The Non-Solution and the Other Non-Solution.

Karen Clark at Family Scholars Blog posted the following as an off-shoot of a longer discussion under a previous blogpost there.

De-institutionalize: Is this a solution to the problem or a non-solution that will lead to more problems?

Karen quoted the concluding paragraph from Amanda Litman's article, “Should the Government Get Out of Marriage”:

If the government no longer marries people, it cannot control who can and can’t get married, so the argument about gay marriage becomes irrelevant–the legal rights and protections of “marriage” are no longer at stake. Domestic partnership may still have conditions and qualifications, but the “sacred institution of marriage” loses its legal definition and with that the legal requirements necessary to enter it. Whether or not that’s a good thing is up for discussion.

* * *

Fitz jumped in with comments, here and here.

I added a couple of comments, too, here and here.

I said:

The imposition of the SSM idea would amount to the replacement of the marriage idea in our laws and culture. That would mean de-institutionalization of marriage.

SSMers — including those who have already commented earlier — have rejected the very notion that marriage is a social institution — let alone a foundational social institution of civil society. They reject the core meaning of marriage because they deny there is such a thing as a coherent meaning for society. In their view there are no essentials that distinguish the type of relationship (or types of relationships) they have in mind from the rest of the types of relationships that populate the broad nonmarriage category. For them, the SSM idea is all about private motivations and not about marriage as a public type of relationship in our laws and culture. They concede that SSM, at law, would not be a sexual type of relationship.

We might as well take them at their word because their argumentation and their rhetoric is consistent on these points.

So, defenders of marriage, and well-meaning supporters of SSM, and those sitting on the fence, be forewarned that the SSM idea is promoted as just another way to de-institutionalize the time-tested, foundational, and most pro-child social institution we have.

What it would institutionalize, via the arbitrary exercise of governmental power, is the supremacy of gay identity politics over all other considerations that a just society might have. This will corrupt all that it touches; the argumentation and rhetoric of the SSM campaign has already revealed that their words are not empty words but scarcely vieled threats to society.

* * *

I won't be blogging for awhile so I will leave the discussion to the others.

Marriage is Transformative.

"To treat marriage simply as the seal set upon a (possibly fleeting) sexual relationship, rather than a mutual assumption of the burden of social reproduction, is to deprive the institution of its rationale."

-- Roger Scruton, professor of philosphy at the University of Buckingham, writing in The Meaning of Marriage, 2006.

The marital relationship is transformative. The man makes the woman his wife and the woman makes the man her husband. In the normal course of things, husbands and wives become fathers and mothers. Their children become the next generation of men and women, husbands and wives, fathers and mothers.

The SSM idea, as a replacement for the marriage idea, is intended to be transformative of society in ways that are unjustified and unwelcomed. And, yes, for some well-meaning supporters of SSM, also unintended.

The following is series of blogposts that were prompted by my reading (and re-reading) a chapter in "The Meaning of Marriage" (2006), by Roger Scruton. (See blogpost #6 for more details.

1. First and foremost a social institution.

2. Same as marriage but different from the rest?

3. Leave us alone and treat us special.

4. Patched together from remnants and self-referential dogma.

5. Trojan Horse. Where's the threat?

6. Marriage shapes the motive for joining it.

Trojan Horse. Where's the threat?

Under the thin disguise of rights-talk, the SSM campaign attempts to relocate the core of marriage to someplace far out of bounds. They present, as their supposed gift to civilization, their hollow SSM idea into which they've injected the gay emphasis of SSM rhetoric. This Trojan Horse is no gift.

The merger of marriage with SSM can not be sustained without Government enforcement of the hostile notion that the core meaning of civlization's foundational social institution, and the rationale for its special place in society, is intolerable.

That is the reason that SSMers have come to demand that the big hand of Government become the servant of identity politics of the gaycentric kind. It began with pleas for tolerance and has rapidly progressed to demands for crushing dissent and opposition both in the law, social policy, and culture.

The marriage idea does not come with this political baggage. It is an organic idea that has sustained itself for millennia. Its opposite-sexed basis is sexual, social, moral, and conceptual. It is an aspirational ideal that has stood the test of time and is well-expressed in our reasonable and pragmatic marriage laws.

The threat of the SSM campaign is that this rich inheritance will be squandered for no good reason. Indeed, to reject the core meaning of marriage requires an extraordinarily good reason for such an extraordinarily destructive act of Government.

But it is telling, very telling, that no such extraordinarily good reason has been forthcoming.

Patched together from remnants and self-referential dogma.

The SSM idea is hacked together from the remnants of various academic and highly speculative arguments that conceptually deconstruct the social institution of marriage. But this produces a fragile fabrication, "same-sex marriage", and it depends on the dogma of identity politics to glue it together.

SSM is not an organic social idea and nowhere is it but a marginal practice -- in whatever form -- within the modern homosexual population itself. This is the case even in heavily pro-gay places.

There is a clear conflict of ideas.

Contrary to the SSM campaign, the SSM idea is not one and the same as the marriage idea. Nor does the SSM idea self-justify. Nor does it self-sustain. Its "truth" is not self-evident. It is an idea rich in fatal contradictions and impoverished by the lack of essential features. Its argumentation is self-defeating.

But the hardline SSMers make it abundantly clear that SSM is not intended to sustain itself nor to justify itself. Nor to become a rich depository of meaning that is evident even to the most sympathetic neutral observer. The SSM idea is not intended as a social construct for shaping homosexual behavior. Its purpose, and likely outcome, is not to make the practice of SSM normative for the homosexual population.

The purpose of the SSM idea is to make homosexuality, and especially gay identity, normative for the rest of society. To get from here to there, the marriage idea must be quashed. The SSM idea is driven by a leap of faith in the supremacy of gay identity politics. As I've said before, for these hardliners this is not about justice but about "just us".

And so they arrogantly self-reference and thus reveal the true meaning of their endorsement of the SSM idea itself. It is their idea and they believe, on faith alone, that it is their gift to society.

Of course, it would be a gift imposed rather than a gift freely accepted. And one with repressive reprecussions that they have shown themselves eager to pursue.

Leave us alone and treat us special.

In their pro-SSM argumentation and gaycentric rhetoric, SSMers insist that the essentials of marriage are not the business of society. SSM, and thus marriage in their view, is far more a matter of privacy rather than public regard.

Government is not society, they assert, and what's more, Government dictates to society.

And yet, even at that, with personal motivations superseding societal concerns, and with Government seperated from and looming above the governed, they say that low participation rates in SSM and low interest in same-sex householding are irrelevant factors.

But wherever SSM has been imposed, the participation rates are very low (and declining). The SSM idea as a public policy is not a good means to deliver governmental benefits to a largely nonparticipating homosexual population. Nonetheless, they are convinced that society as a whole must give special treatment to this SSM idea and this marginal practice. Their end justifies their means.

They aim to impose the primacy of gay identity politics; this must over-ride all other considerations in our laws and culture.

The SSM idea and its argumentation make for a poor substitute for the marriage idea, for the principles of good governance, and for the rationale for special place of marriage in civilization.

It is a dangerous idea to complain about the supposed arbitrariness of marriage law and then to rely on the arbitrary exercise of governmental authority to impose a merger of SSM with marriage. That merger would amount to the replacement of the richly meaningful marriage idea by the impoverished SSM idea.

Same as marriage but different from the rest?

The SSM idea does not share with the marriage idea the centrality of sex integration. Nor the centrality of responsible procreation.

SSMers remind us of this all the time. The SSM campaign has pretty much denounced the importance placed on marriage as social institution and instead has emphasized marriage as legal creature owned by Government. Well, for the sake of argument, let's suppose that SSMers are right on these points.

What then is the SSM idea's essential features? That is, what is the stuff without which SSM would not be SSM, in their view of Government's creature?

SSMers continue to fail to distinguish the type of relationship they have in mind (aka a subset of the one-sexed scenario) from the rest of the types of relationships and types of living arrangements that are also in the nonmarriage category. They fail to show that the essentials of the SSM idea are 1) shared by marriage and 2) not shared by nonmarriage.

Many don't even bother to try.

On the the other hand, they unfailingly begin by pointing at Government licensing while skipping past the type of thing that is licensed. That is, the pre-government thing; the pre-political and pre-legal thing that exists before pinning the label and license and status on it.  Thus this creature of government does no exist in its own right; not only is it owned by Government it is wholly created by Government.

They start with the status and not with justification for establishing the status. This is backwards but let's take it as correct, again for discussion.

SSM supporters do openly emphasize gayness. They do seek societal endorsement of gayness -- via license and special status for the SSM idea. Yet they insist that objective and societal reasons for showing preference for marriage are superseded by the subjective and personal motivations of those who demand that society issue licenses.

With such thinking, SSM argumentation runs a winding path upon which many SSMers become disorientated and lost. But ultimately they are blunt: the essentials of SSM, and thus of marriage, are not the business of society, they say. For them, the SSM idea is far more a matter of privacy rather than public regard. Government is not society, they assert, and what's more, Government dictates to society.

So they seek to move the heavy arm of Government to coerce civil society.

First and foremost a social institution.

Across society the social institution works its influence: it makes normative the marital basis for sexual relations and for generating the next generation.

This is a public relationship that arises from the two-sexed nature of humankind, the opposite-sexed nature of human procreation, and the both-sexed nature of human community. The human institution of marriage bonds them and holds them together as much as, if not more than, their private sexual commitment one to the other.

Weaken the meaning of the social institution and weaken its rationale; abandon its rationale and abandon the societal preference for marriage. That is how social institutions are destroyed -- or de-institutionalized.

Marriage is no exception to being vulnerable to de-institutionalization, despite its foundational importance to civilization. Yet, in light of this peril, marriage has remained a universal institution across the anthropological and historical record.

The SSM idea, not so much.

Dr J: "The wrong done to future generations"

From Alliance Alert, the blogsite of the Alliance Defense Fund, here is the moving testimony of a leading voice in the defense of marriage:

Jennifer Roback Morse to RI House Judiciary: The thin disguise of marriage equality will not atone for the wrong done to future generations.

This powerful video captures Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse’s (Ruth Institute) testimony to the Rhode Island House Judiciary on March 1, 2011. Reportedly, silence followed her testimony in our nation’s most Catholic state.

* * *

I'll make no further comment but invite readers to reflect on the substantive content as much as the delivery of her presentation.

What is Marriage?

Barry Deutsch wrote a blogpost in response to an extensive article on marriage by Robert George, Sherif Girgis, and Ryan Anderson.

George and co-authers: What Is Marriage? [Click through to one of the hosts that have free copies of the pdf document.]

Deutsch: What Is Bodily Union? (A response to What Is Marriage?)

Maggie Gallagher left the following comment under Deutsch's blogpost:

George’s strong account of “bodily union” is the most controversial part of his piece. Your response will be persuasive to many.

But I’m not sure you address in any clear way the core of his and Sherif Girgis and Ryan Anderson’s argument: that gay marriage advocates have no answer to the question “What is marriage?” that actually explains marriage’s core features:

Why a sexual union? Why can’t close relatives do it? and Why only two?

Your response does tend to affirm his argument that none of these things are “core” only “commonly preferred” parts of marriage.

Am I misreading you?

Deutsch replied that he is planning a series of blogposts to complete his intended response to George and co-authors.

He added:

But since you bring up “Why only two?,” I’ll point out that’s a bigger problem for George et al than for me. As “What Is Marriage” itself says, “Even in traditions that permit or have permitted polygamy, each marriage is between a man and a woman.” (Pg. 247). I don’t see any logical reason, according to the principles laid out in “What Is Marriage,” we shouldn’t permit bigamy.

Either you can believe that there’s One True Idea of marriage, which virtually all cultures across time (before the last couple of decades) have understood and followed; or you can believe that polygamy is not part of the true idea of marriage. But you can’t believe both at once and be logically consistent. George tries to have it both ways, but (at least in “What Is Marriage”) never resolves the contradiction.

* * *

In a monogamous marriage culture, bigamy and polygamy are related but different. The terms are commonly interchanged in the marriage debate, however, where permitted, polygamy is not definitively bigamy. In monogamous marriage culture, bigamy usually means that a putative wife or husband had been deceived. The injuring party, and not the injured party, is guilty of bigamy. But the lack of such deceit is decisive if the participants made an honest error -- perhaps the first spouse was thought, mistakenly, to have died or perhaps the first spouse had gone missing for several years. Even in polygamous marriage cultures such deceit might be outlawed. Polygamous marriage, in contrast, typically does not entail deceit of the second or subsequent spouses whose consent is necessary. In some polygamous cultures, having more than four wives would be outlawed like bigamy is in monogamous marriage cultures.

That said, the societal response to the core meaning of marriage has varied from society to society, across the anthropological and historical records. The variability in the way that governing authorities have drawn the line regarding polygamous marriage (a series of man-woman unions) is an example of that. That does not present an actual contradiction that needs to be resolved; and it does not contradict what George and co-authors said about the two-sexed basis of marriage; and it does not mean that they want it both ways, as Deustch asserted. But it is understandable that Deutsch, steeped in SSM argumentation, might percieve what is really only an apparent contradiction.

The comment section under Deustch's blogpost is now closed. So I intend to post a reply of my own here at Opine. Deustch got quite a bit wrong. Please stay tuned.

Marriage and Procreation: The Intrinsic Connection

The Witherspoon Institute has a rather short but rigorous paper (Hattip NOMBlog) discussing the nature of marriage, and its link to procreation. It also brings one point of insight about fertility and infertility that I'd like to point out...

It is sometimes objected that infertile couples cannot biologically unite, since their act is not in fact capable of procreating—they cannot (it is objected) perform an act that is procreative in kind, which is necessary for a biological union. However, no couple can directly or simply choose to procreate. The only thing any couple can directly do regarding procreation is to perform the kind of act that will lead to procreation, provided other conditions extrinsic to their conduct obtain. (Thus, children are not products of their parents’ sexual acts: rather, parents should rightly view them as gifts that supervene upon their bodily expression of love in their sexual union.) So, opposite-sex couples who are infertile can perform precisely the same kind of act that fertile couples can perform. In both cases, they fulfill the behavioral conditions of procreation. And so the sexual intercourse of an infertile couple, no less than that of a fertile couple, unites them biologically: they mate, even though, in the case of the infertile couple, procreation will not result. In each case, their sexual act can consummate or embody their marriage.

That isn't too far distant from what we've said, the difference between infertile couples and same-sex couples who want to be married is that the infertile couples are at least trying. The insight from this article comes in realizing that no one expects all sex to produce children, it happens when the conditions are right. The only conditions we have control over is the equal representation of the genders (one man and one woman), and the behavior engaged in between them. Everything else is beyond our control.

The right conditions mean everything, especially when they are as evident as one man and one woman. I'd only add, would or should we say infertility is a reason to bar marriage? There are many reasons why that isn't a good idea, but for the purpose of this particular piece, the most important seems to be that all the other reasons are beyond the couple's control. In other words, they are doing everything they can.

Derence Kernek and Ed Watson Missed the Boat

In their tireless advocacy for neutering marriage, the Los Angeles Times has run an article by Carol J. Williams meant to tug at the heartstrings:

Derence Kernek and Ed Watson live together each day in fear that they won't be able to pledge "till death do us part" before it's too late.

They can pledge that right now. Right now. They could have done it five years ago. They could have done it ten years ago. They can pledge it in private. They can pledge it in front of clergy and witnesses. They don't need a state license to do this, and a state license does not guarantee "till death do us part" as scores of millions of divorced people and their children can vividly testify.

Watson, 78, is in rapidly failing health, afflicted with Alzheimer's disease, obesity, diabetes and hypertension.

That’s awful. I have sympathy for him. Although the hypertension and diabetes are likely the result of a voluntary condition of obesity.

"We don't have the money to travel to a state where it's legal," said Kernek, 80, observing dejectedly that the travel would probably be too grueling for his partner of 40 years. "Besides, we wanted to do it in California, where our friends are, where we live. Now I don't think we'll be able to, not while Ed can still remember."

Hold on a minute. The state was giving out marriage licenses to brideless couples in 2008. These guys had been together for what, 37 years? They could have gotten one then. They have been able to register as domestic partners for many years now.

The article then goes into a recap of what has been going on with the state's marriage amendment.

In response to an online appeal by the Hollywood-based Courage Campaign for testimony to back the legal challenge of Proposition 8 and other gay-rights litigation, more than 3,000 couples came forward with their stories about why they believe marriage can't wait.

How convenient for the Los Angeles Times.

"Life is not eternal - sometimes it is tragically short - and courts should not act as if it were otherwise," said Chad Griffin, board president of the American Foundation for Equal Rights and a key strategist in the legal campaign to scuttle Proposition 8.

The anecdotes of fatal illness and faltering minds were intended to put human faces on gay- and lesbian-rights advocates' arguments that continuing to prohibit same-sex marriage after Walker's ruling inflicts irreparable harm on many.

Every law can be presented as causing harm to someone.

"Each day plaintiffs, and gay men and lesbians like them, are denied the right to marry - denied the full blessings of citizenship - is a day that never can be returned to them," two same-sex couples who brought the successful lawsuit against Proposition 8 argued in their motion.

So unmarried people aren't full citizens?

Shane Mayer and John Quintana, 28-year-olds from San Francisco, want to marry while Mayer's cancer-stricken father can still take part, the friend-of-the-court letter testified.

Go ahead and have a ceremony.

"I can't even say how many times I've had to call 911 when he falls or gets into a position where I can't lift him," Kernek says of his partner.

And a state marriage license will change this horrible thing... how?

They registered as domestic partners when they arrived in California, and after the state legalized same-sex marriage three years ago, they thought they could make the ultimate commitment to each other when the time was right.

Oh please. 37 years together and the time wasn't right? I'm sorry, that my be as ridiculous to me as when I see these man-woman couples shack up for ten years, have kids, and then get married.

If these men did not think Proposition 8 had any chance of passing, then to me, that is an indication of just how friendly the rest of California has been to them. They assumed that since we do not foam at the mouth or wish them ill, then we must think their relationship is the same thing as marriage. If they had been experiencing much hostility, surely they would have feared Prop 8's passage.

"Why is it important to anybody else who you are devoted to?" Kernek asks. "I just don't see how who I love hurts anybody else's marriage."

Again, I don't wish these ailments on anyone. However, this delay is the way the system works. Walker's decision was to overturn a state constitutional amendment. That should not be taken lightly. Everyone has freedom of association and can share their lives together and make legal arrangements. Some (not all... which is interesting) can register as domestic partners. There shouldn't have been anyone entering into these relationships unaware of what was and was not offered through law, and what was able and likely to be contested for some time to come. For any matter of law, we can find the hard cases that tug at our heartstrings. But laws apply to all, and the law should be good public policy in general. Marriage, uniting a bride and a groom, is the only kind of association that can unite both sexes that comprise all of society, naturally create new citizens (even if not all do), and raise those citizens in a legal, financial, and social unit where they will have one main role model from each of the two sexes. The state simply doesn't have the same interest in other kinds of associations. The state knows your sex. It doesn't know whether or not you are fertile or desiring to reproduce. Each marriage must be inclusive of both sexes. That is the state's criteria. Have other laws for other associations.

I used to close down a venue for the night. The hours we were open was no secret. Quite frequently, five, ten, or fifteen minutes after closing, someone who had been in the vicinity for hours would approach the entrance and when told the venue was closed, they would say any number of things: "But I really like this place." "Don't you know who I am?" "I've been coming here for years." "But I came from a long way away." "I'm leaving town first thing in the morning and won't be back." None of that mattered. Their skin color didn’t matter, their sexual orientation didn’t matter, and they could have had a terminal illness. They could have been rich or poor. It didn’t matter - staff had left and the place was shut down. The rules were publicly known and they apply to all.

"Whoopie, I convinced myself how right I am."

Over at Family Scholars Blog, I entered a discussion with a few SSMers regarding an article by Peter Wood (president of the National Association of Scholars) that appeared in the Chronicle of Higher Education.

Read Wood's thoughts on "Debating Same-Sex Marriage" in academia and then follow the exchange in the comment section at Family Scholars Blog.

Wood makes several apt observations about how one-sided the debate is within the halls of universities and colleges. And in the discussion with the SSMers, I think that SSMers exemplified much of what Woods had said on the matter.

Here are a few snippets from Woods:

The debate over gay marriage ought to be considered one of the central social issues of our time, and indeed for many Americans—left and right—it is. It deals with a question of basic social relations within and between generations and I find it perfectly sensible that advocates and critics of gay marriage should both see it as a matter of urgent concern. The perspective that seems less sensible to me is the one which dismisses the controversy as a bore or nuisance: the idea that when it comes to marriage, all we are talking about are private choices that are no one’s business other than the parties directly involved. That’s an atomistic view of society. Marriage, whatever else it is, is a social institution. People marry because it means something beyond a private choice, and we have good reason to concern ourselves with that broader meaning.

One might think on that basis that higher education would be at the epicenter of the debate—that we could turn to the university to hear both sides (or all sides) making their best case. Unfortunately that’s not how it has worked out. Rather, the academic discussion has been dominated by those who view gay marriage as a civil rights issue.

[...]

I recognize “essentializing” as a term of rhetorical dismissal among those whose epistemology precludes the possibility that institutions that have intrinsic variety and variability can also have a core meaning and purpose. But there are pretty powerful reasons for thinking that marriage really does have a core function underneath all that variety and historical contingency.

In our discussion, SSMers and I touched on most of the main points in Wood's article, however, it is interesting, to me at least, that the SSMers managed to emphasize the law, rather than marriage, and soon expressed boredom with the actual disagreement.

Here are a few links and snippets:

From my opening comment:

The SSM idea does not justify special status; it is an outright rejection of the marriage idea (i.e. the core meaning of the social institution of marriage) and its special place in our laws and culture.

The SSM idea, shorn of the gaycentric rhetoric, is merely a call for protections for vulnerable families. But marriage is much more than that.

A few SSMers exchanged comments with me and then I asked several questions of them.

1. Do you agree that marriage is a social institution?

2. If yes, then, do you agree that it is a foundational social institution?

3. If yes, to either 1 or 2 or both, can you state its core meaning or state the essential(s) by which it is distinguishable from nonmarriage (before you’d affix the label and accord the special status).

4. If you cannot do item 3, that is okay, but perhaps you can take a stab at justifying the special status of marriage in our society. Actually, could you please first state if you think marital status is a special status and in what way is it special, if it is special.

[...]

5. Can you identify the essential(s) of the type of relationship you have in mind when you refer to “same-sex marriage”? If not, that is okay, but please explain the justification for treating SSM differenty from the rest of nonmarriage.

True to form, two SSMers replied here and here.

I summarized and requested confirmation, correction, or clarification, here and here.

Marilynn closed her response to my query with the following:

[Quoting Chairm:] 8. The questions I’ve asked go right to the heart of the matter.

Answer:

Actually you have successfully engaged me in a circular debate to distract me and others like me from making any headway in the area of ending anonymity in commercially arranged conception. Its been fun but I won’t change your mind nor will I impress anyone with my interpretation of anthropology and ancient philosophy. Its 3 hours of my life I won’t get back. Whoopie, I convinced myself how right I am. I win and I’m all alone in thinking that. Thanks for playing its a lovely consolation prize.

And I replied:

The title of the blogpost, and the title over this discussion, is “‘Debating Same Sex Marriage’: Where is the Academy?”

By your closing remark it would appear that on this question the answer is, nowhere.

The points I have raised get at the heart of the matter. If you cannot justify the pro-SSM complaint and the pro-SSM remedy, then, you have not even made the case for convincing yourself.

Your supposed certitude would close discussion of the actual disagreement.

And SSMers such as nobody.really and La Luba would rather change the subject, anyway, as they also flee from justifying what they demand of society. They’d rather fold their arms and repeatedly ask, why not?

The onus remains on SSMers — whether or not the Academia has surrendered to groupthink — to do a much better job of answering the query I posited and discussing the type of relationship they have in mind.

Not showing up for that discussion, or fleeing from it, would be a cowardly and intellectually dishonest abdication rather than an expression of confident certitude in dealing with practicalities.

* * *

To read the full discussion, and to participate, go to Family Scholars Blog or to the Chronicle of Higher Education.

"In a turbulent couple of months, my parents were my rock."

I've mentioned in previous posts, the most important marriage in our lives is not our own. It's the one between our mother and father. That long term stability that for those who do still have their parents married to one another, knowingly don't take for granted to see how our adult peers deal with divorced/abandoned parents.

Not everyone has a life long partner or has children. That's perfectly OK, I don't believe in soul mates. Single people are normal people too! But we all have a mom and dad. It's just really good when mom and dad are happily married.

"4 Things I’ve Learned Moving Back In With My Parents As An Adult" by Jessica Walkman

My parents’ house and the love inside it became a refuge to me. It isn’t so easy for a edging-towards-elderly parent to show love and support to their adult child; we can meet a lot of our own needs ourselves or we have partners/children/close friends who can meet them for us. But it has been incredibly humbling, as an adult, to be loved, cared for and support by my parents in one of the most difficult passages of my life.

Simcha and I were joking about how I wasn’t a “failure to launch” kid (awful Matthew McConaughey/Sarah Jessica Parker movie), but instead I was like a rocket that took off and then fell back down to Earth. Very soon I’ll be rocketing back off again. Thanks, Mom and Dad, for everything you’ve done for me, big and little. A mother’s work and a father’s work is never done and the two of you deserve a medal for awesomeness in being good people and good parents. But seriously, don’t go in my bedroom.

A Letter on DOMA

The Los Angeles Times printed a couple of letters in response to their anti-DOMA editorial. I wanted to look at the one from Lynne Shapiro of Marina del Rey:

In the 1970s and '80s, when homosexuals were looking for love in all the wrong places, they were vilified. Now, when they marry a permanent partner and have a family, they are denied the rights the rest of us enjoy while paying higher taxes because they can't file joint returns.

I agree that if the choice is between having a homosexual person engaging in homosexual behavior with a seemingly endless line of casual partners or having two homosexual people stay with each other in lifelong stability, the latter is better. However, nothing is preventing same-sex couples from doing so already. Neutering marriage devalues marriage, children, men, women, fathers, mothers, masculinity, and femininity. That is too high of a price to pay. Also, there is no legal requirement of sexual fidelity attached to marriage, though a few states do still allow for suing for alienation of affection.

Still, for most, marriage brings certain social expectations, including fidelity. Celebrities who sleep around do so with no general disapproval, unless they are married. "Committed" in the homosexual subculture, especially male, has carried a different meaning. One could argue that there are positives and negatives associated with the typical marriage, and positives and negatives associated with the typical same-sex committed pairing. One of the risks of neutering marriage is that the negatives of same-sex pairings will influence marriage in general. And quite possibly, same-sex couples may find the negatives of marriage imposed on their own unions.

Joint tax returns and other government benefits assigned to marriage were assigned to marriage precisely because it has been the only kind of association that unites both sexes into a social, legal, and financial unit, and most of those units naturally create new citizens. It is the only kind of association that can, and will inherently provide them with a legally-obligated role model from each of the two sexes who are also bound to each other. That never happens in associations absent a bride or absent a groom, which can only raise children through the involvement of at least one third party.

Courts have made a point of dismantling or punishing associations set up so as to exlcude one of the sexes, particularly male-only associations. Now, marriage neutering advocates are demanding the courts and general government actually sanction and support such associations.

I agree with The Times and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) that it is time to end the inequities and call on all loving parents of gay and lesbian children to support the Respect for Marriage Act and replace the prejudicial and unjust Defense of Marriage Act.

I wonder if Shapiro is likewise calling on all loving parents of heterosexuals to support DOMA? Shapiro then brings this one out of left field:

The Bible was written a long, long time ago by men.

You mean, like the Constitution?

It should no longer determine our attitudes and legislation toward our homosexual brethren.

One need not heed the Bible, nor hold any disapproval of homosexual behavior, to oppose the neutering of state marriage licensing, especially when that is being forced on on state by another. But it is interesting to find out that Shapiro is apparently a misandist or sexist (or maybe a misanthrope) and that for each day that goes by, we should disregard this letter more and more. After all, by the letter's own statement, how long ago something was written seems to matter regarding whether or not it should be cited about something that hasn't changed since it was written. Thoughout all of the years the Bible was written, up until very recently, marriage always united a bride and a groom. Men and women are still different.

"San Francisco becoming a child-free zone as youth population declines"

San Francisco becoming a child-free zone as youth population declines From the SF Examiner

“This is no longer a blue-collar town,” Khalif said. “You don’t have families moving here.”

As for what The City could do to make it easier on families to survive in San Francisco?

“How about giving families a tax break?” said Khalif, referring to the proposal to offer a payroll tax break on new hires for companies willing to locate to the mid-Market Street area. “Here we are living paycheck to paycheck.”

Do I dare question what he defines as family in this context?

Here in Massachusetts, we have losses also. The biggest losses are along the coast line and in the Berkshires on the western side of the state. Yes, these happen to be the most progressive areas of the state, but I tend to believe that Cape Cod is too costly due to the increase of tourism/vacation homes and lack of economic development in the Berkshires.

Textbook Example of Media Bias on Marriage Neutering

The print version of Carol J. Williams' update on Proposition 8 ran today in the Los Angeles Times. The very headline uses the bogus, biased "gay marriage ban" phrasing. That is reinforced as the article starts:

Proposition 8's ban on gay marriage will remain in effect while a federal appeals court decides whether it violates the Constitution, the appeals panel ruled Wednesday.

The paper also still has trouble admitting that Prop 8 is an adopted constitutional amendment, referring to it as an "initiative" and "ballot measure". It also equates marriage neutering advocacy with "gay rights" advocacy, though they are not synonymous. This is done to make it seem like opposition to marriage neutering is akin to being against the rights of homosexual people, when from what I can tell, I’m actually for more rights for homosexual people than most marriage neutering advocates.

9th Circuit Won’t Lift Stay on Walker Decision

Carol J. Williams reports at LATimes.com:

Gay marriage won't be allowed to resume until state and federal appeals courts decide the fate of Proposition 8, the voter initiative that limited marriage to heterosexual couples, three federal judges ruled Wednesday.

Where to begin? My marriage is rather gay, thank you. But contrary to the misleading wording, same-sex (no requirement they actually be homosexual individuals) ceremonies are "allowed", as they have been for many, many years. The reality here is that such couples are not being given state marriage licenses. California's constitutional amendment voted in as Proposition 8 "limited" state marriage licensing to bride+groom couples, regardless of the sexual orientations of the individuals – you know, actual marriages.

Sloppy and biased language is used throughout the short blog entry.

The bottom line is that no neutered licenses will be issued in California unless, and at least until, the federal appeals court decides to tell a state not to follow its own constitution.

Over at my namesake blog, I look at a couple of letters the Los Angeles Times published about the Crystal Cathedral's recent action.

What About His Right to Marry?

In a story labeled as "bizarre", a man was exposed as a bigamist. Is bigamy really bizarre? Isn't that kind of talk hate speech? There have been some great historical figures who have been bigamists, and our public schools should teach children about them and their bigamy in a positive light. But I digress.

Here's the report I found at Time.com by Nick Carbone.

An already-married Grand Rapids, Mich. man had what NewsFeed can only assume was a joyous wedding ceremony last July. But it turns out Richard Barton, Jr. already had a wife, whom he married in 2004.

When photos of Barton and his new Michigan wife turned up on Facebook, his old (but still current) wife, living in Rhode Island, took issue with Barton. She alerted authorities, who arrested Barton for polygamy.

He now faces polygamy charges and a four-year jail sentence.

My questions are: 1) why is his second marriage a crime and 2) why is it not a valid marriage?

Isn't marrying the person you love a fundamental right? What if he loved both women? Don't judge him – love is love, right?

Haven't we heard over and over again that another person's marriage doesn't impact anyone else's? Neither state is a community property state, so that's not an issue. According to the article, he wasn't returning to the first wife. So how was she harmed by his marriage to another woman? I'm sure someone will bring up tax issues. But we've heard over and over again that same-sex couples should be able to get marriage licenses because they pay their taxes. People often pay taxes in more than one state. If Barton has paid his taxes in both states, how can he be denied the right to marry in both states?

Didn't both states economically benefit from the wedding ceremonies? That's another reason given for the need to issue as many marriage licenses as requested.

Wasn't the marriage beneficial to the second wife? Women have been oppressed in this country, so didn't she have a right to such benefit?

It is legal for him to have sex with the second woman. So denying him the right to marry her encourages sex outside of marriage. Conversely, their right to marry promotes stability, so shouldn't it be legal and not a crime?

Someone may cite informed consent on the part of the women. But neither woman would need his informed consent (nor his consent at all) to divorce him. Neither would need his consent (nor would either woman need to indicate she was informed) if she went to abort his child, or, conversely, if she wanted to continue the pregnancy and he didn't want to be a father (after all, if neither sex nor marriage are about children, marrying these women or having intercourse with them should not be considered consent to paternity on his part.) He could have sex with both women without the other one consenting. Requiring spousal consent for something one does without the spouse is antiquated and void as not only abortion and divorce laws indicate, but according to the spirit of Walker's ruling against the California Marriage Amendment.

So why is one union, traditonally understood to be marriage, a crime while the other union, not historically considered marriage, a right that compels states to license it as marriage?

LATimes: President Obama, Tear Down This Wall

The Los Angeles Times editorial board, unsurprisingly, has announced support for the anti-DOMA Respect for Marriage Act. This is how the editorial starts:

In the campaign for marriage equality, the courts have been the most conspicuous player. But Congress also matters.

Yes! There are other branches of government. Also, states are not mere districts of the federal government. The federal government eminates from the states, not the other way around. Likewise, the people have a government, not the other way around.

A bill to repeal the federal Defense of Marriage Act, known as DOMA, wouldn't legalize same-sex marriage - that's beyond the power of the federal government - but it would safeguard the rights of married gay and lesbian couples to federal benefits.

Apparently, the Los Angeles Times editorial board doesn’t think that federal courts are part of the federal government. Or did they somehow reverse their opinion of Walker's decision? Federal benefits, especially employment benefits, are not a right. For anyone.

The Respect for Marriage Act makes it clear that same-sex couples - if married in a state that recognizes their unions - will be eligible for federal benefits ranging from Social Security spousal and survivors' benefits to family leave when a partner is ill.

The conventional wisdom is that the Respect for Marriage Act can't succeed in Congress.

Conventional wisdom has been that spousal and survivors' benefits and family leave were offered because of a division of labor between bride and groom, and the children that tend to result from natural, normal interaction between them.

A recent Pew poll found that 45% of adults now support [neutering] marriage, compared to 46% who oppose it.

So much for the other recent headlines that claim a majority support neutering marriage.

As for DOMA, a poll this month by the Human Rights Campaign, a gay-rights organization, found that 51% of respondents opposed the law, while 34% supported it.

How many people oppose DOMA on federalist principles? Regardless, it is entertaining to see the paper tout polls now, when it was an official poll that passed Proposition 8 and other like laws.

Even with those numbers, the Respect for Marriage Act faces resistance in Congress, which raises the issue of presidential leadership. President Obama attracted considerable attention when he decided not to defend the constitutionality of DOMA in federal court. He should bring the same passion for equality to the debate over the Respect for Marriage Act.

Never tear down a wall unless you know why it is there. Can the editorial board explain why states license marriages in the first place?

If Obama really wanted to solve this issue in a compromise that would be likely to gain enough support, he'd propose a Constitutional amendment that: 1. enshrined the federal definition of marriage in the Constitution, 2. enshrined a state’s ability to include the bride+groom requirement in their own state marriage licensing and recognition, and 3. allowed the federal government to recognize domestic partnerships/civil unions/neutered marriage licenses as "federal domestic partners". The marriage neutering advocates bent on supplanting marriage would not be happy, but a lot of homosexual people would be happy and a majority of Americans would support something like that. The court cases would all be over.

Marriage Equality

Its that simple folks, the marriage equality article I linked to earlier has continued. And today's installment has been one I've been anxious to read for quite some time.

If there is one article you read about marriage equality all year, this should be it. A few snippets...

We recently heard of another example in a husband and father who felt he was brave by being "true to himself" by coming out of the closet as a gay man and leaving his family for a partner with which he felt he could "find his real identity." [...]

A story I have great sympathy for, actually. We all struggle with that part of ourselves which seems repressed or caged in because of our obligations to others. Gays are not exclusive in that struggle.

The point is that too much focus or value being placed on the needs and wants and rights of the individual can lead to selfishness and to putting commitments and relationships in second place and behind "number one." Before any of us go too far down that "individual" path, perhaps we should ask ourselves some "what if" questions (all of them are debatable, but all are worth thinking about):

What if happiness has more to do with fulfilling someone else that with fulfilling one's self? What if commitment and fidelity are what allow people to grow more in love over time? What if a man is not a perfectible entity, nor a woman, but a married couple is? What if there is something to the idea of the yin and the yang being the two necessary parts of one whole?

I'm here to tell you there is no "what if" about it. Marriage equality is the equal recognition of the rights and responsibilities (read the individual's obligations to) the man, woman, and child they potentially have together. Nothing else is truly equal, as valid as it might be (and trust me, I find it very valid sometimes), it simply isn't equality.

"Gay marriage on the rocks" comments

Opinion by Brian Lee of Maryland's Gazette.net "Gay marriage on the rocks"

The same old viewpoint trying to see it purely as gay rights vs. religion, with no thought of the individuals who may not have their mother and father living under the same roof with them. Still an interesting spin,

"Insiders say that P.G. County's black churches turned seven delegates against the same-sex bill, enough to kill it. Many blacks also take offense to the gay lobby's pitch that homosexual marriage and biracial marriage are similar civil rights issues. Biracial marriage is much different from same-sex marriage, say blacks; no religion teaches that biracial marriage is a sin against God.

This clash between the gay lobby and black churches is a white liberal's nightmare. Don't the black churches understand that their job is to endorse Democratic candidates, not religion?

There seems to be a bit of sarcasm here, I don't know the author well enough to read into it. BTW some great comments in there also.

Ancestry.com observation

My husband was inputting our family history; and was frustrated that he couldn't see his and my family tree on the same page. He kept looking for that option. I pointed out, maybe he should just click on the icon for one of our children. Bingo! A complete tree of both his and mine, right on the screen.

SSM creates a legal fiction

Here are two comments I left in a discussion in the comment section of Family Scholars Blog regarding marriage and the birthright of children to know their parents:

nobody.really said:

I’d like to see evidence for the proposition that throughout human history it has been clear that kids are entitled to know the identities of their biological parents. [...] many family units would be composed of the fragments of other family units that had been broken through the death of one or both parents.

I responded:

The social institution of marriage has served this basic purpose for children and their parents. Perfectly? Nope. Dire circumstances or tragedy could certainly get in the way in any human endeavor.

Perhaps, in your view, if marriage did not enforce a 100% guarantee, then, this birthright of children is, in your view, a false understanding. If so, your view would be unreasonable.

Barry asked:

“In what sense does a married couple have the right to have a baby that an unmarried couple doesn’t also have?”

I responded:

In what sense is there a “right to have a baby”, do you think?

Earlier, Barry had said:

“an unmarried lesbian or gay person or couple has the right to start a family in the sense that Somerville is concerned with — they can have a child, either biologically or [...] adopting.”

Here is my response:

Not quite right. Somerville is talking of the biological connection and distinguishes it from adoption in her paper.

I’ll point out that adoption, like third party procreation, has at least two pre-requisites: 1) parental relinquishment and 2) government intervention to decree a legal fiction.

(Note that legal fictions can be useful; adoption is an example of that.)

This is the virtual inverse of the core meaning of marriage.

A husband and wife can found a family without government intervention to assign them parental status and without going outside of their relationship to attain gametes.

When they consent to marry, they consent to the marital presumption of paternity which has a sexual basis independent of government and legal fictions. It is a reliable legal presumption — not merely a social assumption — and is vigorously enforced. The opposite-sexed nature of human procreation obviously pre-exists Government.

The husband and wife, by virtue of the sexual aspect of the marital bond, do become kin because they unite to become a single procreative organism in the conjugal act; the human family is founded on this two-sexed nature of humankind and of human community. Government and law merely acknowledges this and, on behalf of society, the system accords it a preferential status.

This has an overflow effect outside of marriage. The unmarried man and woman can procreate but not under the marital presumption of paternity; they unite as mother and father under the more clumbsy and less reliable unwed presumption that is a step removed from the marital presumption. Both legal presumptions have a sexual basis that no one-sexed scenario can fulfill.

Gay or lesbian or otherwise, a lone individual would lack the other sex with whom to found a family. Why did you emphasize gay and lesbian, Barry? Did you have in mind a type of sexual relationship?

There is a hint in your comment: “marriage is what makes two unmarried lovers into each other’s closest kin”.

It may have been a slip of the tongue, but your remark assumes premarital sexual relations between those not yet married. That aside, your remark used the notion of “lovers” — I expect that was meant to invoke sexual behavior. So you would make sexual behavior the thing that founds a family, I suppose.

But no one-sexed scenario can found a family in such a way. Indeed, SSM argumentation (in Canada and elsewhere) insists that the lack of a legal requirement is decisive; there is no legal requirement in SSM law (enacted, imposed, or proposed) that would make same-sex sexual behavior mandatory for those who’d SSM. So SSM law cannot mean that such behavior is what founds a family.

It does mean that SSM law creates a legal fiction that does the heavy-lifting. The same-sex couple, sexualized or not, relies on Government intervention to make the two strangers each other’s kin. Not even same-sex sexual behavior can consummate SSM; and such behavior can occur outside of SSM, anyway, as per your slip regarding premarital relations.

SSM law makes two women or two men kin to each other through government intervention — along the lines of adoption. In effect, the adults adopt each other under the guise of a legal fiction.

In contrast, the union of husband and wife does include a sexual basis and this is expressed in legal requirements of marriage law. However, when SSM is merged with marriage, whatever does not fit SSM is sidelined not only in the legal understanding of marriage but also in the cultural understanding, as your own comment strongly suggested.

SSM in Canada was enacted with the express understanding that marriage “represents the foundation of family life for many Canadians”.

While that is true, it is true for different reasons than what the SSM idea presents, in law and in the culture.

* * *

The context for that discussion is a blogpost that linked to and provided an abstract of the following paper by Margaret Somerville:

"Children's Human Rights to Natural Biological Origins and Family Structure".

Please consider commenting at Family Scholars Blog.

SSM is not a sexual type of relationship.

SSMers concede that SSM, at law, would not be a sexual type of relationship.

Their argumentation depends on their own maxim that the lack of a legal requirement is decisive. There is no legal requirement for same-sex sexual behavior for those who'd SSM; not in any jurisdiction that has imposed SSM and not in any proposal by the SSM campaign. This lack means that SSM, as a type of relationship in the meaning of the law, is not a sexual type of relationship by default.

Sure, SSMers emphasize gay identity and same-sex sexual attraction in their rhetoric, however, that does not make it into the law as legally required for eligibility to SSM. Same-sex sexual attraction might be their social assumption, but it is far from a legal presumption that would be enforced with 100% guarantee.

They overstrain to extend this concession to cover marriage too. SSMers end up saying that marriage is not a sexual type of relationship in the law -- even as their rhetoric depends on placing great significance on sexual orientation. The contradiction is blatant.

Yet, marriage is a sexual type of relationship and marriage law makes this very clear.

The sexual basis for the vigorously enforced legal presumption of paternity is the same as the sexual basis for consummation, annulment, and adultery-divorce. People who enter marriage consent to this sexual basis. That is how married people can be justly held to these legal requirements of marriage law. This is part and parcel of the coherency of the marriage idea.

This sexual basis does not fit the one-sexed scenario. In contrast with the marriage idea, the SSM idea has no societally significant sexual basis. The best that SSMer can do is to assert that both SSM and marriage lack a sexual basis because Government does not force people to engage in sexual behavior to be eligible for, nor to maintain, marital status.

They end-up deep-sixing sexual orientation as central to their argumentation. It remains front and center and of the utmost importance to their SSM rhetoric. This disconnect means that homosexual orientation is not the basis for imposing SSM; SSM would not be a sexual type of relationship in the meaning of the law.

They know that marriage is a sexual type of relationship but they can't allow its sexual basis to stand in the way of their SSM demand. So they sacrifice sexual orientation as the distinguishing feature between SSM and the rest of nonmarriage; and when they do that, they clearly sacrifice the sexual basis for distinguishing the type of relationship that is marital from the wide range of types of relationships and living arrangements that populate the nonmarriage category.

This is how SSMers eventually come to just shrug when it comes to incestuous marriage, polygamy, and group marriage. It even shakes their notion of what justifies lines drawn against underaged marriage. They can offer no sexual basis for drawing these lines; and they have long abandoned societal concerns about procreation for drawing lines of eligibility. So they have nothing left to justify limitations on what they'd call "marriage equality".

Most SSMers actually try to turn this necessity of their argumentation into a virtue. They will chide marriage defenders for limiting eligibility at all.

And this is all because their argumentation means that SSM, at law, would not be a sexual type of relationship.

I'll have more to say about this weakness of SSM argumentation in subsequent blogposts.

Do The Majority of Americans Really Support "Same-Sex Marriage"?

It's all over the news today that a majority of Americans supposed support neutering marriage. I'd like to see the data and the methodology.

Most of this has already been covered here before.

I'd really like to see the results of a slight variation of this poll.

Some Senate Democrats Go After DOMA

Lisa Mascaro has the latest for the Los Angeles Times. The description of the article under the headline reads:

The measure prevents gay couples from receiving federal rights extended to heterosexual couples.

More precisely, it prevents same-sex couples from receiving federal recognition as being married, and thus the things the federal government attaches to marriage because government has an interest in the kind of pairing that forms an inclusive microcosm of society and naturally perpetuates society. A legally married both-sexes "gay couple" (a gay man and a lesbian) are treated exactly the same way as a married heterosexual couple comprised of a man and a woman. Not just any "heterosexual couple" will be treated that way - they have to be legally married. This same imprecise language is used on the article itself.

"It is time to right this wrong," Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said in introducing the bill with other senators. "This bill will ensure that all married couples in the United States enjoy equal protection of our laws."

Interesting, because as far as I can tell, the bill does nothing for those in domestic partnerships or civil unions. It's not wrong for the federal government to ignore those?

"It's time the federal government stops playing favorites and instead creates an equal playing field for all families," said Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, an advocacy group.

It is not the federal government's responsibility to make sure all "families" are equal (and impossible task anyway), nor should the law treat different kinds of associations as though they were the same.

It also appears to me that should one single solitary state decide that it is wrong to discriminate against other marriages, like, say, the plural marriages of the FLDS or the polygamy of some Muslims - you know, the kind of marriages that have been historically recognized and practiced right alongside bride+groom monogamy (along with incestuous marriages), the federal government would also have to recognize them, too, even if the people lived in one of the other states.

I am unclear about whether or not this new bill would directly repeal the part of DOMA that says one state doesn't have to recognize another state's brideless or groomless marriage licenses.

Meanwhile, Ed Feulner says "DOMA Deserves a Defense".

He talks about Obama dumping DOMA.

Congress shouldn’t passively accept this challenge to its authority. Apart from anyone’s personal views on marriage is this unavoidable fact: The executive branch of our government (the president) is obligated, under the Constitution, to enforce the laws passed by the legislative branch (Congress). And whether the administration likes it or not, DOMA is the law of the land.

As he points out:

DOMA passed both houses of Congress with overwhelming majorities and was signed by President Clinton. Nearly 40 states have enacted their own versions, and traditional marriage has been enshrined in 31 state constitutions. Its validity and constitutionality are beyond question.

Yet the administration, by walking away from DOMA, is rejecting this. In effect, it’s saying, “Congress, you think the laws you pass on behalf of your constituents deserve a defense in court? Not unless we agree with them. Voters, you think marriage should be reserved for one man and one woman? You’re bigoted and irrational.”

This is larger than DOMA:

It isn’t just this particular law that’s at stake. If Congress fails to ensure that DOMA receives a robust defense, it will have failed to defend its lawmaking authority. Lawmakers need to stand up for their prerogatives as legislators. Otherwise, it’s no exaggeration to say we risk undermining our whole system of government.

He goes on to cite an Attorney General who served under Carter. The entire column is worth reading. The current and immediately former Governors of California should both read it. Over and over again.

"Churches Won't Have to Perform Same-Sex Weddings" - UPDATED

...but the powerful groups working to neuter marriage are going to do everything they can to deny that very promise, made in attempt to get more support for their cause, from being a reality. We can see evidence of this in how an internal congregational matter at the Crystal Cathedral is being widely covered in the media. It seems that some people are shocked... SHOCKED!... that the Crystal Cathedral teaches that sex is for marriage, which is something uniting a bride and a groom.

Make no mistake, this is an attempt to pave the way to pressuring the church to perform same-sex "weddings".

Read about it at my namesake blog.

UPDATE - March 17 PM: There was more coverage and new developments. And here's the document, so you can read it yourself and see that this should not be a big deal.

Finally, A Source of Wisdom on Marriage

Who needs the Constitution and elections when we have celebrities to tell us how to do things? I've been waiting eagerly for this moment, because up until now, these people have been so reserved about their opinion on this matter. Holly Bailey reports on this very important development in our national dialogue.

Just weeks after the Obama administration announced it would no longer legally defend the Defense of Marriage act, some of the president's biggest Hollywood supporters have signed a letter urging him to go a step further and [neuter] marriage.

Yes, you know, his authority to do so is listed right there in Article II, Section 5 of the Constitution. Go read it for yourself.

Anne Hathaway, Martin Sheen, Jane Lynch and Ellen DeGeneres are among the actors who have signed an open letter sponsored by Freedom to Marry, a New York-based advocacy group working to promote marriage rights for same-sex couples.

Wow, I had no idea any of those people were for neutering marriage. How courageous of them to speak up, given that they are now likely to be hounded out of the entertainment industry. Oh wait, no, that would be marriage defenders who would lose their gigs.

"Whether to end discrimination in marriage is a question America has faced before, and faces again today… It is a question that calls for clarity from the president," the letter reads.

It is impossible to have any laws regarding marriage or any state marriage licensing without some form of discrimination. All laws descriminate. The question is on what basis do we discriminate? On someone's internal feelings, or objective things like which sex is on your birth certificate? And why are the very same activist groups that used to say "Leave us alone, stay out of our bedroom" now demanding the government get involved in their relationships?

"We ask you to complete your journey and join us, and the majority of Americans, who support the freedom to marry."

Wrong. The majority of Americans do not support the neutering of state marriage licensing by court or federal interference.

The letter was also signed by NFL linebackers Scott Fujita of the Cleveland Browns and Brenden Ayanbadejo of the Baltimore Ravens; entertainment moguls David Geffen and Bob Wright; former NAACP chairman Julian Bond; and Facebook co-founders Chris Hughes and Sean Parker.

Next they'll tell us that Ted Nugent supports gun ownership.

I don’t know about you, but I can’t think of a better source of advice on marriage policy than Hollywood and the NFL. Let's ignore biology, any holy book out there, and all of the great moral thinkers and rights leaders in history, and our own basic observation of reality, and instead listen to what the star of "Glee" wants.

"Children of immigrants more apt than natives to live with both parents"

"Children of immigrants more apt than natives to live with both parents"

University Park, Pa. -- Children of immigrants are more likely to live in households headed by two married parents than children of natives in their respective ethnic groups, according to Penn State sociologists.

This intact family structure may offer immigrant children economic and social advantages that help them adapt to their new country, according to Nancy Landale, professor, sociology and demography.

"An intact family is a positive family arrangement because it maximizes the resources available to children," said Landale. "The family is the main source of children's economic resources, as well as their protection and support."

The researchers, who published their findings in the current issue of The Future of Children, examined the data on family living arrangements for Mexican, southeast Asian and black immigrant families using the Current Population Survey, a survey of about 50,000 households conducted by the Census Bureau for the Bureau of Labor Statistics, from 2005 to 2009. In each group, children of immigrants were more likely to live in households with two parents than the children of natives.

Hurting Homosexual People

I can't speak for all people who understand that marriage unites a bride and a groom, but I and many others like me, while not fans of a lot of the work of marriage neutering advocacy organizations, have no ill will for homosexual people. We don't want to hurt people, and will only condone doing so in self-defense or in defense of the innocent.

So our attention is grabbed when we hear that protecting or restoring the bride+groom requirement in state marriage licensing will "hurt gay people".

The part of the argument that cites hurt feelings is not of my concern. My feelings are hurt when judges rule to neuter state marriage licensing. We can't govern our society based on hurt feelings.

The part that gets my interest is the part that says a homosexual person is objectively hurt or harmed by not being able to get a marriage license with another person of the same sex. We should not automatically grant that this is true. Marriage neutering advocates should have to demonstrate harms that are different in nature than what they dismiss when marriage defenders say that neutering marriage causes harm. In other words, marriage defenders claim that neutering marriage causes harm, and marriage neutering advocates counter that either those things aren't really harms or that they can't be demonstrated to result from marriage neutering. We should, in turn, apply the same standards to their claims of harm by not being able to get a marriage license without a bride or without a groom.

It is easier to put forth a slightly different argument – that same sex couples will be better off with state marriage licenses. But even if true, that point can't be used as legal or moral argument to compel us to neuter state marriage licensing. Pick a recognized minority that has endured past discrimination in the USA – African Americans. Would African Americans be better off if they were all granted state university degrees? Certainly those currently without college degrees would be better off. However, does anyone serious believe that compels us to change the requirements for getting such degrees? An African American can go to a state university and meet the requirements as they are now, even if he or she strongly feels an aversion to doing so (as some African Americans, along with people of any other background, express).

Women would be better off if they never had to pay any federal income taxes again? Yes. So what? We all have to live under the same laws.

Same-sex couples may indeed be better off if they can get a state marriage license. However, that has to be weighed against the harms to society. That is how public policy works. There is no right to a state issued marriage license that compels us to remove the bride+groom requirement. Inventing one will do violence to our Constitution and our government process. If you support the neutering of marriage, pass a constitutional amendment in your state that do that. Subverting the Constitution hurts everyone, including homosexual people.

The real 'obsession' of Christians in America.

Question:

Are Christians Obsessed With Gays and Abortion?

Summary Answer:

[W]hat is our real "obsession"? Historically, monetarily, and with our time and lives today, it is serving our fellow man. We fight the culture war, but largely as a defensive struggle—fighting against changes instigated by the Left, like legalized abortion, the redefinition of marriage, and attacks on the basic free speech rights of Christian parents and students. Do critics expect no opposition to such cultural change? Do they believe any such opposition is inherently illegitimate?

Imagine a world in which mainstream coverage of Christian America reflected our actual expenditures and actual efforts. You'd barely hear from people like me, and perhaps you wouldn't even have to. We'd have the entirely justified reputation as America's most generous community. Yet instead we're labeled as "homophobic" or "anti-choice," and that label dogs us in all aspects of our public life.

But that's because of other people's obsessions. Not ours.

Read the whole thing. David French is an attorney with the Alliance Defence Fund. In his opening paragraphs he has an amusing self-description that my fellow Opiners, in particular, might enjoy.

Cleansing Society of Christianity and Sexual Morality.

The supremacy of identity politics has led to ethnic cleansing in some societies; and the assertion of the primacy of gay identity politics has already begun to fuel the effort to cleanse British society of Christianity and sexual morality.

Here is a snippet from the published remarks of Paul Diamond, Barrister to the Johns, a British couple excluded from the fostercare system:

Should we protect Children from being ‘infected’ with Christianity?

So argued the Equality and Human Rights Commission in the case of Johns v Derby using the word ‘infected’; an argument implicitly accepted by the Court who held that the views of Christian foster carers on sexual morality could be ‘inimical’ to the welfare of children in care. The Commission has now said it was an ‘error’ to have used this term but did not retract this statement when I raised it in court.

It is a very pertinent question to ask especially in light of the fact that I have reluctantly advised the Johns not to appeal; such an appeal would normally be expected but now, in my opinion, futile - a waste of resources. The Courts are so set against religious freedom for Christians that an appeal is likely to only make matters worse.

The problem is a combination of bad laws and, in recent years, a number of poor judicial appointments by the previous Government. Where there are excellent Judges they are restricted by bad laws. Unfortunately, there are also Judges making law based on personal predilections. Parliament must remedy this situation as a matter of urgency.

[...]

The law is now prejudiced, irrational and partial; it punishes individuals for ‘thought crime’ and the State endorses an inverse morality. Many British people despair of the law enforcement agencies and have (rightly) little confidence that they will achieve justice in the courts. There is no reason in law or otherwise why sexual orientation rights should prevail over religious rights. There is something deeply wrong with the ethical and legal compass of Britain.

* * *

Read the whole thing, here. (Hat-tip, Ruth Blog).

* * *

On a related note, John, a pro-SSM commenter over at the Ruth Blog comment section, accused me of seeking to "eradicate LGBT citizens" because of my remarks about protections for families in the nonmarriage category. (See my Opine blogpost, "Appeasement does not make for a viable compromise.")

I replied that his interpretation of my comments was his fantasy and far removed from what I had actually said. John repeated the smear, here and again, here.

I responded further:

As I said earlier, the nonmarriage category is not defined by gay identity politics, contrary to your gross misreading of my comment. And nothing I said even remotely suggests eradicating the millions of people who live outside of marriage — gay or nongay.

There will be families — especially those with children and other dependants — in the nonmarriage category even when our society reconfirms the core meaning of marriage. Extending protections based on their vulnerabilities is a reasonable response to a legitimate societal problem.

But some of the more radical SSMers are quick to manufacture strawman arguments to serve as mirror reflections for their own extreme views.

Also see: "Christianity isn’t dying, it’s being eradicated".

And: "The destructive fruits of sexual politics".

Appeasement does not make for a viable compromise.

In a dicussion at the Ruth Blog, regular commenter, Alexander, said:

[This comment] ties the idea of the objective ordering of marriage to secular evolutionary theory; it rebuts the “infertile couples” objection to the argument for the natural definition of marriage; and it makes a principled case for civil unions.

[...]

Marriage is part of our evolutionary equipment [...] even now it’s the only way of [prospectively] ensuring (to any reasonable extent) certainty of paternity".

And:

"Marriage is thus very valuable to a man who wishes to have children and support them without supporting another man’s children — and since this is something men need to do if they are to have descendants, it is also valuable for children, since it secures for them the services of a father."

And:

"[The] structure of the institution is in no way affected, nor is anything obviously false asserted, by recognizing as marriage a relationship that binds a woman to one man in sexual exclusivity even if we do not expect her to bear children: The institutional structure is still there in case she does."

[...]

"Observe that many men are already resistant to marrying because marriage is now a much worse bargain for men than it was 50 years ago; locking out consideration of the fundamental reason men have to marry will prevent this deal from getting any better."

Here is the part on which I have commented.

Alexander said:

"So a new institution, or perhaps more appropriately, two new institutions (one for gay men, one for lesbians) are needed. The new institution or institutions can give same-sex couples those rights of marriage that are not directly related to procreation, and also address those specific needs of gay and lesbian couples that are different from the needs of complementary-sex couples. For this reason, as well as to reduce the stigma some people see in CUs, the new institutions should have new names and should be devised by committees of gay and lesbian experts."

Read more below the fold.

* * *

Here is my response:

Alexander, up until your remarks about civil union, I’d agree with much of your comment.

Civil union designed by the gay identity group is hardly a just approach to resolving the issue. The first step is to identify the essential(s) of the type of relationship that, among the rest of nonmarriage, merits special attention. Based on the essential(s), lines of eligibility can be determined justly. Based on the essential(s), terms for fomration and for dissolution can be determined justly.

Whenever SSMers describe the essential(s), they fail to distinguish the type of relationship they have in mind from the rest of the types of relationships and living arrangements that populate the nonmarriage category. Their gay emphasis does not do the trick.

So, rather than design this potential solution around the gay emphasis, it ought to be designed as a solution to the substantive problem. If this is really about protections for families — especially those with children — in the nonmarriage category, then, let that be the guiding star, rather than gay identity politics. Most of the vulnerabilities experienced by such families has zilch to do with gayness and quite a great deal to do with the lack of (or diminishment of) sex integration and the lack of (or diminishment of) responsible procreation in their circumstances. In other words, the need for protections arises because these families live without the core meaning of marriage.

Extending protections, or making protections more accessible, would be based on these vulnerabilities and their root cause. But such protections, even if bundled under the moniker, Civil Union, should not be limited based on gay identity politics. Nor based on the SSM idea which is an open rejection of the marriage idea.

The SSM campaign’s gay emphasis is misleading and very, very, very narrow. The nonmarriage cagtegory is not defined by gay identity. It is more inclusive and wider than what the SSM campaign protrays.

The longer view would be to reduce the nonmarital trends by increasing the influence of the core meaning of marriage so as to prevent the cricumstances that lead to the vulnerabilities that families experience in the nonmarriage category. Reconfirm what the marriage idea makes normative.

If a gaycentric “civil union” solution is a political attempt to appease the gay identity group, I think it would fail because it would only whet the appetite for yet more unjust concessions based on identity politics rather than the actual societal problems we face as a society.

Mixed Marriage

Ari at the Ruth blog blogged about the play, Falsettos. It is about a married man who leaves his wife and son for a same-sexed sexualized relationship.

In part, Ari wrote:

I’m sure those people who authorized, produced and participated in the making of the play are quick to scream, “HATE, HATE, H8!!!!” at those who differ with them over marriage redefinition. I’m sure they would say that the Jew hatred evident in the play is nothing but affectionate teasing.

Ari linked to a video that shows part of the play as presented by high school students.

It is worthwhile to read Ari's take on this play's content and its presence in public schools. The comments of SSMers there seem to skirt the issues he raised, but my focus here is on the following:

In the discussion that followed a frequent pro-SSM commenter, Emma, said:

Just for example, any individual member of a white supremacist organization might argue that he does not “hate” black people, he just thinks that mixing of the races is abomination.

And:

Even if their motive isn’t “hate” as such — say it’s “fear” instead, unfounded as that may be — the rhetoric they choose to employ is still hateful. A behavior can be hateful regardless of the underlying motive, can’t it?

I responded:

Does not this play suggest, strongly, that mixing of sexual orientations in marriage is just as wrong? Yes, I think so. Hence the lauding of the decision to abandon marriage and family. If sexual orientation is supposed to be like race, then, how is such a view not also like racism, Emma?

Now, maybe that view is not like racism. Maybe Emma or someone else can explain the difference as a difference in kind rather than degree. That is, that view might be deemed of a different type rather than merely more benign.

But either way, howso?

See Ari's blogpost: "Jews Bad. Sexual Promiscuity Good." The discussion that followed provides the context for Emma's remarks as quoted above.

Short Votes, Maryland Democrats Withdraw Same-Sex Marriage Bill

Short Votes, Maryland Democrats Withdraw Same-Sex Marriage Bill By SABRINA TAVERNISE NYT

For weeks, the bill’s passage was thought to be assured. Maryland’s House is overwhelmingly Democrat — 98 out of 141 members, more than enough to pass the bill over Republican opposition. But the closer it got to a final vote, the bumpier its path became, with a number of Democrats from districts with strong religious constituencies saying they would vote against it.

Blame religion? You don't have to believe in God to get pregnant. It's biological fact, not supernatural belief. I'm sure atheist children would like to have a relationship with both sides of their DNA, in which a diverse society promotes (not force) them to have a healthy relationship under the same roof.

Evolutionary evidence for monogamy in heterosexual activity

Article from National Geographic in regards to the the differences/changes in humans compared to other primates. Warning... while all proper but graphic.

But most women today are monogamous, and the males "are not just present during the competitive act of fertilization—they establish long-term relationships with females," Kingsley said.

Trojan Horses

Some states have recently adopted the Trojan Horse – civil unions. I understand why other marriage defenders are against civil unions on principle. They see it as something that devalues marriage, much as most of them see shacking up and societal acceptance of fornication as well as shacking up as devaluing marriage. Many of these people want to discourage homosexual behavior as detrimental. I, too, see homosexual behavior as detrimental and civil unions as devaluing marriage. However, I recognize that people are going to do what they're going to do behind closed doors, and with broad societal accommodation, most people with homosexual feelings are not going to consider enough incentive to refrain from homosexual behavior. So, I see civil unions as a compromise to give same-sex couples a shortcut to certain legal arrangements, even though those arrangements were attached to marriage because of marriage's procreative and uniting-of-the-sexes nature. I want to be a nice guy. I don't see civil unions as a right, but would be willing to support a law creating them... except that I can't due to tactical reasons. Instead of preserving marriage law (which is why - along with discouracing homosexual promiscuity - I'd be willing to support them even though I think they devalue marriage somewhat), civil unions are used as a Trojan Horse to neuter marriage licensing. Once they are in place, the battle cry of the marriage neutering crowd becomes "we can't have 'seperate but equal'". Of course, the courts should recognize that civil unions are for associations that are inherently different than marriage, but Judge Walker didn't.

I would think it good if DOMA was replaced by a Constitutional amendment that made a distinction between marriage and civil unions, thus allowing the federal government to recognize neutered marriage licenses from the states that issue them, and civil unions from the states that issue those – for things like federal employees and such, while preventing states from being forced to neuter their marriage licenses. The problem is, what matters more to marriage neutering advocates, more than getting certain legal entitlements, is removing all distinctions made between marriage and this form of non-marriage, so such an amendment would not satisfy them. In their thinking, marriage must be killed and replaced by SSM.

With that, let's look at the coverage of the Trojan Horse in Hawaii. Reporting by Suzanne Roig, writing by Dan Whitcomb, editing by Greg McCune brought this Reuters article.

Governor Neil Abercrombie on Wednesday signed into law a bill allowing same-sex civil unions, making Hawaii the seventh U.S. state to grant essentially the same rights as marriage to gay couples.

So the law is like California's domestic partnerships, where both-sexes couples need not apply unless at least one of them is a senior citizen?

"This signing today of this measure says to all the world that they are welcome, that everyone is a brother or a sister in paradise."

Wait, did he just compare SSM to incest? That's outrageous! Hawaii has a history of recognizing brother-sister marriages as valid, unlike brideless or groomless pairings. So making the comparison is a bad thing to do.

"The legalization of civic unions in Hawaii represents in my mind, equal rights," Democrat Abercrombie said in signing the measure, his first as governor.

Yeah, and that's what marriage neutering proponents say for a while, until the Trojan Horse is in the door. Then, suddenly, the civil union law they said was so vital becomes an insult.

"Today marks a big step toward full equality for lesbian and gay people in the Aloha state," said Jennifer Pizer, national marriage project director for the gay rights group Lambda Legal.

Big step forward? What, pray tell, is left? I think we all know the answer to that.

Here's an Associated Press article by Mark Niesse.

For years, the Rev. Fay Hovey has held romantic ceremonies on the sand for gay partners who want to pledge their love in Hawaii.

How is that possible? Marriage neutering advocates, including the ones in the news media, have told us that such things were banned! Do they think we can't compare articles from the same news agencies?