Times Union, June 3, 2009
Sen. Ruben Diaz, Sr., the Senate’s most ardent opponent of gay marriage, has just released the following message to gay marriage bill lead sponsor Tom Duane:
“If Senator Tom Duane has the necessary Senate votes to pass the homosexual marriage bill in New York State, then he should release the names of those Senators who are supporting the bill. If not, he should shut up. If any member of the State Senate is so ashamed to have their names released or to release their own names for this or for any pending legislation, then they clearly feel ashamed of their position.
If any Senators are unwilling to release their names prior to voting for the homosexual marriage bill, they are sending a clear message to the gay community and to the whole State of New York that these Senators are unwilling to let the public know and that they are ashamed to be publicly associated with the gay community.
Any Senator who commits himself or herself to something, should be man or woman enough to take a stand and stand by his or her convictions. If they give their word to support something that they are ashamed of, then that is a hypocrisy, and could be interpreted as not wanting to be associated with the matter.
It is a disgrace that Senator Duane is playing this mind game with his colleagues and with the public. If Senator Duane has the votes, he should release the names. If not, then he should be ashamed of himself. ”
Duane has said he has the votes to pass the bill right now; but that message has not yet been conveyed to Senate Majority Leader Malcolm Smith, who said he’ll put the bill to a vote when he thinks it will pass.
A NY1 survey found that 28 senators have said they will vote against a bill which would allow gay couples to receive marriage licenses. 20 said they would vote yes, 9 are undecided, and 5 could not reveal their position.
69 Comments
I saw that crowing bit Tom did yesterday. I agree, if you're going to make your move, don't talk....move!
I suspect however that it's just more effort spent trying to make people think gay marriage is inevitable. Far from it.
Wasn't their quite a bit of backlash when the names of people who donated to Prop 8 were made public? Did they feel ashamed about their stance on discrimination?
Why should Duane publish a list of Senators? Why not just put it to a vote and see how they vote? Seems to me that Diaz is looking for an opportunity to have his supporters harass any Senator, who disagrees with him.
Well, there is an interesting way to look at this. First, it could be seen as a blatant attempt to incite intimidation on the voters. We do have laws against people being "outed" for voting a certain way. However, I think that in this case, it could be different just because they are our "elected officials." I know every time an issue comes up, I write my representative and my senators to let them know EXACTLY how I feel (even though it seems Mr. Billbray never listens to me, because I don't donate thousands of dollars to him).
Doesn't matter if there's a list or not, if you feel a certain way, Call your representative.
The reason that the donors did not want their names released was due to the backlash by the homosexual community that was targeting them. From public ridicule to places of business being vandalized, this was the predominate reason the donors didn't want their names released and not due to their "stance on discrimination,' as suggested.
"My name is David. I work out, frequently and I’m really strong. I live in Roeland Park, KS. Where do you live? Scared yet? How would you feel if I put you through the pain Matthew Shepherd experienced? "
Yeah, did you see the comments flying on the RI thread? This guy is crazy!
http://nomblog.com/?p=130&cpage=1
You're kidding?!? Someone said that??
Interesting that we were talking about the gay community backlash in one thread while threats were being posted in the other thread.
I worked hard for proposition 8 and I'm not afraid to say it. I'd do it again in a heartbeat. We worked sometimes 12 or 14 hour days defending our beliefs.
If your beliefs are not worth standing up for, they're not worth believing.
beetlebabee: If your beliefs are not worth standing up for, they’re not worth believing.
{hugs}
Truer words were never spoken
One needs to live their truth.
...why doesn't anyone see how ridiculous this article is? No matter which way you feel about this issue you are blind if you do not see that this is, once again, strictly political horse malarchy coming from BOTH sides. The whole "Oh my god, yes, I have more senators voting WITH ME than you" and then "PROVE IT...yeah! SHOW ME"...? Are you people reading the article before you post comments on them?
1) It has NEVER been required NOR regulated that anyone "plays their hand" before a legislative vote. If Duane were to say "Look! I have a list of the yays!", what would be the point of voting? This is a ludicrous request that common sense can see through.
2) Absolutely right, Duane should shut his mouth. He has no business attempting to play a political word game before a vote. He should expect comments like those made by Diaz when he counts he says things in an effort to "count his chickens before they hatch".
3) Diaz needs to shut his yapper as well. Who is he to call out ANYONE on releasing lists? I'm sorry, does he have some magical authority in the political arena that I have been unaware of? I thought not.
People, I beg you to think before posting. If you reread the comments, its obvious that "Beetle" has half of the idea down and "John" has the other half. Put them together folks, its called political play and they're clearly playing you.
Reaching out,
Concerned
We need to stand for our beliefs in our courts and legal system and let the chips fall where they may.
Amen!
"Thirty states in the country have voted on the marriage issue, and all thirty have decided that marriage should be between a man and a woman," Brown said. "It is unfortunate that New Hampshire voters are being denied the right to decide this question themselves. We have no doubt that if voters could decide, they would vote to overturn gay marriage and restore the historic definition of marriage."
WOOT Go NOM!
The majority shouldn't be able to vote on the rights of the minority.
But Betty, we're back to the question of whether the majority can vote away the rights of a minority. If the country voted to take away the rights of women to vote and it passed with a majority vote, is that right?
yes, but is it about rights or is it about actions?
Brad: But Betty, we’re back to the question of whether the majority can vote away the rights of a minority.
In states like California, where the people can amend their Constitution by obtaining a simple majority vote on an initiative, apparently they can.
Thank goodness for the power of the people in California. I wish we only had that power here to correct the rampant corruption in our system.
As it is, it's going to take reconstructing the entire legislature to get the representation we thought we had but didn't.
Good luck with that, Daleman. And in 2010 the issue will be up for voting again (probably with the OPPOSITE outcome). I have to admit the voter policies in CA are a bit of a joke and I think people will be able to see the big glaring holes in it after this whole Prop 8 debacle.
Perry, speaking as a California voter, I'd have to disagree. We had all three branches of state government rebelling against the twice expressed voice of the people....and we still prevailed.
The strength of our constitution is heavily weighted toward the power of the people. Given current corruption, I'd rather cast my lot with the people than the government.
No one to respond to the idiocracy of this article? Interesting, nonetheless my points continue to be those I have listed as well as the failure of the general populace to recognize this article as political play from both sides.
Deeply concerned,
Concerned
If someone would be kind enough to respond to the idiocracy of this article, as stated in my previous post from "Concerned", we could get a meanful conversation going from both sides of the issue.
Sincerely,
Deeply Concerned
It is fair to call for the release of Duane's list. He boasted of it. So he invited Diaz's challenge.
If holding the vote is postponed until Duane thinks he can win, then, he is still lobbying for the needed votes.
The legislators who are going to switch from one side to the other, in either direction, ought to be under scrutiny by the public and by those elected to build coalitions on major issues. Nothing wrong with that.
And, given the underhanded way that the SSM campaign has operated wherever SSM has been imposed or enacted, the defenders of marriage are right to be aggressively diligent.
Duane boasted. Diaz challenged. No harm, no foul.
To Chairm,
But when has it ever been required for legislators to play their hand before a vote? This is not written anywhere in the law, unless you have some copy of the law that says otherwise that I have been acutely unaware of. If that is the case, I would be more than happy to change my mind and say that "Yes, Duane should be releasing lists." However, since I'm not familiar with any such law that exists, I'm not sure where you are getting your information that if someone "boasts" something than they are legally or morally obligated to release information preemptively. I would be glad to hear more about this from you though, and am also wondering if you think it is fair to say its a political ploy from both sides?
Wishing you the best,
Concerned
Our vote counting indicates that they don't have the votes. The undecided Senators would rather not take a position to receive fire from the radical gay groups but many are opposed to gay marriage. Interesting is how they had 21 solid yes votes and now its dropped one.
We support NOM's efforts and have also been engaged in the effort to defeat this radical change to public policy.
Nassau country Civil Association,
Interesting indeed how numbers seem to be changing this way and that way. Perhaps another spot of evidence into the political ploy going on between the two sides? Hm?
Also, let's not be naive and say "the undecided Senators would rather not take a position to receive fire from the 'radical' gay groups". I believe that sword cuts both ways, Sir or Madam. ^_^
I agree that they probably do not have the votes needed, but calling groups 'radicals', as the Liberals have often done to evangelicals, is never the mature or appropriate way to deal with the issue. =(
Wishing you insight into the issue,
Concerned
Concerned, the boast and the rejoinder are normal politics. Who said that a legal requirement was the decisive factor?
I mean, would you say the same thing about a political promise? Both the boast and the rejoinder are promises -- statements of intent -- of a sort.
No harm, no foul. Now they each need to act to fulfill their promises and make good on their political statements. Better that they do this above board, I think.
For once I agree with Chairm, frankly I am rather annoyed with both sides of this whole situation. It's like a childish stalemate with both sides refusing to budge.
personally, I'm happy to let it be a stalemate as long as possible. Stale away!
We have proven how effective we can be in state supreme courts. Once fair minded people are allowed to vote on this issue, children and marriage will be protected. All it takes is educated the horrific effects on children and traditional marriages with same sex marriage.
John, what is marriage to be protected from? What are the horrific effects toward children and marriage? I keep hearing it but never get an answer. If gays and lesbians are allowed to call their union a marriage, would that make your marriage less sgnificant to you and your spouse? In the eyes of God and your church? Would you love your wife any less? And she you? Would your friends see your relationship as less committed? Would you say, "Now that the gays can marry, my marriage is meaningless"? From your comments, I can tell you specifically exclude gay people from your friendships and so you would be completely unaffected by gay marriage.
Brad it is not all about you. It is not all abou John.
The issue is marriage, a social institution, and its societal significance.
Why, of all the types of relationshps and kinds of living arrangements, do you emphasize those of "gays and lesbians"?
The marital presumption of paternity makes marriage a public kind of relationship because it is a two-sexed sexual relationship, by type.
What, if anything, in the law would make the type of relationship you have in mind a sexual type of arrangement?
Chairm and On Lawn: Just out of curiosity, what is your opinion of the recent changes in Washington--what people are calling "everything but marriage" bill--- that basically gives civil unions between same sex couples all of the same legal rights as marriage (health care benefits, parental/adoption rights, inheritance, etc) while retaining the term "civil union" instead of "marriage"?
Good morning Chairm. I understand what you're saying. I was trying to make the point that, in reality, if we allow gays and lesbians to marry, it really won't affect our marriages at all. You're saying that, as a society, it does. But I'm not sure I see how it affects our society either. How will our society be negatively affected by letting same-sex couple call their union a marriage rather than a domestic partnership or cilvil union? Don't you see, same-sex couples just want our society to recognize their relationship as being as significant as a hetero couple. That's all. Please enlighten me
How is our society negatively affected. I really don't agree with your logic that a marriage has to be about the sexual part of it and just about pro-creation. Tens and tens of thousands of children have been adopted by same-sex couples and I for one am very glad. Those couples have made a good home for so many children that would otherwise be wards of the state, costing state and local governments millions of dollars. And think of how many have possibly been saved from being aborted by their mother because they have an additional option. Even if one child was saved, isn't it worth it? And think of how many would otherwise be raised by a mother who was addicted to crack or was otherwise unfit to parent while the father was no where to be found. I know there are conflicting opinions about same-sex couples as parents but the Iowa Supreme Court cited some pretty strong sources in determining that same-sex couples can make a good home for children. And I feel these children are better off in a stable family environment than they would in the temporary shelter of an orphanage or in foster homes. And wouldn't these children benefit if we allow their parents to be married? Wouldn't that type of stability be better for them than an arrangement where the parents can be separated in their relationship by simply sending a notarized document to the secretary of state that they pulled off the internet? I know, I know. It's different than we've always looked at things. But society's view of marriage has always been changing. King David, God's chosen one, had hundreds of wives. King Solomon, in all his wisdom, had thousands of wives and concubines. Marriage has been about treaties, property, money (dowries). It has been arranged and not about love. It has been as solely between the same races, never able to mix races. As our society changes and we come to accept gays and lesbians who are in loving, committed relationships, wouldn't it actually make our society stronger to support and strengthen these families with same-sex parents by giving them the same status in our society as hetero couples? Have a good weekend and be blessed.
After reading quite a few of the closed threads/Comments (and I apologize for posting on this thread, but the other threads seem closed), I am rather interested to see what some of the more outspoken blog commenters such as Chairm and On Lawn think about the following:
Just out of curiosity, what is your opinion of the recent changes in Washington--what people are calling "everything but marriage" bill--- that basically gives civil unions between same sex couples all of the same legal rights as marriage (health care benefits, parental/adoption rights, inheritance, etc) while retaining the term "civil union" instead of "marriage" but legally has no difference. Do you support this type of bill being passed nation-wide and letting the two legal distinctions ("civil union" and "marriage") coexist?
Brad, in your view, is marriage a social institution?
A heads-up -- it is recognized as such in the written opinions of appellate court judges (and it is undisputed by the SSM plaintiffs) in the marriage cases that have reached high courts in the various states.
It is fair to say that society is affected by a social institution that is vital to society, as per, for example, the Massachusetts Goodridge plurality opinion.
Now I am not relying solely on what judges and lawyers have said, but SSMers do rely heavily on the reasoning offered by pro-SSM court opinions, so I would think this is common ground.
Is marriage a social institution? If yes, in what sense do you think it is?
Brad said: "Tens and tens of thousands of children have been adopted by same-sex couples"
It is far less than that. What is your source, Brad?
While marriage, as a social institution, has changed, it has also remained unchanged in some essentials.
Why have you emphasized sexual orientation, Brad, when there is a much broader range of families outside of marriage? It seems you would replace the core meaning of marriage based on the limitations of a tiny subset of the nonmarriage category.
I would say that "everything but the name marriage" would still be a merger with marriage in the law. Such a merger would be wrong when called marriage and it would be wrong if called something else. Marriage has a special status for special reason. Civil Union would not.
Arguments in favor of Civil Union, as with those in fvor of SSM, emphasize protections for vulnerable families and mutual dependants. Such protections are available through the long-existing provision for designated beneficiaries. There is a wide range of nonmarital families and such provision extends protections on the basis of need arising from mutual dependancies and nonmarital circumstances.
No new relationship status, at law, is need based on gayness.
SSM argumentation does not provide a lawful distinction between arrangements that are defined by homosexuality and other nonmarital arrangements and relationships. Protections accorded only to gay or lesbian identity groups would not deliver equality but would manifest special treatment within the nonmarriage category. Designated beneficiaries is not restricted by sexual orientation nor by identity politics. It provides protecton equality.
In sum, there is no justification for merging nonmarriage with marriage, but there are protections available for people outside of marriage regardless of sexual orientation.
Chairm, you said, "There is a wide range of nonmarital families and such provision extends protections on the basis of need arising from mutual dependancies and nonmarital circumstances" and "Designated beneficiaries is not restricted by sexual orientation nor by identity politics. It provides protecton equality."
I consider myself rather on the fence in terms of gay marriage..but I do believe that people should have equal rights, legally, under the law (the word that is used is open to interpretation). But I beg to differ with your above quote...there are not provisions extended to protect those families because those families do not have many rights afforded to married couples such as health care benefits, hospital visitation, etc...rights that, in my opinion, have nothing to do with "marriage". Please do a little bit of research and understand that "designated beneficiaries" only go so far as to protect homosexual couples from many of lives hurdles.
And "In sum, there is no justification for merging nonmarriage with marriage, but there are protections available for people outside of marriage regardless of sexual orientation."
But, can you really honestly say that there are enough protections though? Things such as hospital visitation, organ donation, citizenship with foreign partners, etc are all things not available to homosexual couples. You can protect marriage and still be open to giving loving couples rights to protect their families, cant you?
Hi Chairm. Thanks for responding. First, CNN cites a 2007 report by UCLA School of Law that there were around 65,000 adopted children being raised by same-sex parents in the United States at that time. I would think there would be quite a few more now, except in Arkansas of course. If you think about it from a dollar stand point, assume those adoptions save state and local governments $1,000 per child each month. I'm just throwing a figure out, nothing to base it on. That would be roughly $780 Million per year. But more important than the money, consider what it means to those 65,000+ kids to have a home where they belong and are wanted. Yes, I guess I would consider marriage a social institution as the Mass. court did. (Why do I feel I'm being set up?
) Like the court said, marriage brings with it legal, financial and social benefits and responsibilities. According to the court, not allowing these same-sex parents to marry "works a deep and scarring hardship on these families for no rational reason." The court also said that, as a social institution, marriage brings stability to our society. Wouldn't our society be even better and stronger if these parents were afforded the opportunity to that institution? Bottom line, isn't it the real reason people don't want to include gay and lesbian couples in this institution of marriage is because they don't approve of homosexuality? It really has little to do with the fact that it may slightly alter the institution of marriage. Cheers.
Ross, if there are problems with access to healthcare for people outside of marriage, then, that can be addressed without touching marriage law. A merger of SSM with marrige would not be a very good vehicle for delivering imporvements to the vast range of people in families in need.
You emphasized sexual orientation as if the rest of these families are not due equal access to those protections. Why is that your priority, given your suggestion that you have researched more than I?
Nothing you listed merits special treatment based on sexual orientation.
If you are speaking of love as a legal requirement, then, you need to do more research. If you are using love as eupehmism for same-sex sexual behavior, then, you need to explain if you propose a legal requirement for that and if you assert that such behavior merits special treatment and, if so, what is that special merit.
CNN reported on speculation. According the Census and related data, about 5% of the very small population of children residing in same-sex households have been adopted by strangers. That falls short of "Tens and tens of thousands". The stat cited by CCN includes a lot of padding, perhaps reflecting second-parent adoptions.
* * *
I asked in what sense marriage is a vital social institution and you pointed not to marriage but to the special status that is accorded the social institution.
What special reason justifies the special status?
The Goodridge plurality opinion's rhetoric does not address this substantively.
The majority on that court, by the way, did not vote in favor of the proposition that the man-woman basis of marriage discriminated unjustly based on sexual orientation.
So the real issue is, what is marriage? Not what is the special demand of gay identity politics.
Chairm: the full report can be found here. http://www.law.ucla.edu/williamsinstitute/publications/FinalAdoptionReport.pdf
65,000 is what the estimate is...even with "padding" as you call it, there are easily "“Tens and tens of thousands” (as I doubt they could have overestimated 2x or 3x the actual number)..........is it too hard to get you to acknowledge that you mispoke?
Chairm---"So the real issue is, what is marriage? Not what is the special demand of gay identity politics."
You might want to be careful there, Chairm. With that mentality one could argue that marriage is just a special demand of heterosexual identity politics
I think society values families more than it values marriage and on that basis is likely eventually to want all families with an adult couple and children to get married. The importance of families, and their right to be secure, will trump any future substantial concern about the gender make-up of the couple heading the family.
Perry, marriage is not defined by identity politics.
But SSM, being some less than marriage, is a special demand of gay identity politics.
No supporter of SSM has clearly stated the meaning of marriage such that marriage is distinguished from the nonmarital types of relationships and kinds of living arrangements.
That is because they are stuck with the limitations of SSM which is defined not by what SSM actually is but by the SSM campaign's insistence on what marriage is not.
Can you distinguish marriage from nonmarriage, Perry, without relying on gay identity politics? Please do so, if you can.
Just trying to analyze all sides of the spectrum here but one could actually say that Marriage IS actually defined by heterosexual identity politics. It is a social institution/idea created by heterosexuals as a way of publicly and legally expressing their love and commitment, isnt it? It's not something tangible..I can't sit here and say, I see marriage..I can touch marriage..etc.
It's not a 'necessity', per say, in life; if marriage didn't exist the world wouldn't stop spinning. People would still be in relationships and struggling to put some type of public stamp or recognition on it (because, sadly love and commitment are not enough it seems) to validate their own identity and their identity in regards to a person that they love.
Thanks for the backup Perry. In addition to simply adoptions, The US Dept of Health and Human Services estimates there are between 8 and 10 million children living in homes of gay and lesbian couples--give or take a few million for padding. So, wouldn't allowing same-sex couples the opportunity to marry actually strengthen our society by giving the stability provided by marriage to these millions of families?
Ross said:
"as a way of publicly and legally expressing their love and commitment, isnt it?"
Nope.
The universal features are quite different than what you suggested. You are still viewing marriage through the prism of SSM.
And the SSM campaign certainly does assert the supremacy of gay identity politics over marriage law itself.
In marriage law there is no love requirement. And no romance requirement. SSM argumentation has derided the notion that tradition alone justifies marriage law. But as per your own remark, SSM depends, utterly, on the relatively recent tradition of romantic love. Meanwhile SSM argumentation has insisted on legal requirements to define marriage.
It is nonsensical to say that marriage is commitment to marriage -- without starting with the core meaning of marriage.
You still need to distinguish marriage from the rest of the types of relationships and the rest of the kinds of living arrangements that are not marriage.
* * *
Brad your latest guesstimate is even less credible than the speculation you offered earlier.
Now you've asserted that there are as many children living in homes of "gay and lesbian couples" as there are homosexual adults.
In effect your assertion amounts to the astonishing claim that all homosexual adults are living in same-sex households and that on average each such household has at least two children resident.
You named a department of the US government. Please provide a link or reference. But before you do that, please doublecheck your representation of what you think you read for accuracy.
Chairm: Meanwhile SSM argumentation has insisted on legal requirements to define marriage.
Doesn't SSM make marriage LESS defined? The SSM argument is to remove the opposite-sex legal requirement, so "marriage" is no longer about the union of a male and female. Not add requirements? If anything, I think SSM undefines marriage rather than redefines it.
I don't think SSM changes the definition of OSM, other than the change gender as a requirement of marriage. Offering marriage rights to same-sex couples amounts to no more than offering voting rights to women. The institutions and their value to society didn't change, just who was allowed to participate.
Yes, Marie, in other words SSM means less than marriage.
But SSM argumentation insists that marriage is defined by a lack of legal requirements.
The truth is that SSM negates the definitive legal requirements of marriage because SSM itself lacks any coherent legal requirements.
For example, ask Jeffrey for the definitive legal requirements of marriage. Or ask any other SSMer to list the legal requirements that define marriage in our legal system.
On the other hand, SSMers are very quick to deride the centrality of responsible procreation and of sex integration -- indeed to deride marriage as a social institution rather than some bundle of government perks.
That's my meaning. SSM means less so SSMers insist that marriage MUST mean less, too. That's meaningn of the merger.
My legal definition of who gets to marry is whatever it is now, less the gender distinction. The rights and obligations of marriage remain the same, since they are already gender-neutral.
Chairm, here's the link to the information I gave earlier from the Dept of Health and Human Services that estimates there are 8 to 10 million children living in gay and lesbian homes.
http://adoption.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ&sdn=adoption&cdn=parenting&tm=29&gps=288_97_1260_839&f=00&tt=12&bt=1&bts=1&zu=http%3A//www.enotalone.com/article/9874.html
This same source estimates there are roughly 25 million homosexuals in the US, about 10 percent of the population. Keep in mind, there may be more than one child in the gay or lesbian home.
Again, my question, wouldn't allowing same sex couples to marry offer more stability to these millions of families and, therefore, actually strengthen our society?
Brad, the HRC's own Census analysis used 5%. That 10% guesstimate has been long debunked.
The answer to your question is nope.
Jeffrey, you argue for changing the meaning of marriage.
Just the meaning of SSM does not merit the same status as marriage (which is not sex-neutral).
Your idea of SSM might merit the same protections accorded to other nonmarital arrangements.
Brad, the Dept of Health and Human Services is NOT the source for your cited statistic. Read it again with care and I think you'll see what I mean.
That article to which you linked is not a primary source and its so-called estimates are WAGs (i.e. wild-arse-guesses) that are ernomous exagerations without any backup.
Chairm,
I'm not for changing the meaning of marriage, just who gets to participate. I suspect same-sex couples aren't trying to change the meaning of marriage, either; they just want the same rights and obligations and social recognition. There are rights in a marriage that are unavailable elsewhere, such as unfettered hospital visitation and freedom of testifying against a spouse, for starters.
Jeffrey you misrepresent your own argumentation.
SSM means less than marriage. You want marriage to mean the same as SSM.
Hospital vistation is a bogus complaint.
And you have yet to explain why a nonmarital arrangement ought to be treated as the union of husband and wife.
You emphasis a subset of the nonmarital arrangements and have yet to explain why that subset ought to be treated differently from the rest.
Your arugmentation seeks to replace marriage recognition with recognition of something else. That substitute has not been justified, even by your own stated standards.
Chairm said: Hospital vistation is a bogus complaint.
----
Ok, watch the person you love enter ICU and the hospital block you from seeing them and then tell me how "bogus" the complaint is.
Sometimes I think chairm is a robot
Marie, well said. At least to your thought that SSM undefines marriage. Hence, why some in the OSM camp suggest that what is happening to marriage is that it is being neutered.
To all: I contend that SSM obliterates marriage at the core, therefore redefining marriage altogether. How so? Primarily, by blurring the lines of male and female. Men and women are one and the same so no need for gender/gender roles. If gender is malleable, ever changing, and in constant flux, then so too is marriage, right? In other words, gender is a social construct (figment of our imagination) thrust upon us by society in order to establish the roles we play. Men and women alike can and have interchanged "roles" throughout the course of history without any societal impact. Often cited is the idea that men can be nurses, women work construction, et al. So if this is true in the workplace, why not in the homefront (marriage)? Another example given, is in the rearing of children and how scientifically, there is no difference in developement in children of SS couples and that of OSM couples. If this indeed is true, then, why is gender (male/female) necessary at all? Additionally, if no children are involved, then what of the SS couple? Do they lose their identity as a SS couple all of a sudden? Or are SS couples using children as a means to an end?
Whatever side of the argument you are on, we have to recognize that the acceptance of homosexuality is tantamount to the SSM campaign. SSM, is therefore, just an offshoot of the legitimization of homosexuality. If it isn't, then why all the pushback from OSMers that understand it as such and equate the two?
I will go a step further and say that what really is at stake is the very definition of male and female. If that can be undermined, then there is no stopping the acceptance of homosexuality, and therefore, SSM. Furthermore, if being male and female isn't so much about outward appearance, but who I am on the inside, then the lines are further blended and confused to wit we will ultimately end up being an androgynous, amoral, ambisexual society, where there is no gender, no right or wrong, and everyone is the same. Talk about identity theft on a grand scale.
In summation, Liam Neeson, in the movie Darkman, after having his face near blown off, devises a scheme to get back at those who disfigured his face in an office explosion. After making "masks" that look like his would be assassins, he "counterfeits" his identity in order to get revenge. Ultimately, in doing so, he becomes the villain, indistinguishable from the "real" criminals. He ultimately concludes, "I am everyone, I am no one, I am Darkman."
Same sex marriage does obliterate marriage to the core since marriage is a union between a man and a woman. While gender may be a social construct, the different sexes are a part of human nature, with opposite sexes complimenting each other in the marital embrace.
I'm happy to see the "core definition" of marriage changed, if that's what it takes to stop discriminating against same-sex couples, who have every right to access the same rights and obligations that marriage provides opposite-sex couples.
I also feel strongly that it is children's best interest to have their parents be married.
"I’m happy to see the “core definition” of marriage changed, if that’s what it takes"
Well isn't that what the fuss is about? Some people don't mind divorcing children from parents, others do.
I mind. Kids deserve a mom and a dad. Your preferences are just that. Preferences. It doesn't change kids' rights.
It's not about you or your preference, no matter how much you want it, there are other people to think about who have rights too.
Yes, Sally, it is what the fuss is about: is being married limited to only male/female couples. Kids deserve a lot of things. Your argument is against same-sex parenting, not same-sex marriage. Your reasoning says kids of same-sex parents are less deserving of seeing their parents in a legally sanctioned relationship. And I can't imagine a mentality that punishes children for whatever "mistakes," as you would probably see it, of the parents.
Perry I said the complaint is bogus as is the scenario you painted.
* * *
Jeffrey, the man-woman basis of marriage does not unjustly discrimination against nonmarital arrangements. There are man-woman combinations of people who are ineligible due to the societal concern for the core of marriage -- sex integration and provision for responsible procreation.
These societal concerns you'd extinguish from marriage -- you'd make marriage mean less and less for the sake of a subset of the nonmarriage category.
You have offered no good reason but you have made it clear that you fear to be anything but indiscriminate. That is not how laws are made nor how justice is achieved.
That is exemplified in your reply to Sally where you said: "Your argument is against same-sex parenting, not same-sex marriage."
Children are not punished by the man-woman basis of the marriage law. That you cannot imagine the highly beneficial societal signficance of the core meaning of marriage is not something to brag about, Jeffrey.
Chairm said: "There are man-woman combinations of people who are ineligible due to the societal concern for the core of marriage "
Who are these man-woman combinations that are inelligible? Please provide specific examples
Ross, I guess I was mistaken. All man-woman combinations are eligibile. Mutual consent is the one and only criterion.
Not.
Read the marriage statutes. Do the basic homework.