Marriage Neutering Advocates Get Special Treatment Again

It is no surprise to anyone paying attention that Judge Ware has decided to treat the trial over the California Marriage Amendment differently than so many other trials, and is releasing the video of trial. This, of course, will be manipulated and used endlessly by marriage neutering advocates in ways that would make Joseph Goebbels blush. There will likely be some bullying as well, but what should we expect when a major personality behind an "anti-bullying" efforts is a bully himself? Karin Klein reports at LATimes.com:

Because on the same day, U.S. District Court Chief Judge James Ware ruled that the videotapes of the federal trial must be made public. His order will take effect Sept. 30, if a higher court doesn't overrule him.

So there's hope?

It only makes sense for the public to get to see the actual testimony and arguments in the case.

...because Klein wants it that way. Wonder why she hasn't made a big deal about so many other federal trials? She again uses the erroneous "ban" language, too.

The initiative's proponents, leaders of ProtectMarriage, had argued against allowing the videotapes to be made public; it's unclear to me exactly why they're against public viewing.

I wonder if Klein favors or opposed public displays of abortion pictures and videos?

They were unable to articulate any way in which same-sex marriage would harm traditional marriages.

I seem to recall that Proposition 8 became a duly adopted constitutional amendment when it was voted in. The burden of proof that a change was needed should have fallen on the complaining side.

What she considers harm and what other people would consider harm are likely different things. But since she brought it up...



Public policy about marriage, parenting, and family has an effect on all of us. State marriage licenses are issued on your behalf. They are not a private matter. Same-sex couples are free to have ceremonies, share names, share homes, share beds, share a life, etc. But they should not be able to force the rest of us to neuter marriage licensing.

It isn't just that someone who objects to homosexual behavior will be forced to endorse it. We will all, whether we have a moral objection to homosexual behavior or not, be forced to treat brideless and groomless pairings and marriage identically. The marriage neutering advocates don't want us to even have a word that notes there is a difference. It would be official government policy that there is not. Public schools (and many other schools, if not all) would be prevented from teaching that marriage is different from this pseudomarriage, and homosexuality advocates would be unrestrained in pushing their worldview in the schools as official curriculum. Parents would have no ability to opt their child out. Adoption agencies would not be able to give preference to placing children with a home that is inclusive of both sexes. No government agency, nothing associated with a government program or funding, would be allowed to make a distinction, unless of course it was to somehow provide a targeted advantage to same-sex couples. Soon after, no business, private employer, or private property owner would be allowed to make any distinction.


The burden is not on those who want the status quo to prove change would bring harm. Convincing the rest of us that the benefits will outweigh the harm is the burden that belongs to those who want to neuter marriage.

It is very difficult to establish a causal relationship in matters of sociology that will be accepted by those who disagree with a statement, such as "neutering marriage will hurt". What would qualify as harm? The impact of marriage and family policies is most likely to be generational. We have yet to have a generation raised in an overall culture where marriage is neutered.

We do know that counterfeits inherently devalue the authentic.

Here are some of the other ways the push to neuter marriage has caused harm:

1. The worth of marriage has been denied. One of the arguments made by supporters of marriage neutering, despite it being contradictory to some of the other tactics, is "Marriage really isn't a big deal. It is a joke anyway."

2. Motherhood and fatherhood have been devalued with claims that neither one is important and that nothing is lacking without the involvement of motherhood or fatherhood.

3. Masculinity and femininity have been devalued much the same way.

4. The importance of children has been denied. "Marriage isn't about children." The interest of the state in marriage has primarily been because marriage is the only kind of association that can naturally create and raise the next generation with one parent and primary role model from each of the two sexes that comprise all of society in a cooperative legal, social, and usually biological union. But marriage neutering advocates put the focus on the minority of marriages that do not involve children and the claim is made that marriage isn’t about children, but rather about the sexual desires of adults.

5. Public servants have been derelict in their duty. Governors and state Attorney Generals such as California's Schwarzenegger and Brown have chosen not to defend the state constitution as amended. What other amendments will be ignored in the future? President Obama has chosen not to defend DOMA. What laws will be ignored or not defended in the future without a final court action?

6. Separation of powers has been denied. In some states, the majority vote has been subverted by judicial activism. No, there is no Constitutional right to a state-issued license that supersedes a vote of the majority on whose behalf the licenses are issued as long as all individuals have equal access, which they do, even if not all want to exercise that access.

7. Federalism is invoked arbitrarily as one state's (Massachusetts) laws are presented as mandating a change of federal policy, but another state's (California) constitution regarding the very same state licensing is presented as subject to invalidation based on a federal court.

8. Religions forming a backbone of American culture, including giving rise to institutions of higher learning, hospitals, charities, and so forth, have been attacked and mocked.

9. Public morality has further been attacked.

10. Universally established core societal foundations are now subject to change based on the whiniest political lobby on behalf of a behavioral minority.

11. Marriage has been reduced to a means to an end with the claim that marriage licenses are needed for the sake of things like hospital visitations.

Someone who wants to neuter marriage may not see any of those as harms, but it is foolish to think that these harms won't have a larger impact beyond the issue of marriage neutering, or to think precedents established to neuter marriage won't be used by "the other side" when it is in power.

See "What is the Harm of Neutering Marriage?" for more.