SSM ever has--is completely disingenuous, and unsportsmanlike in a debate.
"Go with your view that SSM is a subset of contract law and explain the relevance of the line drawn against consenting adults to form a contract of related people, or previously married people, or groups of three or more people, or underaged people."
Marriage is a contract not only between two people, but between those two people and the government. The government gives the benefits, and the government sets the restrictions. People don't get to negotiate every little part of a marriage contract; it's pretty much an all-or-nothing deal. How you think this will be changed by legalizing SSM is beyond me.
The reason I have asked you to cite the changed law is that the marriage law in that state has not been changed.
ReplyDeleteInstead you point to the Goodridge opinion. However that judicial opinion addressed the legislative branch. That branch has not made the change. The executive branch is not empowered to make such a legislative change. Neither is the judicial branch. That is what the state constitution clearly says. That is what thae precedents of that states judiciary says. And that is what the Goodrifge courts own reasoning means.
There is no ambiguity in the marriage law regarding the man-woman requirement. That is what the law shows and you said that the law is all that matters.
You offered your preferred definition and limitations on SSM but you have noy explained the basis for any of that.
ReplyDeleteTwo people ... why? Unrelated ... why? Not previously married ... why?
What is the basis for your conclusion .. for your definition? There is no straight criterion for those whod form a union of husband and wife... and no gay criterion for those whod SSM in MA. And no such criterion is proposed by SSMers anyway. So your latest comment's dichotomy of socalled straight marriage vs socalled gay marriage is not found in that state's marriage law. So that cannot be the legal basis of the imposition of SSM.
In other words that is not a relevant factor. You said relevance was decisive in your legalcentric view.
Souza your own comment indicates that marriage is not a subset of contract law. Also you acknowledged that society, throughour form of government, decides to accord marriage its special legal status and draw lines of eligibility and ineligibility. The societal significance of marriage means that society is a party to each marital relationship. It is not just an arbiter as with mere contracts. Society accords a preferential status in law but first in the culture writ large.
ReplyDeleteSociety can make laws governing that type of relationship. Marriage law is about a type of relationship that is distinguisable before the label and status is attached to it.
Society may discriminate between marriage and nonmarriage. Society may discriminate between different types of relationships and living arrangements. But what justifies that?
The one sexed arrangement is a subset of the types of relationsships that populate society outside the bounds of the type of relationship that merits special status. The nonmarriage category is not defined by gay identity nor by sexual preferences and behaviors. The one sexed arrangement ... sexualized or not ... gay or straight or whatever ... is among a vast range of two sexed arrangements that are also out of bonds.
So go back to the relevant features of SSM/marriage before you set limits. You clearly feel that society must discriminate between The type of relationship you have in mind and all other types. Justify that view.
By the way the Goodridge opinion does not provide that justification.
Chairm,
ReplyDeleteYou are splitting hairs on the issue of legality. Gay marriage is legal in Massachusetts according to every major newspaper in the country.
"Two people ... why?"
Because the benefits and privileges of the marriage contract are set up to apply to two people. Legalizing poly marriage would require an enormous restructuring of how the rights and responsibilities of marriage are applied. At this time, this would be an undue burden for the government. The same is not true of legalizing same-sex marriage, in my opinion. Two men can fit into the arrangement just as well as a man and woman.
"Unrelated ... why?"
Because, like you, I believe society has an interest in preserving the notion of family. I just don't believe gays getting married and adopting children does anything to disrupt that.
"Not previously married ... why?"
Because, again, the benefits of marriage in this country are only set up to apply to a relationship between two people.
Chairm, my entire argument could be boiled down to "gender doesn't matter," while yours can be boiled down to "yeah it does." Why don't we save ourselves some time and agree to disagree.
Souza, Being in Massachusetts as a life long resident, it feels like one law with very two differing applications. The law is the same, but applied differently so one law that treats differing couples unequally.
ReplyDeleteI have mentioned before, I do wonder if egg/sperm/surrogacy donation did not exist, would be views change. Now this would be hypothetical of course. The fertility industry probably a bigger role in all of this, then the gay community.
I know it seems, because I don't support gay marriage I don't sympathize. It's an all or nothing situation. I do sincerely try to understand many concerns that affect homosexuals, it may not come to the same conclusion but the way I try to see it always is to ask myself 'If my child was gay?'
I think about it alot, and I think first and foremost that my child always knows he or she is loved by his/her mother and father and siblings. That is where we first learn how to love.
Thank you for the reply, Renee. I can sympathize with the concern over the fertility industry. Egg and sperm donation is a subject that I do not know much about, but reading about people's experience with these issues on the Family Scholars Blog has made me think about it more than I had before.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I see that as a completely separate issue from gay marriage. Gay couples are already using artificial insemination and other means in order to produce and raise children, and that doesn't seem likely to end soon. I don't see much evidence that allowing these couples to get married will make much difference in regards to this practice. But I do believe that strengthening their commitment through marriage would be in the best interest of these children.
Souza, the major newspapers did not change the marriage law in MA, obviously.
ReplyDeleteYou are not pointing at the marriage law. You are, at best, pointing at an abuse of judicial review that entrenched a change that you favor. That is antithetical to the rule of law.
It is hardly splitting hairs for me to point out that you are not adhering to your stated standard.
On the other hand you assume that the imposition is justified by the new definiton and by the limits you would borrow from the marriage law that was duly enacted based on the replaced defition which was unambiguous.
The reasons you have offered do not withstand the terms of argumentation insisted upon by SSMers in that state ... nor even in the Goodrifge opinion.
The arbitrariness is front and center. That directly contradicts the pose of SSMers that their proSSM complaint requires that the marriage law be justified in terms of the law. The redefinition ... which the Goodridge opinion explicitl said it favored ... is nowhere found in the marriage law and nowhere justified.
You have not lived up to your stated standard. Your pose is fraudulent. On that I'd agree with the basis of your comments here.
This was your best example of 1) the imposition of the SSM idea and 2) justification of it. Turns out to be a good example of an imposition that used unjust means for an unjst end.
ReplyDeleteThat exemplifies the rhetoric and the arumentation of the SSM campaign everywhere.
Souza: Because the benefits and privileges of the marriage contract are set up to apply to two people.
ReplyDeleteThe "benefits and privileges" of "the marriage contract" are set up to apply to one man and one woman.
This is yet another example of the inconsistency of advocates for neutering marriage. Their arguments against other redefinitions of marriage apply just as well to the redefinition they are proposing.
Chairm, my entire argument could be boiled down to "gender doesn't matter,"...
Souza is wrong, unless of course she is arguing that procreation doesn't matter, at least not as much as identity politics. The truth is that society needs marriage to remain a vehicle of responsible procreation, not a vehicle of identity politics.
Not that I'm a fan of polygamy, but in South Africa laws are being adjusted to open up to a man having more then one wife. I believe conditions will apply he must prove he can provide.
ReplyDeleteIt's more then about two people.
Op-Ed: "The "benefits and privileges" of "the marriage contract" are set up to apply to one man and one woman."
ReplyDeleteHow so?
The only specific benefit I can think of that won't apply to a gay couple is the presumption of paternity. But of course, this doesn't apply to straight marriages without biological children either.
I can't think of any other benefits of marriage that a gay couple can't enjoy. In fact, On Lawn is even making the argument on FSB that all the benefits of marriage can be fulfilled in a domestic partnership or civil union. Do you disagree with him on this?
Also, not that I'm offended, but I am not a "she."
ReplyDelete"The truth is that society needs marriage to remain a vehicle of responsible procreation, not a vehicle of identity politics."
Marriage will remain a "vehicle of procreation" (if I'm understanding that strange phrase correctly) even if those who cannot procreate with each other are allowed to marry. Procreation simply won't be marriage's primary purpose--in fact, procreation is already not considered the primary purpose of marriage by most Americans.
Chairm,
ReplyDeleteOnce again, I did not bring up Massachusetts. I am not sure why you continue to say this is my best example of "the imposition of the SSM idea.
You also continue to begin from premises which are highly contested, such as your statement that the Massachusetts case constitutes "an abuse of judicial review." That is your opinion, one that many legal scholars more qualified than myself would call erroneous.
The rest of your reply is word salad, and thus I can not reply to it.
Before I continue to comment here, I should ask the posters the same question that I asked On Lawn (and that he refused to answer) on FSB:
ReplyDeleteDo you believe there is any possibility that, under the right circumstances, you might be persuaded to change your position on same-sex marriage?
The only person I've seen so far on this blog who I think might answer "yes" to that question is Renee. Everyone else seems so convinced of the air-tightness of their arguments, that any counter-argument is met not just with disagreement, but with scorn.
Souza: > In fact, On Lawn is even making the argument on FSB that all the benefits of marriage can be fulfilled in a domestic partnership or civil union.
ReplyDeleteCorrection, all the relevant benefits and privileges can theoretically be provided through Reciprocal Beneficiaries, Domestic Partnerships, or Civil Unions.
You yourself noted that not all the benefits are relevant, "The only specific benefit I can think of that won't apply to a gay couple is the presumption of paternity."
Souza: > you might be persuaded to change your position on same-sex marriage?
ReplyDeleteI already have.
Someone argued that marriage should be whatever two people want them to be, that it is just a contract. That convinced me that such marriages should be legal -- we'll just call them contracts.
Someone argued that a same-sex couple committed in mutual trust and dependency should have access to government recognition. I decided they were right, even if that same-sex couple wasn't gay or lesbian. Even if they weren't a couple but perhaps a young mother who is moving in with elderly benefactors. Or two sisters, or three sisters. So I decided that a RB's or CU's and DP's should have the same program.
And Souza/Chris, if you don't agree with those statements, then what would it take to get you to agree?
But one thing remains, we can only begin to properly support marriage equality -- the equal recognition of the rights of the man, woman, and child they potentially have together -- by explicitly mentioning "man and woman" as the definition of a marriage.
Marriage may be more things then just looking out for responsible procreation, but for the government perspective for the sake of women, men and children, it should never be less then that.
What would it take for you to change your mind to agree with that if you don't already?
On Lawn, I don't understand what you mean by "relevant." Relevant to what?
ReplyDelete"Someone argued that marriage should be whatever two people want them to be, that it is just a contract."
Those sound like two separate arguments. I think you are implying that I made one or both. I did say that marriage is a contract between two people and the government, but you added in the "just" part. I don't agree with the first argument.
"That convinced me that such marriages should be legal -- we'll just call them contracts."
This makes no sense. You can't simultaneously want the government to legally recognize such marriages, and be opposed to the government calling them marriages.
"Marriage may be more things then just looking out for responsible procreation, but for the government perspective for the sake of women, men and children, it should never be less then that."
In marriages that do not produce children, it already is "less than" that, to use your terminology. Although I wouldn't say "less than," I would say "different than."
In order for my mind to be changed, I would have to be shown evidence that legalizing SSM would cause real harm. So far, I remain unconvinced.
Souza,
ReplyDeleteI find it funny that you argue against what actually convinced me to change my position.
No, you haven't moved my position at all.
I too am moved by seeing harm. I've seen the harm that happens from removing marriage from responsible procreation, and that is why I'm against neutering it.
But same-sex marriages can be recognized through private contracts, RB's, CU's, DP's, etc... and I don't just mean for gays and lesbian couples either. For every home banding together. And letting them have every benefit relevant to their relationship.
Souza you said that all that matters is the marriage law.
ReplyDeleteBut the law was not changed by the legislative branch. So you pointed, only indirectly, at the Goodridge opinion. That opinion addressed the legislative branch which has not since made the change you assume to have been made.
Who made the change? Indeed who has the authority to change the marriage law to fit your assertion that the law changed to impose SSM.? Whence to legitimacy of that power?
The judiciary is not so empowered. If you think that the judiciary did this change ... then you rely on an abuse of judicial power.
At the same time you still have not explained the reason for imposing SSM. It cannot be sexual attraction since there is no legal requirement for that.
Now you quibble that MA is not the best example, in your view, or at least that you did not raise MA as your own best example even though you have here adopted the MA example as demonstrating your contention that the law is paramount on this issue.
You have not pointed at a change in the law. You have vaguely pointed at a judicial opinion upon which the legislative branch did not act to change the marriage law. You pointed at press reports, too, instead. You have pointed, even more vaguely, at people who agree with the imposition of SSM in MA.
This is about what underlays such an imposition. You still have not gotten to that, anyway, with all your handwaving.
The law is on the surface. What lies beneath it?
That, I think, is what On Lawn is getting at with his blogpost and subsequent comments. Your comments, in response, have stayed on the thin layer on the surface. You are not getting at whatever it is that you think (or feel perhaps) justifies a special relationship status for the SSM idea.
Souza, There was a post from last year that helps out what occurred in Massachusetts.
ReplyDelete"Was Gay Marriage not on principle in Massachusetts?"
Basically the elected officials in the Massachusetts State House are 'sheep', whether it be marriage or issues like gambling the opinion can change on a turn of a dime. Our last two State Speakers of the House are facing federal criminal charges of corruption.
Souza: How so?
ReplyDeleteI always find it funny when someone thinks deliberately looking dense is somehow persuasive.
I can't think of any other benefits of marriage that a gay couple can't enjoy.
I can't think of any "benefit" of being a police officer that I couldn't enjoy, particularly getting through a rush hour traffic jam. That doesn't make me a police officer... nor a "second class citizen," to borrow an example of the rhetoric of the other side of this debate.
In fact, On Lawn is even making the argument on FSB that all the benefits of marriage can be fulfilled in a domestic partnership or civil union.
Not even close to On Lawn's position. Another attempt to buttress one's argument by looking impossibly dense at reading comprehension. When the best defense one has for one's position is to make oneself look stupid, one should reexamine one's position.
Also, not that I'm offended, but I am not a "she."
She said gender didn't matter.
Marriage will remain a "vehicle of procreation"...
Standard dishonest practice when discussing this issue with neutered marriage activists, dropping the word "responsible." Souza compounds the dishonesty by putting quote marks around the phrase as if someone else had said it and she is merely repeating verbatim.
(if I'm understanding that strange phrase correctly)
More appeal to stupidity. That an arguer has trouble understanding simple language doesn't instill confidence in the arguer's conclusions.
Souza does not deny that she wants to coopt marriage to promote her identity politics. Instead she argues that it won't hurt its real function. (I don't want to hurt your watch, I just want to use it to hammer this nail down.) That wasn't true before Loving when racists tried to coopt marriage for their identity politics and it won't be true of Souza's attempt to do the same thing.
That is your opinion, one that many legal scholars more qualified than myself would call erroneous.
Name one. Even "legal scholars" who support neutering marriage dismiss Goodridge as, for example, "self-intoxicating narcissism." What do "legal scholars" call a court ruling that admits to ignoring the law?
"Certainly our decision today marks a significant change in the definition of marriage as it has been inherited from the common law,..." - Goodridge v. Department of Public Health
Beyond freeing itself of the confines of the law, the court also freed itself of reason. The above statement is also an example of the fallacy "begging the question," adopting one's conclusion as a premise in one's argument. That is not "opinion," that is fact.
Souza: Do you believe there is any possibility that, under the right circumstances, you might be persuaded to change your position on same-sex marriage?
ReplyDeleteSouza, the right circumstances for me could only be at least thirty years after neutered marriage is adopted, if my concerns about it show no signs of occurring.
More later.
Like so many other souls who have dared to venture into this confined, insular space, I'm starting to realize that this blog is clearly not for me. Aside from Renee and R.K., the posters here are hostile and arrogant when met with anyone from outside of their narrow rhetorical community. Op-ed's response was especially petty.
ReplyDeleteSo congrats, you've alienated yet another person. But I don't think you actually care a whit about that, or that you even care about getting anyone outside your little rhetorical circle-jerk to listen or support your positions. You can't possibly believe the debating style on display here is going to persuade people; you're simply preaching to the choir. I hope you have fun with that while the rest of the country is busy accepting same-sex marriage.
I'd be interested in seeing your position in thirty years, R.K.
You were right Op-Ed,
ReplyDeleteAfter looking vague and cluless (while insulting people here at every occasion) their last resort is the thinness of their skin.
Oh the offense and travesty.
It's a cliche with these folks. Show up, state one's conclusion, fail to support it so try playing rhetorical games (like misquoting and feigning that they don't understand), get called on it, so just leave. But they never just leave. Instead they have to hurl a bunch of unsubstantiated insults (like "petty") over their shoulder, as if the more boorish they are the more likely we are to miss them.
ReplyDeleteYou know, if we can't get someone to support neutered marriage rationally, I'd at least settle for someone who could just manage a graceful exit. It seems the neutered marriage side of this debate can't manage either.
Souza: In order for my mind to be changed, I would have to be shown evidence that legalizing SSM would cause real harm. So far, I remain unconvinced.
ReplyDeleteSouza, I think there is a real problem with the idea that we should err on the side of accepting an untested and historically unprecedented major change unless harm can be conclusively proved.
Souza, you began by asserting that all that matters is the law. But you disregarded the law. You relied instead on a judicial opinion (the proferred reasonong) that explicitly favored a change it lacked the constitutional authority to enact. Even that state's own precedents stand in the way of a judicial rewrite of an unambiguous law whose intent was undisputed by all of the judges on that case. The Goodridge opinion does not stand on a finding of unjust sexual orientation discrimination for a majority was not mustered among of the justices. Indeed there is plenty of rhetoical emphasis on gay identity and on homosexual orientation in the proSSM opinion ... just as there is in SSM argumentation and in your own stated view. However that rhetoric clashes with reasoning that has been offered to justify abolishing the man-woman criterion of marriage law.
ReplyDeleteA legal criterion that remains good law in MA.
Yes licenses for SSM are now issued in MA but this is an unjust imposition of SSM. It was imposed through unjust means. It is itself an unjustified end.
If you rely on the law, as you claimed, then you rely on the rule of law rather than the rule of men (in this instance rule by abuse of judicial review). If the example of MA does not change your mind then your question to us here has little credibility as a test that can fairly apply to your own stated view.
And the question about real marriages in MA ... a question you promised must depend on the law ... can be answered in the affirmative only if the imposition of SSM in MA is excused on the basis of favoring both the primacy of gay identity politics and the abuse of judicial review which served that favoritism.
Read the end of the Goodridge opinion and note the the cours slim proSSM majority addressed the legislative branch regarding changing the marriage law. The judiciary had acknowledged its own limitation.
Can you?
Chairm, Remember the Massachusetts Legislature is free to redefine marriage to the man/women definition, it's just that the elected officials don't want to, to the point of denying the people access to the ballot. That's there legislative right, though the gay lobby I guess.
ReplyDeleteThe Legislature is also completely free to repeal all marriage laws. There is nothing according to the state's Constitution that it must have any laws regarding marriage or divorce.
If marriage in the scope that heterosexual behavior creates a child is no longer of value to our society, then why not call everything a civil union? Over the years some gay marriage advocates are pretty OK with that. What we have now is taken a good value to stop unjust discrimination against individuals, but we can't pretend that individuals, including gay people don't have a mom or dad either. It's unfortunate to say the least. Very unfortunate.