Dear Friends of Marriage,
Victory is at hand! What if they declared a war on DOMA and nobody showed up?
DOMA is the one federal law that protects marriage as the union of husband and wife, and clarifies that no state is obligated to recognize gay marriages performed in other states or countries.
As we told you, Jerry Nadler, a classic New York City liberal, introduced sweeping legislation to repeal DOMA, to the applause of all of his friends who live in high-rises with views of Central Park.
Back in the real world, the Examiner is reporting dwindling enthusiasm on the part of Democrats in Congress for dying on this particular hill:
"But the real danger to the bill's success appears to come from Congressional Democrats, especially openly-gay Representative Barney Frank (D-NY) and Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Both Frank and Pelosi have balked at supporting the effort to repeal DOMA, on the grounds that the timing is bad, and that other gay-rights causes like the inclusive Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) and the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT) have a better chance of passing.
"Meanwhile, no Democratic senator seems poised to introduce legislation similar to the Respect for Marriage Act in the Senate."
Why are Democrats balking? Because they know that you are not backing down! You will not be silenced or intimidated. Together we will make sure that your voice and your values are heard!
Can you do one thing for me this week? Send a friend to our DOMA website, Two Million for Marriage. Sign up to join the swelling chorus of marriage supporters who say to Washington politicians: We're here, we care about marriage and we will not be silenced! We vote, we make phone calls. We give of our time and treasure.
In California, gay-marriage advocates have just paid our movement's work a backhanded compliment: A group campaigning to overturn Prop 8 has proposed new religious liberty language: "The refusal to perform a marriage under this provision shall not be the basis for lawsuit or liability, and shall not affect the tax-exempt status of any religious denomination, church or other religious institution," reads the exemption, an attempt by Love Honor Cherish to defuse one of the arguments Proposition 8 sponsors used to garner support last fall.
That's at least a tiny step forward from previous efforts to denounce us as haters and liars for raising this obvious truth: If gay marriage is constitutional right like interracial marriage, then Christianity and other traditional faith communities who do not see same-sex unions as marriages will get treated like bigots in law and culture.
Fight back across the country! Whether you can give $10, $50, or perhaps even more, every donation counts.
One final thing I want to call to your attention this week: a brilliant new essay by George Mason law professor Nelson Lund. He is responding to the arguments of Ted Olson and David Boies for overturning Prop 8. Even more, he is responding to the suggestion they are trying to convey that somehow opposition to gay marriage is over.
I'm putting in a link at the bottom of the page so you can read the whole thing and rejoice! But let me pull out from excerpts the heart of Prof. Lund's "Case against Boies-Olson," whom he called "wrong on the law, and on civilization":
"Judging from the players, it may look as though we now have a consensus among liberals and conservatives that the federal Constitution includes a right to same-sex marriage, to which only bigots and religious zealots could object. But nothing could be farther from the truth: The position these lawyers are advocating has no support in Supreme Court case law, let alone in the Constitution. ...
"The Boies/Olson invocation of the Loving case is both misplaced and peculiarly offensive. In that case, the Court recognized that anti-miscegenation laws had no other purpose than the maintenance of white supremacy. Analogizing the traditional definition of marriage to these Jim Crow devices demeans both the civil-rights movement and the countless millions of people who accept the traditional definition of marriage."
The gay-marriage movement does engage in an offensive attempt to label serious moral disagreement as bigotry. And Prof. Lund nails Ted Olson and David Boies on this:
The notion that the fundamental features of an institution adopted by virtually every civilized society are based on nothing but moral opprobrium toward homosexuals is so weird that one wonders why serious people should even have to discuss it. Apparently, however, we've come a long way since the Supreme Court summarily dismissed such a claim in 1971. But here we are, so let's point out the obvious.
Only unions between men and women are capable of producing offspring, and every civilization has recognized that procreation is critical to its survival. The institution of marriage has been established in virtually every known human society, including our own, and officially recognized marriages have always been exclusively between men and women. This is not an accident or the result of some unreasoned prejudice. After the desire for self-preservation, sexual passion is perhaps the most powerful drive in human nature. Heterosexual intercourse naturally produces children, sometimes unintentionally, and it does so only after a nine-month lapse. The result can be uncertainty about paternity or indifference to it by the father. If left unchecked, this would give many men little incentive to invest in the rearing of their offspring, and the ensuing irresponsibility would have made the development of civilization impossible.
The fundamental purpose of marriage is to enable, encourage, and require biological parents, especially fathers, to take responsibility for their children. Because this institution is a response to a phenomenon uniquely created by heterosexual intercourse, the very meaning and definition of marriage has always been inseparable from the problem it is meant to address. ...
Homosexual relationships, and lots of other relationships as well, have nothing to do with the purpose of marriage, which is why marriage does not extend to them.
The "underlying and unspoken premise of the Boies/Olson position," Prof. Lund says, would "redefine marriage and replace it with a new institution having a different purpose."
Thank you, Prof. Lund, for your intellectual courage and relentless sanity.
And thank you for all you do that has given the National Organization for Marriage the power to make a difference.
Please pray for us and our work.
Brian S. BrownExecutive Director
National Organization for Marriage
20 Nassau Street, Suite 242
Princeton, NJ 08542
bbrown@nationformarriage.org
NOM Featured Video
Maggie Gallagher introduces Carrie Prejean at the Values Voters Summit
NOM Featured Article
"The Case Against Boies-Olson"
Nelson Lund
National Review
September 24, 2009
...As if this weren't enough, in 1971 the Supreme Court dismissed as meritless a constitutional challenge exactly like the Boies/Olson challenge, and the 2003 Lawrence opinion specifically said that it was not implying a right to same-sex marriage. Perhaps recognizing that they really don't have any support in Supreme Court case law, Boies and Olson argue that the traditional definition of marriage is so utterly irrational, so bereft of any legitimate purpose, that it can be explained only as something "born of animosity" against a politically unpopular group.
If Boies and Olson really believe what they say, they have also condemned President Obama.
NOM in the News
"National Organization for Marriage President: We'll Win in Maine"
Washington Independent
September 21, 2009
I spent a few minutes talking with Maggie Gallagher, the president of the National Organization for Marriage, after she gave a rip-roaring introduction for Carrie Prejean at the Values Voter Summit. ...
"I'm pretty confident that, as in California, we're going to win," said Gallagher. "We're in much better shape in Maine than we were in California at a similar point. We were ten points down on September 1, 2008 and we won. I saw a poll yesterday that had us up two points in Maine."
"GOP Checks for a Pulse, And Finds One"
New York Times
September 19, 2009
"What holds the conservative movement now is how appalled everyone is at what liberals are trying to do," said Maggie Gallagher, the president of the National Organization for Marriage, which is fighting efforts to advance same-sex marriage. "I think the conservative movement is far more energized than it was six months ago."
"Carrie Prejean Thanks You for Supporting Her"
Washington Independent
September 14, 2009
But the star of the morning session was Carrie Prejean, the former Miss California who lost the Miss America crown after a pageant judge asked her whether she supported gay marriage and she said no. Prejean arrived with the National Organization for Marriage, and was introduced by NOM's Maggie Gallagher with a passionate speech about what Prejean had overcome.
"House Effort to Repeal DOMA May Be Sabotaged by Lukewarm Democratic Support"
Examiner.com
September 18, 2009
But the real danger to the bill's success appears to come from Congressional Democrats, especially openly-gay Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) and Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Both Frank and Pelosi have balked at supporting the effort to repeal DOMA, on the grounds that the timing is bad, and that other gay-rights causes like the inclusive Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) and the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT) have a better chance of passing.
"Miss California Wows Conservatives"
ABC News
September 18, 2009
Maggie Gallagher, the head of the conservative Institute for Marriage and Public Policy, introduced her to the packed room of hundreds of social conservatives as "our Miss America."
96 Comments
Once we are done with keeping marriage sacred, I suggest we go after these mixed marriages. By mixed I mean religious; jews marrying christians for example. I sincerely hope NOM starts this effort soon.
I like the final 2 paragraphs:
The fundamental purpose of marriage is to enable, encourage, and require biological parents, especially fathers, to take responsibility for their children. Because this institution is a response to a phenomenon uniquely created by heterosexual intercourse, the very meaning and definition of marriage has always been inseparable from the problem it is meant to address. …
Homosexual relationships, and lots of other relationships as well, have nothing to do with the purpose of marriage, which is why marriage does not extend to them.
Here in lies the core mentioned so often. To gays there is no difference because they say that the creation of children is optional in marriage. This is true, but it is not optional in Gay marriage. Gay marriage doesn't have a create option. There in is the difference. A core difference. If that procreation power was out of the picture, gays would be correct. Procreation has always been a part of marriage. now the gay side will say, what about single mothers or people who can't have children. Marriage has never been about forcing children on people. But the core of marriage is to encourage and enable that environment. Gays cannot supply a child. They can adopt or do some kind of test tube. But That procreative power is non existent in a gay marriage.
Roger, why would you want NOM to do that? Can you be more clear what you are saying?
Adam (and Prof. Lund): Let me get this straight: People of faith who have claimed all along that marriage was created by God are now claiming that marriage was created by man to serve a scientific and pragmatic purpose! Which is it? I sincerely doubt that God created marriage because He anticipated the problems of single motherhood. At least the Bible contains no indication that this was His intention.
What about the offensive position that men have to be married to care for their children. it is just outlandish!! Please bury your head deeper in the sand. Thank you
Michael, thats not what we are saying. tWe are saying that marriage is a man and a woman. If gay marriage and traditional marriage were the same they would have all the same things about them. The difference is that gay marriage cannot create offspring. Thats what we are saying. If gays could produce offspring then gay marriage would have all rights of marriage. Procreation isn't something that just gets passed out at the candy store.
Oscar,
Are you suggesting that unmarried dads are better at rearing children than married dads? If so, that is more the exception than the rule as many unmarried dads (particularly teens and young adults) upon finding out "girlfriend" is expecting go onto their next "conquest." Perhaps this is why the out-of-wedlock pregnancy rate is 40% and near 4000 babies are aborted daily (mostly because child is unwanted) in the US. A travesty if there ever was one.
Michael,
What does the Bible say is God's intention for marriage? If God "foresaw" single parent households, why would He still go ahead and create marriage anyway? What purpose does marriage serve if not to establish the very foundation by which we (civilization) stand?
Marriage is only legitimate when there is intent to procreate! Only young, healthy men and women should be together.
Women should be at home and support their men. The most important thing in a woman's life is supporting her man and her children. She should always put them before herself, and never consider any possibility for personal growth or development. That would be selfish.
The man should be out working most of the day, setting an example to his kids of the strong, masculine, powerful person a dad should be. He should stay a certain distance away to maintain this illusion.
If homosexuals were allowed to marry, these gender roles would not be enforced. Girls wouldn't be told to look pretty and be obedient. Boys wouldn't be encouraged to be tough and aggressive.
The very foundation by which we (civilization?) stand, that is the gendered and ethnocentric model of the outdated nuclear family, would be called into question.
We don't want to examine ourselves for flaws. We don't want to question ourselves. Stop making us, gay people.
Nicholas,
Thank you for your response to my statement. My suggestion is more that the existence of a state created marriage contract between 2 people does not automaticly result in either a good mother or a good father. It is not a cause and effect result. My three Ivy League educated children that I raised as a single parent are doing just great. I am thankful for the input i received from a caring, educated, and inclusive community and family.
"My three Ivy League educated children that I raised as a single parent are doing just great."
Congratulations! Many people who survived horrors of concentration camps ended up "doing just great." That does not mean we should encourage such experiences.
Homosexual "parenting" deprives a child BY DESIGN of a mom or a dad. Homosexual "parenting" and homosexual "marriage" also send a message to the society as a whole that having a mom AND a dad is not important. That is inherently wrong and must be opposed by any rational person who is not a radical homosexual activist.
Laura,
Thank you for your generous response. I don't recall taking a position one way or another regarding homosexual parenting. My concern is with regard to the suggestion that men need to be married to raise children. But if would help, my wife was killed in the one of the twin towers. The person that i love is gone and can not be replaced. There is no greater real life pain than to loose your partner. That is not a theory or a bible quote. That is real and it sucks.
Oscar,
I do not think there is a single person here who does not feel horrible about what happened to you and your chilren.
Single/Homosexual parenting BY CHOICE, however, is what is at the heart of the homosexual marriage discussion. As a parent, I vehemently oppose it, because it is inherently cruel and unfair to children.
Children need both mom and dad. Sometimes, they are deprived of one, through death or marriage failure. But homosexual activists want this society to endorse parenting that necessarily excludes a mom or a dad. That is different and that is wrong.
As you pointed out, children are very resilient and their coping mechanism seems amazing at times. Indeed, human race in general can take a lot. But that is not a justification to create another problem that we know is not in the best interest of children and human race in general.
Same-sex marriage uses the force of law to deny children either a mother or a father, ignores the preponderance of social science data, and declares by force of law and the moral authority of the state that men and women – mothers and fathers – are completely interchangeable.
It's a travesty and should not be allowed to usurp power over the people. What happened in the New England states last spring was a mockery of the democratic system.
"Nonetheless, I think we can see the tyranny of the political in our times. Much like the current abortion regime and the slavery jurisprudence of the antebellum era, proponents of gay marriage imagine that they can redefine inconvenient, permanent realities and remove traditional barriers to the relentless human desire to get what we want."
-- "Personal Freedom Without Political Liberty", R.R. Reno
James,
Good quote -- that's exactly it. Radical homosexual activists want to force our society to redefine, or altogether obliterate, timeless and priceless values and realities that they deem inconvenient in their pursuit of personal gratification. The cost to the society at large, and to children in particular, is deemed irrelevant.
James K: Please give a specific example of a child who is denied a father and a mother if gay people are allowed to get married. If Tim and Jake down the street are married, not married, domestic partners, or just roommates, there is no child out there who has any more or any less of a mother and father. This argument is meritless. And odd.
Adam: This has been said before, but I'll say it again: There is no requirement that a couple must have children in order to be permitted to be married. That's just not one of the criteria we've ever imposed as a society (or even in religious contexts).
Nicholas: It's not God-created marriage we are talking about here, anyway. We are talking about state-created marriage. What people of faith consider a requirement of marriage is separate and distinct from what society requires. Indeed, there are contradictions.
Recall that, in the BIble, Jacob marries both Leah and Rachel, has children by both of them, and also has children by their servants, Zilpah and Bilhah. God never condemns these polygamist (and concubinal) relationships. The people of faith supporting this organization never have anything to say about that though.
Unions between men do not further the purposes of marriage, family and children, same sex marriage creates pseudo marriage imitations where children can be raised. You don't have to take my word for it, check the ads prevalent in the gay marriage push. They're full of clips with two dads trying to fill the roles a mom and a dad should be filling. No number of dads can ever replace a mom.
Awesome article here:
There's lots of proof same-sex marriage will harm the rights of others
Traditional marriage is more substantial and profound than can be contained in our society's current conceptions of "love" and "equality."
The debate on same-sex marriage in Maine is being too narrowly focused on the facade of these two words, but they are nothing more than a charade.
Redefining marriage to include homosexual couples would be a profound and fundamental change to society with very troubling and far-reaching implications – since the consequences will occur on a multigenerational frame and will, over time, be irreversible.
http://pressherald.mainetoday.com/story.php?id=282602&ac=PHedi&pg=1
Marriage is defined to serve the public interest, not private special interests. Marriage is a public institution, not a mere private arrangement. The law allows many private relations organized and defined as the private parties wish, but the institution of marriage between a man and a woman exists and is protected by law to promote fundamental social needs, including the necessary link between husbands and wives and between parents and children for critical social needs, not just to bind boyfriends and girlfriends and other romantic interests.
Michael - You hit the nail on the coffin. I was screaming (not literally - just passionate about this issue) "Stop talking about children!!" The argument against same sex marriage that mentions children are deprived a mother and a father are actually arguments against same sex adoptions/parenting, not marriage. And James K didn't actually provide you with an example you asked for - because none exists (when a same sex couple gets married. That's it - just married. Not when they adopt, use a surrogate, get artificially inseminated (in the case of women, obviously).) Because here's why:
State-sanctioned (heterosexual) marriage grants over 1,100 federal rights that come with the word marriage (Britney Spears had all of these for the 55 hours she was married to a guy she wasn't in love with) along with hundreds of additional state rights. The ones that don't mention parenting rights and responsibilities have nothing to do with children. Take hospital visitation - the ability to visit your spouse in the hospital makes no regard for the existence of children - it simply doesn't matter. The ones that do have to do with children don't apply to married couples with no children because those children don't exist. None of this is a problem, or has ever been. Main point here - none of the CIVIL laws, rights and responsibilities that come with marriage (most of them are tax-related laws) are gender-specific. Title to a house can PHYSICALLY transfer between spouses of any gender. Money is PHYSICALLY able trade hands tax-free between spouses of any gender. This being said - I bring your attention to NOM's own website, in the Q&A section that says (basically) they're in favor for fixing inequality regarding rights. ("If rights are the problem, let's deal with rights" - or something to that affect). If that's the actual NOM sentiment, here's my proposal: Civil Unions for all (which would be current marriage laws as they are now, only expand it to same-sex couples otherwise eligible), and leave marriage to religions who wish to marry who they want to.
Emily,
Outdated understanding of the nuclear family? Since when? Did God redefine the definition of marriage and/or family or are we trying to impose our "new and enlightened" understanding to fit our wants?
Oscar,
Your point is well taken. Hence why I said that it is more the exception than the rule.
Michael,
But did the State, just out of thin air, create marriage on a whim? If so, why? Surely there must have been "religious underpinnings" to the understanding of marriage held by the State. In fact, most states if not all still recognize marriages performed in churches, synagogues, temples, and the such like. Why?
Also, you forgot to mention Solomon, the wisest of all, who had seven hundred wives and three hundred concubines. Was he left unpunished for his folly? Furthermore, are any of us without excuse for the sins we commit?
Wow, Brian sounds downright rattled in that latest bit that he's posted on the front page.
Michael, children in marriage is not a requirement. Actually nothing in a marriage is a required. People are married that don't love each other, people are married that just want the benefits, people are married for status. Marriage doesn't have any requirements except that it is a man and a woman. If 2 things are exactly the same, then they have all the same options. Gay marriage doesn't have all the options that traditional marriage has. Its not about equality or civil rights. Anyone can be married as long as they marry an opposite sex spouse. Marriage doesn't have to be for commitment, doesn't have to be for love or devotion. Just sign the contract already. But if its not a man and a woman, the couple simply doesn't qualify for marriage.
Jacob, if you want to take advantage of those "1100 federal rights", no one is stopping you. Just find a nice gal and put a ring on her finger, just like everyone else does.
If you're too bigotted, and cant stand women, then dont. Your choice. You don't WANT "equality" -- you want the rest of us to lower our standards for you.
As for children and marriage:
As Oscar has so clearly demonstrated above, a child growing up without his mother or his father is a tragedy. And "because mommy doesn't like men" is no less tragic, and hardly an excuse.
The simple fact of the matter is, MORE children, not fewer, will grow up without their own mother and father, if SSM is recognized. It's bad enough when sexist bigots inflict this cruel and unusual situation on their children -- it wil only be worse when the government gives it a "seal of approval".
In my country of Slovenia we do not accept this idea.
Marty - As you list them:
Point 1 - I hardly want to even justify this with a response because it's so ridiculous, but, I will explain this for the purposes of education in case anyone else out there is confused: The SPIRIT of marriage starts with meeting someone, going on a great first date, having that "connection", eventually falling in love, and eventually getting married, becoming a family, sharing your lives together, etc etc etc etc. My lack of desire towards women has nothing to do with bigotry - it has to do with how I'm "wired". You didn't wake up one morning and "decide" to be straight, and neither did I wake up one day and "decide" to be gay. I don't want those 1,100 federal rights BECAUSE I want those rights for myself - I want them AFTER I find someone to share my life with. To get married to someone you don't love isn't illegal (assuming both people are consenting adults). But getting married to someone I love is illegal - that makes no sense to me. Loveless marriages confuse and hurt children. A loving couple doesn't.
Point 2 - AGAIN....that's not a reason to argue against same-sex marriage!!! That's an argument against same-sex parenting!! (which has only been on one recent ballot - the other ballot measures are against same sex MARRIAGE - the words children/parenting are nowhere to be found!!) If I find a man to fall in love with and marry, that has no affect on a straight couple across the street who decides to conceive a child and no affect on whose parents that child has. None, nada, zip, zilch.
Jacob,
"Wired?" Where is the proof? Just because you are attracted to a member of the SS doesn't mean you are "wired" that way. There are women other than my wife that I find attractive. Do I act upon that attraction? Do I have any recourse if I am "wired" to have wandering eyes?
Also, as to your referencing the Bible as not being a reliable source to base marriage laws on, what would you rather marriage law be based upon? A consensus? Feelings? The weather?
Nicholas - You've just compared homosexuality to adultery (the comparison of acting on feelings) and that's repugnant. But, while you were single (socially single - not just legally single), I assume (as now) you were attracted to more than just one specific woman. How would you prove you *weren't* attracted to every woman you saw? My guess is you couldn't - you just "knew". I am not attracted to women the same way you're not attracted to men.
And where would I rather base CIVIL marriage laws from? Science. Same reason public schools teach evolution and religious institutions teach creationism and both seem to be ok. Science.
Jacob,
You missed my point entirely. My point was that, even though you may be attracted to a person of the same sex doesn't mean you have to act upon that attraction/feeling. Or do you not have any will-power?
Also, explain to me how science is foundational to marital law. Where does it fit into the equation? Additonally, you suggest that science and "religion" are not compatible. Why is that?
This whole thing just breaks my heart. Love is love no matter who it is shared between...
What I meant to say is that we do not support religion interfering in civil law.
it has to do with how I’m “wired”.
Wired for sexism -- that's a new one.
You didn’t wake up one morning and “decide” to be straight, and neither did I wake up one day and “decide” to be gay.
Actually I did. Whether or not you remember doing it is another question.
Re: Marty - Ok the two comments are actually related - I am SURE you haven't chosen who you're attracted to and who you're not attracted to - even regarding women. Some women you're attracted to, some you're not. Same with me - some men I'm attracted to, some I'm not. And you may have REALIZED without thinking about it that you were straight and you may remember the moment you found the opposite sex attractive - that's fine. But you didn't DECIDE that feeling...it was just there.
Nicholas - So I'm supposed to live a life of celibacy because my sexual orientation is different from yours? To answer your science question, I know I was made "this way". I didn't have a say in the matter. That's science. (likewise I didn't have a say in the matter regarding my dark hair, or my left-handedness). Civil marriage laws were created to bring two loving adults together. As I said before, it would be against the spirit of marriage for me to civilly marry a woman.
"So I’m supposed to live a life of celibacy because my sexual orientation is different from yours? "
Jacob, nobody's forcing you to do anything. We all choose how we live. That's ok. You make your choices, Marty made his, I make mine. The choice you don't have is forcing other people to recognize your choices as good.
"Civil marriage laws were created to bring two loving adults together."
since when?
Marriage is not a civil right. Societies have always regulated marriage. A man cannot marry his daughter or mother. A woman cannot marry her brother or nephew. Marriage is a tool of the society to ensure that the next generation is stable and self-reliant.
The choice you don’t have is forcing other people to recognize your choices as good.
-Same argument was made when bans on interracial marriage were being defended.
And yes, societies have regulated marriage but over time the institution has changed. Women are no longer considered property, men used to be able to marry more than one women, dowries are a thing of the past, and interracial marriage was illegal. Marriage changes as society changes.
The reason why incest is illegal is because any child born from such a union would be subject to biological physical deformities. And for unions that wouldn't choose to attempt to produce children, society has said that the love family has for each other is different than the love one person feels towards a non-relative (the person they meet and fall in love with). That's why incest is illegal.
Civil marriage laws were made to bring two loving adults together ever since they included such benefits as hospital visitation, tax-free inheritance, tax-free social security and the ability to files taxes jointly, for instance. Anyone getting married to someone they don't love is actually committing a sort of marriage fraud - but it's not illegal. Anyway, because of the benefits - that's why I said before - civil union licenses for everyone, marriage for the religions who choose to marry who they wish.
It's difficult to reply to the anti-gay marriage crew because there is no agreement among you. Adam and James K. exemplify the core of this schizophrenic discourse -- Adam on one end saying that marriage means nothing at all except that two people of the opposite sex are together (he even says commitment is not necessary!), and James K on the other saying that procreation is the only purpose for marriage (which we know isn't true because plenty of straight married couples abstain from having kids, either because they cannot or simply do not want to).
I'd also point out that Adam's argument is extremely weak because it presents a classic tautology: Marriage can only be between a man and a woman because marriage is between a man and a woman. That doesn't answer why, and therefore, is logically flawed.
At the other end, James K. has a narrow view of marriage, defined solely by what he believes it is. Unfortunately, the legal requirements for marriage don't go as far as to cover what he claims marriage is all about. If civil marriage were all about procreation then the state would require couples who got married to procreate. The state does not. Thus, Adam's view (minus the logical fallacy that it must be between a man and a woman), that marriage is just a decision by two people with no further requirements is the most true.
In sum, the combination of the two views demonstrates quite clearly why same-sex marriage should be permitted. Thank you for that.
"It’s difficult to reply"
That's the crux of it isn't it? Marriage is between a man and a woman. Everything else is everything else.
You really have to stoop to distortion to make your position look good?
Jacob, you sure make a lot of assumptions about people you don't even know.
No, I remember exactly when I decided to be straight, and I have a great deal of control over who I am attracted to.
"if marriage were all about procreation then the state would require couples who got married to procreate."
This is a blatant fabrication, no definition of marriage forces anyone to procreate. So, can you reply to the actual arguments instead of making up your own straw men?
The reason why no definition of marriage forces anyone to procreate is because marriage ISN'T only about procreation, which was Michael's point (which is what I'm sure he meant by "all about"), which counters the argument that marriage exists for procreation purposes.
"No, I remember exactly when I decided to be straight, and I have a great deal of control over who I am attracted to."
Wow. Marty rocks. Dude, that's the kind of certitude that leads to book deals, speaking tours and board memberships. Stop wasting your time and start thinking big. Brian and Ms. Srivastav aren't gonna be around forever.
Mr. Marty, it's time to start thinking "next generation."
lol. I agree with friend Marty. The idea that people cannot choose and guide who they have relations with is simply a political ploy. How inconvenient for you Mr. Chino, that we choose differently.
And if I choose to leave a comment at Ms. Beetlebabee's blog, or Stand For Marriage Maine's Facebook page, is that OK? Or will it be deleted?
I strive to be civil, but then I find myself shut out for no apparent reason other than that we disagree.
What's up with that?
hm, I don't know what you're really talking about chino, but you sure don't look chino. just sayin'.
James K.: You have made no "actual arguments" to which to reply. You have made broad proclamations, but no facts and no arguments that I have seen.
Thank you, Jacob, for clarifying what I was saying (though, I'm pretty sure it was clear enough to everyone but James K.). Note that he has yet to offer a counterargument! Also, what does it mean to "look chino"? Maybe LD is from Chino. Or maybe it's a made up name. Also, Marty's picture is some sort of monkey, so what does that mean?
Mariette: People can choose with whom to have relations with. Obviously. The point is that they shouldn't have to choose to fight who they are in order to conform. For example, even left-handed people can be forced to write with their right hands. Back in the day, they were forced. In fact, studies showed that disorders (twitching, severe headaches, and worse) arose from forcing kids to fight their natural inclination to write with their left hands. Anyway, now we realize that there is no reason to force people to write with their right hands. One day, it will be a commonly held belief that forcing gay people to be straight is just as foolish as forcing left-handers to write with their right hands.
Beetlebabee: Do you recognize all marriages as good? What about Britney Spears' quickie marriage and divorce in Vegas? What about that couple you know is just getting married out of desperation? Or because someone's pregnant? Or for the sixth time? I mean, seriously, don't romanticize the meaning of marriage. It's not a sure-fire ticket to societal approval of your relationship. Put another way, allowing same-sex couples to marry doesn't in any way mean that you perosnally have to approve of those relationships.
"You have made broad proclamations, but no facts and no arguments that I have seen."
If you would like to change marriage, don't you think that the burden of proof is on you? Marriage is what it is, between a man and a woman, the same as it's been across the globe in every age and time. The benefits of marriage as defined are self evident.
You provided nothing but crude distortions of my position to bolster your claims.
Haven't I already mentioned how marriage changes as society changes?
@Jacob,
If you can't remain celebate, again that is a personal decision. In other words, you have a choice in the matter as Beetlebee has stated already.. Also, you may not have had a say in "how you were made," but you do have a say in how you live your life. Unless of course you find gratification in living a life of debauchery (as both many heterosexual and homosexual do alike). And if that is true, then, it indicates what SSM is really all about-foisting a "love relationship" onto society at large as being on par with marriage such that it be accorded the same recognition. Again, if that be true, then why aren't other "love relationships" recognized too?
@Michael,
So because the definition of marriage as the union of male and female, husband and wife doesn't fit into your scheme of things, you propose a new, more inclusive one. In other words, you want marriage to be made into the likeness of SSM. In doing so, is this not the very thing you rail against from the "anti-gay crew?" Essentially, then, are you not saying that marriage is what you believe in or think it should be? How is that different or presumably better than what the "anti-gay crew" proposes?
@LdChino,
SSM and "next generation." Now that is a laugh. An oxymoronic statement if ever there was one. Keep them coming as you are bested only by the quips from Kevin.
Jacob, and how has that happened in the past? Has there ever been a society that has successfully neutered marriage? De-genderized? and remained stable?
All,
I think (most) everyone here is missing the point. We are not attempting to re-define or dictate religious doctrine. We (gays, activists, liberals, allies, or whichever label you choose) above all respect, support, and fundamentally believe in the implied separation of church and state; the same idea that theoretically protects all organized religion from government intervention. This debate needs to abandon all discussion of religion, family, and fundamental ideology as a whole; these topics are far too complicated, and entirely unnecessary to the issue at hand. The marriage equality movement deals with one very simple issue; the right of two consenting adults to enter into a legally binding contract with each other, with the same ease of access and rights afforded an equal, yet ideologically different pair of citizens.
I have no desire, nor am I naïve enough to believe that I could begin to change the entire belief system of a 2000 year old religious institution. When I walk down the street and pass a church, synagogue, and mosque within two blocks of each other, I am reminded of what makes our country great. America was founded on the principle of religious freedom, but that freedom is a two way street. Please resist the temptation to impose your religious beliefs on my family through legislation. Believe, pray, and teach your children what you will; but allow me to do the same. Above all, do not attempt to deny me the same civil rights that you enjoy! Like it or not, I AM YOUR EQUAL and demand to be recognized as such in the eyes of the law.
God bless, and see you at the march on October 11th.
It's not that we're missing the point Caleb. The point is larger than what you describe. We agree. Every person is equal to every other, regardless of what they choose to do with their lives, regardless of deformity, color, or any other issue that makes us diverse. That is not the issue.
"Like it or not, I AM YOUR EQUAL and demand to be recognized as such in the eyes of the law. "
Great! Welcome to humanity. You are equal! You are also treated equally under the law, because----everyone is equal.
Now let's get on with the conversation since we all agree that everyone is equal, and the issue at hand has nothing to do with 'equality' of personhood. The issue is 'equality' of ideas, and there my friend we have to disagree....because all ideas are not created equal. Some ideas are better than others, some bring happiness, some do not, and some ideas are just plain bad.
"Please resist the temptation to impose your religious beliefs on my family through legislation."
So is the question really your ideas vs. the ideas society has held irrespective of a particular religion, since the dawn of time? Because if this is a contest of ideas, please, bring forward your ideas and let's test them for accuracy and validity based on merit.
Yes Caleb, you are my equal. So marry a woman like I did, because we all know that separate isn't equal.
Two married men are no more equal to a man and wife than two left shoes equal "a pair of shoes".
Hey Marty
How do you feel about a black left shoe and a white right shoe? Does that meet your fashion requirements?
Marty,
If you're going to respond to my posts, please at least attempt a coherent and logical defense (or justification) of your position, preferably specifically addressing one or more statements that I have made, while backing it with fact instead of quip and "wit." That’s usually how a civilized debate works, however I understand that the latter may be difficult for you. However, in keeping with your post, and Kevin’s retort; you had better leave the fashion talk to us gays.
Kevin, the color of the shoe matters not to the kid who has to wear them.
But I still have never met a kid with two left feet.
Marty: Were you watching those offensive Chinese-language Prop. 8 ads again? To compare loving relationships between two people of the same sex with a pair of shoes is insulting and weak.
Marty: A glove with only two fingers doesn't make sense; a glove needs five fingers. I guess that means that we should all be in polygamous relationships with five participants, instead of in couples of two.
Funny how only two of the 4 posts I've written today have shown up... Yay for censorship!
Caleb,
"Please resist the temptation to impose your religious beliefs on my family through legislation." With this statement you assume that everyone that fights against SSM does so on the basis of their "faith." Therein lies the conundrum. Not everyone, whether for or against SSM, votes according to a belief system or faith practice. So, then, are you saying that people of faith shouldn't practice what they preach? If so, wouldn't that be hypocritical of me to do so?
@Michael,
No more insulting than insisting that a SS coupling is equivalent to that of a marriage and needs to be recognized as such. What about the polygamous relationships you allude to? Shouldn't they be accorded the same status of marriage? Why not if the parties involved are "consenting?"
Nicholas,
I’m not sure I follow your thought. I believe that people form their belief structure on a multifaceted range of socio-theological indoctrinations. Every aspect of a person’s life becomes engrained in their being; we are all a layered product of our environment, education, culture, and faith. If you imply that not all opponents to marriage equality base their objections on faith, you may be correct, but I think that you will have to admit that the majority of those who fight to block our attempts for equality do so on the basis of their religious beliefs.
Your response to Michael is interesting. It is curious to me that you would invoke the slippery slope argument in this way. You allude to legalization of polygamy as a potential result of the legalization of homosexual marriage; but what are the chances that the small and cloistered polygamist population would be willing to hitch their preverbal wagon to the gay rights movement? Who are predominantly engaged in polygamist relationships? That’s right; they are the radical sectarian Christian sub groups, who operate clandestinely underneath society’s radar. Would this group of fundamentalists really be willing to compare themselves to homosexuals? These groups traditionally hold us in the greatest disdain of all. Also, if we manage to break down gender barriers in marriage law, giving way to the new found polygamist movement; it would mean that, the legalization of polygamy would be non gender specific. Not only would men be able to marry multiple women, but a woman would be able to marry multiple men. Something tells me that polygamists wouldn’t pursue this issue in court. In any case, you may be right, but I’m fairly confident that the polygamists would remain in the same position they are today.
Finally, why must you resort to insults? Are we not able to discuss and debate in a respectful tone?
Caleb,
Where is the insult in my post? The fact that I find SS couples wanting to "marry" as insulting to marriage as the union of male and female, husband and wife, bothers you? What, would you rather I be placid and not stand my ground?
So, because a supposed "majority" of those against SSM may be so because of their "faith," they don't have a say in the matter? What ever the reason for being for or against SSM, do I not have a right to vote accordingly?
The only reason I brought up the polygamous relationship line was to point out, not so much to argue for the legalization of polygamy, as you suggest, but more so to say, why does a SS relationship stand above other relationships such that it needs to be recognized over and against all other relationships.? If marriage is only about "consent between two loving individuals," then why shouldn't any and all relationships be recognized as marriages? Essentially, then, why does marriage need to be gutted in order for you to attain it?
Lastly, the "fact" that "radical sectarian Christian sub groups," comprise those that participate in polygamous relationships is more an indication of that group wanting to "have their cake and eat it too." In other words, the insistence that they can remain faithful to God while engaging in sinful behavior speaks volumes of what they really believe and who they are loyal to(themselves at the expense of their relationship to God). We cannot have God in our life and tolerate sin without their being consequences. Eventually, we all must decide in Whom we put our trust.
Michael goes out of his way to avoid the obvious:
Growing up without a mother or a father is ALWAYS tragic. We ALL come from one man and one woman, without exception. But only same-sex couples go so far out of their way to ensure that their kids are deprived a father (or mother, as the case may be).
Do you suppose if Mommy was right-handed it would be acceptable for her to amputate her child's left arm? How about if she replaced it with a prosthetic right arm?
Would that make it okay?
Marty,
Doctors disagree with you. Should we believe you or them? What are your credentials that would make your claim believable?
Thank God our pediatricians recognize the importance of children having married parents! Now if they could just get folks like Maggie Gallagher and Brian Brown to for once, please consider the needs of children and put those needs ahead of your personal hatred!
“Citing child welfare and their commitment to support what is best for children, physicians from the Maine Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatricians (AAP) today announced their support for the NO on 1/Protect Maine Equality campaign.
“Children who are raised by legally married parents benefit from the legal status granted to their parents. What is good for parents and families is good for children,” said Dr. Jonathan Fanburg, president of the Maine Chapter of the Maine Chapter of the AA.”
Yes, even a doctor would agree that having a redundant and ill-fitting prosthetic is better than having none at all.
But they do not address the tragic question of the amputation.
Give me an example of fatherlessness that isn't tragic.
I know that Maggie Gallagher and NOM support denying the children of same-sex couples the advantages that marriage provides to children. It saddens me that she and NOM feel this way but I like children!
What I want to know is if people of faith support this position. NOM says it is associated with “faith communities” on its home page. So do people of faith support her mission to hurt the children of same-sex couples, or is NOM misleading the support it gets from “faith communities”?
Kevin, if anyone is "denying the children of same-sex couples the advantages of marriage" it is the adults. They are the ones depriving the kid of a mother AND a father, out of their own gender bias.
L. Marie:
“It’s not that we’re missing the point Caleb. The point is larger than what you describe. We agree. Every person is equal to every other, regardless of what they choose to do with their lives, regardless of deformity, color, or any other issue that makes us diverse. That is not the issue.”
...then what is the issue? You can't simply say that "we are equal" and then advocate the denial of equal rights and protections under law. You MUST separate the two ideas of religion and civil law, though I understand and respect that it may be difficult to do. It is in your best interests as a Christian to maintain that separation of church and state. It's dangerous ground to allow the government to dictate religious doctrine. As I said, the law works both ways, and someone else’s religious beliefs may be imposed on you some day.
I want no part of your church; I demand no recognition of my union by your congregation. I simply demand equal rights in all matters governed by law, as guaranteed by our constitution.
” Great! Welcome to humanity. You are equal! You are also treated equally under the law, because—-everyone is equal.
Now let’s get on with the conversation since we all agree that everyone is equal, and the issue at hand has nothing to do with ‘equality’ of personhood. The issue is ‘equality’ of ideas, and there my friend we have to disagree….because all ideas are not created equal. Some ideas are better than others, some bring happiness, some do not, and some ideas are just plain bad.”
Your statements are incorrect, simply by definition of the words that you use. How can you say that we are treated equally under the law, when we are debating the very inequality that you claim is nonexistent?
You are not addressing the key point: Civil marriage and all benefits granted by it, is a matter governed by state and federal law. You advocate legislation that would deny a minority the same rights granted to the majority. This is the argument and nothing more. There is no need to dive into a debate of ideas, religion, history, or pop culture. I am not allowed to enter into the same legally binding contract as my heterosexual counterparts. Moreover, for some reason this issue is allowed to be put to popular vote. Since when does this country allow the rights of a minority to be voted away by the rights of the majority?
NOM’s assertion that churches and organizations would loose tax exempt status, etc. if they declined to officiate over a homosexual wedding is laughable. Churches have no obligation to solemnize marriages now, and that would not change. In fact, legislation has already been introduced that would protect religious institutions further from this “threat.” I personally know a heterosexual couple who were turned away of the bride’s childhood church because the couple had lived together “in sin.” Although the family may have not agreed, the decision is up to the church and pastor.
The church has already been made obsolete, legally speaking, in modern marriage. All one needs is a justice of the peace, or friend who obtains an online ordination. Right or wrong, agree or disagree, this is fact.
I beg you again to stop making this debate about God, or your perceived “family values.” The cold hard truth is that it is about a legal document. We will continue to build happy loving homes, and there is nothing you can do about it. We simply demand our equal rights. I know, of course, that you will not respond with anything but your religious based rhetoric, because you haven’t another leg to stand on.
Nicholas,
“The only reason I brought up the polygamous relationship line was to point out, not so much to argue for the legalization of polygamy, as you suggest, but more so to say, why does a SS relationship stand above other relationships such that it needs to be recognized over and against all other relationships.?”
I understand very well why you referenced the issue of polygamy. It’s a common tactic of argument; the slippery slope. By arguing that if homosexual marriages are legally recognized, and then tying that to the concept of legal recognition of polygamous relationships, you have created a causal slippery slope argument upon the basis of a semantic one. Just because there is no clear line in the legal system to define the difference between the illegalities of homosexual marriage vs. a polygamous one, doesn’t mean that one will be a catalyst for the other; they remain two very separate ideas. My point is that you have to consider them as two separate ideas, and take into account the entire social climate. Just because idea A became legal, there can be no guaranteed (or probable) impact on idea B. You can not form a cause and effect argument with the assumption that two ideas are the same, when the only basis for their perceived sameness (in your argument) is that neither matches a third and separate idea. (A must be like B because they are both different than C).
“If marriage is only about “consent between two loving individuals,” then why shouldn’t any and all relationships be recognized as marriages? Essentially, then, why does marriage need to be gutted in order for you to attain it?”
Again, you are getting dangerously close to my point! Why can’t two consenting loving individuals enter into a legal contract declaring that they are committed and bound to each other, if nothing more than under the law? The only barrier to this idea is the sex of the two individuals; there need be no “gutting” of marriage (how one would “gut” marriage, I’m not sure...) All any opposite sex couple needs to do is sign a marriage license. The only requirement is that they be of the opposite sex, they could even be perfect strangers. Is that truly the one all important factor in marriage? Is the fact that I fell in love and want to spend my life in a committed relationship with another male enough to deny me so many rights? Name any other legal arrangement that has gender specific requirements…
Nicholas,
I neglected to address my “favorite” part of your thought:
“why does a SS relationship stand above other relationships such that it needs to be recognized over and against all other relationships.?”
Our relationships do not stand above any other relationship, and need not be recognized over any other relationship.
Why, Nicholas, does YOUR relationship stand above any other relationship such that it needs to be recognized over and against all other relationships?
We simply demand equality.
I have said this before (here), I will say it again - "denying a child a mother and a father" is not an argument against same sex marriage. It is an argument against same-sex parenting (adoption, surrogacy, artificial insemination, etc), which has been voted on ONCE, as opposed to 30+ times for SSM, although always arguing the child raising issue - that confuses me. Not one child is deprived of a mother or a father because two men down the street happen to be a) two straight (or one gay/one straight, etc) roommates b) boyfriends c) registered domestic partners or d) civil and/or religiously married. No one's domestic arrangement impacts anyone else's domestic arrangement or anyone else's children. You want to argue against same sex marriage, totally fine - debatable points on both sides - but we must start from the premise that it has absolutely nothing to do with marriage laws.
sorry - same sex parenting, that should be (it's getting late...lol)
Caleb,
Wow! Again, you misrepresent the point I was making. I only used polygamous relationships as an example of the non-marital category of which there are several. Why does a SS relationship, which comprises a percentage of the non-marital category, need recognition over and against the rest of the non-marital category? What makes a SS relationship deserving of special status accorded marriage?
Actually, I am no where near your point. My previous statement about consent was meant rhetorically. Also, to "gut" marriage means to strip marriage of its respective genders and replace with a same-sex coupling. In other words, "gutting" marriage dismisses marriage as the union of male and female, husband and wife.
As to your insistence that your relationship does need recognition via a marriage license belies your point that you demand equality. If so, then petition for all the non-marriage category to be accorded special status. Gasp! Then, there would be other "relationships" (perhaps you don't agree with) that would be recognized that otherwise wouldn't qualify. The inhumanity of it all!
Lastly, If you look to what is happening in Canada and England, churches, pastors, and people of faith are being villified for speaking against homosexuality. So if you think it is a bogus claim, Catholic Charities in Boston had to close its adoption agency when it refused to comply with the city's anti-discrimination laws on sexual orientation in granting adoptions or the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association that wouldn't allow a lesbian couple to use their facility for a "commitment ceremony." The couple sued and the OGCM (owned by the Methodist church) lost its tax-exempt status. When you factor in ENDA, eventually churches will not be able to stand on Biblical grounds for not hiring a LGBT person as it would be deemed discriminatory. In fact, last year in Canada, a parachurch organization, "Christian Horizons, which works with the disabled in 180 group homes run on Christian principles, was fined $23,000 in 2008 for terminating a female employee who was actively engaged in a homosexual relationship. All employees had signed an agreement prior to being hired in which they promised to refrain from all immorality, including homosexual conduct.
That wasn’t good enough, declared the human rights tribunal which heard the case brought by the fired lesbian. The tribunal not only issued the fine, it instructed the ministry to remove the immorality clause from the employee agreement and ordered the ministry to start forcing its managers to undergo sensitivity training to accept homosexuality." Just a few examples of which there will be plenty more in the days ahead.
Caleb #74
Men and women are NOT equal. Not physically, not emotionally, and certainly not legally.
Until they are, you can cry about "equal protection" ans SSM until the cows come home. It's still impossible that separate could be equal.
“Also, to “gut” marriage means to strip marriage of its respective genders and replace with a same-sex coupling.”
Huh? Both genders will be able to marry. No one is advocating that men or women be prohibited from marrying. But if you want to talk about “gutting” marriage, let’s look at what adultery and divorce have done to marriage. Marriage used to be a lifelong commitment, with sexual fidelity, between a virgin female and a man. Well, clearly we’ve gutted the lifelong commitment, marital infidelity hardly raises eyebrows anymore and so it seems kind of odd to stick to the “one man, one woman” formula, doesn’t it?
“Lastly, If you look to what is happening in Canada and England, churches, pastors, and people of faith are being villified for speaking against homosexuality.”
Why shouldn’t they be? Anyone who speaks against a group with malice should be called on it, shouldn’t they? Do people of faith think they should be shielded from criticism for preaching hate? Maybe it’s time to review the faith you practice, if it preaches hate.
Nicholas, you keep on bringin up polygamy, but you keep on ignoring my point that polygamy is perfectly Christian. In fact, not a single one of you have been able to refute that polygamy is Christian.
I've given several examples: Abraham, for one. Jacob, for another. He marries both Leah and Rachel, has children by both of them, and also has children by their servants, Zilpah and Bilhah. God never condemns these polygamist (and concubinal) relationships.
My point: If you are going to ground your definition of marriage in the Bible, then you should be willing to accept all legitimate marriages in the Bible. And that includes polygamous marriage.
The truth: You "definition of marriage" is not grounded in the Bible or in any other faith. Instead, it's based on your own personal biases and cultural ideas you've learned along the way. You use the Bible as a weapon, not as a guide. And this is where we part ways.
Kevin,
Did adultery and divorce come before marriage? Also, how have they changed the core of marriage? It is not still the union of male and female, husband and wife. And not suprisingly, you misunderstood what I meant by "gutting" marriage. It is not so much that SSM prohibits men and women from marrying each other as it sticks its collective tongue out at the notion that marriage was meant just for the union of male and female, husband and wife. You, having been previously married, how do you not know this?
As is your wont, you suggest that me or anyone else of faith speaking against homosexuality/SSM, is filled with hate and vengeance. Does being against a particular behavior now guarantee being labeled a hater or bigot? Could the converse not be true then too?
Marriage is first and foremost a foundational social institution of civil society.
At its core, marriage unites the sexes and provides for responsible procreation; it does this as a coherent whole not as a bunch of bits and pieces all made optional by lack of coherency.
The man-woman criterion of marriage law is not a sexual orientation criterion.
The challenge to the SSMers is to explain how the man-woman basis of marriage is suddenly transformed into a supposed sexual orientation basis for a civil contract.
Sexual orientation is not in the marriage law; SSM supporters read that into the law and demand that their fiction be treated as more substantive than the core meaning of marriage.
That core is extrinsic to the one-sexed arrangement -- regardless of the sexual orientation of those involved.
If there is an SSMer here who says that procreation is not a legal requirement and thus marriage is not about responsible procreation, then, that SSMer can step up to the plate and plainly state if gayness will or will not be a legal requirement for so-called "gay marriage".
If the answer is, yes, please cite an example from some jurisdiction where there is a gayness requirement for those who show-up for a license for a "gay marriage".
There is none that I know of, but maybe you can find one. And no proposed requirement from the SSM campaign's activists.
If there is no such legal requirement, neither enacted nor proposed, then, explain why not.
If you depend on the two people being gay to justify your complaint and your proposed remedy, then, why no gayness criterion for two persons of the same sex?
There is no same-sex sexual behavior requirement. And none for same-sex sexual romance. Certainly not for same-sex sexual attraction.
No such requirement for eligibility to SSM? How come?
No legal requirement, as per your own argumentation, means that gayness is NOT the central feature of so-called "gay marriage".
The man-woman basis of marriage is bigger than the pro-SSM view of sex and society. Bigger than the pro-SSM view of contract law. And bigger than the supposed gay-straight dichotomy, which in terms of marriage is a false dichotomy.
The man-woman basis is a sexual basis as per the various provisions in the law: the man-woman criterion of course; cosummation; grounds for annulment (including potency); grounds for divorce (including adultery); and the marital presumption of paternity.
None of these provisions are same-sexed. Indeed, for SSM there is no sexual basis in the law. All that the SSM supporters might claim as a sexual basis is their stereotyping. They think that only gay people would show-up for a license to SSM. But there is no legal requriement for gayness so they are mistaken, according to their own rules or argumentation.
Under SSM, according to the SSMer's own thought process, there is NO sexual basis to draw lines regarding consanguinity, age of consent for sexual relations, limitation of two, multiple concurrent unions, and so forth. Gayness is not a factor.
But if the lines are to be undermined by merging SSM with marriage, then, those lines cannot be sustained just because they apply only to the sexual basis of the union of husband and wife. That would be discriminating on the basis of heterosexuality, afterall. Indeed, most nonmarriage arrangements are NOT sexualized so the lines would be discrimination without justification anyway.
But when marriage is recognizes as marriage, rather than as some merged SSM-offshoot, the lines are sustainable and justifiable.
Upthread one SSMer, who said that procreation was not legally required, circled back to say that people closely related are barred from marriage because of ... wait for it ... concerns about procreation.
SSMers need to get their heads in the open air and think in an oxygen-rich environment.
Polygamy is not "perfectly Christian" as per the part in Scripture where Jesus (you know the Christ in Christian) spoke of marriage.
Most practictioners of plural marriage and/or polyamory would not describe themselves as you did, Nicholas. What do you have against anthiestic practioneers such that you would ignore their liberty to form unions of loving consenting adults?
There can be NO sexual basis for the polygam ban, right? You wouldn't want to step on their sexual liberties.
There can be NO procreative basis either, since you think the license to SSM is not about procreation anyway.
Just consent and a license demanded.
Besides, what possible reason would you have for discriminating against an all-male threesome or moresome? Or an all-female arrangement that combined several unions of two?
Tradition? Public morality? Something else?
If the plural marriage scenario was gay, would it be anti-gay to deny them "marriage equality"? Howcome?
Correction, it was Michael, not Nicholas, who referred to polygamy as "perfectly Christian".
My apologies Michael. My apologies Nicholas.
The political arm of the AAP made a political statement on SSM, not a scientific statement as per the credentialed basis of the pediatric profession.
Issuing political statements like that has zilch to do with professional credentials. It is politics and nothing more.
Nicholas:
The core of marriage is commitment and sexual fidelity, not “one man and own woman.” One man and one woman merely reflects who was permitted to marry, and interested in getting married. It’s not like men sit around wondering if they should hook up with a man or a woman, and opt for a woman so they can eventually marry if they hit it off. One man/one woman reflects biology, and needs no coaxing through the institution of marriage. Commitment and sexual fidelity DO require coaxing, since they are not particularly natural for the human species. Obviously, since even married people can’t adhere to them.
The core of marriage involved a lifetime commitment, the whole “till death do us part” thing. That is no longer true. Any married couple can divorce at any time for any reason. The core of marriage also meant sexual fidelity. Would you like to know some statistics about adultery? No, me either. Biblical marriage also required a virgin bride. Let’s not go there, shall we?
You and chairm can say that the core meaning of marriage (if that concept itself has any meaning) is one man and one woman, until you are blue in your respective faces. But it’s not. Yes, I know, repeat something often enough and it becomes true. But not really.
If you’ve never been married, maybe it’s a good idea to keep your opinions to yourself. For those of us who are, or were, married, I can assure you that opposite “genderness” does not a marriage make. If it did, there would be no adultery and no divorce.
Michael,
If you understand polygamy to be "Christian," then you do not understand Christian/Christianity. If polygamy is Christian, then why don't all Christians practice it? Wouldn't we be hypocritical to not engage in it? Also, unless I missed something, the Bible is a written historical record of God and His redemptive purpose for His creation. No where can you read into it that God is for sin. Your specious use of selected Scriptures only shows your lack of knowledge of the Truth. Additionally, if you had read any of my previous posts, you would see that I had answered your points regarding polygamous relationships. How did you miss this?
Lastly, I find it rather amusing that you "know" me as you do in just the few blogposts I have submitted. The fact that you claim that I don't ground my definition of marriage in the Bible and that it is merely based upon biases and ideas that I have gleaned along the way is a slap in the face. That'sokay, I'll turn the other cheek (Matthew 5:39). Also, your are right on one point, though. I do use the Bible as a weapon (Ephesians 6:11-18); however, I also use it as a guide (2 Timothy 3:16)hence where I get my direction for life and my supposed errant view marriage.
Kevin,
I meant no slight to you having been previously married. My point was, having been married before, how do you not know what marriage is?
As to the comment about believing something to be true just by repeating it ad nauseum; actually, that is what you are doing. I am not distorting what marriage is-the union of male and female, husband and wife. Always has been and always will be. The fact that you can't accept this as foundational to society is where I am at a loss.
Lastly, so are you saying that SSM will cure adultery and divorce? Have you not seen the report of the SSM couple wanting to get a divorce in Texas, but can't due to the "gay marriage ban" in place in the state? Also, if "opposite 'genderness' does not a marriage make," then why did you get married under this notion?
Chairm,
No apology needed. I just appreciate your candor and conviction.
"If you’ve never been married, maybe it’s a good idea to keep your opinions to yourself. "
Kevin, what did your wife die of again? Was it leukemia, or pancreatic cancer?
Nicholas, Kevin's story changes more than a pair of dirty socks. His is an alibi of convenience, shed at a moment, changed at a whim. Sometimes more than once in a day as we saw a few threads ago when he claimed to be incredibly distraught that his poor widower mantra was being ignored and claimed in two different posts that his wife had died tragically of two completely separate illnesses.
You can only keep the image up so long before you trip up eh Kevin? My question is, why pretend?
Michael,
From your post, it sounds as if you expect "Christians" to be perfect. We are not, just forgiven. And you can be too if you are not already. Also, surely you know that not everyone who claims to be a Christian is a Christian. Ever heard of the wheat amongst the tares? If not, then reference Matthew 13:25 and following.
Secondly, so my use of Scripture is specious? How so? Do they not address what we have been sparring about? If not, then explain to me how I can be clearer on what we are discussing because far be it for me to stand in the way of God having His way.
Lastly, I won't even address your insistence that God is for polygamy. The fact that the practice was "allowed" doesn't give license to it as you seemingly believe. If so, Jesus not addressing homosexuality explicitly would be the gravest of omissions.
Nicholas:
Do you hear yourself? You only prove my point. Where do you get that polygamy is wrong? Where do you get that homosexual relationships are wrong? You all but admit that it's not from the Bible!
"I won’t even address your insistence that God is for polygamy. The fact that the practice was 'allowed' doesn’t give license to it as you seemingly believe."
Fine, but then, where do you get that polygamy is wrong? If the Bible doesn't say so, then where is this coming from. You know where: Not the Bible. Plain and simple.
"The fact that the practice was “allowed” doesn’t give license to it as you seemingly believe. If so, Jesus not addressing homosexuality explicitly would be the gravest of omissions."
Again, do you hear yourself? You are saying: "Homosexuality must be wrong, because I, Nicholas, and some other people think so. Jesus didn't say anything about it, but we still think he'd be against it. If not, Jesus -- not Nicholas -- is in error." I mean, that's exactly the point:
Jesus's "not addressing homosexuality," as you admit, is quite frankly, the point. The more time and energy you spend on things that Jesus omitted to even care about, the more you distance yourself from God's Word and from a truly Christian life.
How about this? How about we focus for just one minute on what Jesus cared about -- not what Maggie or Nicholas or Brian Brown care about -- but what JESUS cared about. It's all there, in his sermon on the mound. Where is your website and fundraising and grassroots movements directed at promoting THOSE values?
Michael, marriage is between a man and a woman. You have not shown otherwise. Is the best you have to offer in defense of ssm a few low jabs at religion?
surely you can do better than that!