"Their phony 'marriage equality' bill is like a 'currency equality' bill, demanding that counterfeit money be accorded the same respect as legal tender and should be treated as such."

When you complained about divorce, you basically said that no-fault divorce tends to make marriage mean less. And you thought that was not a good thing for society.

Yet here you can't seem to grant marriage its core meaning. Nor its essentials, nor its universal features, nor even a simple description based on the legal requirements.

Instead of marriage, provide the defintive legal requirements for a license to SSM.

Remember, your implicit rules, as per your own attack on the core of marriage (especially your disparagement of responsible procreation) are as follows:

If (fill-in the blank) can occur outside of SSM, then, it is not essential to SSM.

If (fill-in the blank) is not compulsory, then, it is not essential to SSM.

If the government does not revoke SSM status because of (fill-in the blank), then, it (i.e. the blank) is not essential to SSM.

That basically wipes your slate clean of such notions as love, romance, sexual attraction, same-sex sexual behavior, or even gayness. You have conceded as much.

Last time you ended-up saying the license to SSM is the essential thing. But that is like saying, a license to (fill-in the blank). Likewise if you say consent is the essential thing because you need to plainly state two what consent is given. To SSM. Well, what is the core meaning -- the essentials which define the thing you call SSM?

When people enter the social institution of marriage, society, via the governing authorities, shows prefential treatment because of what marriage actually is. Not because of what individuals might privately consider their personal reasons to marry. The insitution already exists; it is not necessary for the newlyweds to reinvent the thing with their own individualized reasons.

SSM argumentation seeks to demolish the edifice in the name of asserting the supremacy of gay identity politics over marriage law, over the constitution, and indeed over principles of liberty upon which society affords various statuses for living arrangements and types of relationships.

There are basically four statuses.

1. Outlawed -- due to harm to individuals or to society.

2. Tolerated -- live and let live mans neither societal approbation or societal disapprobation.

3. Protected -- more than the tolerative status, protective status is based on certain vulnerabilities which society seeks to mitigate somewhat. It is not proscriptive but a form of remedy; the basis for the vulnerabilities is NOT promoted nor is it encouraged as a social good. Rather, the mitigation of risks, especially to children, is an attempt to provide a social good.

4. Preferred -- more than tolerative and more than protective, the preferential status is based on the specialness of the type of arrangement or type of relationship. This is promoted, encouraged, and if government is involved it is to regulate rather than to claim ownership. Preferential status is based on the thing being preferred and its benefits to society.

SSM argumentation boilsdown to a call for protections rather than preference -- that is, if the identity politics is removed from the argumentation. And the nonmarriage category is far broader than the gaycentric emphasis of SSMers. Since SSM argumentation provides nothing to distinguish SSM from nonmarriage, and offers no sepcial reason for special status, the solution is protective status and not preferential status.

A just society does not conflate protective with preferential statuses.

SSM argumentation actually disapages the core meaning of marriage such that it would be demoted from preferential status -- even demoted from protective status -- and maybe even barely tolerated. SSM argumentation mistakes the core of marriage for bigotry. That is unjust.

Typo correction: "Adoption is for children in need; it is not designed to primarily serve needy adults." There is no adult right to adopt.

Clarification: And human procreation is two-sexed; the first principle of responsible procreation is that each procreative duo is responsible for the children they bring into this world (barring tragedy or dire circumstances); they are not mere donors. No one who creates children for a deliberately motherless or fatherless home does this for the sake of the children who have yet to be created and whose birthright is denied.

Marriage does not arise from the racialist view that humankind is divided into subspecies based on skin color.

The core meaning of marriage is pluralistic, contrary to the peculair sectarianism of SSM argumentation.

Judicial review is about obeying the Constitution; but the SSM campaign's courtcentric approach depends on the abuse of judicial review whereby the governed are expected to obey judges who impose their will over the Constitution.

And where children are involved, SSM means the segregation for fatherhood and motherhood. SSMers do not claim that children are at the core of SSM; indeed, they insist that SSM has zilch to do with children.

Except, you know, when they want to falsely equate SSM with the most pro-child social institution we have.

For a double-dad or double-mom scenario, there are two pre-requisites, at least: parental relinquishment and government intervention to assign a replacement.

That is the virtual inverse of the core meaningn of marriage.

Adoption does not bestow marital status but marital status is a legitimate factor in prioritizing children -- because the union of husband and wife can unite fatherhood and motherhood.

Third party procreation (i.e. use of donors) is extramarital procreation even when married people partake of it. Going outside of the one-sexed relationship is a requirement for the double-dad or double-mom scenarios; but this is not done for the sake of the yet-to-be-conceived children.

Adoption is for children in need; it is not mean to primarily serve needy adults.

And human procreation is two-sexed; the first principle of responsible procreation is that each procreative duo is responsible for the children they bring into this world; they are not mere donors.

So whether Kevin meant adoption or third party procreation, he pointed outside of marriage, not at its core meaning.

And when he poses as one lamenting the divorce trends, he directly contradicts his own statement that "marriage keeps couples together". Indeed, the rates for dissolution of SSM are higher than for marriage so gender composition matters.

On the other hand, even in the wake of divorce, marriage provides for responsible procreation. The marital presumption of paternity has a long afterlife beyond divorce.

Indeed, most of the children residing in same-sex households migrated from the previously procreative relationships of either mom or dad (i.e. typically husband-wife unions). These children have both mom and dad but one or the other is not resident. But it seems that Kevin is narrow-mindedly assuming that the nonresident parent is irrelevant. These children have the protections of children of divorced or estranged parents. The core of marriage is no small matter even when it comes to the very children that Kevin likes to drag into the spotlight -- minus their mom-dad origins.

Maybe about 4% of the children in same-sex households were adopted -- and that includes some padding due to second-parent adoption. Less than 1% of chldren in such households were attained via third party procreation. The law does not consider these children to be invisible, despite the hyperbolic rhetoric of SSMers.

The core meaning of marriage:

1. Provision for sex integration.
2. Provision for responsible procreation.
3. These combined as a coherent whole (i.e. a social institution of civil society).

Now, is there a core meaning of SSM? Please provide the legal requirements that define that core meaning, if there is such a thing for SSM. And please explain how that distinguishes SSM from the rest of the nonmarriage category, if indeed it distinguishes at all.

Kevin, we've covered your objections to the centrality of procreation in marriage, however, you still haven't listed to definitive legal requirements of SSM. Not romance. Not sexual attraction.

And it is circular for you to say it is a license for something that you have not distinguished. A license for a license? That's like providing consent to consent. You need to do better than that if you hope to provide a sound argument in favor of spcial status for SSM.

Marital status is a special status for special reason. Reason that you reject.

Maybe you can provide a substitute special reason for special status?

I second that motion.

That goes for marriage defenders, SSMers, and those undecided alike.

In addition I would encourage readers to keep note of the stated standards of argumentation. Sometimes these are brought to the surface during back-and-forths. Sometimes these are stated upfront.

Noting these standards is important. If marriage is to be scrutinized then the same standards need to be applied to SSM.

The real question is, what is marriage?

SSMers tend to deny there is any core meaning to this social institution. So that part of the discusson bogs down into nonresponses and attempts to change the topic.

Marriage defenders need to go further than stating axiomatic assertions -- whether of faith or of opinon -- and dig deeper to answer the question, what is marriage?

On the other hand, if SSMers insist on changing the topic we can accomodate them. What is SSM?

Dig deeper than the usual vague notions. Apply the same scrutiny to SSM that SSMers insist upon when dissecting marriage.

If either marriage or SSM lack coherency, then, the problem is one of distinguishing marriage/SSM (i.e. the proposed merger) from nonmarriage (everything that is not marriage).

The government does not license a license -- but that is often what SSMers end-up saying before they return to pressing gay identity politics into the discussion again.

Bravo! Well said. The exclusion of a gender is not equality, as you said. SSMers will contend that marriage is not about who comprises the marriage (as in the two genders) yet insist that it be a one-gendered relationship. Huh? So on one hand marriage isn't about gender but on the other hand it is?

Thank you for the encouraging words. I would encourage you to continue to "put your two cents in." There can never be enough pro-marriage supporters defending marriage as the union of male and female, husband and wife. And as long as I have days (thanks be to God), I will continue to do so.