The Simple Dollar: Who Do You Love?

Causality, it's been the topic of contention between any scientific data on marriage. What makes something happen? Can you say that neutering marriage has caused a decline in marriage, if you see a decline in marriage? Jane Gualt noted a long time ago that changes happen one marginal case at a time. What makes someone choose to do better, to be responsible about their commitments and obligations? The unsurprising answer might be that our personal relationships have a great influence on our motivation to be responsible and meet our obligations. This is a recent first hand account by someone who I've never seen give an opinion on neutering marriage.

At the low point of my personal finance situation, I spent a long night sitting with my infant son in a dark room, wondering what would happen next. It was during that night that I realized I was failing that poor child and that I needed to start making better decisions with my life.
It wasn’t just my son, though, that convinced me to follow a different path. My wife played a huge role, as did the children we had later on. My close friends played a big role, as did my parents.
It was the sum of all of those relationships that pushed me to make some major changes in my life. It was not a matter of wanting to disappoint them or to make them proud. It was my desire to always hold up my own end of the bargain that was my relationship with each of them.

The author doesn't limit which relationships influenced him. Certainly the ones that had the most impact were the ones that were closest to him, his child then wife, then parents and friends.

Yes, he did

I've been thinking a lot about world news lately. Often someone comes along our forums and asks if we have done enough about the tragedies that have happened to homosexuals. I think so for everyone here. I certainly work to promote tolerance and support for those in need, and that includes people who have same-sex attraction. Though, admittedly, it is hard to say if my efforts can meet the high goal post set by someone on their 10 foot horse, or hit the target of someone who feels their plight is the center of the universe.

For any given week there is a news report of mass slaughter or starvation which also carries my concern. The world is a big place, and there is a lot of suffering. If marriage, the support a family can give one another, weren't so critical in solving all of these problems I'd have no time for Opine Editorials at all.

I've often lamented how such grave news was often unheard of by those issuing such a challenge here at Opine. Yet recently news has taken a flip, with foreign news in the headlines and domestic news being buried. With "unrest" (meaning the people are fed up with their government) in the Middle East, many other news has gone silent. But a lot of foreign news can hardly be heard as well. I've not heard much from China, Afghanistan, Iraq, Russia lately -- especially with the spotlight having moved from their countries. From even further in the not-so-distant past the only news I see from Kosovo and the Balitcs are travel logs of vacationers. I've not heard much of anything from near bankrupt states across the USA, except perhaps from Wisconsin.

The difference between wedding vendors and places of worship.

Which is more analogous to government recognizing marriage, a vendor or a place of worship?

I saw this news item in which a couple was denied use of a bed & breakfast for their civil union ceremony, the bed & breakfast only wants 'traditional weddings'.

Within my own church, it was made very clear the church was not a wedding vendor. We are a church. The photographer, the limo service, the florist, the reception hall, and a bed & breakfast are vendors. Vendors do NOT have a vested interest in your relationship, if it stays healthy or ends in a sad divorce.

Places of worship do have a vested interest, but why? What is in any religious belief system that values marriage? If there is a vested interest, is it something that could be defined as more objective without references to religion.

If government should recognizes marriage, in any form, then why? What is the vested interest for the community-at-large?

For instance, a government could repeal all marriage laws for everyone, would that be unconstitutional or would that be against all of our civil rights?

Heterosexuality and homosexuality playing different roles in evolution.

Last year I posted an interesting article how gay uncles play a supportive role in nieces and nephews, as a way to pass down their genes.

Over at Marriage Debate they cite a recent New York Times article how fertility attracts men or pushes them away.

THE THREATENING SCENT OF FERTILE WOMEN: NYTimes

It may seem hard to believe that men could distinguish a woman who’s at peak fertility simply by sitting next to her for a few minutes. Scientists long assumed that ovulation in humans was concealed from both sexes.

But recent studies have found large changes in cues and behavior when a woman is at this stage of peak fertility. Lap dancers get much higher tips (unless they’re taking birth-control pills that suppress ovulation, in which case their tips remain lower). The pitch of a woman’s voice rises. Men rate her body odor as more attractive and respond with higher levels of testosterone. ...

President Obama Abandons DOMA, Prop 8 Attacked

President "marriage is between a man and a woman" Obama has abandoned DOMA, much like how California Governor Jerry Brown abandoned the California Marriage Amendment. David G. Savage and James Oliphant report for the Los Angeles Times.

The Obama administration, in a major shift on gay rights, says it will not defend in court the federal law that bars the government from recognizing same-sex marriages and giving equal benefits to gay couples.

"After careful consideration, the president of the United States has made the determination that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act as applied to same-sex couples who are legally married under state law, violates the equal-protection component" of the U.S. Constitution, announced Atty. Gen. Eric Holder.

Elections have consequences.

In his legal analysis, discrimination against gays "warrants heightened scrutiny," not general acceptance. "There is, regrettably, a significant history of purposeful discrimination against gay and lesbian people, by governmental as well as private entities, based on prejudice and stereotypes that continue to have ramifications today,"

What does this have to do with the fact that the uniting of a bride and groom is fundamentally different than other kinds of unions? Also, heterosexual coitus is objectively different and of more importance to society than homosexual sodomy. If homosexual people insisted they needed to dump oil in the ocean to be happy, would we have to go ahead and change the law for them because of discrimination?

He also cited "recent evolutions" of the law in courts and state legislatures recognizing the principle of equal treatment for gays and lesbians.

Bride+groom marriage licensing is equal treatment.

Until now, the Obama administration had taken the view that it had a duty to defend all laws, including discriminatory measures, so long as they could be justified as constitutional. In this instance, the administration could see no "reasonable arguments" to defend a law that denies equal benefits to legally married gay couples, he said.

Actually, I'm not opposed to the federal government recognizing state law. But then I think many federal government programs shouldn't exist in the first place, nor do I think courts (mostly) in those states should have neutered marriage licensing to begin with.

Until now, the government's official position was that official discrimination based on sexual orientation was generally constitutional.

I'm not sure how it is possible for anyone to discriminate against someone based on their internal feelings. It is possible, and often necessary, to distinguish between different behaviors and different kinds of associations.

Meanwhile, in California, Maura Dolan reports at LATimes.com that marriage neutering advocates want to pretend that the legal dispute over the California Marriage Amendment, voted in as Proposition 8, is over.

Lawyers challenging Proposition 8 urged a federal appeals court Wednesday to lift an order preventing gays from marrying and called on the California Supreme Court to speed up its review of a key issue in the case.

Gay individuals can "marry" another individual of the same-sex right now, and those individuals also have the same access to state marriage licensing as anyone else.

The challengers asked that the stay be removed on the grounds that the California Supreme Court is going to delay the case roughly another year and that even President Obama has said bans on gay marriage are unconstitutional.

It's... not... a... ban. Like I said, state law matters. Just because Obama has decided to abandon defending federal law does not mean that anything should be changed to remove the current stay in the state of California.

Good article on Elton John

From the Daily Mail from the U.K.

Elton John wants his son to have a 'normal childhood' like he enjoyed. But is his memory playing tricks on him?

While I disagree what Elton John has done, to create a motherless child, the article though explores a very universal aspect everyone experiences.

California Supreme Court Will Determine Standing

Maura Dolan has been reporting at LATimes.com. From the most recent entry:

The California Supreme Court decided Wednesday to determine whether the sponsors of Proposition 8 have special authority to defend the [California Marriage Amendment] in court.

The state high court, meeting in closed session, agreed to a request by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to determine the status California law gives initiative sponsors.

The court was unanimous in deciding to accept the case. The court's order set an expedited briefing schedule to permit a hearing by "as early as September." The court must rule on a case 90 days after oral argument.

Throughout, Dolan slants the story by calling the constitutional amendment a "measure" or "initiative", and describes it as "anti-gay marriage".

The state high court already has ruled twice on same-sex marriage. In a May 2008 ruling, the court voted 4-3 to end California’s ban on gay nuptials. Voters reinstated the ban six months later.

It's… not… a… ban.

The state court rejected a challenge of Proposition 8 the following year, ruling 6-1 that it was not an illegal revision of the state Constitution.

And who was defending the amendment before the state court? Oh, that’s right. The people they have to now decide about. After they already allowed them to defend the amendment before them, so how can they deny them standing? They shouldn't.

Comments from a previous entry are below.

"Regan DuCasse" at February 16, 2011 at 09:06 AM:

What individual, nation or society has EVER suffered for the expansion of equality and justice to those previously without it?

The question is flawed, as it assumes that neutering state marriage licensing, especially against a vote of the governed to amend their state constitution, is “justice”. As for equality, it is usually, if not always, detrimental to force the government and the governed to treat very different behaviors and different kinds of associations as though they were the same.

"Josh S" at February 16, 2011 at 09:53 AM:

Gays do have full right to marry. The right to marry someone of the opposite sex, if they choose not to that is their choice. Marriage was designed for added security for children and families- not to legitimize a sexual relationship which would be tantamount to adding legal protections to relationships based on other hobbies like tennis partners.

He's right.

"Pam" at February 16, 2011 at 10:24 AM:

The only people against gay marriage could only be people who don't think they know any gay people! But they do! They just don't know it.

Not true. I know many gay people, including at least one same-sex couple that opposes the neutering of marriage. I'd support them committing to each other in a monogamous situation as opposed to promiscuity, but I do not support the neutering of state marriage licenses.

The only difference between gay and straight people is what they do in their bedrooms.

Even granting that to be true, this is like asking, "How can you deny our chess club the status of an NFL franchise? The only thing we do differently is play chess instead of football!" Marriage isn't some way to validate an existing sexual-social relationship or recognize that people love each other. The very core of marriage is the uniting of both sexes that comprise all of society.

Apparently people against gay marriage spend way too much time thinking about other peoples' sex lives.

We didn't pick this fight.

Mind your own business!

State-issued licenses are my business.

If gay people want to get married and be as cranky as the rest of us, I say good and it's time to make it legal everywhere.

Ah. Another marriage critic who doesn't see the problem with neutering marriage. What a surprise.

"tw" at February 16, 2011 at 11:35 AM:

I don't impose my beliefs on you and your family and would expect the same respect from you

Forcing us to neuter our marriage licensing is exactly imposing your beliefs on us, and is disrespecting us.

marraige is a contract between two people

Why just two, and who decided that? Sounds like... discrimination... to me.

There's a real difference between men and women!

Choices -- Not Discrimination -- Determine Success for Women Scientists, Experts Argue

The "substantial resources" universities expend to sponsor gender-sensitivity training and interviewing workshops would be better spent on addressing the real causes of women's underrepresentation, Ceci and Williams say, through creative problem-solving and policy changes that respond to differing "biological and social realities" of the sexes.

Yes, that's what it said. Read on. People. Read on.

Why you can't marry your sibling, or have sex with one for that matter.

I'm assuming that most marriage laws still prevent siblings and other first degree relatives from marrying, even if they're a half sibling. Some modern day philosophers believe heterosexual sibling sex is fine, as long there is use of a pill and a condom. The prohibition of sibling marriage/sex is all based on heterosexual behavior, because of child may be produced from a brother/sister relationship or an uncle/niece relationship.

Baylor geneticists warn procedure can detect incest, raise ethical issues

In a letter in the British medical journal The Lancet today, Baylor College of Medicine geneticists advise hospitals to begin grappling with the issues that arise from the testing, which can unexpectedly show a patient was conceived through so-called "first-degree" familial relationships — father-daughter, mother-son or brother-sister.

Tests showing 25 percent of identical DNA are evidence of parentage by first-degree relatives. The percentage drops to 12.5 percent for uncle-niece relationships and less than 1 percent for first cousins.

Some quick marriage advice in the comment section of NPR

The article itself is that there is an uptick in divorce, since the economy is improving. During the low points of the recession, people either couldn't afford a divorce or due to assets it wasn't a smart move.

The truth is most Americans aren't in bad marriages, they're just bored. Also, they pick the wrong person to marry for all the wrong reasons. Young people, ignore everything you see in movies, TV, etc. about what marriage is all about. Before you even get close to saying I do, consider this very carefully: someone who makes a good boyfriend or girlfriend will probably not make a good spouse. Marriage is not so much about love as it is about affection, respect, common goals and values, and, most of all, commitment. It is highly unlikely that you will be madly "in love" with someone you will spend the rest of your life with. Romantic love is a chimera; it doesn't last. SO get yourself past that stage before you even think about marriage.

I'll comment later on my thoughts.

Ann Coulter on Marriage and Identity Politics

Ann Coulter introduces her latest column:

In honor of the gays who have come out of the closet as Republicans to be one of the 140 sponsors of CPAC 2011, I thought I'd run one of the interviews I gave before speaking to GOProud last September, which the reporter never ran after wasting my time.

Not that she keeps score.

(5) Can you lay out your stance on marriage equality (Prop 8, DOMA) and DADT?

I'm against gay marriage, but that's no offense to gays. It is just in defense of a crucial linchpin of civilization that's already hanging by a thread.

It is precisely because marriage has already been devalued so much that marriage neutering advocates have been able to make the progress they have in the few states where marriage licensing has been neutered, and in public opinion polls that indicate a significant minority is not in opposition to marriage neutering.

Also, I dislike using the term gay marriage because strictly speaking, the issue is licensing of same-sex pairs as marriage, without any requirement that either identify as gay. (I could describe my marriage with my wife as joyful and gay.) Given the choice between gay fidelity and gay promiscuity, I support fidelity, and I think most of those who oppose the neutering of marriage would say the same thing.

(6) Are gay rights part and parcel with basic conservatism? If so, why are so many elected Republicans so skittish/unsupportive about the subject? If not, tell me why.

No, we don't generally care for identity politics of any sort, much less hearing about people's sex lives, even Nino Scalia's. (And judging by the number of children he has, it's pretty active.) Conservatives believe in individual rights, low tax rates, fighting terrorism and punishing criminals -- so do gays!

I maintain that I support more rights for homosexual people than most marriage neutering advocacy organizations, because I think all individuals should retain more of their rights rather than abandoning them to the federal government in general, the judiciary, or international government. I treat people as individuals based on what they do, recognizing the equal worth of both sexes but not ignoring the differences between them.

(7) Why attend and speak at Homocon?

Why lie? I'm in the market for a new hair stylist.

(7b) Is it just another gig, or are you hoping to make a larger point?

I plan to forge the conservative/gay peace of Westphalia! Conservatives will: (1) Stop treating gay sex any differently from premarital sex; (2) stop blaming nice, conservative gays for the hateful, angry, leftist gays pushing fisting on kindergartners; and (3) agree to do something about their hair. Gays will drop this business about gay marriage and pushing PC rules on the military.

I'd go for that. As it is, I've long recognized that homosexual people are not a monolithic group (the homofascists and even the larger homosexuality advocacy groups do not typically represent a majority of homosexual people) and I appreciate people who are good friends and citizens, whether they are heterosexual or homosexual.

"Premarital" sex has been extremely damaging to marriage.

Love her or hate her, Coulter isn't boring.

Saving the Impossible Marriage, from Sam Kinneson's Soap Box

Recently XRLQ noted what I think is the real motivation behind many people who do not want to protect marriage as explicitly between a man and a woman.

The reason for my change is simple. In my heavy blogging days, when Mrs. Ex was Mrs. X and divorce was unthinkable, I naïvely assumed that our existing family law was brilliantly developed over the millennia to make the laws specific to traditional marriages as absolutely perfect as they possibly could be.

Well maybe not quite so absolutely, but in that direction. I did not oppose civil unions as an alternative to same-sex marriage, but did reason that the concept of a permanent same-sex union – something most gays themselves didn’t want as recently as a generation ago – was an experiment that should be conducted separately from traditional marriage for at least a generation, with each legislature considering changes to each law separately.

Maybe certain blood tests are needed for straight marriages, but not gay, or vice versa. Maybe some are needed for male-male unions but not female-female ones. Maybe no-fault marriage was a terrible idea for straights that should be rescinded someday, but for reasons having nothing to do with gays (and maybe in fact a reason gays didn’t want marriage at all in the bad old days).

Too many variables that needed to be experimented with separately for a generation or so. After that period, if our Legislature’s best ideas for male-male unions, female-female unions and male-female unions all just happened to be exactly the same, we could merge the legal concepts then. In the meantime, let’s not corrupt almost a thousand years of common law genius with a brand new experiment. Baby, bathwater, etc.

My new view, after having recently gone through a divorce, is that family law is FUBAR. If you are one of those fortunate ones whose marriages go swimmingly from the day you say “I do” until one of you is dead, good for you. Family law is technically just as bad for you as anyone else, but that won’t matter since none of those crappy laws will ever be applied in your case. But those of us who they do apply to know firsthand just how bassackwards and, in some cases, downright ugly, the laws can be. North Carolina in particular is a judicial hellhole in this regard. In an ideal world, are the best rules for gay unions the same as the best rules for lesbians, let alone straights? Who knows? But I do know that both should be written on a clean slate, and if adding gays to the mix is the political catalyst we need to get the debate going, so be it.

 The following is an abbreviated reply, but also serves to continue the theme I started in my previous post...

The Heart of the Marriage Neutering Issue

David Whiting of the Orange County Register wrote a piece on neutering marriage and that prompted some letters from readers which the paper was willing to print.

Russ Neal of Huntington Beach:

Legalizing same-sex marriage means that people objecting to this transgression will be compelled to treat it as legitimate.

This is at the heart of the issue. 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. State marriage licenses are issued on our behalf. 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.

If California's constitutional amendment (Proposition 8) was allowed to stand, and California's domestic partnership and other laws were kept in place, same-sex couples would retain their treatment as spouses by the state government and everyone else, including businesses, could treat them as spouses. They're free to draw up legal paperwork, have ceremonies, change names, exchange rings, live together, share a life, and call themselves married. But the rest of us would not be forced to ignore the inherent difference between marriage and pseudomarriage.

Is California’s Proposition 8 unconstitutional? Richard Epstein and John Yoo discuss.

The Law with Epstein & Yoo: Chapter 3 of 5

I wish I could post the video, but cant figure out how. Two prominent (conservative?) law proffesors discuss Prop 8 posibilities ...bad news twoards the end .a much watch...please coment.

Is California’s Proposition 8 unconstitutional? Richard Epstein and John Yoo discuss.

Richard Epstein is a professor of law at the NYU law school, a senior fellow of the Hoover Institution, and a senior lecturer at the University of Chicago law school. His latest book is The Case Against the Employee Free Choice Act. John Yoo is a professor at the University of California at Berkeley law school. His most recent book is Crisis and Command.

Zen Habits: Relationships are easy

I've debated about a good venue for me to start expressing more marriage advice. Particularly, how to make impossible marriages succeed. I might start a new site for this, but for now I've happened on some very good marriage advice, and I think it suits me best to put it here. The advice comes from the site Zen Habits, and is a guest post from the author of the Simple Marriage website.

What do I like about this advice, after all that's been said by so many? I've had occasion to try out a great deal of different pieces of advice, and found some of better value than others. Ultimately a marriage is finding what works -- after finding out why you should make it work. And all the advice I've seen can only be categorized as things to try after you decide to make it work. But this advice rises across a different dimension, it is honest and empowering beyond just educated guesswork. It is zen.

Latest on Prop 8

The headline of the Los Angeles Times article is about Proposition 8, but the article is actually about new Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court, Tani Cantil-Sakauye, and a bunch of things she told reporters. She said the court might have something to say as early as next week on the issue of whether or not the backers of the California Marriage Amendment (still) have standing in the court battle... or perhaps whether or not they'll rule on that issue in the first place.

My analysis of the article is over at my namesake blog (which, I modestly point out, was recently referenced by Dr. Laura on her radio program and linked to from her website and Facebook page).

The new chief justice has declined to reveal her views about [neutering] marriage. As an appeals court judge in Sacramento, she performed a wedding for a same-sex couple "as a favor to someone else who had a family emergency," she said. Same-sex marriage was legal for six months in 2008. "I didn't have any qualms about it," she said.

Yeah, you know, I'm not going to reveal my views about fornication and adultery, but I'll tell a bunch of reporters in the tank for fornication and adultery that if a buddy of mine gets temporarily incapacitated and requests I "take care" of his wife, I'll do that as a favor for him without any qualms. After all, both of those things are legal.

Do Girlfriends and Boyfriends have Rights to Your Child?

From NOM:

For the gay press, this case is about discrimination against a gay 'mother' who never adopted a non-biological child.
For the rest of us it raises the question: what happens when the law gives romantic partners legal rights over our children?

Lambda Legal: 'Today the Ohio Supreme Court heard arguments in Lambda Legal's case defending Michele Hobbs, a lesbian mother who was denied access to her child when she and her former partner, the biological mother, ended their relationship.'

Homofascists Target Chick-fil-A

Liz Goodwin reports.

Fans of the addictive sandwiches of Chick-fil-A who also support gay marriage are facing a dilemma: Should one follow the dictates of the stomach or the conscience?

First of all, I don’t know of a single "gay marriage" law. SSM is made law by neutering marriage so that same-sex couples can get marriage licenses without a bride or without a groom. There is no requirement that any of them actually be gay.

Secondly, we're an interconnected society. We interact every day with people who support causes with which we are in opposition. Do these people targeting Chick-fil-A check to see if the janitor at their workplace supports neutering marriage? Maybe the office janitor gave money to a marriage protection effort!

The privately owned chain, famous for closing on Sundays in deference to its founder's evangelical Christian values, donates to many Christian causes, scholarships, and organizations through its charitable arm.

But when a Pennsylvania restaurant donated sandwiches and brownies to a Harrisburg meeting of The Pennsylvania Family Group, a group that works to outlaw gay marriage, pro-gay marriage bloggers and gay rights organizations went on the offensive.

They must be awfully concerned about the work that the Pennsylvania Family Group is doing in other states, because it can't possibly be working to "outlaw gay marriage" in Pennsylvania, seeing has how the state doesn't license brideless or groomless couples as married. But the group doesn't work to prevent anyone from having a ceremony or sharing a life together – they are trying to prevent a change in the state marriage licensing that would extend it to nonmarriage. It is the marriage neutering activists that are working to "outlaw" bride+groom marriage licensing.

I wonder what else this group does? Do they also oppose polygamy, shacking up, and drug abuse? Why isn't that mentioned?

The news quickly trickled into the mainstream. Celebrity blogger Perez Hilton wrote about it, and so did the food blog Grub Street, with the headline "Chick-fil-A is anti-gay."

You see, in the minds of homofascists, or at least what they are hoping to have others believe, you can't possibly defend marriage, or Christianity in general, without being against people. It's shameful sleight-of-word.

Here's where Goodwin doesn't even try to maintain journalistic standards:

The company's anti-gay marriage donations go beyond the alliance in Pennsylvania. The WinShape Foundation, the company's charitable institution, and the Cathy family have donated millions to Christian organizations and causes, including some that campaign against gay marriage, The New York Times writes. A couples retreat operated by WinShape does not accept homosexual couples, according to the blog Good As You.

You see? They are "anti-gay" because they support Christian organizations.

Other businesses have found themselves the center of controversy for wading into political debates. Target and Best Buy were boycotted this summer after they made donations to a group that backed Minnesota gubernatorial candidate Tom Emmer, who does not support gay rights.

Now you must "support gay rights". It isn't enough just to stop following your religious convictions about sex and marriage. Now you have to actively support Left-leaning "gay rights" organizations. If you know what's good for ya.

The President of Chick-fil-A now says they "will no longer donate to any organizations that take a political stand on marriage." And thus the homofascists have achieved their goal.

What if every person who doesn't believe a brideless or groomless pairing is marriage boycotted businesses that gave money to organizations that have supported marriage neutering? Or stopped watching, say, Bravo?