31 Comments

1. Chris Baker
   Posted December 4, 2009 at 7:20 pm | Permalink

   Imitation homosexual marriage would be a better description of what the Senate Judiciary committee intends to vote on, as well as an attack on men’s masculinity and women’s feminism. A real marriage is between a man and a woman and always will be. Also in Maine the Catholic Diocese seems to be under a frontal assault in the media for helping collect contributions to finance the repeal of homosexual marriage. It’s very important that those who believe that religious organizations can have a role in the political process stand up for your rights, which are under direct assault by homosexuals.

2. George Lee
   Posted December 4, 2009 at 7:23 pm | Permalink

   it's the fight between two moralities. Homosexuality is as much of a religion as any other. Yet, they want to silence one entire side of the debate. We cannot allow that to happen, it would be like barring all candidates but democrats from entering the arena of ideas. We are a free people. Everyone should be free to participate in the process.

3. Chairm
   Posted December 4, 2009 at 11:15 pm | Permalink

   There is no mandate for the legislature to take these actions against marriage.

   Even the NJ's highest court decided that the man-woman basis of marriage law is constutional.

   Neither the lame-duck Gov nor the Senators have a mandate to merger non-marriage with marriage. SSM is a subset of nonmarriage; a merger of SSM with marriage would be a specious substitution of marriage's core meaning. There is no principled basis for mistreating marriage in the way that is currently being entertained in the committee.

4. Kevin
   Posted December 5, 2009 at 12:01 am | Permalink

   New Jersey’s highest court insisted that the state stop discriminating against same-sex couples and grant them the same rights as marriage. Bravo, NJ!

5. Chairm
   Posted December 5, 2009 at 11:21 am | Permalink

   Comprehend this Kevin: The marriage law is constitutional, according to the NJ high court.

   And you have offered no principled basis to legislate differently. Zilch.

6. Ben
   Posted December 7, 2009 at 10:52 pm | Permalink

   OMG!!!! It's gonna pass in NJ Senate Comm.

7. Mia
   Posted December 7, 2009 at 11:38 pm | Permalink

   It's going to be a whole week debate. It's expected to pass committee, at least. Now is the time to call your reps in NJ. This is the only say we'll get here. If you're going to stand for marriage and families, make your voice heard today! Let's get this thing defeated!

8. Ben
   Posted December 7, 2009 at 11:40 pm | Permalink

   What are the chances it passes Thursday??

9. Mia
   Posted December 7, 2009 at 11:41 pm | Permalink

   I don't think they have the votes, it's going to be NY all over again, but we can't take it for granted.

10. LiveFreeOrDie
    Posted December 8, 2009 at 4:05 am | Permalink

    Grace be to God that one day He will deliver gay men and women from the tyranny and oppression of the majority. How hallow the victories over such a powerless minority. All that is needed is a simple update to a civil marriage license: Line 1: wife/husband/spouse. Line 2: wife/husband/spouse. Simply circle what is appropriate for your relationship. Everyone is accommodated: men, women, straights and gays. Why is such a mind blowingly simple update so difficult to achieve?

11. Chairm
    Posted December 8, 2009 at 10:00 am | Permalink

    In addition to voicing your support for marriage, ask your elected representatives for their own assessment of where the votes stand today.

    And give your own feelings about this becoming a big factor in the primaries (for both parties) and general elections.

12. Kevinn
    Posted December 8, 2009 at 12:40 pm | Permalink

    Let's keep our fingers crossed for a positive outcome on Thursday!

13. Richard Cortijo
    Posted December 8, 2009 at 1:40 pm | Permalink

    Call your Senators!!! We must have Equality in NJ!!! Equality away from one is Equality for None!

14. Chairm
    Posted December 8, 2009 at 4:20 pm | Permalink

    LiveFreeOrDie, why do you feign such ignorance? Instead of fantasizing about waving a magic wand, read the comment sections of this bogsite to gain insight into the actual disagreement.

15. john
    Posted December 8, 2009 at 4:36 pm | Permalink

    The militant feminist lesbians in their efforts to remake society have as allies not only the gay males but a powerful group of corporate elites (those who manage or control large corporations). The corporate elites have great influence over, and some would say even control over, both the Republican and Democratic Parties in the US. These corporate elites support gay marriage not only because it is a divisive issue, as keeping the common people divided is a good way to keep the common people weak politically and thus unable to challenge the corporate elites for control of the direction of the society, but also because the gay marriage movement is a kind of assault on Christianity, and the corporate elites want to undermine Christianity in the coming years.

    Though corporate elites found common cause with Christians in the 20th Century in the fight against the atheistic and anti-corporate Soviet Union, those corporate elites now see Christianity as an obstacle to the creation of a new value system where a person's value in society is to be totally dependent on the person's economic position. They wish to remake human society to a form similar to that of the Roman Empire, where people are just commodities to be bought and sold, used and abused, by an elite. As they have been continually rewarded in the quest for maximizing short-term profit, they have become somewhat like compulsive gamblers stuck in a rewarding but ultimately destructive positive feedback loop, and have lost their connection to broader perspectives and values. In pursuing their short-term and short-sighted goals, they have found strange partners in the militant feminist lesbians, who also want to remake human society but into a completely different form.

    The Christians are trying to preserve ancient but sound group survival practices in their protection of heterosexual marriage and in their efforts to hold onto the belief that all human life is sacred. It is amazing that these time-tested practices could be so seriously threatened for no sound reasons. But this predicament arose slowly, step by step, and good and caring people must respond in a responsible manner to extract their society from this moral swamp, step by step. NOM appears to be an important player in helping lead the way out of this swamp.

16. LiveFreeOrDie
    Posted December 8, 2009 at 11:40 pm | Permalink

    Chairm, you are quite the prolific one here. You harbor great animus and have an unusual obsession with this topic. No person on here seems to understand that there are 50 definitions of civil marriage in this country. Not one. It varies state to state. And in no state is any civil marriage deemed valid by religious sanction. Circular arguments that marriage can only be between one man and one woman because that is what marriage is... does nothing to advance the issue and fails even the simplest logic tests. Those denied the freedom to marry have brought forward real harm done unto them by not being allowed to enter into civil contract with one another, that is universally recognized. When this issue is properly debated in the realm of civil law and constitutional guarantees - there is no argument against extending marriage rights to same-gender couples that holds water. You don’t have to be married to procreate. Gay and lesbian people can and do procreate naturally, and have children from former mixed orientation marriages. Abusive, alcoholic opposite-sex couples can freely enter into marriage and abuse their children. Denying gay parents the right to marry will not stop any discussions in school, simply because a child raised by a same-gender couple will still have two moms or two dads and the issue will still be discussed – even if they are to suffer the lack of equal protection under the law. Gay families will not simply go away. Ever. And that’s just the tip of the iceberg, regarding children.

17. Sad American
    Posted December 9, 2009 at 6:13 am | Permalink

    How can you people be so blind? There is nothing harmful about same sex marriage. It saddens me to see you all turn away from the truth that this organization is fostering hate not love. Please look into your hearts and see that there is nothing wrong with same sex marriage and help change this world for the better

18. FRANK
    Posted December 9, 2009 at 10:30 am | Permalink

    Wow! It's unbelievable how filled with hate most of the writers are. Sadly most of them hide behind the their claim that they are religious and their love for God. It's so hypocritical and evil to say and hide behind. If you hate, admit it, don't use God as an excuse. God created and loves everyone. God is the only one who should judge others. With so much violence and hatred in the world, it seems that if someone loves and wants to marry another person, we should celebrate this. Our energies should be focused on child abuse, murder, rape and the many other despicable acts that people commit. What a waste of good energy on something that really is no one else's business. Why does it bother anyone to give others the same rights as you have. I agree, marriage should not be forced on religions and each religion has a right to deny it, but the US constitution is supposed to protect every citizen and no one has a right to take that away. Hate will destroy us as it has in so many other society's. What has happened to the compassion and willingness of the American people. What a sad commentary of where we are headed.

19. Amy Lee
    Posted December 9, 2009 at 2:02 pm | Permalink

    "Wow! It’s unbelievable how filled with hate most of the writers are."

    Frank, did you mean to say "WOW it's unbelievable how many people disagree with me in here!"

20. James R.
    Posted December 9, 2009 at 2:05 pm | Permalink

    "How can you people be so blind? There is nothing harmful about same sex marriage."

    Sad American, it is not hard to see why you are so sad if your logic skills are thus lacking. Perhaps you'd be happier if you looked at issues with a wide angle lens. Check out the facts on the issue and then make a principled argument for why you think there is nothing harmful about ssm. Using "hate" as a bookmark where you intended to put a real argument doesn't really cut it.

21. Chairm
    Posted December 10, 2009 at 12:27 pm | Permalink

    Regarding the comment @ December 8, 2009 at 11:40 pm ...

    The defense of marriage is robust and has withstood the supposed "logic tests" that SSMers have thrown at it.

    Meanwhile, SSM argumentation has failed to pass its own puported "logist tests". It is weak, frivolous, circular, and intellectually dishonest. SSMers have demonstrated this over and over again.

    * * *

    If, as the you asserted, you have discovered fifty different definitions, then, you will have no trouble listing each of these different definitions. We can then assess the siginificance of whatever variables, if any, you might choose to emphasize.

    Logically, if you cannot produce the list of fifty different definitions, with differences that are highly significant to the actual disagreement about SSM, then, your strut will have tripped you up.

    Besides, SSMers demand one definition for all fifty states.

    * * *

    Your remarks about "mixed orientation marriages" undoes the complaint that the marriage law bars people due to their gayness or lesbianism. The marriage law is neutral regarding orientation and regarding identity politics. Likewise the marital presumption of paternity is neutral on those things. Your concession is undisputed.

    Yet you emphasized gayness and lesbianism in the rest of your comment. You must be arguing with yourself.

    * * *

    Marriage is not sex-neutral. This social institution unites the sexes and provides for responsible procreation. The lines drawn around marriage, for example those for ineligibility, are based on significant societal concerns regarding the integrity of this core meaning.

    Abolishing that core at the stroke of a pen may be what SSMers wistfully demand, but that would be a grave injustice to children, parents, and all of society -- visited upon this generation and passed on to the future generations.

    Its simplicity does not rehabilitate the profound flaws of this demand for the SSM-merger.

    For example, contary to your gaycentric remarks, the vulnerable families of the nonmarriage category are not defined by gayness. Indeed, they exist even you wish to pretend they are invisible. They are not going away.

22. Caleb
    Posted December 10, 2009 at 6:20 pm | Permalink

    In an effort to bring into line this never ending circular debate of rhetoric, I challenge an opponent of marriage equality to provide direct responses to the following statements, in a similar format.

    1. Given the assumption that this country was founded on the separation of church and state, and knowing that our forefathers fled their native lands due to religious persecution (that is, the forcible imposition of the theological and “moral” beliefs of the majority onto that of a minority group) we have the understanding that this separation is critical to all citizens; be they of a ideological majority or minority. That being said; how can religion be used as an arguing point against equal rights for all Americans?
    2. A marriage license is nothing more than a civil contract between two consenting adults. What those two adults make of their marriage together is up to them, and the government has no say in it. Prohibiting someone from entering into any other legal contract based on their gender would be considered discrimination. How is this legal contract any different?
    3. We are making argument for equal marriage rights without bias to gender discrimination or sexual orientation; civil marriage equality only. This argument is completely separate from any of the other topics which are all too often introduced under this debate. We are not fighting for the rights to have a family, to raise children, to teach our children loving family values, and most importantly to teach them never to hate; we already have those rights, and they can never be taken away.
    4. Conclusion: Now that we have removed the question of religion, identified that civil marriage is, at it’s foundation a civil contract, and have removed all of the distracting side arguments; what is the foundation for denying me the same rights that you enjoy?

    Remember; please try to stay on topic. If you would like to pose questions in retort, please do so after responding to my statements in a separate comment and I, for one, would be glad to respond. Let’s end this circular argument once and for all, shall we?

23. Chairm
    Posted December 11, 2009 at 10:11 am | Permalink

    Caleb,

    The moderators will guide the discussion if commenters go "off-topic." The topic of the original blogpost is an indicator; but moderators continue to accept sub-topics for discussion in comment sections.

    You, Caleb, as a commenter do not moderate the discussions here. Neither do I.

    I think you understand that, right? If you would prefer to have a discussion moderated by yourself, please point to a different blogsite and invite other readers to follow you there.

    * * *

    This ground you commented on has been well-covered in previous discussions, by the way, so you might drop the pretense of rising above it.

    Instead, you might do better by plainly stating the actual disagreement. Those on the other side of the disagreement can then either confirm your understanding of that disagreement, correct your statement, or clarify the bits where misunderstandings may have arisen.

    In that spirit, I'll respond.

    * * *

    1. "how can religion be used as an arguing point against equal rights for all Americans?"

    You mischaracterized the disagreement. Please restate without assuming the conclusion in your question.

    2a. "A marriage license is nothing more than a civil contract between two consenting adults."

    Marriage is not a license. The license is not marriage. Marriage is first and foremost a foundational social institution of civil society. It is not the creature of the government. Government, on behalf of society, regulates the parameters of marriage. It does not create and own the social institution that it recognizes and shows preference for. Thus, marriage has a core, essentials, that distinguish it as a unique type of relationship different from the rest of the range of relationships and arrangements.

    Not all nonmarriage relationships and arrangements are sexualized; most are not. Most are not one-sexed, but rather two-sexed; even at that most are also sex-neutral, unlike marriage which is not sex-neutral.

    In the limited sense of "civil contract" the conjugal relationship is the consensual union of a husband and wife. It is not sex-neutral as per the sexual basis of consummation and provisions for annulment and adultery-divorce; this sexual basis is one and the same as that for the marital presumption of paternity. The consent of the husband and wife entails all of this, as a matter of "civil contract". None of this applies to the one-sexed arrangment -- regardless of sexual orientation of the individuals.

    There appears to be no sexual basis for what activists refer to as SSM. Not in the form of a civil contract, anyway, in which the participants are required by law to engage in same-sex sexual behavior of one kind (i.e. all-male) and of a different kind (i.e. all-female). As per SSMers, if there is no legal requirement for something, then, it is not essential to SSM. Indeed, same-sex sexual behavior can and does occur outside of such civil contracts and such arrangements; so as per SSMers, it cannot be essential the SSM, as a civil contract or otherwise.

    * * *

    2b. "Prohibiting someone from entering into any other legal contract based on their gender would be considered discrimination. How is this legal contract any different?"

    See 2a. Marriage is the "civil contract" of husband and wife. It is not merely a contract of consenting adults. There are plenty of examples of contracts which do not bestow marital status on the signatories.

    If you see SSM as merely a civil contract, then, you need no license to form such an agreement, much less a license to marry. It is not clear what prohibition you are talking about. Be more explicit.

    Note that not all discrimination is unjust. Society discriminates between marriage and non-marriage. Your emphasis that SSM is just a civil contract indicates that your position is that marriage must be reduced to whatever SSM is and must become sex-neutral in all ways. That would be unjust discrimination against the core meaning of marriage in our society.

    On the other hand, if you believe that society might justly discriminate between SSM and non-marriage, please explain the principled basis for that proposition. Surely it is not some concern for sex-discrimination. Right?

    * * *

    3. "We are not fighting for the rights to have a family, to raise children, to teach our children loving family values, and most importantly to teach them never to hate; we already have those rights, and they can never be taken away."

    See 2a and 2b. You are barking up the wrong tree.

    4. "what is the foundation for denying me the same rights that you enjoy?"

    On what principled basis do you claim to not enjoy the same rights as others?

    If you are comparing some subset of the one-sexed kind of arrangement (which is itself a subset of the nonmarriage category), please plainly state the principled basis for your seeking to differentiate that subset from the rest of the arrangements that are ineligible to marry.

24. Jennifer
    Posted December 11, 2009 at 12:31 pm | Permalink

    In response to Caleb:

    1. Given the assumption that this country was founded on the separation of church and state, and knowing that our forefathers fled their native lands due to religious persecution (that is, the forcible imposition of the theological and “moral” beliefs of the majority onto that of a minority group) we have the understanding that this separation is critical to all citizens; be they of a ideological majority or minority. That being said; how can religion be used as an arguing point against equal rights for all Americans?
    --
    Our anscestors were Puritans. They were seeking religious freedom, yes. What gay rights legislation DOES is take away religious freedoms. When churches have to stop facilitating adoption (as in Massachusetts) or serving the poor (as is the threat to the Catholic Church in D.C.) because they are accused of "bigotry" for not changing their long-standing Biblical viewpoints, they are not able to fully practice their religion, that is discrimination. Freedom of religion, as you state, is a founding principle of this country.
    The option to marry is given to two consenting adults: a man and a woman, to create an environment that is favorable to children.

    2. A marriage license is nothing more than a civil contract between two consenting adults. What those two adults make of their marriage together is up to them, and the government has no say in it. Prohibiting someone from entering into any other legal contract based on their gender would be considered discrimination. How is this legal contract any different?
    --
    Would you make the same argument if those "two consenting adults" were first cousins? Brother and sister? Two sisters? Do you have any argument against polyamourous unions? If you do, why? Race and gender are 100% genetically determined, unchangable and not based on behavior. More here:
    http://robgagnon.net/homosexIncestPolyAnalogy1.htm
    3. We are making argument for equal marriage rights without bias to gender discrimination or sexual orientation; civil marriage equality only. This argument is completely separate from any of the other topics which are all too often introduced under this debate. We are not fighting for the rights to have a family, to raise children, to teach our children loving family values, and most importantly to teach them never to hate; we already have those rights, and they can never be taken away.
    --
    States do not give everyone the opportunity to marry. If that marriage is detrimental to the people involved or society at large, it is denied. For another non-religious argument, go here:
    http://tech.mit.edu/V124/N5/kolasinski.5c.html

    4. Conclusion: Now that we have removed the question of religion, identified that civil marriage is, at it’s foundation a civil contract, and have removed all of the distracting side arguments; what is the foundation for denying me the same rights that you enjoy?
    --
    What actual rights do you not have?

25. Beth
    Posted December 12, 2009 at 9:38 am | Permalink

    According to the "Diversity in American Indian Culture, Boston: Beacon Press, 1986.
    Walter L. Williams" The berdache often remained
    single, but in some tribes his marriage to a
    person of the same sex was accepted just as
    a heterosexual marriage was, and their
    homosexual behavior was not stigmatized."

    From Google search "Though perhaps not the originator of the practice, the emperor Nero appears to have been the first Roman emperor to marry a male."

26. Beth
    Posted December 12, 2009 at 9:57 am | Permalink

    Above post, wrong discussion thread.... sorry

27. Chairm
    Posted December 12, 2009 at 9:14 pm | Permalink

    Beth I responded in the other discussion.

    Speculation about "berdache" is far from conclusive evidence.

    Saying that Nero "appears" to do something is also manifestly speculative and does not accord with the law of marriage during his lifetime in ancient Rome.

    Dig a little below the surface and you'll discover that there is no prededence for SSM -- as marriage -- in the prehistory you have cited. I take it you depend on these secondary, or rather teritiary, sources rather than your own familiarity with the primary sources.

    Anyway, see the other discussion thread if you wish to pursue the topic further.

    Cheerio,
    Chairm

28. manaen
    Posted December 15, 2009 at 9:22 pm | Permalink

    Responding to Caleb's #2 posted December 10, 2009 at 6:20 pm
    .
    Re: "A marriage license is nothing more than a civil contract between two consenting adults."
    .
    Thank you for this. I've been wondering why the opponents of marriage equality -- i.e. those who want special rules for homosexual unions -- speak as if they don't understand our view point. Turns out that you don't.
    .
    Consider the usage of "marriage" in this quotation,
    "Reconciliation requires both honesty and kindness. Kindness without honesty is not enough, and honesty, without the tempering of compassion, is not sufficient either. It is the marriage of the two that makes deep healing possible."
    -- Laura Davis, “I Thought We’d Never Speak Again,” p. 190
    .
    The interaction of honesty and kindness in this observation shows what is marriage: a blending, a working in concert, a becoming one of two parts that are essentially different from each other. This both differs from and far surpasses your proposed mis-definition of "nothing more than a civil contract."

29. Dena Leichnitz
    Posted December 16, 2009 at 12:34 am | Permalink

    How hollow the victories over such a powerless minority.

    Powerless? Are you kidding me? Gays are anything but powerless. In fact, their economic, political and social clout far exceeds their numbers especially in terms of their standard of living.

    Annual household income for gays and lesbians for 2007-2008 is $80,000. (communitymarketinginc.com)

    Compare the household income of gays and lesbians of $80,000 a year to the median income of blacks, Asians and Hispanics. U.S. Census statistics for 2008 (published on September 11, 2009) show that the median income for blacks was $34,218; for Hispanics it was $37,913; for Asians it was $65,637. Median income for non-Hispanic white households was $55,530.

    This doesn't sound like a powerless group to me. Stop the lies and start learning the truth!

30. Chairm
    Posted December 20, 2009 at 3:07 pm | Permalink

    Where is Caleb to discuss Caleb's own inquiry of ten days ago?

31. Chairm
    Posted December 22, 2009 at 3:11 am | Permalink

    Well, make that twelve days ago and counting.