NOM Marriage News: February 26, 2010

NOM BLOG

NOM Marriage News: February 26, 2010

NOM Marriage News.

Dear Friends of Marriage,

Is our government out of control? A lot of voters are asking themselves that question these days, for a lot of reasons you can read about in the media, or hear on Fox News.

Working to be your voice on marriage has been such an honor and such a gratifying experience. The victories we won together I would not trade for anything in the world.

But this week, I have to tell you, I've been thinking hard about what one sees in the front seat of this battle, about the lawlessness and unresponsiveness of political and yes, even judicial figures.

According to the D.C. City Council's website, they are going to start permitting gay marriages on March 3. Speaking procedurally, this is an outrage. The law clearly gives Congress 30 days to review city council legislation, and that law clearly specifies that it is not 30 calendar days but 30 days in which Congress, meaning both Houses of Congress, are in session. And yet city officials are deliberately and flagrantly ignoring that law, needlessly counting the days Congress was out of session for snow, all in order to rush through a bill as fast as possible.

"The history of liberty is largely the history of procedural safeguards," Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter famously wrote. But gay marriage right now is movement of people who believe that they are right and you are wrong, so their rights count but other people's don't.

The bias of politicians is less shocking that the outright bias of the judicial branch. We saw it first with Judge Walker in the Prop 8 case in California, who so callously ignored the rule of law and elementary fairness that even the Ninth Circuit and the Supreme Court had to intervene to rap his knuckles. What most people don't recognize is that the same thing is happening all over again in the D.C. lower courts. D.C. law gives voters a limited number of days to collect enough signatures to overrule politicians' decisions like the imposition of gay marriage. D.C.'s constitution--its charter--gives citizens of D.C. the right to vote on City Council decisions. Now the city council is holding that this doesn't apply to gay marriage because protecting marriage as the union of one man and one woman would somehow violate the city's Human Rights Code, passed by the legislators. The legislators, in other words, are saying elected politicians can vote to take away D.C. citizens' constitutionally-given right to vote.

We are confident this strange and radical legal argument will fail when it gets to the highest courts. But here's what's happening right now: The lower courts are refusing to rule on this argument. We cannot appeal until they rule. Normally when voters' rights are obviously at stake, courts expedite their decisions. They don't sit on a case and run out the clock and make the situation moot. But that's what we face right now: A judicial system that too often appears to respect the civil rights of only one party to the case. The right to vote is too important a civil right to permit this outrage to go unnoticed. Working with Bishop Harry Jackson and others, NOM will continue to fight for the civil rights of all the citizens of D.C. and for every American who believes, as we do, that our marriage tradition is good, and should be respected and protected in law and culture.

The Maryland attorney general provided another instance of flagrant disregard for the rule of law. Maryland's family code clearly states that "Only a marriage between a man and a woman is valid." Maryland's highest court recently upheld this law and clearly stated that it was the province of the legislature to change the law, if voters so desired. So why is the attorney general, the state's highest law-enforcement official, ordering state workers to treat as valid gay marriages performed outside of the state? What part of "only a marriage of one man and one woman is valid" doesn't he understand?

This is a movement driven to lawlessness and lies by a self-righteous sense that only they are right, and therefore only they have rights. We are fighting, in other words, not only for marriage but for fairness, for democracy, for the rule of law, for civility and for the ordinary civil rights of all Americans.

Maggie was in West Virginia yesterday, at a pro-marriage rally sponsored by the feisty and impressive young Family Policy Council of West Virginia, headed by an equally impressive young lawyer named Jeremy Dys. In West Virginia, almost 80 percent of Democrats say they want the right to vote for marriage. The threat from the courts is now real and obvious and the only way to prevent the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia from imposing gay marriage is to put the current law in the state constitution. Thirty states now define marriage as one man and one woman in their state constitution. How can something that's constitutional law in Virginia, Oregon, Wisconsin, Michigan and even California be considered too radical for West Virginia? So why are certain West Virginia politicians dragging their heels?

The excuses are getting pretty thin.

NOM began today reaching out to 300,000 West Virginian households to let them know what their politicians are doing--or in this case not doing--to protect marriage. The response so far has been overwhelming! "I've never seen results like this," my tech guy said when he called me to give me the first preliminary reports on how effective NOM's Call to Marriage Campaign has been.

We shouldn't have been surprised. On the steps of the West Virginia capitol building, Jeremy Dys plopped two big boxes on the tables and said, "In these boxes are more than 4,600 petitions, asking for a marriage amendment. We told leaders here we would collect 2500 in less than a week. Instead we gathered more than double that." The crowd went wild. (This morning I got an email from Jeremy saying the count is now over 5,000 and growing.)

This is about whether our government is going to be responsive and honest. The excuses of politicians are wearing pretty thin. There is no good reason to deprive the people of West Virginia of the right to vote on marriage at this point--unless you as an elected official are for gay marriage. In that case you should be man enough to let the voters know.

A few more items of good news you won't hear on the mainstream media, or even Fox News. The Australian senate just followed in the footsteps of New York and New Jersey and rejected gay marriage.

If you have a moment, take a look at the story in the Mormon Times on Cardinal George's historic speech at Brigham Young University on religious liberty. Among other things, Cardinal George pointed to the flood of hatred from Prop 8 opponents as an example of our need to stand together in defense of human rights and human dignity. Speaking of that Prop 8 opposition, the Cardinal said, "What I most regret is not the opposition, that is understandable. ... And those of us who have gay people in their family as I have, know the anxieties and the conflicts in their own life. And we have to be there for them and love them and support them."

But when Prop. 8 opponents "respond by thuggery, by quasi-fascist tactics, then the common good, our whole society, stands in great jeopardy," Cardinal George said.

Amen.

Thank you again for all you do to make our work possible. These are your fights, and these are your victories. Standing shoulder to shoulder with you in speaking truth to power is, as I said, the greatest honor of my life.

Until next week, keep fighting the good fight! And please, pray for all of those who suffer for their courage in standing for God's truth about marriage.

God's blessing be on you,

Brian S. Brown
Executive Director
National Organization for Marriage
20 Nassau Street, Suite 242
Princeton, NJ 08542
bbrown@nationformarriage.org

P.S. As we work together to protect marriage, we need your help! We need you to speak out for marriage in your community. We need your donations--whether you can spare $10, $20, or even $200, every dollar makes a difference. And most of all, we need your prayers. Thank you for all you do!

NOM Featured Article
"LDS, Catholics Must Defend Religious Freedom, Cardinal Says"
Mormon Times
February 23, 2010
"There is nothing like being in the trenches together to make common cause," said Maggie Gallagher, a Catholic and president of the National Organization for Marriage. "I think we all need the courage to stand up for our core beliefs -- especially the belief that our marriage tradition is good. I'm very grateful for the LDS faith community's leadership, but even more for the ordinary member's ordinary courage. We all admire it and seek to emulate it."

NOM in the News
"The Chastity Ring-Around"
Lena Chen
The American Prospect
February 18, 2010

NOM has also launched its own college initiative that emphasizes the "importance of man-woman marriage" and fosters "pro-life, pro-family" student groups. "The social climate on campus really encourages indiscriminate sexual activity, and to some extent, even promiscuity and pornography. We're just coming out of Sex Week at Yale, which is a celebration of unrestrained sexuality," says Dr. Jennifer R. Morse, who heads NOM's Ruth Institute. "If you live the hook-up lifestyle, and you live that way for 10 or 15 years and then decide you want to get married, you have 10 or 15 years worth of stuff you have to unlearn."

"Crowd Asks Politicians to 'Let Us Vote' on Gay Marriage"
Charleston Gazette
February 25, 2010
About 150 people gathered outside the state Capitol on Thursday to say they want voters to decide whether the West Virginia Constitution should ban same-sex marriage.

"Voters May Decide Marriage Issue"
Parkersburg News and Sentinel
February 25, 2010
The Family Policy Council of West Virginia will be holding a "Let Us Vote" marriage rally on the north steps of the state Capitol at noon today in support of the resolution and efforts to get it out of committee.

The event will feature Maggie Gallagher, president of the National Organization for Marriage; Randy Wilson, national field director for Family Research Council, and Jeremy Dys, president and general counsel of the Family Policy Council of West Virginia.

"Md. AG: State Can Recognize Same-Sex Marriages"
CBN News
February 25, 2010
The National Organization for Marriage disagrees, saying the law clearly states only a marriage between a man and a woman is valid in Maryland.

"Covering the Prop 8 Trial: Can the Gay Press Maintain Objectivity (And Should It)?"
Karen Ocamb
Huffington Post
February 18, 2010
Having served on the board of the LA Press Club with Ted, I suspect this topic was selected long before the San Francisco Chronicle published a political column noting the "open secret" that Prop 8 trial Judge Vaughn Walker is gay -- which I wrote about citing some facts to counter the spin from the National Organization for Marriage. But the timing is terrific because it may well draw many more straight people who quietly have questions and harbor a lingering doubt about Walker -- and our coverage, which is sometimes cited by the mainstream media.

"Women's Dignity: The Forgotten Agenda"
Mercator.Net
February 25, 2010
I have a radical idea for promoting the dignity of women: the idea that giving birth to children inside marriage is good and worthy use of one's time and talent. This idea has come under assault from many directions. --Jennifer Roback Morse

"Gay Republicans Draw Support, Concern at CPAC"
CNN
February 19, 2010
GOProud has a booth at CPAC just two spaces away from the exhibition for the National Organization for Marriage, which wants the government to define marriage as between a man and a woman.

"GOProud Director: National Organization for Marriage Are 'Pansies,' 'Wusses'"
The Washington Independent
February 19, 2010
One of the odd coincidences of CPAC is the location of the National Organization for Marriage's booth just 20-odd feet away from the booth of GOProud, the upstart gay Republican organization. On Thursday, leaders of both groups posed for an impromptu meeting in view of CNN's cameras, joking about the possibility of a beer summit. But on Friday morning, the National Organization for Marriage preemptively blasted GOProud in a surprisingly acid press release.

"Ethics Panel to Take Up Donor List Controversy"
Bangor Daily News
February 20, 2010
More than three months after Mainers voted down same-sex marriage, the organization that provided much of the money to the traditional marriage camp is still fighting to block the state from forcing disclosure of their donor lists.

"Southern Evangelical Seminary Event to Uphold Marriage"
The Layman Online
February 23, 2010
The featured speakers for the April 1 event will be Maggie Gallagher, president of the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy, and Robert George, one of the original drafters of the Manhattan Declaration. Their topic will be "Marriage: Why It Can and Must Be Saved -- The Case Against Same Sex Marriage." SES President and host of nationally-syndicated radio talk show "SoundRezn" Alex McFarland said he anticipates the 2010 installment of the series to be the most significant yet.

"Beverly Hills Slams Beauty Contestant for Speaking Out Against Gay Marriage"
FOXNews.com
February 24, 2010
"I'm not surprised that Miss Beverly Hills, Lauren Ashley, opposes gay marriage -- after all 45 percent of young Californians voted for Prop 8, as did 7 million Californians generally," the organization's president, Maggie Gallagher, told us. "But I have to say, I am impressed with her courage in coming forward and for speaking up for Carrie. The elected officials of city of Beverly Hills are not demonstrating tolerance or kindness by continuing the avalanche of hatred against supporters of Prop 8."

"Beverly Hills Slams 'Anti-Gay' Pageant Queen"
Money Times
February 25, 2010
The Miss California Pageant is still months away, but Miss Beverly Hills 2010 and upcoming Miss California contender Lauren Ashley has already stirred the controversy after speaking out against same-sex marriage.

"The Fate of Gay Conservatism, Ctd."
Andrew Sullivan (reader mail)
February 19, 2010
There was one point of debate on which I felt you had a strong argument against Maggie that you didn't use: Maggie was constantly trying to throw gay marriage off the table, and yet continued to put it back on the table herself, particularly when she referenced supposed violations of religious conscience related to laws that restrict discrimination by institutions whose religious beliefs define marriage as between a man and a woman. In the context of that debate, she mentioned that part of what makes the traditional definition of marriage sacrosanct is that only a union between a man and a woman can produce new life.

"The Conservative Future of the LGBT Movement"
Steven Cheslik-deMeyer
February 22, 2010
The video is long, so get a snack and a cup of coffee and resist the urge to fast-forward through it. The details are important. And how often do you get to see Andrew Sullivan and Maggie Gallagher face off in person?

This entry was written by NOM Staff, posted on February 26, 2010 at 2:43 pm, filed under Miscellaneous. Bookmark the permalink. Follow any comments here with the RSS feed for this post. Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

44 Comments

Joe

Posted March 1, 2010 at 4:05 pm | Permalink

No marriage between two people of consent should have to be voted on. Do you not realize the indecency you're working towards? How can you say ALL Americans when gays and lesbians are Americans, too? Have you nothing better to do?
TC Matthews

Posted March 1, 2010 at 5:23 pm | Permalink

Joe, do you support polyamory then?
Adam

Posted March 1, 2010 at 6:30 pm | Permalink

Marriage is defined by 30 states between a man and a woman. DOMA was voted on by congress. To change the law of marriage, either a group of judges will vote or the people will vote. So actually everyone's marriage is voted on whether we like it or not.
Joe

Posted March 1, 2010 at 7:07 pm | Permalink

TC, that's why I said TWO people of consent. Can you not read?
LT

Posted March 1, 2010 at 7:13 pm | Permalink

"The legislators, in other words, are saying elected politicians can vote to take away D.C. citizens' constitutionally-given right to vote."

Er, Brian, I know you're not a resident of DC but you know that little "taxation without representation" phrase on some of our license plates? It's because DC voters have been disenfranchised since the founding of the city. I find it amusing that you could care less about this issue when it comes to important things, like say...the presidential election, but when it comes to matters that will have no affect on your daily life suddenly this is "an outrage." How about you guys donate some money to Haiti and Chile, for chrissakes, and keep your nose out of our politics.
TC Matthews

Posted March 1, 2010 at 7:23 pm | Permalink

Why discriminate against two people who love each other, just because one of them is married already?
TC Matthews

Posted March 1, 2010 at 7:24 pm | Permalink

Good point LT,

Why did you care before, and not now?
TC Matthews

Posted March 1, 2010 at 7:27 pm | Permalink

After all Joe, according to the NY Times, many "successful" gay marriages share an "open" secret....

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/29/us/29sfmetro.html
Tyler

Posted March 1, 2010 at 7:34 pm | Permalink

The Constitution grants you the right to vote for your Representatives, Senators, President, etc. I don't believe it grants anyone the right to vote on every single piece of legislation that comes up. That's why we *have* legislators. When they do what we're paying them to do -- make laws, we usually just try to get them voted out of office if we don't like those laws. Please show me where the Constitution says I have the right to vote on gay marriage, if I am wrong. (I'm not a Constitutional scholar, so I very well might be.)

TC Matthews: I don't really see why it's the NY Times' or anyone else's business how some couples run their marriage, or what it has to do with whether their marriage should be legal.
Adam

Posted March 1, 2010 at 7:42 pm | Permalink

How did marriage become law if not by vote?
TC Matthews

Posted March 1, 2010 at 7:55 pm | Permalink

"Please show me where the Constitution says I have the right to vote on gay marriage"

Do you have the right to vote on polyamorous marriage?
TC Matthews

Posted March 1, 2010 at 7:55 pm | Permalink

how about bigamy?
Anna

Posted March 1, 2010 at 8:44 pm | Permalink

Tyler-I don't really see why it's the NY Times' or anyone else's business how some couples run their marriage, or what it has to do with whether their marriage should be legal.
****
Well...lots of people think there is much more to marriage than two people hooking up to get some government benefits. Why, if the rules/expectations are not to your liking, would you want marriage? How about CU or DP where you can make up the rules governing your relationship as you wish?
Joe

Posted March 1, 2010 at 11:17 pm | Permalink

The problem with people who support traditional marriage and gay marriage is the fact that they have two completely views on what marriage is. The vast majority of people who support traditional marriage believe in fidelity and monogamy, while the majority of people involved in gay marriage do not. That how they want marriage to be redefined. Without fidelity or monogamy, their version of marriage becomes no different than a bunch of people involved in promiscuity. That is not the way I want marriage defined, and I, and everyone who agrees, is not a bigot for thinking so.
Alex

Posted March 2, 2010 at 4:33 pm | Permalink

"Without fidelity or monogamy, their version of marriage becomes no different than a bunch of people involved in promiscuity."

That sounds like a reasonable statement.

The problem is, that's not the version of marriage gay people have in mind. Most gay people DO believe in fidelity and monogamy: that's exactly why they're fighting so hard for the right to marry! If you don't believe me, I recommend you go out and meet some gay people (bring a friend or two if you're too nervous) and actually ASK them what they think gay marriage would be like. The answers you get might surprise you.
TC Matthews

Posted March 2, 2010 at 8:11 pm | Permalink

Alex, it's more than an opinion. It's actually been studied. Same sex relationships don't last as long and are open to "responsible non monogamy" whatever that means.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/29/us/29sfmetro.html
jeri2

Posted March 2, 2010 at 8:54 pm | Permalink

As if heterosexuals can claim they have the higher ground when it comes to fidelity. Yet they are not barred from marriage. A little self-righteous aren't we? Fidelity, monogamy, promiscuity not a bar to marriage for heterosexual couples. Until your willing to propose laws banning golfers, governors, and former presidential candidates from marriage, your fidelity argument is without merit.
Fitz

Posted March 2, 2010 at 9:02 pm | Permalink

Tyler (asks)

marriage quo "marriage" is the right... You are misreading of Supreme Court case law on the subject of marriage: you are making the same mistake the New York Court points out in its recent decision. Discussing the Supreme Court precedents of Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987); Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374 (1978); Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967); Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965); Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535 (1942) Judge Graffeo noted….

“To ignore the meaning ascribed to the right to marry in these cases and substitute another meaning in its place is to redefine the right in question and to tear the resulting new right away from the very roots that caused the U.S. Supreme Court and this Court to recognize marriage as a fundamental right in the first place.”2 2 - Andersen v. King County (J. Graffeo concurring)

Furthermore: the question of if the right to marriage includes the right to same-sex "marriage" was asked and answered already in the SCOTUS precedent of Baker v Nelson
LT

Posted March 2, 2010 at 9:10 pm | Permalink

TC Matthews,

I'm a college student on the west coast but I'm a resident of and registered voter in DC. So I do care about my own disenfranchisement. That's why I support DC statehood. This is so-called disenfranchisement that NOM is bandying about is not the same. We voted for our City Council, knowing full well their platforms and politics. Contrary to what NOM would have you believe, our council didn't just coalesce and start passing laws without our consent. DC voters consented, implicitly, to allow the elected council to legislate on our behalf when we participated in the voting process. We also consented to accepting judicial opinion, meaning if the court says you can't vote on whether or not two unrelated, consenting adults can get married, that's the end of the story. The process of appealing adds a new dimension to the issue but the fact remains, we live in a republic, not a democracy. If you don't like something, that doesn't mean it gets decided by an angry mob. You either attempt to change the law via legal methods and accept the results of the process or move to another state.

Also, you do realize that promiscuous and/or open marriages have existed for a long time now...and gays haven't been able to get married for more than a decade...so most of the infidelity and promiscuity has occurred in straight marriages. Whoops!

And finally, your point about the behavior of married, same-sex couples, while extraordinarily irrelevant, offers some insight into the mindset of people who support NOM. You put the term responsible non-monogamy in scare quotes, and claim that "The vast majority of people who support traditional marriage believe in fidelity and monogamy, while the majority of people involved in gay marriage do not." Hidden within your comments is a distinct fear of people who live their lives differently from you. I mean, come on, there are non-monogamous straight couples and there are completely committed same-sex couples. I think you need to realize that we don't all subscribe to your belief system. To quote a favorite song of mine: "The most amazing thing/That I've seen in my time/Are all the different people/And all their different minds...For better or for worse, different people."
jeri2

Posted March 2, 2010 at 9:14 pm | Permalink

Fitz... SCOTUS refused to overturn laws banning interracial couples from marriage before the final decision in 1967.
--
Homosexuals did not even have the right to privacy in Baker v Nelson (which left open the marriage issue as noted by Scalia in dissent). Baker v. Nelson was not argued before the court, it is a soft ruling. We have 5 states granting homosexuals the right to marry since Baker. Further, On May 20, 1996, the court ruled 6-3 that Colorado's Amendment 2 was unconstitutional, ... seems inexplicable by anything but animus toward the class that it affects.
--
So ask yourself, today is there finally enough of a want for a constitutional issue to be addressed by SCOTUS?
Things have changed.... Baker is so yesterday..
TC Matthews

Posted March 2, 2010 at 10:22 pm | Permalink

"Until your willing to propose laws banning golfers, governors, and former presidential candidates from marriage, your fidelity argument is without merit."

Banning? Isn't that a tad heavy handed Jeri? No one is talking about "banning" anything. You are just as free as I am to marry--- as it should be.
TC Matthews

Posted March 2, 2010 at 10:29 pm | Permalink

"Also, you do realize that promiscuous and/or open marriages have existed for a long time now...and gays haven't been able to get married for more than a decade...so most of the infidelity and promiscuity has occurred in straight marriages. Whoops!"

There are several problems with your comment LT, but first I'd ask, how do you feel about open marriage? Statistically speaking, the gay population has little claim to monogamy in relationships, but don't take my word for it. It's well known. pesky facts aren't they?

Has it occurred to you that those who support open marriages are also the same portions of the population who tend to support SSM?

hm.
Chairm

Posted March 3, 2010 at 12:56 am | Permalink

Alex,

You assume that knowing gay people changes the principled basis for marriage. Maybe you'd apply the same assumption to polygamists, polyamorists, and people who would have incestuous marriages.

Also, you condenscend. Based on the largest exit poll, about one-half of the margin of victory for Proposition 8 was delivered by openly gay people. Get to know them and maybe you'll have a different view.
Chairm

Posted March 3, 2010 at 12:59 am | Permalink

Tyler,

You said: "I don't believe it grants anyone the right to vote on every single piece of legislation that comes up."

Read the DC Charter. The People have the right to vote on legislation. And Congress is empowered to review legislation. There are no limits of the kind that the SSM campaign is now trying to create.
Chairm

Posted March 3, 2010 at 1:03 am | Permalink

Jeri2 said: "A little self-righteous aren't we?"

Yes, you do appear that way.

The SSM idea is so vague that sexual fidelity has no moorings in it. There's nothing about the SSM idea that would make monogamy normative.

And, please, you can stop with the call for legal requirements. There is no legal requirement for gay identity for those who'd SSM -- not anyplace that SSM has been imposed. And no homosexual criterion for eligiblity; and no love requirement; and on and on.

If you don't like excluding gayness, sexual orientation, and love, then, drop the silly rules of SSM argumentation that you keep bringing up. Be more realistic about lawmaking and how laws work in society.
Dan Kaufman

Posted March 3, 2010 at 1:30 am | Permalink

What Mr. Brown is saying is that, by allowing same sex marriage, heterosexual marriage is essentially changed. That's like saying because Reese's Peanut Butter Cups exist, chocolate is essentially changed. You can still find plenty of plain chocolate, and millions of people eat plain chocolate every day. But that shouldn't stop people who like Reese's from eating Reese's, nor should there be a law denying anyone's right to manufacture Reese's. We can have plain chocolate, We can have chocolate with peanut butter. And, I know this is a stretch for some people, but yes, we can even eat chocolate with other things--or choose not to eat chocolate at all. Isn't this a great country?
LT

Posted March 3, 2010 at 2:36 am | Permalink

Well said, Dan, well said.

TC Matthews,

Once again, you bring up irrelevant issues in an attempt to smear gays as immoral. I don't know if I could have an open marriage, but I respect couples that decide to have open marriages. I don't think there's anything tangibly or morally wrong with an open marriage. Clearly you disagree, but the solution is simple. Don't have an open marriage! Wow, that was easy. Now if only we could figure out why you're so concerned with the behaviors of random, consenting adults.
LT

Posted March 3, 2010 at 2:38 am | Permalink

Chairm,

"And, please, you can stop with the call for legal requirements. There is no legal requirement for gay identity for those who'd SSM -- not anyplace that SSM has been imposed. And no homosexual criterion for eligiblity; and no love requirement; and on and on."

Agreed. Just like opposite-sex couples don't have to be in love to get married. Heck, they don't even have to know each others' last names. In your comments, you've consistently tried to assign some sort of moral value to marriage what with "responsible procreation" and "sex-integration," but neither of these things are either requirements or guaranteed results of marriage. They're simply values that you, personally, expect of the ideal marriage.

The unfortunate truth is that the marriage is just a bunch of legal benefits. The only requirement to get these benefits is to take the day off to go to down to city hall/Vegas/church. In your attempt to paint opposite-sex couples as paragons of morality, you seem to forget that the only criterion to get married in most states is to be an unrelated male-female couple (actually, scratch that, I could marry my first cousin in more states than I could marry a woman).

So why do these standards change for same-sex couples? Heck, why does the name of the game change for same-sex couples? My middle-school French teacher and her partner aren't going to apply for a "same-sex marriage" license back home (DC) next week so they can get "same-sex married." I don't even know what "same-sex marriage" really means (I guess that's where we agree...). But you keep using the term, presumably in order to delineate between same-sex couples and the glorious savior of society, Traditional Marriage.

I've proven above that the requirements to get married are pretty thin...but as soon as gay couples come into the picture you start building up these outrageous "criterion" for marriage (that most opposite-sex couples can't even live up to but because they're a man and woman it's a-okay!) in order to explain away your discrimination against us.

So how about this: apply the same skimpy requirements to same-sex couples as the law does to opposite-sex couples, with that gender discrimination bit taken out, of course, and you may find that blue in your face rapidly fading
jeri

Posted March 3, 2010 at 2:45 am | Permalink

Chairm, the train has left the station, every time SCOTUS had the chance to block homosexuals from marriage or to put the issue up to a vote, they have so far refused to do so... Like yesterday's DC ruling by liberal Justice Robert's refusal to grant a stay.

Your a smart man, you can see the situation this creates across the United States interfering with commerce one state does this, one does another.
How are companies supposed to transfer workers from one state to another and insure parity?

So SCOTUS eventually will either invalidate all homosexual marriages in the US. Or
Make them all available and recognized in the US.

Your a smart man, Chairm, you can see the writing on the wall.. Look at the unequal situation SCOTUS is helping to create.. Just exactly how do you think this will play out?

The train has indeed left the station, its way past time for you to get on board.
Fitz

Posted March 3, 2010 at 11:30 am | Permalink

LT - Your arguments seem more driven by spite than reason. You seem to be upset that opposite sex couples have not perfected marriage so...ergo, we should change its definition.

Real concern for your fellow man & the greater good would seem to center on the overall health of the institution of marriage.
Chairm

Posted March 3, 2010 at 4:23 pm | Permalink

LT you are mistaken on many points.

1. When peole enter the social institution, they consent to all that this entails. The marital presumption of paternity is vigorously enforced.

Its sexual basis is the same as for consummation, annulment provisions, grounds for adultery-divorce, and so forth. That sexual basis is not sex-neutral nor is it one-sexed. That's the law because that's marriage.

2. The man-woman requirement is also vigorously enforced. The law does integrate man and woman; but that is the work of the social institution and the law recognizes this.

I see that you, as most SSMers, switch from eligiblity to outcome (i.e. guarantee). Apply that to your own SSM idea and you will chop it off at the knees.

* * *

You sure do read lots of stuff into what I've said that is simply not there. If I don't respond to each mistake you've made, don't take that as confirmation of your misrepresentations.

* * *

Yes, some related are eligible while others are not. This line is not justified by your any-two-person notion. Indeed the number two is not justified based on what you just described.

Benefits do not self-justify. You can start with the type of thing being licensed and go from there. You should avoid circular thinking when dissing someone else for providing a vigorous defense of a reasoned viewpoint.

That way the red hue of embarassment on your face might fade from view.

Cheerio,
Chairm
Chairm

Posted March 3, 2010 at 4:32 pm | Permalink

Jeri, you win. I believe that you believe that a train wreck is a win.
ConservativeNY

Posted March 3, 2010 at 5:10 pm | Permalink

"What Mr. Brown is saying is that, by allowing same sex marriage, heterosexual marriage is essentially changed. That's like saying because Reese's Peanut Butter Cups exist, chocolate is essentially changed. You can still find plenty of plain chocolate, and millions of people eat plain chocolate every day. But that shouldn't stop people who like Reese's from eating Reese's, nor should there be a law denying anyone's right to manufacture Reese's. We can have plain chocolate, We can have chocolate with peanut butter. And, I know this is a stretch for some people, but yes, we can even eat chocolate with other things--or choose not to eat chocolate at all. Isn't this a great country?"

False analogy. Chocolate isn't trying to be called peanut butter. Nor is peanut butter trying to be called chocolate. Chocolate is still called chocolate and peanut butter is still called peanut butter even if they do go together. The two remain distinct with their own terms and definitions, just like married couples and homosexual couples.
Emma

Posted March 3, 2010 at 10:55 pm | Permalink

"The marital presumption of paternity is vigorously enforced. "

Huh? The government enforces paternity on married people? What does that even mean?
TC Matthews

Posted March 3, 2010 at 10:58 pm | Permalink

It means Emma, that when you're married, the law assumes the husband and wife in that marriage are the parents of any children they produce. They give legal benefits to parents based on the presumption of paternity. (try wikipedia).
Emma

Posted March 3, 2010 at 11:54 pm | Permalink

What, you mean it really isn't always the mailman?

But seriously, what does that have to do with allowing or not allowing two lesbians to get married? Perhaps you can also succinctly explain the rest of Chairm's comment -- something to do with the government strictly enforcing the man/woman requirement obviously is inaccurate.
TC Matthews

Posted March 3, 2010 at 11:59 pm | Permalink

Emma,

Chairm disseminates information like a cascading waterfall. If you pay attention, there is actually a lot of really heavy stuff going on in his comments. I'll let him speak for himself, but as an aside, if you want to understand, honey works much better than a baseball bat.
Chairm

Posted March 4, 2010 at 3:32 pm | Permalink

Emma, being lesbian has nothing to do with eligiblity to marry. You may want to write that into the law, but it is not there under the man-woman criterion of marriage law.

There is a sexual basis for marriage that does not fit the one-sexed arrangement.

I've asked you for what you mean by "the same-sex couple", and if you mean membership in an identity group, then, write that legal requirement into the law.

What, if any, sexual basis exists for SSM? None that appears in the law where SSM has been imposed. Do you propose a basis or not?

Do you propose an alternative to the solidarity of motherhood and fatherhod that is embedded in the marriage law?

Do you oppose integration? Maybe you think that sex-segregative is the new sex-integrative feature of SSM?
Emma

Posted March 5, 2010 at 12:17 am | Permalink

"Chairm disseminates information like a cascading waterfall."

I love that. But sometimes a slightly more controlled trickle is more practical.
Chairm

Posted March 5, 2010 at 3:00 am | Permalink

Heh. Start with the basics. Explain what you mean by "same-sex couple". Trickle away.
Emma

Posted March 5, 2010 at 2:24 pm | Permalink

"two persons considered as joined together"
Chairm

Posted March 5, 2010 at 4:40 pm | Permalink

What justifies the number two in that?
Emma

Posted March 6, 2010 at 12:41 am | Permalink

Various definitions of couple, both noun (a couple, a pair, "a pair of equal, parallel forces acting in opposite directions and tending to produce rotation"), and verb (to couple, "to fasten, link, or associate together in a pair"). More than two is a trio, a quartet, a group, etc. Less than two is an individual.

CHairm, what exactly do YOU mean by couple?
Chairm

Posted March 6, 2010 at 6:43 pm | Permalink

"Two persons joined together" is not restricted to the marital couple. But the marital couple is a subset of the idea of that broader notion.

Given the sexual basis for marriage, for example, couple means the two sexes. And that necessarily means a man and a woman -- a husband and a wife -- who form the marital couple. This provides for fatherhood and motherhood, together, and is central to the marriage idea itself.

All of that requires the inclusion of the two sexes. A couple of sexes joined together. And not just joined but joined to a core meaning that defines the social institution.

* * *

None of that fits the one-sexed scenario where the number one is definitive.

A lone individual is one individual and one sex. A twosome is two individuals and one sex. A threesome is three individuals and one sex.

The lack of one sex does not require a limit of two individuals. This is not a couple of sexes.

This is probably why the SSM idea is so vague as to not really distinguish based on the number two.

NOM Marriage News: February 26, 2010

44 Comments

Post a Comment