Gay Identity is not a Sexual Orientation

Same sex sexual attraction may be inborn or not inborn. Contrary to a big premise of SSM rhetoric, there is a lack of conclusive scientific evidence either way.

That said, sexual orientation is not one and the same as gay identity which is a socio-political construct and not sexual attraction. The language of identity politics tries to dictate a conflation of group identity and feelings of sexual desire. That conflation then extends to same sex sexual behavior. The homosexual emphasis in SSM argumentation is matched with the unmistakable demand that gay identity politics must supersede all other concerns.

Besides, SSM argumentation produces the result that SSM at law would not be a sexual type of relationship.

SSMers begin with a premise that depends not merely on identity politics but on the assertion of the supremacy of gay identity politics. That means supremacy over marriage, the law, justice and, ironically, even over the supposedly decisive role of same sex sexual attraction.

Hungary's New Constitution

Hungary's New Constitution

Article K

(1) Hungary shall protect the institution of marriage, understood to be the conjugal union of a man and a woman based on their independent consent; Hungary shall also protect the institution of the family, which it recognises as the basis for survival of the nation.

(2) Hungary shall promote the commitment to have and raise children.

Makes you wonder how reasonable people can object to that?

Behavior Matters

The Los Angeles Times printed letters reacting to ProtectMarriage's latest filing. Maria Simpson of Los Angeles doesn't get the point.

If a judge in a committed same-sex relationship should recuse himself from this case because of his assumed bias, then logic demands that judges in committed heterosexual relationships also recuse themselves, as they might be biased as well.

Jeremiah Flanigan of Long Beach does get the point.

Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC Irvine law school, argues that requiring U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker to have recused himself from the gay marriage case based on his ongoing same-sex relationship would be like arguing that "black judges cannot decide race discrimination cases or female judges preside over cases involving sex bias."

Indeed, a black judge should not preside over a case in which the issue would be that blacks cannot be judges, and a female judge should recuse herself if the issue were that females cannot be judges. However, that is a far cry from arguing that they should not decide cases involving general race or sex-discrimination questions. Here, the issue would directly determine whether Walker could marry his partner.

Jon Phillips of Torrance has a suggestion.

There should be a very simple rule with all articles related to Proposition 8. Replace the term "gay" with "black" and the term "marriage" with "segregation."

Sounds great to me. Let's try it:

Neither two [black] men, nor two straight men should be able to get a license from the state to [segregate].

Thanks, Mr. Phillips!

Did I mention that I hate divorce? (again)

Facebook really changes it all, like watching a train wreck when you have neighbors that divorce.

As much as I always want both parents to be in the picture, even after divorce, I hate 'the divorce is ok, because we both still love the kids' like of thinking. In this case, the dad moved an hour away to be with his new lover. Every day a picture posted on Facebook of not him and his kids, but of his new life. He's just going to live it up I guess.

I have his feed hidden, and only checked again today. I look back at all those wonder photos of him and the kids with his wife, plus the wedding photos.

It's scary to see it happen so fast and easily.

Los Angeles Times on Walker

The Los Angeles Times editorial board argues against ProtectMarriage's filing on Walker.

The group's lawyers argue that because Walker has a longtime male partner, he was unfit to render a decision on Proposition 8.

Or, that he should have at least made the disclosure.

If one day he should want to marry, the argument goes, he might benefit from his own decision, assuming it survives the scrutiny of higher courts.

Is this not true?

This claim is absurd on many levels, especially when you remember that ProtectMarriage's case against same-sex marriage is that it threatens the institution of heterosexual marriage. In fact, the group says, that damage gives it the legal status to challenge the initiative, because any married heterosexual is allegedly harmed by same-sex unions. But if that's the case, then by the group's own logic, married heterosexual judges would also be forced to recuse themselves; the integrity of their own marriages could be damaged by the matter before them.

At first glance, the editorial board seems to have a point. However, bride+goom marriage is the status quo and has been for all of human history. The vast majority of people will marry during their lives. An individual judge's marriage would not be immediately and directly impacted so much as the overall institution of marriage. So it is not equivalent to compare the harm a judge who is engaged in a common practice might suffer if there is a change in the status quo to the direct, financial benefit a judge engaged in a minority behavior could reap by intervening to strike down the status quo by overturning a direct amending of the state constitution by the people of that state.

For example, most people do not smoke marijuana for medicinal purposes. Let's say the people of California passed a constitutional amendment that reinforced a longstanding prohibition on smoking medicinal marijuana in state parks, and allowing that fines be imposed on those who do. A judge who has never used medicinal marijuana, but has used other medicines, does not have a conflict of interest in the case equal to a judge who regularly uses medicinal marijuana and enjoys hanging out in state parks. (And no, I haven't tried the stuff, medicinal or otherwise, so you can't blame it for my coming up with this analogy.)

An African American judge could never hear a race-discrimination case. And no female judge could decide a lawsuit on gender discrimination. Or a male one either.

Again, this is a misstatement (as is a later part of the editorial). It isn't about Walker’s identity, it is about his behavior.

The guidelines for judicial recusal can be unclear at times, but generally the bar is a high one.

Would the editorial board be comfortable with a judge with a position on the governing board of the First Nondenominational Church of Fresno ruling on a case that would have a direct impact on the finances of that church? Or a judge who owns a gun store ruling on a case about imposing fees on gun sales?

Letters Against Defending DOMA

The Los Angeles Times ran a couple of letters responding to their recent editorial on defending DOMA. Ian Millhiser of Washington complains about the expense:

But Clement is not simply one of the nation's leading attorneys; he is also one of the most expensive. The American taxpayer will pay Clement's firm $520 an hour to defend a law that belongs in the dustbin of history.

If the GOP really cares about fiscal responsibility, it should fire Clement.

The bipartisan DOMA was in place long before any suing parties obtained marriage licenses from their state. Those couples knew the score from the start. Neither the GOP nor the House of Representatives picked this fight. This is a common tactic of the marriage neutering advocates – take action, and then when that action is countered, complain about the attention or money spent on the matter.

Randall Gellens of San Diego draws a distinction between criminal defense and civil law:

A person convicted of a crime may be fined or imprisoned and stigmatized for a very long time. Time served cannot be regained. In contrast, a law overturned suffers no harm.

If such a prominent law is overturned because it was not defended against a lawsuit, our entire system can be harmed as power shifts from the people and their representatives to the few wealthy or legally trained individuals or groups who file these lawsuits. Confidence in the merits of the court decisions or settlements disappears, and we end up with a system that relies on brute force to get a disenfranchised populace to comply to the whims of a tiny unelected minority.

Gellens then begs the question by assuming the very matter under review:

It is good for an obviously bad law to go undefended; in fact, it is a mark of a mature society.

We don’t need three branches of government, apparently. We just need to ask Gellens for his opinion, and then run things that way. Now that would be an easy Constitution to memorize. "We the people defer to Randall Gellens of San Diego."

Marriage neutering advocates hate DOMA first and foremost because it prevented them from being able to immediately force the neutering of marriage on every state and territory by getting activist judges in a single state to neuter marriage. Without DOMA, immediately after a brideless or groomless couple got a neutered marriage license in that one state, they would have gone to another state and demanded recognition, and that state would have either rolled over (and this would have been repeated in every other state) or quickly lost in court (which would have expressly or effectively impacted every other state). Having DOMA has, at the very least, given more time to the discussion, preventing wacky judges in one state from instantly neutering marriage for every other state. DOMA shouldn't have been needed in the first place.

It is very possible that if the marriage neutering advocates had - instead of neutering the state licensing of marriage in a handful of states and then fighting DOMA in court - put all their efforts into replacing DOMA with something that would have preserved marriage but also recognized domestic partnerships, every single same-sex couple who wanted federal recognition and benefits would have had those things by now. State legislatures would no doubt be eager to literally cash in on the federal recognition of state domestic partnerships. But the fight doesn't appear to be about improving the situation for same-sex couples as much as it is about making sure there isn't a word that might indicate gender-inclusive couples are of more concern to the state than gender-exclusive couples, or in any way different.

DOMA and Dirty Tricks

Maya Rupert wrote on the LATimes.com opinion blog to respond to the paper's editorial about defending DOMA. She is the federal policy director for the National Center for Lesbian Rights.

In the editorial, The Times takes the curious step of extending the familiar maxim that "every person deserves a lawyer" to the more expansive "every position deserves a lawyer." The first is a fundamental right upon which we base our criminal justice system. The other is a fiction that mistakenly seeks to insulate a shortsighted law firm from criticism for its decision to defend a discriminatory law.

Rupert simply assumes that DOMA doesn't deserve a defense. This tactic is designed to prevent debate in the first place. The marriage neutering advocates like her don't want a discussion.

Positions on laws do not exist on their own. They are held by people. DOMA was signed into law through a bipartisan effort. Those people are being defended. The very people of the union are being defended.

In this case, there is no greater good, no cherished larger issue at stake; the only issue contested is discrimination. There is no venerable tradition of lawyers defending laws that single out certain groups for discrimination.

All laws discriminate. DOMA doesn't discriminate against groups, only between different kinds of associations.

Clement has made a decision not just to stand on the wrong side of history but to lead the charge on that side and, sadly, to bring his law firm, King & Spalding, along with him.

King & Spalding has since wimped out. But I wanted to say that the "wrong side of history" phrase is fauxmentum by another name, and it really needs to be put to rest. Those who opposed Stalin during Stalin's regime were on the "wrong side of history" at the time.

"Tony Locke" April 23, 2011 at 09:19 AM gets it right:

If this law were not defended, then laws passed by a duly elected congress are just one lawsuit away from being overturned. I expect any administration to defend the laws on the books, or else submit them for repeal. To attack the men and women providing representation in this case is unfair and immature. A law is not indefensible simply because you disagree.

Here's the Los Angeles Times article from David G. Savage on King & Spalding, and even this article points out that the marriage neutering advocates have unprecedented power.

The turn of events underscored the growing political power of the gay-rights movement. Major law firms place a high value on their reputations for diversity and nondiscrimination. On its website, King & Spalding touted its 95% rating for gay-rights equality from the Human Rights Campaign.

"If they had stayed with this case, it would have damaged the firm for the next 20 years," said one Washington lawyer, who asked not to be named because of the sensitivity involved.

But the firm's abrupt withdrawal surprised some veteran Washington lawyers, who said they were not aware of a major law firm ever dropping a case because of bad publicity.

Ken Klukowski has a column praising Paul Cement.

In 1996, a bipartisan majority of the Republican-controlled Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), signed into law by Democratic President Bill Clinton. The law specifies that for purposes of federal law, marriage is the union of one man and one woman. The law also provides that if any state breaks with 2,000 years of Western civilization by redefining marriage to include homosexual couples, no other state need recognize those unions.

Let's not forget that this wasn't a matter of a fringe group of radicals somehow slipping a law onto the books in the dark of night. The was in place many years before any state was issuing marriage licenses to brideless couples and grooumless couples. Those couples were fully aware of the law, I'm sure.

When Ted Olson decided to take a case arguing that the U.S. Constitution includes a right to same-sex marriage which mysteriously went unnoticed by anyone in the country for over 200 years, no reputable group called for boycotting his firm, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher. Nor should they.

Both sides are not fighting the same way, that's for sure.

People should remember this episode as showing the oppressive nature of some leftists. They scream about freedom when it suits their purpose, only to deny others freedom to even be heard. On this issue, pro-marriage advocates—especially churches and ministries faithful to biblical teaching on marriage—had better take heed. You will be next.

Yes. The fascists trying to force the neutering of marriage on the rest of us have already tipped their hand in what they did at the Crystal Cathedral.

A Compromised Walker

The major news media has been covering the challenge to Walker's ruling, of course. Here is the Reuters take from Peter Henderson. It uses the biased and misleading "gay marriage ban" language, as usual. Lisa Leff's Associated Press report also uses "ban".

From Maura Dolan's article in the Los Angeles Times:

Erwin Chemerinsky, law school dean at UC Irvine, said there was "no chance whatsoever" that a court would void Walker's ruling against Proposition 8 on the grounds that he should have disclosed his personal relationship.

"This is an offensive personal attack on Vaughn Walker," Chemerinsky said. He likened the legal maneuver to an argument that black judges cannot decide race discrimination cases or female judges preside over cases involving sex bias.

Perhaps Chemerinsky is misquoted, or letting emotion cloud his usually respected opinion? The argument is clearly not that Walker couldn't decide justly because he is a homosexual person. It is that he stood to personally (including financially) benefit from the outcome of the trial, and he didn't even disclose that. It is based on things Walker did, not his identity. Marriage neutering advocates use such trickery frequently.

"Former N.J. governor Jim McGreevey denied bid for priesthood"

Being gay and being a jerk to your wife are two very very different things. I understand, especially older individuals, that one may come to terms with their orientation later in life after been married with children. We can assume individuals in this position, always take in consideration of their former spouse and children with immense respect and compassion.

As this article puts it well, because there may a legitimate reason to no longer be with your spouse, that doesn't give you an excuse to be a complete jerk about it. There may be no fault in being gay, but it's not your ex-wife's or child's fault either so don't take it out on them!

Former N.J. governor Jim McGreevey denied bid for priesthood

Another source said that McGreevey was rejected not for being gay, but for being a “jackass” in his divorce proceedings, which damaged his reputation. They feared that McGreevey was possibly using the clergy as a tool to rebuild his tarnished image rather than focus on God. Both McGreevey and Newark Diocese’s Bishop Mark Beck declined to comment.

ProtectMarriage Files Against Walker's Ruling

This should not be surprising. Maura Dolan reports at LATimes.com.

In a court filing, the sponsors of the ban on gay marriage, ProtectMarriage, asked the chief judge of the federal court in San Francisco to nullify last August's ruling by former U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker, who retired earlier this year.

The constitutional amendment voted in as Proposition 8 was not "a ban on gay marriage".

ProtectMarriage said Walker should have disclosed his involvement with his male partner before presiding over the marriage trial because it constituted a conflict of interest.

Again, let's be very clear about this:

Andy Pugno, a lawyer for ProtectMarriage, said the group was not suggesting that it would be inappropriate for any gay or lesbian judge to sit on the case. "Rather, our motion is all about the fundamental principle that no judge is permitted to try a case where he has an interest in the outcome," Pugno said.

It's not because Walker identifies as a homosexual person. It is that he had an immediate personal stake, including a financial one, in the outcome of the trial.

“Powerless Minority” Scares Off Big Time Law Firm

Once again, marriage neutering advocates have demonstrated that they are a completely helpless, powerless, oppressed minority in need of the federal "protection" of neutering state marriage licensing by scaring off a big time law firm from defending DOMA. James Oliphant reports in the Los Angeles Times.

In a highly unusual move, the lawyer retained by House Republicans to defend the law that denies federal recognition to legally married [same-sex] couples has resigned from his law firm after pressure from gay rights groups moved the firm to withdraw from the representation.

Paul Clement, the former U.S. solicitor general, made his resignation letter public - a decision that telegraphs the size of rift between Clement and his former employer, the well-known Atlanta-based firm King and Spalding.

He immediately joined a Washington-based firm, Bancroft, in order to continue representing the GOP.

"Jason Writer" at 12:46 PM April 25, 2011:

So you're fine with YOUR tax dollars going to a $520/hour law firm rather than those who really need it, like the poor and unemployed.

I wonder if Jason has asked that question of the people who brought these lawsuits against the federal government in the first place?

"woof-woof" at 1:05 PM April 25, 2011:

So a law firm can defend pedophiles, murdering rapists, and terrorists, and no one makes a peep, but defend a law passed by the Congress elected by the people and the left goes on the attack.

How about we let the democratic process play out?

I used to be of the opinion that I don't care whether same-sex couples marry, but I don't take well to threats and intimidation. I don't trust people who will hound you out of a job for voting the same way as the majority in an election. It's a form of tyranny.

Yes, the homofascists, who certainly do not represent all homosexual people, have been very successful, demonstrating that their claim to being powerless, which is presented as a necessary component of their case for marriage neutering, is a false claim.

Consider how rapidly things have changed. Mind you, I support some of these changes.

Can an infertile person be part of a reproductive type of relationship?

 Marriage encompass the reproductive type of relationship, it explicitly references that relationship in expecting a man and a woman. But it is not too surprising when that reference is being attacked to find that some people don't understand quite what it means to be a type of relationship. Consider the following question...

Q If she is sterile, it is impossible for her to be in a reproductive type of relationship. She can’t reproduce.

I am very sure that is the hangup the author of the question is having (henceforth the person I talk to in answering). And I appreciate it, honestly, as something substantial.

But understand that a "type" of relationship is based on the characteristics of the members of the relationship, and from there people have "conditions" that may make those characteristics impotent. But the type is still based on those characteristics even in the presence of impairing conditions. As I have noted on other occasions, infertility is a condition that can only exist in a context reproduction is normally expected.

Perhaps that explanation was too quick. How about an example...

Is it marriage in Massachusetts?

No one that I know of is better than Op-Ed for succinct and pithy responses to some frequently asked questions in the marriage debate. You can read our "FAQ" tag to find he's largely already closed the case on the socratically slewn arguments by marriage neuterists.

We often joke that his style is the Peterbuilt Truck that can thread the needle sized hole in their arguments. Me, I have the more laborious task of trying to exhaustively clean up the whole confusion and make it all look tidy, and hopefully make it entertaining for the kids. Below is a question I took on in just that style. Read on, see if you like it.

Q: I noted that a lesbian couple who I know got married last week in Massachusetts. According to Mass law they are married.

Do you believe they are married? Seriously, can you or “on lawn” provide a yes or no answer to this question? If not can you explain in clear language without using the term the “SSM idea” or “neutered marriage” how they are not married?

Sure I can...

Los Angeles Times Reasonable, Fits Thrown

I have to give credit where it is due. The Los Angeles Times editorial board has publicly distinguished itself from certain other marriage neutering advocacy organizations with "Defense of Marriage Act: Attack the Law, Not the Lawyer". Certain homofascists have tried to prevent DOMA from getting a defense by threatening law firms. This editorial is inducing fits by readers who believe in forcing the neutering of marriage by any means necessary.

The Human Rights Campaign has been a powerful force for the rights of gays and lesbians, but the organization has stumbled in objecting to the hiring of a former solicitor general to defend the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act. The tradition of lawyers defending unpopular or controversial clients is an honorable one.

As the board writes:

If DOMA is struck down, the fact that it was defended effectively will make the victory for its opponents more credible.

This is true.

In criticizing Clement's law firm for agreeing to defend DOMA, the Human Rights Campaign contrasted that decision with the firm's admirable record in promoting equality for gay and lesbian employees.

There is a difference from what someone does as an employer and what they might do regarding legislation. For example, an employer may provide full health care benefits to all of her employees with nothing directly out of their pocket, and still lobby against the federal government paying for the health care of all residents. An employer can choose to cover one partner (or two, or three) for each employee, regardless of sex, but be against using the force of government to make other employers to the same. Also, I believe in full rights for individuals and their freedom of association, regardless of sexual orientation. If a mans want to "marry" another man, I would never try to stop them from asking a minister to perform a ceremony for them, from living together, so on and so forth.

In the comments left after the editorial, marriage neutering advocates try to argue that homosexual people are discriminated against and are powerless (and thus any law that homosexuality advocates don't like is automatically unconstitutional), and that an overwhelming majority of people are against DOMA and view homosexual people positively. How these claims can all fit together, I don't know. But then I am one of those people who don't think certain other things fit together, either.

Judge Walker Using Video of Prop 8 Trial

Maura Dolan's Los Angles Times article is headlined with biased language, including "gay marriage foes" and "gay marriage ban".

The federal judge who presided over the Proposition 8 trial is under fire from Christian conservatives for showing a three-minute videotape of the trial on the lecture circuit.

Only Christian conservatives? It wasn't just Christian conservatives who voted for Proposition 8.

The sponsors of the 2008 ballot measure that banned same-sex marriage have asked a federal appeals court to order retired Judge Vaughn R. Walker, who ruled against Proposition 8, to return the videotape so it can be put under lock and key. Andrew Pugno, a lawyer for the Proposition 8 campaign, said Walker's use of the video segment in lectures "violates every rule and every court order on the books."

Rules, laws, morals, principles, and everything else must take a back seat to the cause of neutering marriage.

"The trial recordings were not the personal property of Judge Walker, for him to use as he pleased," attorney Charles Cooper told the court. "He had access to them only by virtue of his role as the judicial officer presiding in this case."

True. You try taking property without permission from your employer and using it for personal use. In case you haven't heard, I've moved my namesake blog. Currently, you can read about "transgendered" prisoners in California and a request for taxpayer funds to be spent on "reassignment" surgeries.

"We've been engaged for years"

Advice column from the Boston Globe, this item caught my eye.

We've been engaged for years is about a single mom with a 'finance' that can't set a date.

"I want you to make a decision about this relationship based on your needs, not your daughter's. I know that you're a mom first -- and that's great -- but you're not shopping for a new dad for your kid. You're looking for the right partner for you, someone who respects that you're a parent and can give you the support you need to do the job. If your partner bonds with your daughter, that's just a bonus."

Women really don't shop for 'a dad', they fall in love with a man in the context of him being her husband, not as a father. The man has to genuinely love and respect you. If a man loves a woman in a respectful manner, then he's going to respect the fact you're a mom, only then will he make a good father or step-father in this case.

Clement Will Defend DOMA

We now know who will be defending DOMA in court. James Oliphant has the Los Angeles Times article.

Former U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement will represent the government in appellate and trial court cases that challenge whether the Defense of Marriage Act is consitutional. Clement served as SG, the government's top lawyer before the Supreme Court, for three years during the Bush administration.

I'll be praying for Clement.

Speaker John Boehner and House leaders decided to step in the place, legally, of the administration, and the hiring of Clement, a partner in the Atlanta-based law firm King & Spalding, is a sign that it’s taking its obligation seriously, said Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage.

"At last we have a legal eagle on this case who actually wants to win in court! Paul Clement is a genuinely distinguished lawyer, a former solicitor general of the United States, who we are confident will win this case,” Brown said in a statement. “Thanks to Speaker Boehner's actions, President Obama's attempt to sabotage the legal defense of DOMA is not going to work," said Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage."

I don't think DOMA was the ideal way to handle the situation, only the best legislative one that was going to get implemented.

Here's a taste of the kind of loving, civil, and tolerant comments left:

A Los Angeles Newspaper on Louisiana Law

Has the Los Angeles Times ever run an editorial about Louisiana refusing to issue birth certificates to unmarried adoptive couples, bemoaning this practice? Not until that unmarried couple was of the same-sex is my guess. Louisiana will issue such birth certificates to married couples or one person, but not two unmarried people.

The two men adopted their son, who was born in Louisiana, through an agency in New York. Louisiana law requires state officials to issue a new birth certificate for an adopted child that "shall list the names of the adoptive parents." But Louisiana also prohibits adoptions by unmarried couples, whether heterosexual or homosexual. So the state declined to issue a birth certificate with both names.

A federal court ruled in favor of the same-sex couple, but the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Louisiana.

In the majority opinion, Chief Judge Edith Jones wrote that Louisiana had a "rational preference for stable families." But that argument is undercut by the fact that the state allows adoptions by single adults - just not unmarried couples.

Single adults can provide a stable family by not dating, especially if living with their own married parents. Couples who can get a marriage license, but haven't, are demonstrating a lack of desire for legal stability.

It has practical implications as well - for example, when a parent who isn't listed on the birth certificate wants to enroll the child in a school that requires the document, or to obtain a passport for the child.

So the parent who is on the birth certificate does it.

As I've said before, I'm not against same-sex couples adopting. I just don't think they should get the same consideration for adoption as a bride+groom couple, who should get first preference.

Isn't He Brave For Standing Up For His Own Gain?

Activist Boris O. Dittrich, the first openly homosexual member of the Netherlands parliament, wrote a piece in the Los Angeles Times to pat himself on the back for neutering marriage ten years ago.

The Netherlands had introduced gay civil unions in 1998; I regarded them as a step forward but still insufficient. Why should heterosexuals be able to fence off a part of civil law - marriage - and defend it as exclusively theirs?

This, of course, is a red herring. Many homosexual people have participated in marriage under the bride+groom requirement. I personally know people like this, including people who continue to remain married.

This "separate but equal" status reminded me of apartheid in South Africa and Jim Crow in the United States.

Same-sex pairings are inherently unequal to a pairing of both sexes. Is Dittrich really arguing that homosexual people in the Netherlands were treated anywhere near the way people were treated under apartheid and Jim Crow? People who beat homosexual people in the USA end up in prison. There was a time when people walked free after lynching someone based on the color of their skin.

When two people decide to share their responsibilities and commit themselves to each other by entering civil marriage, their sexual orientation shouldn't matter to the government.

You’re right. It shouldn't, and it doesn't. However, that sexual orientation matters is precisely the claim of the marriage neutering advocates. The government's greatest interest is in the uniting of a bride and groom, and the government should not care about sexual orientation; only the inclusion of both sexes.

Civilization as we know it did not end.

Civilization hasn’t ended in the dozens of states that have passed marriage amendments. But as for the effect of marriage neutering, this sort of thing takes time to get the full effect. No-fault divorce took a while to have a larger effect, too.

And, as far as I can tell, God did not punish the Netherlands.

God's a patient being, if you’re referring to the God described in the Bible. I think the Netherlands already had ample evidence that God is patient.

On the contrary, the bill paved the way for nine more countries (Belgium, Spain, Canada, South Africa, Norway, Sweden, Argentina, Portugal and Iceland), one city (Mexico City), the District of Columbia in the U.S., and several U.S. states (Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont, Iowa, New Hampshire and, briefly, California) to allow gays to marry. In Slovenia, Nepal and Australia, same-sex marriage is now on the political agenda.

Notice that this is a small minority of countries and states.

He goes on to cite murder, trying to make a connection between the murder of homosexual people to defending marriage. Then, he cites Loving vs. Virginia. Nothing about Reynolds vs. the United States, however.

Nothing new, just another appeal-to-emotion piece in the Los Angeles Times.

Did I mention that I hate divorce?

I hate it.

It started a decade ago, after I was married. I just didn't like it, I began to hate it. A couple who was just married a year prior to my husband and I were getting a divorce.

It seemed so easy, and no one else cared that their marriage was broken. All that work for a wedding, and that effort to ensure that they were a good match. Then all of a sudden, without any fault the wife wasn't happy.

Then a again with another couple, who had two children. No one really thought anything of it.

Then recently another couple. I viewed Facebook statuses change. First it begins with the husband's 'It's complicated', then 'Single', then 'In a relationship' with someone who wasn't his wife.

I check over to the wife's her status changed to 'Separated', and then photos are tagged with the husband with the new lover.

A birthday party is held for their youngest child, all that matters is that mom and dad love the child right? I didn't want my children to know yet, another family broken so we changed plans.

When they see divorce on a reoccurring basis, it scares them. We reassure them. I ask my husband, 'Can that become us?'

No one supports couples when they hit a rocky patch, I'm not talking about abuse here, just the stress that can and will occur in marriage. It just seems when it gets tough, they divorce and everyone by omission encourages it.

And to add... Why do women in abusive relationships can't leave, but otherwise healthy relationships so easily fall apart?

Walker Broke His Word and Made Trial Recordings Public

Here is more on how Judge Walker has chosen to advance the SSM idea via the abuse of judicial review and the abuse of his privileged position as a federal judge.

Walker presided over the federal trial regading the California Marriage Amendment. [See the tag, Judge Walker, at the bottom of this blogpost.]

During the proceedings he turned his courtroom into a stage for a show trial; and at the conlclusion of the trial he wrote a so-called judicial opinion that reads like a pro-SSM pamphlet.

He has since resigned from the bench; his subsequent behavior strongly suggests that Walker is a public advocate for the SSM idea and that he previous role as a federal judge on the Marriage Amendment case was a thinly disguised precursor to his open political advocacy of SSM in the public square.

Walker has confirmed his homosexual orientation; he has also stated that for years he has been in a same-sex sexualized relationship; the latter, as noted by Playful Walrus in an earlier blogpost, ought to have prompted Walker to recognize that he had an interest in the outcome of the trial and, to that extent, was obliged to recuse himself from the case.

Also, Walker has used a portion of the video recording of the federal trial in a public speech which has been broadcast on C-Span. The recording was under seal; public use of the recording was, and is, prohibited by virtue of a decision by the US Supreme Court. Walker violated that; he also violated his own official reassurance that the recording was being made just for use in chambers and not for public dissemination.

The defenders of the California Marriage Amendment have filed a motion that argues for the court to order the return to the court all video recordings of that trial's proceedings. Read it here.

Below are snippets from the motion (with citations removed).

[Click here to read the rest of the blogpost.]

On February 18, 2011, Judge Walker delivered a speech at the University of Arizona in which he played a portion of the video recording of the cross-examination of one of Proponents’ expert witnesses in the trial of this case. The speech was video taped by C-SPAN, and it was subsequently broadcast on C-SPAN several times beginning on March 22. By publicly displaying the video recording of a portion of the trial testimony, Judge Walker (1) violated his own order placing the video recording of the trial under seal; (2) ignored the clear terms of the district court’s Local Rule 77-3, which prohibits the broadcast or other transmission of trial proceedings beyond “the confines of the courthouse”; (3) contravened the longstanding policies of the Judicial Conference of the United States and the Judicial Council of this Court prohibiting public broadcast of trial proceedings; and (4) defied the United States Supreme Court’s prior decision in this case ruling that an earlier attempt by then-Chief Judge Walker to publicly broadcast the trial proceedings “complied neither with existing rules or policies nor the required procedures for amending them.”

But even more regrettable, perhaps, than all of this is the fact that Judge Walker’s use of the trial recording repudiated his own solemn commitment to Proponents in open court that, despite Proponents’ objection, the trial was being video recorded “simply for [his] use in chambers,” because it “would be quite helpful to [him] in preparing the findings of fact.” [...] In reliance on this assurance, Proponents took no action to prevent the recording of the trial. One of Proponents’ expert witnesses also relied on this assurance, deciding to testify after then-Chief Judge Walker had made clear that the trial recording would not be broadcast. Now a portion of his testimony has appeared on national television, and he regrets his decision to trust this assurance

What’s done is done. Judge Walker’s speech, and C-SPAN’s public dissemination of it, cannot be undone, and given that Judge Walker has recently retired from the federal bench, he cannot be disciplined.But he can be ordered to cease further unlawful and improper disclosures of the trial recordings, or any portion thereof, and to return to this Court any copies of the trial recordings in his possession, custody, or control. We respectfully request that he be ordered to do so. We also request that Appellees be ordered to return their copies of the trial recordings, which were provided to them by then-Chief Judge Walker for their use in closing argument below and in the appeal to this Court. Putting aside that providing copies of the trial recordings to Appellees also violated Local Rule 77-3, the policies of the Judicial Conference and this Court’s Judicial Council, and then-Chief Judge Walker’s assurances in open court, the purpose for which they were provided has now been fulfilled, and Appellees’ continued possession of the recordings can no longer be justified.

[...]

At the opening of trial later that morning, Appellees asked Chief Judge Walker to continue video recording the proceedings for the purpose of later public dissemination “in the event the stay is lifted” on January 13. Chief Judge Walker accepted Appellees’ proposal over Proponents’ objection that recording the proceedings was not “consistent with the spirit of” the temporary stay issued by the Supreme Court.Id . Far from lifting the stay, on January 13, the Supreme Court instead “grant[ed] the application for a stay of the District Court’s order of January 7, 2010, pending the timely filing and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari or the filing and disposition of a petition for a writ of mandamus.”

[...]

Chief Judge Walker stated that the unamended “local rule permits … recording for purposes of use in chambers and that is customarily done when we have these remote courtrooms or the overflow courtrooms,” and that that the recording “would be quite helpful to [him] in preparing the findings of fact.” Chief Judge Walker stated that the unamended “local rule permits … recording for purposes of use in chambers and that is customarily done when we have these remote courtrooms or the overflow courtrooms,” and that that the recording “would be quite helpful to [him] in preparing the findings of fact.” Chief Judge Walker then repeated his position that he was making the recordings only for limited, private use: after noting that “the [unamended] local rule [prohibits] ‘[t]he taking of photographs, public broadcasting or televising, or recording for those purposes,’” Chief Judge Walker stated: “So the recording is not being made for those purposes, but simply for use in chambers.”

[...]

On June 29, 2010, after closing argument, Proponents asked Appellees to return all copies of the trial recordings in their possession to the district court. When they refused, Proponents asked Chief Judge Walker to “order … [Appellees] to return to the Court immediately all copies of the trial video in their possession.”

[...]

On August 4, 2010, Chief Judge Walker denied Proponents’ motion to order the return of all copies of the trial recordings. Instead, he “DIRECTED” the district court clerk “to file the trial recording under seal as part of the record,” and permitted Appellees to “retain their copies of the trial recording pursuant to the terms of the protective order.”

[...]

On February 18, 2011, Judge Walker, having stepped down as Chief at the end of December 2010, gave his speech at the University of Arizona.

[...]

The trial recordings were not the personal property of Judge Walker, for him to use as he pleased; he had access to them only by virtue of his role as the judicial officer presiding in this case. So, when he played a portion of the trial recordings during his February 18 speech (which was then disseminated nationally by C-SPAN), he violated all of these prohibitions.

[...]

For the foregoing reasons, the Court should order that former judge Walkercease further disclosures of the trial recordings in this case, or any portion thereof, and that all copies of the trial recordings in the possession, custody, or control of any party to this case or former judge Walker be returned promptly to the Court and held by the court clerk under seal.

Judge Walker Spoke Up Too Late

John C. Eastman, the Henry Salvatori Professor of Law & Community Service and former Dean at Chapman University School of Law, criticized Judge Walker for not recusing himself from presiding over the Prop 8 trial, now that Walker has finally announced that he is in a long-term relationship with another man.

Recusal is required by the code of judicial conduct if "the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned," such as when the judge knows that he "has a financial ... or any other interest that could be affected substantially by the outcome of the proceeding."

Not his sexual orientation, which alone would not require recusal, but the possibility that he could directly benefit from his ruling, raised the prospect that recusal may have been warranted. If the relationship was such that it gave Walker a financial or other interest in the outcome of the proceeding -- and the ability to marry would certainly qualify -- recusal would be mandatory and non-waivable.

This is very important. People who don’t read the piece carefully or don't care about being honest in their criticism of Eastman's point write as though Eastman says Walker should have recused himself because he is a homosexual. What Eastman actually wrote was that Walker should have recused himself because he could have financially benefitted from the decision.

What if a judge was also a paid minister at a church? That judge should not be allowed to preside over a case involving whether or not that church should lose its tax exempt status. Or, if a judge owned a gun store, the judge shouldn't be able to rule over a case about imposing fees on gun sales. Same-sex couples argue that state marriage licenses will financially benefit them, so how can any of the same deny Walker could have financially benefitted from his decision?

Walker's admission requires that his decision in the case be vacated. He is either a direct beneficiary of his ruling in the case, or a person with a close-enough personal interest in the case that his impartiality might reasonably have been questioned if the required disclosures had been made.

So how would that be done?

Gov. Jerry Brown and state Attorney General Kamala Harris (successors in the case to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Brown, respectively) should file the motion post haste.

Yeah, I'm sure they'll get right on it.

If they remain derelict in their duty to the more than 7 million people of California who voted to adopt Proposition 8, as Brown was last fall when he refused to file a notice of appeal, then the proponents of the initiative, who intervened in the trial court to defend the initiative, should file the motion themselves.

This is an interesting twist.

Bi, Bi, Miss American Pie

Another study sifts the data on how many homosexual, bisexual, and transgender people there are in the USA. Bisexuals appear to outnumber homosexual males and homosexual females, according to the article, but then that's bisexuals of both sexes, right? Ari Bloomekatz reports in the Los Angeles Times.

About 9 million people in the United States identify themselves as lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender, according to a UCLA study released Thursday.

The estimate, which translates to about 3.5% of adults as LGBT and 0.3% of adults as transgender, was created by the Williams Institute at UCLA's School of Law and argues that any estimate of the population is difficult because there are insufficient and inconsistent national surveys.

Yeah, I remember when it was being reported as 10% or more.

Some other things to note right away:

Things like the plea for marriage neutering depend on identity politics that portray homosexual people as distinct categories of people, like sex and race (although I think race differences are mostly irrelevant), and that engaging in sex-like behavior and romantic bonding with people of the same sex being an inherent expression of that distinct identity. In that sense, I fail to see why bisexuals and “transgender” are lumped in together with homosexual people. By definition, bisexuals are able to enjoy conjugal relationships with people of the opposite sex, and someone can want to crossdress or go for the full surgical/hormonal "reassignment" process and not be considered homosexual nor bisexual, correct? I suspect it is a numbers thing – that including the "BT" keeps the numbers higher.

Also, I have had homosexual people insist to me that there is no such thing as a bisexual person. Go figure and so much for tolerance.

Among other findings: Of the lesbian, gay and bisexual population, bisexuals were a slightly larger group, representing 1.8% of the adult population compared to 1.7% who were lesbian or gay.

So we can see why the people who make a living doing identity politics activism want the "B" included. So should bisexuals be counted as one group, and thus larger than the other two groups? Or should the bisexuals be broken down by that dreaded "gender binary" into male bisexuals and female bisexuals, playing into the hands of the dreaded heteronormative oppressors? Ah, decisions...

It also found an estimated 8.2% of Americans reported participating in same-sex sexual activity; and an estimated 11% held some same-sex sexual attraction, but neither group necessarily identified as lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender.

For the sake of their agenda, activists have counted as "LGBT" anyone who has looked at so much as one person of the same sex and has been able to see that the person could possibly be considered attractive on one of their good days.

I want to know that the male vs. female breakdown was those last two figures. That a couple of drunk teens girls swap spit to get more attention from the drunk teen males at the party would not logically indicate that they are homosexual.

Ultimately, it doesn’t matter if there are thirty million homosexual people in the country or just one homosexual person. Everyone should have the same rights and be treated the same way under the law based on what they do. Beating up a homosexual person should bring down the law on someone just the same as beating up a heterosexual. A relevant example would be that the bride+groom requirement in marriage licensing treats individuals the same regardless of their claimed sexual orientation. Although, the limit on one legal spouse at a time might be seen as depriving of rights to non-monogamous bisexuals.

In the Tank

Once again, we get a prominent news article about the hurt feelings of people in same-sex relationships because they aren’t happy with the law or the legal process, and because the law is set up for the over 90 percent of people who will enter into marriage (bride+groom) and thus is inconvenient for other associations. This one is from David Crary via the Associated Press.

Because of DOMA, some binational couples still worry about deportation of the non-citizen spouse. Survivor benefits aren't granted after one spouse dies. And couples filing joint tax returns in the states allowing same-sex marriage must still file separately this month with the IRS.

Federal law, especially immigration law, is supposed to benefit the nation. The reason certain legal assignments have been made to marriage is precisely because it unites both sexes and can naturally produce new citizens automatically placed under the responsibilities of the married. State licensing brideless or groomless couples as married does not change the motivation of the federal government, although you can argue the Constitutional requirements.

I highly doubt that any of the couples cited in the article were ignorant of DOMA when they applied for state marriage licenses.

When DOMA was passed overwhelmingly by Congress in 1996, and signed by President Bill Clinton, it was a pre-emptive strike. There were no legally married same-sex couples in the United States.

Like I said.

The article goes on to poll dance:

DOMA's foes are heartened by several recent opinion polls showing, for the first time, that more than half of Americans are ready to accept legal same-sex marriage.

Accepting civil unions is not the same thing as being in favor of neutering marriage.

It's a long article, but with no quote from someone against the neutering of marriage. It was interesting to read that the homofascists are demanding that law firms not take up the defense of DOMA... if they know what's good for 'em.

I wonder if the people quoted in this article would support immigration rights and marital status for a Muslim man along with all four of his legal wives? Will we see an AP story about such a thing? If Michigan were to legalize one man having four wives, and a man so married moved to Massachusetts with all four wives, would the marriage neutering people be demanding Massachusetts and the federal government recognize the marriages?

And again, I know it is a ridiculous comparison. Polygamy has a long history around the world as recognized marriage, after all.

Finally, an idea to be excited about...

Back in the early part of the 2000's decade, (the naughts, the naughties?) I did a brief stint as an automotive blogger. My inspiration for doing so was the excitement over the new "retro-futurism" that was then hitting the Detroit scene. Over the next few years, we would see retro-inspired models for the Mustang, Camaro, Charger, etc... My first post there was labeled "Finally a car to be excited about", specifically about the Mustang which was designed after the 1967 Mustang. It was a move I had advocated for many years.

Well, this week, another retro-futuristic idea has hit the field of domestic relationships. See, long before Civil Unions and Domestic Partnerships, Hawaii responded to the needs of non-marriageable couples with "reciprocal beneficiaries". In their incarnation they were pretty much Civil Unions or Domestic Partnerships. They were replaced with CU's later, if memory serves me correctly.

Coincidentally, before I met Chairm and the other Opine Editorialists, they were hanging out at a site called "Dust in the Light", run by the brilliant writer Justin Katz.

Now I can see this retro-futuristic alignment in legislation brought before the Rhode Island legislature, promoting -- you guessed it -- a Reciprocal Beneficiaries program. But this time its better and it seems just what I've been advocating for years. Go ahead now, read it. He's spot on, and there isn't anything I have to add.

Regis Nicoll on "Same-sex 'Marriage': Why Not?"

Regis Nicoll gives an overview of what the big deal is when it comes to neutering marriage. He writes about what SSM is not about:

Contrary to shopworn talking points, same-sex "marriage" is not about equal protections and benefits. In California, where Proposition 8 was vigorously opposed by the gay community, domestic partnerships already qualified for all the major benefits afforded marriage, including hospital visitation, right to make health care decisions for each other, insurance coverage, survivor pension benefits, and rights pertaining to property, inheritance, and parental privileges.

Same-sex "marriage" is also not about formal recognition and public celebration. If a homosexual couple wants their union solemnized in a public ceremony, there are any number of organizations across the country willing to oblige them.

So what is it about? Forcing public affirmation and support of private homosexual behavior.
Echoing a point I have made:

Additionally, if same-sex marriage becomes the law of the land, the demand for assisted reproductive technology (ART) will increase along with the exploitation of donors and the commodification of their reproductive "goods."

If SSM is declared a fundamental right by SCOTUS, I would not be surprised if a "right" to federal funding for third-party reproduction follows, to "enforce equality" with heterosexual couples who can reproduce without such aid.

My pet peeve, worst argument made by marriage defenders...

I don't mean to offend. This isn't the first time I've vocalized this complaint, but it might be the first time I've done it publicly. You see, my battle to defend marriage has caused some wounds caused by friendly fire sometimes.

My biggest problem are with arguments that hijack marriage into some war against homosexuality, with unseemly obeisance to the conservative v liberal political mosh pit of colloquial news. I, personally, have no such need to make such a war. I only want to defend families, the needs and responsibilities that children have claim on from their parents, and the needs and responsibilities that the wife and husband have on each other.

Woman Sentenced In Sham Marriage

Woman Sentenced In Sham Marriage

The Bangor Daily News reported that Patterson was the first of several Mainers expected to be sentenced for their roles in setting up sham marriages. According to court documents, she married a Kenyan man in 2003 and later recruited others to participate in the scheme.

No thoughts on this yet, just wanted to post it before I forgot all about it.

Marriage and Procreation: Avoiding Bad Arguments

Well, I wouldn't call them bad arguments. In reading this article, I believe the arguments suffer from being the type of slippery slope that one may go down in a moment of need but wind up in a more precarious place. The battle to protect marriage, it seems, is fraught with slippery slopes. But from what I can survey the slopes are political in nature, not necessarily intrinsic to marriage itself and perhaps the best way to avoid them is to understand how government is a dangerous set of slippery slopes. In the end I believe we can see that the slippery slopes of marriage and government are not at all coincidental.

The article articulates what is the most often used of the unwieldy arguments used to defend marriage.

• It is sometimes argued that the state’s interest in marriage is simply to ensure that as many children as possible are raised in “an optimal setting,” and that this interest justifies “restricting” marriage to opposite-sex couples. 

LA Times: Many women have children by more than one man

LA TIMES "Many women have children by more than one man"

Dorius found that having children by more than one man is a phenomenon that impacts all racial, income and educational sub-groups. It is tied to marriage and divorce as well as single parenthood.

The impact of multiple partner fertility is important, she said.

"Raising children who have different fathers is a major factor in the intergenerational transmission of disadvantage," Dorius said in a news release. "Juggling all of the different needs and demands of fathers in at least two households, four or more pairs of grandparents, and two or more children, creates a huge set of chronic stressors that families have to deal with for decades."

It should be noted the study had over 4700 participates over the course of 27 years, very intensive.

Netherlands: Ten Years of Officially Neutering Marriage

Today, we're going Dutch. Nicolas Delaunay has the AFP story.

"I declare you, in my position as mayor of Amsterdam, joined by the rights of marriage," Eberhart van der Laan told Jan van Breda and his partner Thijs Timmermans at the Museum of History in the heart of Amsterdam.

I guess "husband and wife" wouldn't work.

"It is a symbolic, special day," added Timmermans. "The Netherlands is the first country where gay couples can marry. I'm proud of that, it should be normal.

It could be worldwide. It would still not be normal.

"It is a pity that all those people in all those other countries still have to live undercover."

Hold the horses. There's a difference between not having a state-recognized marriage and having to live undercover.

"It is not about being homosexual, it is about loving one another."

So all of the other same-sex couples who haven't been deemed married by the state don't love each other?

Faasen and Thus, both in traditional, flowing wedding gowns, exchanged the first vows alongside three all-male pairs in Amsterdam on April 1 [2001] that year before then-mayor Job Cohen.

April 1 was an appropriate date. Interesting that they would wear "traditional" gowns while opposing the core tradition.

Nine other countries, Belgium, Spain, Canada, South Africa, Norway, Sweden, Portugal, Iceland and Argentina have also since [neutered] marriage.

Hey, than's half of the countries in the world, right? All the other countries must be full of hate-filled bigots, right?

"Compared with other countries, the Netherlands is a paradise, even if gay people still not benefit from all the same rights as heterosexuals," COC president Vera Bergkamp said.

"Some officials still refuse to marry homosexual couples. Having the right to get married does not necessarily mean that it is accepted by society. On this level, there is still work to be done."

See? It isn't even enough to neuter marriage in the law, or be able to live as you please. Everyone else must personally applaud. Emotionally and mentally healthy adults do not care so much what other people think about their relationship or their sexual practices.

I think we've finally reached a compromise...

As many of you know, I've not been as involved in Opine as I was about three years ago. I can let you in on why and how that happened. I was actually invited to be part of a blue-sky open-box team to work on resolving the marriage debate once and for all. I think we've done it, we were given free license to re-think the whole system -- nothing was out of reach. Well, we found the enemy, and the enemy may have been the legal system itself.

As you all know, the forces working to neuter marriage are legion. A hydra-headed beast united only in a common problem they've always had with marriage, that it requires one man and one woman. So while I can't speak for everyone on both sides, I can let out of the bag a compromise that has been accepted by some key players on both sides of the debate.