Gallup Poll on Moral Questions

This Gallup poll is an interesting one, at least to me. Let me list some of the findings of the poll. The first number is the percentage who find the thing “morally acceptable” and the second number is the percentage who find it “morally wrong”.

Abortion: 39 to 48
Having a baby outside of marriage: 54 to 41
Gay or Lesbian relations: 56 to 39
Sex between an unmarried man and woman: 60 to 36
Divorce: 69 to 23
Married men and women having an affair: 7 to 91

So, for at least 6% of the American population, heterosexual fornication is okay, but having a baby outside of marriage isn't. I doubt many of those people fall into the 39% that think abortion is okay (though they may do it). I'll go out on a limb and say that most of those people also don't think the answer is to give their child up for adoption. More likely, they think that the right thing to do when you find out your actions have caused a pregnancy is to go ahead and marry each other.

But why?

If marriage is not about children, why get married under such circumstances? As the "marriage is not about children" mantra is explicitly repeated in the push to neuter marriage or justify divorce (for reasons other than abandonment, abuse, addiction, and unrepentant adultery), and implied by equivocating marriage with nonmarriage and widespread support of divorce when minor children are involved, we can expect fewer people to bother to get married when they find out a child is on the way.

I have more thoughts on this poll over at my namesake blog.

"‘Cohabitation Agreement’ – The Prenup For Unmarried Couples"

People who go out of their way not to be married. Much easier just going to the justice of the peace, but nah.... that's too much of a commitment.

From WBZ Boston

This is a legally binding document for couples who share a home, but not a name. A cohabitation agreement outlines expectations no matter how a relationship ends. It can cover issues like health insurance, repayments of debt, and what to do with all kinds of property.

Marriage, Be the Best You Can Be: Focus on your responsibility, and your entitlement will follow

The army had a slogan once, "be the best you can be". An educator I admire used to say it in a different way, "be yourself, but be your best self".

In the Army your best self is needed and deserved by your fellow soldiers, and the country you are fighting for. The conflict gives many opportunities for sacrifice and heroism, and those that took those opportunities risked their future liberty to protect the liberty of others. May we all remember the lives of those who gave their best selves for us. I'm glad to be able to devote some of this post to that remembrance.

A friend of mine also calls today "Mom"orial day, not because he wants to sidetrack the meaning of the soldiers lives, or upstage them in the limelight of the day. It is a personal reason, because it was on Memorial day that his mother died. Others might call it the same thing if their mothers died in military service. But uniquely for him, unlike the soldiers who sacrificed whatever the future opportunities life brings, it isn't in death that she gave, it is in her life -- what she chose to do with her life. Is his personal limelight shared by soldiers and mothers something other than a common deep respect for both? If you ask me, I think both would be honored by being included with the other in his remembrance.



But if I may be allowed, I believe a great point can be made at how his limelight is shared can show some common respect for sacrifice and being the best you can be. After all, marriage isn't about getting the best you can get from the government, it is about being prepared to give and be the best you can be for your fellow human beings -- and from there the support of that sacrifice is all the more just.

"Ideal Marriage"

Ideal marriage Jaymie Stuart Wolfe

Jaymie's own parents divorced in 1969, when she was in elementary school. Her article is directed to the under 30 group, because well they have no idea what marriage was suppose to be.

Like so many other "babies" thrown out with the bathwater, the value of marriage has been largely lost to our society. This happened as people who fell short of the ideal were encouraged to trash the ideal they fell short of. In other words, somewhere along the line we decided that if you can't live up to a standard, then don't bother with standards at all. The radical philosopher Nietzsche called this the "smashing of the tablets" and "the devaluation of values." He saw it as a necessary step for man to overcome himself. What he did not see, at least not at first, was that the abandonment of virtue would lead to nihilism. Life without values is meaningless.

Barack Obama and Hospital Visitation Rights

We all would appreciate a hospital deferring to a loved and trusted person, allowing them to visit in time of suffering and to even make decisions on our behalf.


Barack Obama looks like someone who sees the issue of hospital visitation rights as part of a greater problem of designating who you trust no matter who that person might be in legal relationship to you.

Whlle touted as a move specifically to bestow visitation rights to same-sex couples, the actual memo lists many types of arrangements...

"Same-Sex Marriage" - Reviewing the Basics

These questions and statements are addressed below.

Isn't same-sex marriage inevitable? Don't most Americans now support same-sex marriage? Isn't this just like bans on interracial marriage? Isn't this a civil rights issue? Isn't this harmful discrimination against a class of people? Isn’t marriage a fundamental right? We can't have "separate but equal." Don't gays need same-sex marriage for hospital visits, insurance, tax, inheritance, and Social Security? Why not just let them have it? Why does it matter? Aren’t there more important things to deal with? Aren’t you just trying to impose your religion or morality on others? There are no non-religious arguments against same-sex marriage, and given separation of church and state, aren't religious arguments disqualified? Isn’t this really all about hating gays? My sister and her partner have been together for years and they love each other and have children; shouldn't they be able to marry? You can't prove any harm has been done as a result of same-sex marriage. How does this hurt anyone else's marriage? Churches won't have to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies. If marriage is about children, we do we let infertile people or people too old to have children marry? How can anyone talk about protecting the sanctity of marriage when there is a 50% divorce rate, so much adultery, and joke weddings like Britney Spears had in Las Vegas? States that are against same-sex marriage have a higher divorce rate. Why not get government out of marriage entirely? Why should I care about defending marriage?

You really never can break up when you have a child together.

I was talking to another mother, I knew her and the father of her child were no longer together. I asked her if she didn't mind letting me know the details because our children play together, she obliged.

They had a pretty interesting arrangement when the broke off their cohabitation. Beyond the scheduling of days and sharing time together for special events like a dance recital, they had another rule.

Since their break up was independent and no one left the other one for someone else, they had ground rules for dating other people. While free to date whoever they wished, if they wanted to introduce their daughter to their new boy/girlfriend, the parent had to first introduce their partner to the other parent first. It ends up being, 'You can only date someone my ex approves of.'

The parents are two responsible and lovely people, only makes it more frustrating they didn't end up together. I'm not advocating, it's OK to break up if one does it responsibly, rather it's good to think that parents are really setting their priorities.

"Aggressive Male Mating Behavior Can Endanger Species"

"Aggressive Male Mating Behavior Can Endanger Species" via Science Daily

I know we had several posts in the past, regarding how marriage makes men less aggressive.

Evolutionary biologists have long debated whether the behavior of the individual is able to influence processes on a population or species level. The possibility of selection at species level is still controversial. Using a mathematical model, an international team of researchers led by Daniel Rankin, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Zurich, has now demonstrated that aggressive male sexual behavior not only harms the female, but can also cause entire populations to die out.

It's a good read, and relates to our own behaviors in how we change the environment. The quality of marital men have decreased, either women deal with it or don't have any children at all, which seems to the case within our own species.

Equality under the law in B.C. Canada

The other kind of equality!

B.C. judge rules in favour of offspring of anonymous sperm donors

via Family Scholars

A huge step forward in understanding why we understand marriage to be something different, then just about two people. The comments in the article are again quite interesting.

Why Divorce Devastates Children

Why Divorce Devastates Children by Marlena Graves

The comments

Oh, and people shouldn't kid themselves about the "good" divorce. Amicable divorces only train your kids to have NO CLUE how to make marriage work. At least in divorces where someone obviously screwed up big time, or has profound problems, a child can see the mistakes--indeed, has probably witnessed them firsthand--and emerges with some sense about what went wrong and what they will NOT do in their own future. But good divorces that are amicable and come out of the blue just slaughter kids, especially as they mature into young adults. They have no clue how to avoid the invisible problems that sunk their parents' marriage. As a result, they're very skeptical of marriage.

Equal Commitment Matters

I've often said, if someone really knew what marriage was they'd crawl on their hands and knees across the Mojave Desert (if they felt that would help) to find someone of the other gender who felt the same way and marry them.

Well, this just in...

ScienceDaily (2011-05-18) -- It stands to reason that a well-loved child can become a loving adult. But what prepares us to make a strong commitment and work out differences with an intimate partner? And what happens when one person is more committed than the other?

For those who have children or siblings.

Genomic Archeology Reveals Early Evolution of Sex Chromosomes

...chromosomes recombine during mating, which shuffles the genes like a deck of cards.

How many differing combinations our parents make, and we make ourselves with a spouse.

Bigotry and Marriage

Barry Deutsch, aka Ampersand, makes a very frank admission in a comment (on this post, ironically enough about the bigotry demonstrated by supporters of neutering marriage):

I believe that discussion of the role of bigotry, including subtle bigotry, has an important place in the national conversation about lgbt rights...

It's easy to assume Barry is just looking for a more clever way to play the bigot card to silence the debate. After all, that's what the usual attempt is. But let's give Barry the benefit of the doubt and assume he meant exactly what he said, that the role of bigotry is important in this discussion. I'll leave the comment trail open for him to explain himself, but if he really meant what he said, here's why it is so meaningful...
[more within]

"Catholics are Pro-Marriage; Not Anti Anybody"

Catholics are Pro-Marriage; Not Anti Anybody by Archbishop Dolan

Too afraid to post this on Facebook, because I would probably loose half my friends, for they wouldn't realize people were protesting that the Church is too gay friendly. Because everyday they post some reference I'm a hateful bigot and stupid. Too bad they wouldn't understand, what I know biologically just happens line up with my religious beliefs.

It doesn't have to be like that: Andy Bell, A voice from the past

This past week two prominent people in sports are looking for new employment after voicing support for marriage as an institution of responsible procreation to take care of spouses and children, one man and one woman at a time.

This goes above and beyond democratic discourse. People will disagree on many topics in our political society, we have republicans and democrats in almost every workplace for instance, and we expect that with tolerance we can work together for a common goal in spite of our dissagreements on personal, political, and moral issues. But when you try to silence people by going after their jobs it turns into harassment.

But probably the best response that comes to mind comes from the great "coming out" party of the 80's, lead by none other than Andy Bell of Erasure -- It doesn't have to be like that.

OnLawn Quadrangle

So, noting a number of conversations around the internet where people are honestly discussing marriage and policy around it, I can't help but continuously ask... when we are talking about same-sex marriage, are we talking about:

1. Government Recognition of a homosexual relationship, wedding and living together
2. Making it so that anything unique about the man/woman relationship with each other and the child they potentially have together is not recognized by the government in marriage by neutering “man and woman” from the definition of marriage.

The reason I’d like people to make a better distinction is that I support #1 as a part of recognizing a much larger group of responsible adult mutual support relationships. But there are reasons I don't support #2.

I have a list of tenets of neutering marriage that I just can't accept, and I think accepting them brings about the kind of thinking that promotes bad decisions on the part of the government and people being married. Another tenet of neutering marriage that keeps me from supporting it, as recognized by our own Marty...

Expectant fathers should receive prenatal care, support, study finds

 ScienceDaily (2011-05-12) -- Researchers have found that stress related to pregnancy uniquely affects the health of expectant fathers, which in turn, influences the health of expectant mothers and their infants. Health services should incorporate counseling and assessments for men and women to reduce stressors and promote positive pregnancy outcomes, experts say.

Presbyterian Church USA Abandons Biblical Morality on Sex

Is the salt losing its saltiness? The Presbyterian Church USA (not to be confused with the more conservative Presbyterian Church in America) will now allow local divisions to ordain and install leaders who are openly and unrepentantly engaging in sex and sex-like behavior outside of holy matrimony or civil marriage.

Of course, the mainstream news media take is that the PCUSA is now allowing homosexual people to serve - nothing is being said about straight people who openly fornicate, even though the policy change covers them, too. The truth is, homosexual people have been able to lead in the PCUSA, just not while openly and unrepentantly engaging in homosexual behavior.

Read my analysis over at my namesake blog, which recently changed locations.

Hold Andrew Cuomo Accountable

Dan Wiessner has a Reuters article on the effort to neuter marriage licensing in New York, focusing mostly on the tactics of New York Governor Andrew Cuomo and his cooperation with marriage neutering advocates. I've had to clean up the sloppy language in some of the quotes to make sense of the article.

Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont and the District of Colombia [license brideless or groomless unions as] marriage, and 10 states [register] civil unions.

Let's restate that this way: 45 out of 50 states only license marriage as marriage. In only five states, marriage licensing has been neutered so that certain non-marriages can be licensed as marriage, while some kinds of marriages, such as polygamous marriages, which continue to be recognized in various places in the world as they have throughout all of history, are not licensed.

Cuomo has stopped short of making himself the public face of the campaign, instead leaving on-the-ground organizing to groups that have lobbied for marriage equality for years.

"Marriage equality"? Not that Reuters is biased, or anything.

A recent Siena poll found 58 percent of New Yorkers support same-sex marriage.

While this wouldn't surprise me, I'd like to know the particulars of that poll. (I highly doubt it looked anything like this poll.) Surely, if this was true, the marriage neutering side wouldn’t need so much strategizing to reach their goal, right?

New Yorkers, stand up and be counted! Call on your elected representatives to reserve state marriage licenses for marriage.

In Minnesota

In MN, A Legislator Insults and Threatens a Parish Priest over Marriage Vote

Actually, “Tyler” has his laws wrong. Tax exempt (501c3) organizations can spend up to 10% of their annual budget on “lobbying” and the Church never needs permission to speak up on moral issues (such as marriage and family). But it gets worse: Rev. Echert writes in his parish bulletin that “Representative Kriesel stands by this response and stated that he does not care if this exchange is made public in his parish” (emphasis mine).

Sigh... The staffer doesn't even bother to state why the Representative is choosing to decline a vote on marriage. I get letters from elected officials that disagree and why, they don't make it personal ever.

Zsa Zsa Gabor to become new mother at 94, husband says

Zsa Zsa Gabor to become new mother at 94, husband says By Alan Duke, CNN

If this surrogacy goes through, someone's medical license needs to be revoked.

"Welcome Everyone" (Except Dad)

Inclusive Message for Mother's Day via Advocate

The campaign by Believe Out Loud includes a video released this week showing a young boy and his two mothers walking down the aisle of a church. Some of the people in the pews look at them skeptically, but finally the minister says, “Welcome — everyone.”

“To celebrate the diversity of all families, we chose Mother’s Day to kick off this campaign,” Sung Park, program director of Believe Out Loud, said in a press release. “Mothers teach us to value everyone equally, to treat others the way we would like to be treated. Jesus also taught us that. What better day than Mother’s Day to remind people of this universal value.”

Will they use the same clip on Father's Day? Are they arguing that children without a mother can't learn about equality? I accept the equality part, just not as twisted. All children should be treated equally in respect to having a relationship with their parents which means accepting they have not only a mom, but a dad.

Marriage, the transforming and civilizing institution

Marriage itself doesn’t transform anyone. But being responsible does.

I see that the responsibility a same-sex couple feels can transform “whether hetero or homo sexual couples”. But I see marriage as more than loving who you wish, but encouraging that humility, responsibility, and growth to the effect of channeling my support to those that most deserve it. If I don’t, the marriage doesn’t last.

See, I am married. I’m in a marriage that has been tested by near bankruptcy, mental illness (hence the medical bills that nearly bankrupted us), etc… And the particular mental illness is more of an indication that a marriage will not last than alchoholism or even schizophrenic paranoia.

Minnesota and Marriage

Marriage neutering advocates have a lot of time to send around videos, it seems. In apparemt lockstep, they champion the same snippets, usually featuring appeals to emotion instead of discussing what is good public policy and why. Liz Goodwin wrote about the popularity of a video out of Minnesota, where some people are looking to enshrine explicitly in the state constitution what is already law and, of course, socially natural, and what was the opinion of those who adopted the Constitution, and every great moral or civil rights leader in history, and every President up through this writing.

Though Minnesota politicians voted to put a gay marriage ban on the ballot in 2012 yesterday, the eloquent words of one of the measure's detractors have caught the nation's attention.

Or, at least this reporter's assignment editor's attention. I highly doubt the legislation is actually a "gay marriage ban" (haven't read it myself), but it is interesting to note the folks who don't want the people, on whose behalf state marriage licenses are issued, to have a say.

Rep. Steve Simon, DFL-St. Louis Park, gave an impassioned speech asking lawmakers on the House committee not to place a gay marriage ban in the state's Constitution.

It doesn't really matter how much emotion he used. The emotion is not noted in the law books. His job is to legislate, not get emotional.

"I'm Jewish. Eating pork or shellfish is not allowed in my tradition, but I would never ask the government to impose that on our fellow citizens," Simon said.

This is a bad analogy. It is marriage neutering advocates who are trying to impose something on others. It would be a better analogy to say that people who love eating shrimp wrapped in pork bacon want to force a change in the law so that the state will certify that combination as "kosher". You can change the law to say that shrimp wrapped in bacon is kosher, but it doesn't mean it is really kosher, and the meaning of "kosher" would be diluted.

Divorce Can Cost You Over And Over

Divorce Can Cost You Over And Over via CNBC

Because when gas is at 4 dollars a gallon, nickeling and diming on who picks up the kids with your ex-spouse really doesn't sound so liberating anymore. Unless it's domestic abuse or spousal abandonment, there are few good reasons to divorce. So stop being a selfish jerk and work on your marriage. Apparently you lose a lot of green when you move to the other side.

Comment from the legal issues from King & Spaulding

Saw this comment from the Washington Examiner from 3rdjersyman

Natural Law undergirds all consideration of constitutional law. Otherwise you merely have opinion or recourse to superstition.

It is patently obvious that heterosexual marriage has been the historical norm for all of human history, and that homosexual marriage is a revolutionary innovation which seeks to overturn the common understanding of the word "marriage" through a judicial fiat, as it has proven unobtainable through democratic means.

No one doubts that there are 1.5 to 3% of the population that engage in homosexual activities. There is also no doubt that there is some percentage of that fraction of the population who desire recognition for bonded relationships, and that there is of that percentage some who seek the sanction they percieve the word marriage imparts.

However, their desire to derange the common understanding ( again historically universal )of marriage as being a union of opposite sexes in support of the biological prime directive, does not force the conclusion that that desire must be fulfilled in the fashion demanded.

It is an injustice to insist that anyone must grow old alone, and there is a great broad middle that is willing to live and let live. Civil Unions or as I imagine "himage" and "herage" obviously serve a social need, but there isn't a shred of support for the notion that anyone who ever put their hand to the US Constitution could or would ever have seen within the cordon of this sacred charter a sanction for the purported right of homosexual "marriage".

“The secular case against same-sex marriage”

Via Family Scholars

“The secular case against same-sex marriage” by Ian Robinson

I'm afraid I'll ruin it, if I try to quote it. It's really that good. I love how he spoke so fondly of his gay uncle and about unjust discrimination, but also recognized that marriage exists as one man and one woman for a reason and it's not about hate.

Defining incest in Massachusetts.

Apparently according to Massachusetts law in a court ruling from 2000, incest is only define as intercourse between a male and female relative and not other sexual acts or sexual acts between relatives of the same sex. I typing off a phone, so I will link later. Laws were eventually updated. Link to the story: SJC Nominee's Incest Stance Questioned

Where are the children?

Report: Many Mass.schools too big By Associated Press

BOSTON — A new state report has found that about one-quarter of the state’s public school buildings are larger than needed because of poor planning based in part of poor predictions of future enrollment.....The authority decided to examine capacity after visiting some new schools in the last few years and finding enrollment was hundreds of students below projections.

Ultimately can we call it a debate of individual freedoms over individual responsibility, rather then a debate over sexual orientation? When I speak with my neighbors who disagree with me, fundamentally in their progressive or libertarian view point it's about a freedom. But freedom of what or should I say from what?

It's not that I don't believe in individual freedom, but along the lines of our freedom lies some responsibility. We have responsibility and obligations in our behavior, and especially to any dependents that may become from our sexual behavior (children).

When we don't value marriage, as in terms of my previous post stating article K of the new Hungarian Constitution, what are the short term and long effects of it all?

Expensive empty schools.

I live in a gateway city, that gets a good number of immigrants every year. While I support inviting people to become new American citizens, it's OK to have some natural born Americans too.

Calculating Divorce & Bachelorette Parties

Latest from Massachusetts Continuing Legal Education

Calculating Divorce: It's Getting Personal!

----

Nothing wrong with a gathering, maybe a couple of drinks and a good cover band for whatever reason. But guess what... I'm not going anywhere that has a complimentary 86oz bucket of booze for the bridal party or serves Jello Injection Shots. I'll pass. Guess I'm a Debbie Downer.