Marriage Watch / Maggie Gallagher
While David Blankenhorn is on the hand try to explain to David Boies the nature of marriage as a cross-cultural virtually universal human social institution, I was at Colorado University at Boulder, at the invitation of the St. Thomas Aquinas Center for Catholic Thought, debating same-sex marriage with Jonathan Rauch.
The Catholic News Agency's account (which strikes me a reasonably accurate for a quick summary), says in part:
"Gallagher rested her defense of marriage on a question of truth. She said the parties to the debate were using the same words to mean different things. "The first question for me is: Are same-sex unions 'marriages'?"
I then went on to say:
"I'm against discrimination, I'm against hatred, I'm in favor of marriage equality, but I don't think same-sex marriage is marriage. Therefore I think it is wrong for the government to insist, through the use of law, that we all believe that same-sex unions are marriages."
36 Comments
At its most fundamental level, the laws and rights involved in the case at hand have to do with behavior and relationships involving that behavior, not with any immutable characteristic an individual is born with such as race or gender. Traditional marriage is based on the understanding that the longevity of intimate heterosexual relationships is critical because such relationships often lead to children and children benefit greatly from growing up in a stable home with a mother and a father.
Given that all on one's ancestors engaged in heterosexual behavior (with the possible exception of those children born recently to lesbians who were artificially inseminated), and given that humans have become the indisputable masters of this world in large part because they are so adaptable, it is extremely likely that every human being is capable of engaging in heterosexual behavior. Maybe even every human being is capable of engaging in homosexual behavior. But the critical fact is that every human being is capable of enjoying the benefits provided by the state in its support of traditional, heterosexual, marriage, if the individual so chooses.
John's post so illustrates the point that ignorance, fear, and hatred are really behind Maggie's words. People. Are. Born. Gay. Get over it.
Clark, where is the science behind your claim?
It's anecdotal. Every single gay person I know has the same experience. Including myself. I don't need science to figure that out. I've known I was gay since second grade. Oh, and I was valedictorian of my class, a Fulbright scholar, and have Ph.D. There's nothing wrong with me or with being gay. You guys are obsessed. And the best part is....we're not going away or back into some closet so that your idea of marriage is "protected".
John’s post so illustrates the point that ignorance, fear, and hatred are really behind Maggie’s words. People. Are. Born. Gay. Get over it.
People. Are. Not Born. As. A. Consequence. Of. Gay Unions. Get over it.
This debate about the core of marriage: One side says for traditional marriage. Lots of studies support this no doubt.
In recent years gay marriage has made in roads. The are starting to present their own studies that support their side.
Their is not a scientific way to prove without a doubt that homesexual is inborn. Their is not scientifc study that points to a gene, if there is any evidence, it is soley speculation and has no consistent support or universally accepted among scholars. Usually studies pointing to inborn homosexualality is found by those seeking to comfort the homosexual.
Also in conlict is x gays who have changed, and people who have gone back and forth. If homesexual was inborn methinks that would not be the case. Also all of the sexual traits or characeristics of the body are not fully developed or manifested at birth.
I am so proud of NOM and sent in another donation today. Clark did you listen to the Prop 8 testimony the past few days, our experts completely debunked every born that way feeling theory that Boies raised during cross examination. Blakenhorn defended traditional families and repeatedly reminded Mr. Boies that marriage protects children. Clearly the plaintiffs must feel like they had their defeat handed to them today.
Marriage wins, Marriage is between a man and woman. Thank You NOM!
What I meant by my first response to John was that Maggie can talk herself in circles, but posts like these prove that this is really about anachronistic types like y'all who think that people can choose to be gay (or straight), ergo, everyone should marry a partner of the opposite sex. That just isn't the real world. Have any of you ever been to New York, L.A., or San Francisco? We're everywhere. And it's fabulous.
I have heard all I can. Lets start thinking clearly, and outside of the PC, victimology box. Two man; or, two women ( in the real clear thinking world ), do not get married; it is contrary to the law of nature. Just because, someone, or group want something; it does not have to become a law. It is time to start saying no to all these silly people.
Everyone can marry. They just have to align with the rules: Can't be too closely related by blood, can't be too young, can't be already married to someone else, must be of opposite sex, and so on.
The only one of those that was essentially immutable through recorded history was the last one. Yet this is the one that is challenged now. I need to hear why if this can be changed, why not any of the others, where there are far more examples in history than legalized gay marriage?
Those who want to change the current rules aren't doing it to merely acquire what everyone else has. They already have that. It's just that it is not appealing to them,
It is no different than a man who wants to marry two willing women, or a woman who wants to marry her brother. (and remember, we are told now that making babies is not the essential point of marriage, right?) Those who want to allow gay marriage want to alter the essential concept of what marriage is. So again - why not remove all the other rules?
Clark, you need to listen to the science, the facts. There are many things that can be done to help sexual addictions, but man- woman marriage "ain't " one of those.
The topic at hand isn't weather gays are inborn or not. The topic deals with the definition of marriage. Clark's statement does nothing to refute Maggie's statement. He just changed the subject.
People are born gay get over it?????
Um, no ... People aren't even born heterosexual. But they are born as either female or male (with the extremely rare hermaphrodite).
Sexuality DEVELOPS over time and is greatly influenced by environment AND biology. Sexual preference is complex and is tied in greatly with societal expectations for gender-conforming behavior and a person's natural talents and disposition.
If people were just born gay there wouldn't be instances of ex-gays, or ex-straights.
All things being equal, many people would view being gay as a reproductive handicap. And that's not something that nature generally favors.
http://www.narth.org
New York, LA, SF. Were everywhere??? Hello try visiting Maine where they just rejected gay marriage laws. Or how about visiting Texas? Hmm? Limited to 2 states are we? NY and CA. Ever done any research to know how that came to be? Sure there is a mixture of gays throughout the US. but why do you think it conglomerated to those 2 states? Do research and do some gay history research. You know why gays aren't allowed in the military??? It didn't always use to be that way. Perhaps find out the answer to that and you will find out your answer to how gays started in CA.
I must say I find it curious that the so called "third way" is hardly given mention at all, namely that all such unions between two people, both gay and straight, be called civil unions.
A marriage is a private, and more often than not religious and sacred union that is perfectly capable of existing without any sort of validation from the government.
Wow Adam. Try checking your grammar and spelling. Beyond that, I can't help you with your homophobia.
Nice sound bite Clark, I am not writing a history paper here. Homophobia? perhaps you are heterosexia?
Nicole, that is a very interesting link. I have bookmarked it so I can reference it later and hopefully share it when discussing some of my pro-traditional marriage views with others.
Thanks for sharing it!
Clark: "think that people can choose to be gay (or straight), ergo, everyone should marry a partner of the opposite sex."
The ergo is spurious.
The CA marriage amendment, and the two-sexed basis of marriage, does not mandate that everyone enter marriage.
In fact, SSMers do not declare that all "gay" people enter SSMs. Besides, participation rates are very, very, very low. Apparently SSM is not so gay afterall.
As for your first thought, that people are born gay, that needs to be unpacked.
Define gay.
It is a socio-political construct -- a group identity -- of very recent invention.
Same-sex sexual behavior, same-sex sexual attraction, these have long been with humankind. But that's not what "gay" means.
Whether or not such feelings are inborn is irrelevant. Whether such feelings are changeable is irrelevant. There's plenty of evidence that both assertions are false, but we need not go that far. Legitimate scientific dispute exists. There is no scientific certainty to these claims of it being inborn or unchangeable.
On the other hand, no socio-political identity is inborn and none is immutable.
The rhetoric of gay identity politics rerlies on a commitment to deceptive certainty.
SSM is not marriage. And marriage is not SSM.
SSM = Specious Substitution of Marriage.
Of SSMers truly believed in SSM as a worthy, if novel and new, institution of gay identity, then, they'd not attach it to a social institution that has a core meaning extrinsic to SSM.
They'd say, here is SSM, and here is the independant claim for enacting it into law. They'd say, every person who identifies as "gay" ought to be encouraged, prodded, channelled, toward entering SSM and transforming themselves by the core meaning of SSM.
But they don't do that. They force the SSM idea onto all of society, not by building SSM, but by tearing down marriage. They attack the core of marriage as bigoted and hateful. They denounce marraige as anachronistic and unconstitutonal and the lot.
But what is SSM -- what is its core meaning -- what are its essential features without which it would not be SSM?
They don't say. But the do like to change the topic to gayness. And therein lies the core meaning of SSM. Gay identity politics asserted as a trump card over marriage, the law, and our constitution.
What are the essential features?
To name a few:
Legal protections
hospital visitation
the right to inheritance without paying exorbitantly disparate estate tax(es)
survivorship benefits with regard to social security & pension
access to employer-provided health insurance
defaulted end of life planning and death benefit rights (i.e. opposite gender marriage defaults to the spouse at time of death or in medical decision-making even WITHOUT extraneous legal documentation, same-sex couples do not benefit from this PRESUMPTION of familial status)
qualification under the Family Medical Leave Act
joint federal tax filing status
joint state tax filing status
citizenship via establishment of a legally recognized long-term and mutually dependant relationship (note that I'm willing to NOT use the word marriage)
....the list actually goes on....once again, it's kind of disingenuous to throw out that that it is the SSMers who are playing the identity politics trump card. If you're going to throw that argument out there then you need to be willing to back it up with a willingness to "protect" marriage as an institution while still offering the very real protections and benefits that are defaulted to the institution.
For gay marriage folks that seems to be their core wants. But marriage offers all those core's and more, which actually makes it special. If you want the full package of marriage, you need to qualify. Usually married people have sex.
I suppose in a pinch we could go back to those sham marriages we saw back in the Sixies and Seventies.
Marry some woman or other, and have male lovers on the side. Although it kind of defeats the whole notion of love, it would keep the neighbors happy.
And it was the traditional approach before people learned honesty is the best policy!
EL,
You said: "If you’re going to throw that argument out there [that the SSMers who are playing the identity politics trump card] then you need to be willing to back it up with a willingness to “protect” marriage as an institution while still offering the very real protections and benefits that are defaulted to the institution."
Could you elaborate on that, please. I really am not sure what you meant to say there.
By the way if you want to change marriage and sex. I don't know how you learned about sex, but you might want to take a couple biology classes in high school and if you don't agree on what sex is. You may want to sue the schools to include your new definition of sex.
EL,
Your list does not answer the question I had asked.
I did not ask for a grocery list of stuff you would attached to SSM. Your list is just a repeat of the demand that SSM be attached to marriage.
Instead of saying what marriage is NOT -- so as to attach SSM to it -- start with the type of relationship you have in mind. At the very least it is one-sexed.
I asked about the independant claim for enacting SSM in the first place:
"But what is SSM — what is its core meaning — what are its essential features without which it would not be SSM?"
Before you make a grocery list of demands, begin with the thing for which you want to attach stuff. Its core is the first thing to establish. The rest flows from that.
What is SSM, itself? Presumably it is a type of same-sexd relationship or arrangement. And society would be able to see it and recognize it by the things that make it different from other stuff. Without the difference(s) SSM would be indistinguishable from stuff that, supposedly, is not SSM.
While it might be one-sexed, the same is so of much of the nonmarriage category that is NOT sexualized and is NOT gaycentric. SSMers emphasize gayness as a proxy for a type of sexual relationship, right?
Does the SSM idea exclude more than it includes? If yes, then, what differences pre-exist the proposed enactment of SSM such that the lines for eligiblity are justified by those differences? Is it gayness?
That's what I meant by the essentials. Before you attach even one legal benefit, explain the definitive characteristics, the essential features, of SSM.
Imagine the slate is blank. We start from scratch. No marriage law. No SSM law. We aren't even considering opposite-sexed scenarios right now. Just the one-sexed type of relationship that you have in mind.
Begin there. The attachments would come later.
Dean, do you mean to say you feel that mixed orientation marriages are shams and dishonest?
Do you feel that also true for other types of relationships that mix the orientations?
Or perhaps you could come back to reality. Traditional marriage never claimed perfection. Traditional marriage teaches couples to stay together and love. People are human make mistakes, but it doesn't change the meaning of traditional marriage. Of course you wish that it would. Nowhere has traditional marriage promoted infedelity. Thats the stuff coming out of Holleywood.
It's a shame no one has responded to Gordo's post. It is the one question I have never seen a pro SSM answer to - if marriage is allowed between two people of the same sex, how soon before the other regulations guarding against incestuous marriages, plural marriages, underage marriages, non-human marriages etc are also broken down?
The sooner this issue gets the U.S. Supreme Court, the better. While it's true that the Constitution doesn't define "marriage," the federal government has a vested interest in married couples for the purposes of tax law and Social Security (among the 1,138 legal benefits, protections, and responsibilities that are automatically bestowed on couples once they marry). This is not an issue that can be left up to the states to decide individually, since it wouldn't do for a Gay couple that is legally married in Iowa, for instance, to become automatically UN-married once they decide to move somewhere else.
Religious beliefs are irrelevant, because (1) the United States is not theocracy, and (2) churches will continue to be free to conduct or deny ceremonies to whomever they want.
Procreation and parenting are irrelevant, since couples do not have to marry to have children, and the ability or even desire to have children is not a prerequisite for getting a marriage license.
This is simply a matter of equal treatment under the law. Contrary to what Prop. 8 defender Andrew Pugno would like people to believe, the "domestic partnership" provisions for Gay couples in California are inferior to legal marriage in many ways. In California, separate is most definitely NOT equal. And at the federal level, there is still that pesky Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) which is clearly in violation of the 14th Amendment and the "Full Faith & Credit" clause of the Constitution.
The quest for marriage equality by Gay couples has absolutely nothing to do with Straight (i.e. heterosexual) couples. Nothing is changing for them. Nothing is happening to “traditional marriage.” Most people are Straight, and they will continue to date, get engaged, marry and build lives and families together as they always have. None of that will change by allowing Gay couples to do the same. This is really not any sort of a “sea change” for marriage, since the only difference between Gay and Straight couples is the the gender of the two persons in the relationship.
Meridith Baxter Birney. Born gay? Or just a failure at loving men?
Chuck Anziulewicz, you comment actually makes a strong case for the Federal Marriage Amendment.
You said: "This is not an issue that can be left up to the states to decide individually."
DOMA is supported by a significant portion of elected representatives, and of the electorate, who believe it diminishes the need for a pro-marriage amendment to the US Constitution. End DOMA and begin the ratification process, I would guess.
End it through an abuse of judicial review, as per your comment, and you'd confirm that support for DOMA translates into support for curtailing the over reach of the judiciary on this very issue by constitutionalizing DOMA and deciding the national question with a nationwide answer.
As with slavery, the amending process can provide a valid and robust check on the self-empowerment of the judiciary.
* * *
We talk of Responsible Procreation, but SSMers switch to procreation -- of any and all kinds. They do not face the actual disagreement.
Chuck, you invoked a rule of argumentation that if something is not legally required, then, it is not essential to marriage.
When people enter the social institution they say, I do, to the marital presumption of paternity. Consent to all that marriage is, that is a legal requirement. And the legal presumption of paternity is vigorously enforced in our legal system. It also has an overflow effect outside of marriage due to its opposite-sexed sexual basis. The reliability of the presumption is much higher within marriage than outside. That's reason enough to show preferential status for marriage.
You just argued that the special reason for the special status of marriage must be abolished because, according to you, it is unconstitutional.
Sex integration is legally required, also, but you argue for the abolition of the man-woman criterion and the sexual basis of marriage. That means you also would destroy justification for the lines of eligibility and ineligibility.
None of those lines include a "straight' criterion for eligibility nor a "gay" criterion for ineligibility. So you are not really talking about legal requirements, afterall.
Indeed, the SSM campaign does not propose, and no place with SSM has imposed, a legal requirement for same-sex sexual attraction, same-sex sexual behavior, same-sex romance, or even gay identity.
Legal requirements you abolish and legal requirments you depend on only in the form of phantoms ... that makes for a very poor argument for SSM.
John,
Would you want someone who has homosexual tendancies and attractions to marry your daughter? Would that help to stablize marriage?
I thought not.
@ Chairm #19
"Define gay.
It is a socio-political construct — a group identity — of very recent invention."
Chairm, if two men want to get married, they're gay.
Wow Chuck! I hope you're the one to argue for SSM before the Supreme Court. That would be the fastest way to guarantee that the few current SSM state laws that current exist are repealed!!! Your arguments are the strongest ones I've ever heard for creating a federal marriage protection constitutional amendment, they are that illogical and have so little basis in law or even social history.
Where do I begin. First of all, according to the US Constitution, marriage was never intended to be federally regulated (licensed). It has always been left to the states and will continue to be so.
Next, you have absolutely got to be joking about children and families being irrelevant to the definition of marriage. I don't even think Judge Walker in the Prop 8 case buys that argument, that marriage is just between two people who supposedly 'love' each other and have a committed relationship. That's fine, but it's not marriage. Oh, and please don't get me started with how changing that leads to the questions asked earlier about child marriage and multiple marriages and so on.
But here's my problem: This trial isn't about same-sex marriage at all, but trying to force the acceptance of the gay lifestyle on all of us, to quote San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, "Whether you like it or not." Gay activist groups are trying to force our state and even our federal government to legitimize something the majority of people in this country don't want to be legitimized, mainly because it is the only 'relationship' that denies a child the possibility being raised by both a mom and dad. And please don't talk about divorce and single parents. Situations happen that are not optimal for children, but we shouldn't legislate them.
And as far as your contention that religious beliefs are irrelevant, I'll remind you respectfully that our country was founded on the freedom of religion and that we are guaranteed the right to live our faith and even to discuss it aloud on the street corners if we wish. It's called the freedom of speech. No one - not evey a gay activist - has the right to tell me I cannot vote according to my faith. Absolutely no one, and there is no judge who will tell me I cannot, at least not if he wants to keep his job, since doing so would be completely unconstitutional, and that includes Judge Walker. But if SSM is legitimized it makes it almost 'illegal' for me to talk about what the Bible says about sexuality and marriage, or to observe the tenets of my religion, which may not, for example, allow my business to cater a gay wedding or even a doctor to perform in-vitro on a same-sex couple. That's just not right.
Gosh!
Brad,
Two men show up for a license to gain access to the special status of marriage. They are ineligible.
You might assume these men are gay, but they are both straight men.
Some time later, the judiciary imposes SSM. The men return to the license office to gain access to the legal status of SSM.
They are both eligible and straight.
If access to SSM status is not denied based on a legal requirement for gayness, then, your formulation is demonstrably false.
There is no same-sex sexual basis for issuing a license for SSM. Also, no gay identity requirement.
Maybe you meant something else when you used the oxymoronic term "gay marriage"?
Also, Brad, if it takes a license to SSM to become gay, then, gay is not inborn.
Your formulation is circular but its effect is still to confirm that the term "gay" is ill-defined (lacking definitive characteristics) and cannot legitimately be used as a constitutional classification based on an immutable characteristic.