42 Comments

1. Secular Heretic
   Posted May 23, 2009 at 6:20 pm | Permalink

   It is good that some politicians are trying to do the right thing. This whole same sex marriage thing is just crazy. It is like trying to redefine a triangle to include 4 sides.

2. Jon
   Posted May 24, 2009 at 12:12 pm | Permalink

   It's more like trying to include non-equilateral triangles under the definition of triangle. It's horrible to see how enthusiastic people are about keeping oppression in place.

3. Dan
   Posted May 24, 2009 at 6:09 pm | Permalink

   Can someone please explain to me how my gay marriage will impact their lives at ALL? I've yet to hear an answer. Marriage is between two people and the state. It's nobody else's business...

4. Larry
   Posted May 24, 2009 at 7:10 pm | Permalink

   Marriage is for uniting the two human genders males and females not for uniting only one of the two human genders. Also for natural procreation plus a mom and dad for and with kids. History,naturalism,tradition and Spirituality all confirm marriage is exclusively for a man and and a woman. Even the Oxford Dictionary of Current English states- Marriage is a union of a man and a woman by which they become husband and wife.

5. Chairm
   Posted May 24, 2009 at 9:34 pm | Permalink

   Heh, so if it includes the state -- as a type of public relationship -- then the two people are making it everybody else's business.

   How does the SSM campaign impact lives? By wasting pixels and dollars and time with false equivalencies and with the phony pose of not hearing the actual disagrement.

6. Dan
   Posted May 25, 2009 at 1:39 am | Permalink

   Here's a more complete definition of marriage, which more fully relects today's realities. If you want to look at history (and I'm not sure you want to open that can of worms), then you must include polygamy, because it was practiced in biblical times.

   Marriage is a social, religious, spiritual or legal union of individuals that creates kinship. This union may also be called matrimony, while the ceremony that marks its beginning is usually called a wedding and the married status created is sometimes called wedlock.

   Marriage is an institution in which interpersonal relationships (usually intimate and sexual) are acknowledged by the state, by religious authority, or both. It is often viewed as a contract. Civil marriage is the legal concept of marriage as a governmental institution, in accordance with marriage laws of the jurisdiction. If recognized by the state, by the religion(s) to which the parties belong or by society in general, the act of marriage changes the personal and social status of the individuals who enter into it.

   People marry for many reasons, but usually one or more of the following: legal, social, emotional, and economic stability; the formation of a family unit; procreation and the education and nurturing of children; legitimizing sexual relations; public declaration of love.

   Did you notice that procreation is not essential for the core meaning of marriage to be recognized? Unlike what Chairm thinks, marriage can and does exist apart from procreation. And, procreation can exist independantly of marriage. The two are not dependant on one another. Marriage can have meaning outside of procreation...
   Speaking of wasting money, I think your side will eventually run out of money, and lose this fight. Better sooner, rather than later...

7. Dan
   Posted May 25, 2009 at 1:42 am | Permalink

   Here's one projection of when to expect each state to offer marriage equality for all of their citizens:

   http://mapscroll.blogspot.com/2009/04/mapping-future-of-gay-marriage_04.html

8. Marty
   Posted May 25, 2009 at 10:38 am | Permalink

   Dan: "Marriage is a ... union of individuals that creates kinship."
   ...
   "Did you notice that procreation is not essential for the core meaning of marriage to be recognized?"

   Certainly the concept of KINSHIP relys on procreation as an essential part of its core meaning. Hence the union of male and female to create a legal family unit.

   If two men want to become KIN, I suggest they cut their palms and become blood brothers, rather than mock the institution of marriage and devalue the importance of mothers AND fathers.

9. Larry
   Posted May 25, 2009 at 1:25 pm | Permalink

   Read-A Declaration On Marriage at williamgairdner.com / Mr.Gairdner, has a earned Ph.d,is a former Olympic athlete plus a best selling author in Canada. At his Website go to the Essays section on the right side, just scroll down there to the Essays which has A Declaration On Marriage.

10. Dan
    Posted May 25, 2009 at 3:45 pm | Permalink

    Larry, all I had to do was read Gairdner's comment below to realize he is absolutely clueless about sexual orientation. Sexual orientation and behaviour are two different things. Nobody chooses sexual orientation any more than you choose your gender or ethnic background. And, you can live your whole life as a homosexual and never have sexual contact with a person of the same sex. It's what's inside that counts, not your behaviour. He operates under the false presumption that gay people choose to be gay, and act on some sort of behaviour because of this choice. He is completely clueless. Religion is a choice, sexual orientation is not. Here is a more illuminating, scientific view of sexual orientation. Please send it to Gairdner if you know him. He needs to learn something other than bible verses: http://www.logcabin.org/lef/choice_white_paper.html
    Gairdner said thist: What is required to identify and define homosexuality, is an act. Without homosexual behaviour, there is no homosexuality to worry about, and this fact alone is sufficient grounds to deny protection.

    Homosexuality is not an act, it is a sexual orientation. It is innate, unchosen and with us for life. The bible is absolutely wrong if you think it says that people choose their sexual orientation. In biblical times it was thought that the earth was flat. Do you still believe this myth? The bible is flawed, and cannot be believed literally. We have learned much since the thousand years it was concocted by men...

11. CJ1
    Posted May 26, 2009 at 12:07 am | Permalink

    So, didn't any of you read that it was the GAY members that shot down the bill b/c they didn't want to give in to Lynch's demands?

12. John
    Posted May 26, 2009 at 2:02 am | Permalink

    A brother and a sister marrying won't hurt my marriage either. Still doesn't make it right, and I'm not a bigot for thinking so.

13. Nicholas
    Posted May 26, 2009 at 3:07 am | Permalink

    If homosexuality is innate, as many homosexuals claim, then why does the population not support this claim? In other words, wouldn't the percentage of homosexuals be greater than what it is statistically (+/- 10 percent) of any given populace?

    Additionally, if homosexuality is an orientation not defined by any particular act/behavior, then how do you define it? For that matter, how do you define any act/behavior without attributive characteristics that define said act/behavior as such?

14. Dan
    Posted May 26, 2009 at 1:16 pm | Permalink

    Nicolas, your point validates my argument, more than your argument. In other words, the fact that the percentage of gays has been relatively unchanged throughout history would indicate that being gay is not a "trend" nor a "choice." This is one of the statements made by the Kinsey study on sexuality. He observed that the percentage of gays in the general population was the same regardless of where those people lived. Does this indicate to you that people are "choosing" it? Gays exist even in the most hardline Islamic fundamentalist countries, such as Iran and Saudi Arabia, therefore would be very surprising that this is something these people would "choose." Let's see, would you choose to be killed just because you thought it was "fashionable" to be gay?
    And, I'm sure you've heard the argument that homosexuality exists in nature, and there are animals who natually mate with same sex partners for life. So, did these animals one day "choose" this? Nonsense....
    Regarding your second question, how do you define a woman? Would say women are defined by their behavior? Of course not. So, why would you define a homosexual by behavior? It's true that homosexuals aren't necessarily as easy to spot as is someone's gender, and this has led to a lot of gay people hiding their true sexual orientation by masking themselves as heterosexuals (Larry Craig and Ted Haggard come to mind. Both men are closeted homosexuals who've been unable to admit this publically or even to themselves.)
    Breaking news: I'm still legally married in California, and there's nothing you homophobic bigots can do about it! HURRAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

15. Dan
    Posted May 26, 2009 at 1:18 pm | Permalink

    CJ1, thanks for pointing out that it was the gay constituents in Hew Hampshire that wanted to make no compromises in regards to religious demands made by those against gay marriage.

16. Jeffrey
    Posted May 26, 2009 at 1:38 pm | Permalink

    Why does this organization call itself the National Organization for Marriage if their goal is to exclude certain groups from being able to get married? Shouldn't their name be the "National Organization for Traditional Marriage" or something like that? What organization says it is for something, then has the main goal of excluding others from participating in it?!

17. Gerry
    Posted May 26, 2009 at 1:41 pm | Permalink

    California Supreme Court upholds Proposition 8. The will of the people stands, except that existing same-sex pseudo-marriages were not invalidated.

18. Larry
    Posted May 26, 2009 at 6:08 pm | Permalink

    Dan, their's no conclusive science evidence for a homosexual gene-non whatsoever. Also the issue was marriage especially The Declaration On Marriage. William D. Gairdner is a smart and informed gutsy man. Homosexual activists already changed the meaning of gay attempting to give them a pro image now they wnat the title of marriage too. Simply homosexual couples can have civil unions or start their own official new name union. Fact is a homosexual couple and a hetetrosexual couple are different-science,religions and philosophy knows this fact.

19. Gerry
    Posted May 26, 2009 at 8:09 pm | Permalink

    The BIG LIE of the same-sex pseudo-marriage proponents has been exposed. They want to trash religious freedom. PERIOD.

20. Dan
    Posted May 27, 2009 at 2:45 am | Permalink

    Gerry, you can believe in Santa for all I care. I really don't care who or how your worship. This is about civic rights, and has nothing to do with religion. In fact, I don't view marriage as having anything to do with religion. Maybe it does to you, but to me it's about legal rights granted by the state. Your god has nothing to do with these rights. The sad thing is that all of the states that currently allow gay marriage have stated that religious groups are free to deny gays from being married in their houses of worship. The Protect Marriage campaign, and NOM have lied about this repeatedly. This was never, and will never have anything to do with your religious rights. This is a distraction away from the fact that this is about prejudicial treatment towards gays and lesbians as has been practiced historically in our society. Those times are rapidly coming to an end, and you'd better get used to the fact that gays are not backing down until we win our equality. It's just that simple. Time is on OUR side, and you will lose this battle eventually....

21. Dan
    Posted May 27, 2009 at 2:51 am | Permalink

    Larry, since you are in total denial, I'll send my evidence again that being gay is innate:

    http://www.logcabin.org/lef/choice_white_paper.html

    There have been many studies that are making the claim that sexual orientation is with us at birth. One of the most compelling is that gay male fetuses recieve higher doses of testosterone in the womb. This has already been proven. Believe it or not, there are gay rights activists who are fighting hard against the research into the "gay gene." Do you know why? They are afraid of a Nazi type "extermination" of the unborn in case a gay gene is found.... The cultural conservatives are just as afraid of this research, because it will prove conclusively that the biblical stance that homosexuality is "chosen" will be disproven. So, both sides of this argument are equally fighting this research.
    And, you are correct, we want the title of marriage, because "separate" is never "equal." And, you know what? We WILL have these rights eventually. Is it so difficult to accept that my marriage will be equal to yours? Was it difficult for you when blacks were finally allowed to drink at the same water fountain as whites? Something tells me you might have had trouble with that too...

22. Dan
    Posted May 27, 2009 at 2:52 am | Permalink

    Jeffrey, I have an idea, NOM should be renamed NOAME: National Organization Against Marriage Equality

23. Dan
    Posted May 27, 2009 at 3:14 am | Permalink

    Gerry, You said this: They want to trash religious freedom.
    So, who is losing their religious freedom when we must abide by Gerry's god?
    Answer, that would be me....
    Who lost their religious freedom when I went to City Hall to get married? Answer: Nobody...
    It seems logical, therefore, that you, Gerry, would like to impose your religion on me, not vice versa.

24. Dan
    Posted May 27, 2009 at 3:22 am | Permalink

    Larry, I can only assume you have the same religious leanings as William D. Gairdner, otherwise, you wouldn't have posted info on his website. Now I have a question for you, do you honestly think that you will attract more people to your religion by spewing the hatred you've displayed on this blog? Would anyone want to believe in Christ because you have an "agenda" to eliminate rights for gay people? I have news for you, you have done more harm for your cause than you know. Preaching hatred does not attract people to believe in your god, and I for one love it when I hear Christians bash gays. It turns people away from your cause. Unfortunately, too many of them just don't see it that way. This is all for the good, in my view, because all we need to do is look at Prop 8 to see how far relgion can go to oppress those who don't agree with their bible. If you had acted as Jesus had acted, you might have done more to promote your religion. Instead, you only show your true colors. The world can see that fundamentalist religious zealots stand for hatred, oppression, and intolerance (how about 9/11?). I'm a recovering Evangelical, and am thankful everyday that I escaped from it....
    Just think about what I said.....
    I'll be on the East Coast for a week, and that will give you plenty of time to think....

25. Secular Heretic
    Posted May 27, 2009 at 8:07 am | Permalink

    Religion generally supports what human nature already knows. The essence of marriage stems from human nature not from religion. It is part of human nature to have both the sexes joined together in marriage. Male and female bodies give witness to the unity of the sexes. Different religions attempt to assert restrictions and social expectations upon people (much like governments), but still the essence of marriage remains the same, man woman criteria.

26. Marie
    Posted May 27, 2009 at 2:22 pm | Permalink

    Dan: In fact, I don’t view marriage as having anything to do with religion. Maybe it does to you, but to me it’s about legal rights granted by the state. Your god has nothing to do with these rights

    Even without resorting to religion, I still feel a certain sadness when expanding the definition to include same sex couples.

    It's just that I've always thought of "marriage" as being the union of opposing male and female energies and contexts into a single relationship. No need to add "for..." anything, just simple as that.

    There's a certain poetic beauty to it, isn't there? The bringing together of yin/yang, male/female, etc. The two forces really don't WANT to mix exactly. Men want to spread their seed, females want a provider to stick around, etc. It's a unique challenge to keep a male/female relationship together, and people who try are rewarded with the institution of "marriage."

    So unless we're willing to say that there's no difference between how males and females relate to the world, it must be admitted that opposite-sex relationships have different struggles and challenges than same-sex ones. Not better, not worse, just different in many respects.

    But if we drop the opposite-sex requirement, ignoring the struggles unique to male/female relationships and define marriage by mere commitment alone, well... for me I'll admit marrriage loses some of it's poetry.

    BUT. I'll get over it, lol. That's just my personal hangup, and when I see all the happiness SSM will create uniting loving couples and rewarding their particular relationships... how can I hold that hostage just to support my personal, romantic notions of what marriage is or isn't?

27. Dan
    Posted May 27, 2009 at 3:16 pm | Permalink

    Marie, I think you have a good heart. What you don't realize is that your view of the "romantic" nature of male/female relationships is totally tempered by what you've been exposed to. I did some research one night, and nine out of ten TV commercials showed a heterosexual couple in romantic/domestic bliss. You guys love to flaunt your lifestyle, don't you? Can you name when the last time was that you saw a same sex couple in a romantic situation on a TV commercial or in ANY media? When we are portrayed in the mainstream media it is usually in a some sort of comedic situation (such as Will and Grace). We have yet to see a realistic and accurate representation of who we are. I don't fault you personally for this, but you seem to forget that gays have never been on the radar screen, until now. We have historically been invisible. It reminds me of the complaint that black people made about the fact that their children grew up with poor self esteem. Blacks were portrayed in the worst possible light, until they complained enough and we started seeing black dolls, and black super models. Why wouldn't black children grow up thinking they were not beautiful if the media never portrayed them as being beautiful? This wrong was fortunately righted. The first time I saw two men kiss in a romantic way was when I did it myself in college. I grew up thinking that it was impossible for me to obtain the love of my life. I actually dreamed of getting married to the man I love, but thought it was only just a dream. Who would have thought it actually would come true? I pinch myself every day to remind myself that I'm married legally in California, and Supreme Court affirmed again yesterday.
    When you hear the words bigot and homophobe in these discussions it is a reflection of a lifetime of abuse that we, as gay people, have lived through. If you think the bigotry behind Prop 8 bothered us, think again. We live with this daily. It's nothing new. And, you know what? We have faced far worse discrimination and hatred. This was a sign I saw yesterday at the Supreme Court announcement on Prop 8: "God hates fags."
    We will not be detered by this mentality of hate, and we will prevail. It's just that simple. We are on the radar screen as never before, and we will not disappear again. You can call it in your face if you like, but it's because we're tired of it, and won't take it any more. I'm so happy to be alive when marriage equality is making progress. It's only a matter of time when it will happen. It might take 20 years to sweep the country, but it WILL happen...
    And, yes, we have yin and yang too. Opposites do attract, even when they are of the same sex. Come visit me and my spouse, and you'll see for yourself...

28. Marie
    Posted May 27, 2009 at 5:05 pm | Permalink

    Dan: And, yes, we have yin and yang too. Opposites do attract, even when they are of the same sex. Come visit me and my spouse, and you’ll see for yourself…

    Ya know, I'd love to

    Don't get me wrong, if the vote ever came before me, I'd vote for SSM. It's just the right and fair thing to do. I won't pretend I know what's "best" for making families, let alone try and legislate my personal opinion into law. I can only do the best I can with my own life, and let everyone else do the same.

    SSM for me reminds me a little like discovering some long-lost relatives. Sure, OK.. the family I've known all my life is suddenly going to be different. But ya know, that's kinda neat, isn't it? To welcome home and into the family some really nice, new people

29. Dan
    Posted May 27, 2009 at 6:17 pm | Permalink

    Marie, you are cool, and I would love to introduce you to my spouse and you'd see there is nothing to be afraid of. Other than our world travels, we lead pretty average lives. Your "enlightened" reason for supporting SSM reminds me of what I heard about Spain. Spanish people are so pro-family that they feel "all" families matter. Therefore, even though the country is very Catholic, they think that the importance of forming strong family ties, through marriage, is the right thing to do for same sex couples. They have taken lots of flack from the Catholic church about this, but 67 percent of Spaniards (in one poll) strongly support gay marriage.

30. Dan
    Posted May 27, 2009 at 6:20 pm | Permalink

    Marie, you are cool, and I would love to introduce you to my spouse and you'd see there is nothing to be afraid of. Your "enlightened" reason for supporting SSM reminds me of what I heard about Spain. Spanish people are so pro-family that they feel "all" families matter. Therefore, even though the country is very Catholic, they think that the importance of forming strong family ties, through marriage, is the right thing to do for same sex couples. They have taken lots of flack from the Catholic church about this, but 67 percent of Spaniards (in one poll) strongly support gay marriage.

31. Mark Lawrence
    Posted May 27, 2009 at 11:17 pm | Permalink

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNiqfRyoAyA

32. Chairm
    Posted May 29, 2009 at 5:42 pm | Permalink

    If all families matter, Dan, why do SSMers insist on discriminating against nonmarital families which are NOT sexualized but are same-sex -- like siblings or dad/son or mom/daughter or uncle/nephew or aunte/niece?

    Youu did not mean all famlies, did you?

33. Jeffrey
    Posted May 30, 2009 at 2:04 pm | Permalink

    Chairm asks:

    "....why do SSMers insist on discriminating against nonmarital families which are NOT sexualized but are same-sex — like siblings or dad/son or mom/daughter or uncle/nephew or aunte/niece?"

    I wasn't aware that they do discriminate. I support SSM and certainly do not discriminate against "non-sexualized" families? What's the discrimination you're seeing, Chairm? If related people want to marry, let them, like gay couples, pursue a remedy with the state. But burdening same-sex couples' right to marry with other groups who might wish to marry is the ultimate red herring. The current legal issue is, can same-sex couples marry? Relatives are forbidden to marry. If they object, let them sue the state, and let the chips fall where they may.

34. Chairm
    Posted May 31, 2009 at 1:06 am | Permalink

    Jeffery, SSM campaign is about changing the rules. You can't runaway from that.

    If "marriage equality" is truly about equality of consenting adults, as you have said, then, you can't now say that nongay people must go to the back of the line.

    You said: "burdening same-sex couples’ right to marry with other groups"

    Nope. SSM supporters have taken on that burden the moment they started complaining about the eligibility rules.

    But I see that you recognize that SSM argumentation is about the group which is just another way of conceding that it is about identity politics of the gaycentric kind.

    Consenting adults, Jefferey, are some more equal than others, according to what you just said?

35. Chairm
    Posted May 31, 2009 at 1:07 am | Permalink

    By the way, you just admitted that SSM argumentation is about asserting the supremacy of gay identity politics.

36. Jeffrey
    Posted May 31, 2009 at 10:05 am | Permalink

    Chairm, there's nothing about supremacy is granting equal access to marriage for same-sex couples. It's about equality, not supremacy. That's why the Iowa Supreme Court ruled unanimously in favor of same-sex couples, using Equal Protection doctrine.

    There's no reason that other groups can't pursue their right to marry. If a brother and sister want to marry, let them sue their state for that right. If a group of people want to marry, let them sue their state for that right. The courts may rule that a brother and sister have the right to marry and that laws against incest are unconstitutional. But what do these other groups have to do with same-sex couples? It's just a device by the opponents of same-sex couples to smear.

37. Chairm
    Posted May 31, 2009 at 4:31 pm | Permalink

    The Iowa Supreme Court's reasoning is based on same-sex sexual attraction and romance.

    You'd agree that these are not legal requirements when people show-up for a license for an all-male or an all-female relationshp, right?

    That court's reasoning does not depend on the equality doctrine but on a series of false equivalencies.

    What could possibly justify the ineligibility of two male siblings who are both inclined toward same-sex sexual attraction and romance?

    It would not be some problem with homosexuality, right? Nor could it be about the choice of consenting adults. And it can't be about the nonexistent requirement for certain sexual behavior; this would not be a sexual type of relationship at law anyway.

    So SSM argumentation encompasses more than you might wish to be held accountable for.

    This is not a device. This is intrinsic to your complaints.

38. Chairm
    Posted May 31, 2009 at 4:36 pm | Permalink

    And by your elevation of a subset of the nonmarital category you are indeed abandoning the principle of treating people equally. You are openly talking about this group and that group.

    You also point to the courts to decide the matter rather than the actual laws and the definitive legal requirements. You know, the requirements you wish to abolish or deeply discount: the man-woman criterion and the marital presumption of paternity.

    Gut marriage law of these things and marriage becomes a nonsexual type of relationship, at law, and so the incest concern is not really about incestous sexual behavior. Your pro-SSM arugments deconstruct the basis for the eligibility criteria.

39. Jeffrey
    Posted May 31, 2009 at 5:50 pm | Permalink

    Chairm

    Sexual orientation isn’t a requirement of marriage. It’s the gender requirement that I’m opposed to. Sexual orientation drives couples to form: same-sex or opposite-sex. If a homosexual man and a heterosexual woman mutually consent to get married, all the best to them, in my opinion. And if two straight dudes want to get married, all the best to them, in my opinion. The discussion of sexuality comes up only because it is overwhelmingly homosexual people who form same-sex couples, the couples 45 states are still discriminating against in terms of granting marriage licenses.

    “What could possibly justify the ineligibility of two male siblings who are both inclined toward same-sex sexual attraction and romance?”
    Beats me. What does this have to do with same-sex marriage? How does society currently keep a brother and sister from marrying? Does same-sex marriage really introduce something new to the “sibling’s getting married” concern? Incest is illegal. Unless sibling marriage proponents can get that changed, it’s going to be kinda tough to see sibling marriage anytime soon.

    “You also point to the courts to decide the matter rather than the actual laws and the definitive legal requirements. You know, the requirements you wish to abolish or deeply discount: the man-woman criterion and the marital presumption of paternity.”

    I don’t really care if the courts or legislatures correct the current injustice of marriage statutes. Like voting used to be, marriage is currently arbitrarily limited using gender. I don’t see any way around it legally, morally, socially, etc. Consenting adults form loving, committed couples that contain one man/one woman, one man/one man, one woman/one woman. The government issues a permit called a marriage license, that grants specific rights and obligations to couples. Those rights and obligations seem to pertain to the “coupleness” rather than the “genderness” of the couple. For example, marriage law doesn’t require the man to do or be something, and the woman has to be or do something else. Apart from the arbitrary requirement in 45 states that the couple be one male and one female, there’s nothing in the marriage statutes that lays out any gender-based rules and regulations.

    “Gut marriage law of these things and marriage becomes a nonsexual type of relationship, at law, and so the incest concern is not really about incestous sexual behavior. Your pro-SSM arugments deconstruct the basis for the eligibility criteria.”

    Who wants to gut marriage law?! I don’t. I just want states to stop discriminating in the issuance of marriage licenses based on gender. I think it’s time society recognize that adults form heterosexual and homosexual couples. Unless SSM opponents come up with valid reasons against it. So far, they haven’t.

40. Chairm
    Posted June 2, 2009 at 4:20 am | Permalink

    Jeffery said:

    "It’s the gender requirement that I’m opposed to."

    That is obvious. But you emphasize sexual orientation anyway.

    You said:

    "it is overwhelmingly homosexual people who form same-sex couples"

    Highy doubtful if not outright false.

    Besides, you have conceded that there is no sexual orientation requirement that defines the category "same-sex".

    If partipation rates are suddenly relevant now, when discussing siblings, then it is relevant when discussing gay and lesbian participation rates in same-sex householding. About 90% of the openly homosexual adult population does not reside in such households. The demand is miniscule.

    Yet you emphasize homosexuality.

    There is no requirement for same-sex sexual behavior and yet you shrug your shoulders when I asked about siblings of he same sex and the same sexual orientation. I did not say they'd be engaged in sexual behavior together. They might, they might not. But they'd be ineligible even if they did not touch one another.

    They would not be barred from SSM due to homosexuality. And, according to your own stated standard, the lack of a legal requirement for same-sex sexual behavior means siblings would not be breaking laws against incestuous sexual behavior -- just by showing up for a license. And you wouldn't want the government prying into bedrooms, would you?

    The criminalization of sexual behavior between consenting adults is something you have not justified so you can not rely on that anyway.

    More importantly, your viewpoint, if imposed, would borrow the word marriage for a nonmarital arrangement.

    Why would siblings or anyone else view their relationship as marriage? They would just want the privileges that comes with the license. You know, like the identity group you keep emphasizing.

    * * *

    You said:

    "Consenting adults form loving, committed couples"

    You've said this repeatedly and yet yu have not said what you mean by this. Consent to what? What kind of love? Commit to what? If it is just this personalized agreement, then, you are concerned with something other than marriage.

    * * *

    You haven't come up with a reason for special status. Your argument is against marital status. It is not based on commitment since you can't say to what they'd commit. It is not based on consent since you are a-okay with barring some consenting adults. You emphasize one identity group and that discredits your talk of equality.

    No, Jeffery, you have a lot of homework to do before you can make the case for this legal reform that you favor.

41. Jeffrey
    Posted June 2, 2009 at 8:08 am | Permalink

    Chairm

    “Besides, you have conceded that there is no sexual orientation requirement that defines the category “same-sex””

    There isn’t any. But that doesn’t mean the government can discriminate against homosexual couples in the granting of marriage licenses.

    “If partipation rates are suddenly relevant now, when discussing siblings, then it is relevant when discussing gay and lesbian participation rates in same-sex householding. About 90% of the openly homosexual adult population does not reside in such households. The demand is miniscule.”

    The demand for mixed race marriage is even more miniscule I imagine. Yet we still made it legal. It’s a little goofy to discuss same-sex “householding” arrangements when the vast majority of same-sex couples do not have access to marriage. Like different-sex couples, I imagine same-sex couples might not want to set up a household together until the permanence of the relationship can be established.

    “…yet you shrug your shoulders when I asked about siblings of the same sex and the same sexual orientation. I did not say they’d be engaged in sexual behavior together. They might, they might not. But they’d be ineligible even if they did not touch one another.”

    Arguments about siblings or relatives getting married are irrelevant to a discussion of SSM. If there are prohibitions against siblings or relatives marrying under opposite-sex marriage, those prohibitions remain in place under same-sex marriage.

    “More importantly, your viewpoint, if imposed, would borrow the word marriage for a nonmarital arrangement. Why would siblings or anyone else view their relationship as marriage? They would just want the privileges that comes with the license. You know, like the identity group you keep emphasizing.”

    Again, siblings or relatives getting married has no relation to SSM. If a brother and sister want to wed, or a father and daughter, they could presumably sue the state now for that right.

    “Consenting adults form loving, committed couples”
    “You’ve said this repeatedly and yet you have not said what you mean by this. Consent to what? What kind of love? Commit to what? If it is just this personalized agreement, then, you are concerned with something other than marriage.”

    I think it’s pretty clear. Adults is people over a certain age. Consenting means these adults agree to do something; it’s not against their will.

    “You haven’t come up with a reason for special status. Your argument is against marital status. It is not based on commitment since you can’t say to what they’d commit. It is not based on consent since you are a-okay with barring some consenting adults. You emphasize one identity group and that discredits your talk of equality. No, Jeffery, you have a lot of homework to do before you can make the case for this legal reform that you favor.”

    I have come up with reasons for denying different-sex couples special status in receiving the right to marry: it discriminates needlessly and without valid reason against same-sex couples. Unless you can prove that same-sex couples have less value or stature in society, and I haven’t seen or heard anyone do that, there’s no valid reason to prevent them from marrying. And unless you or anyone else can prove that it’s detrimental to society to permit SSM, I think states are going to have a hard time maintaining opposite-sex only marriage licenses.

    No, Chairm, I have no homework to do. The Iowa Supreme Court has done all the heavy lifting necessary, from a legal standpoint. The state of Massachusetts, as the pioneer on the issue, has done the heavy lifting of discrediting the notion that SSM brings social or cultural catastrophe. And frankly, ludicrous TV commercials like those from NOM, and public appearances by cranks like Maggie Gallagher, are invaluable in discrediting the opposite-sex only message.

42. Marie
    Posted June 2, 2009 at 10:10 am | Permalink

    The Iowa Supreme Court has done all the heavy lifting necessary, from a legal standpoint. The state of Massachusetts, as the pioneer on the issue, has done the heavy lifting of discrediting the notion that SSM brings social or cultural catastrophe

    Exactly. I understand the concern about how removing the opposite-sex requirement opens up the *possibility* for abuse, where "any two consenting adults" may take advantage of marital benefits, even though they're not an intimate couple.

    But Civil Unions already allow that, as do a few SSM states... and I just don't see that exploitation happening in any widespread, destructive way?