« 4-Year-Old Dies On Disney Ride | Main | Terri Schiavo Autopsy Released »

A radical proposal on gay marriage: let the people decide!

As I've stated before, while I do support the idea of gay marriage in theory, I have grave problems with the way it was implemented in Massachusetts. For years people sought to have the matter placed on a state-wide referendum, and for years the legislature told them to take their petitions and stick them. Finally, the state's Supreme Judicial Court (Massachusetts' version of a supreme court) stepped in and made it the law of the Commonwealth, by a 4-3 vote.

Well, those very same people who tried for years to put the issue before the people, and were repeatedly rebuffed by their elected representatives, are back at it again. are giving it yet another try.

I hope they succeed. I hope it does get voted on in a public referendum. And while I hope it passes, I am pretty comfortable predicting it will fail.

Because while I do support gay marriage, and think it will eventually come to pass, I believe in democracy more. And I think that the Court's early decision will end up doing far more harm than good to the cause. By forcing it down people's throats, they galvanized the opponents and gave them a rallying point.

Several states had gay marriage proposals on the ballot last November, and it lost in every single one. I have to think that a good portion of that was backlash from the judges in Massachusetts, and mayors in New York and San Francisco, deciding such a major issue on their own. Those "victories" are turning out to have been pyrrhic ones, and will set the cause back for years.

As General Pyrrhus said so eloquently, "A few more victories of this sort and I will be ruined."


Comments (37)

Actually I think the gay ma... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

Actually I think the gay marriage proposals on the ballot last November all passed. However, these were bans on gay marriage, and the issue helped bring out the conservative vote.

This Massachusetts effort i... (Below threshold)

This Massachusetts effort is to enact a ban as well, by way of constitutional amendment -- so if they get on the ballot and voters approve it, the result will be to end same-sex marriage in Massachusetts, not the other way around.

Certainly in our federalist... (Below threshold)
McCain:

Certainly in our federalist society, which is unfortunately growing less and less federalist over time, it seems proper to grant great deference to a state's prerogative to decide marriage definitions for themselves. How each state goes about doing it is an internal constitutional matter for itself, which includes the direct initiative process in many states.

But in many states, constitutional amendments curiously require only a simple majority for approval, which is an open door for the tyranny of the majority that Toqueville and Madison warned us about.

Although there is a simplistic beauty in "letting the people decide" all matters, there is also that danger. One need only look at the last great marriage debate to understand that "the people" in many states decided that marriage is a union between a man and woman of the SAME race, that is, "the people" banned interracial marriage. The tyranny of the majority of "the people" was quite evident.

So Jay's argument extends directly to the question of interracial marriage as well. Shall "the people" decide? Well of course, but how? Shall we give deference to the states under our federalist system? Within each state, is a simple majority of "the people" the right moral way to decide liberties of the minority? Does the US constitution have a role in defining marriage?

The latter, of course, is precisely what the Supreme Court said 40 years ago when confronted with state bans on interracial marriage. I suspect that is the route this question will go eventually, and whether sooner or later, same-sex marriage will be the law of the land. All of human history has reflected a slow march toward individual liberty.

The whole point is in the d... (Below threshold)
Sabba Hillel:

The whole point is in the definition of "marriage". If the definition is a financial and legal arrangement betwenn two adults who are competent to sign a contract, then there is no way that such a contract can be limited in any way. If, on the other hand, it is a moral or spiritual issue, then it is subject to the freedom of religion as set forth in the constitution. In that case, the enforcement of "gay marriage" is forcing the religious beliefs of one group of people on the entire country.

Perhaps if the lawmakers would explicitly define the legal and contractual obligations and privileges that they mean, and define these contractual obligations to be between any competent adults, matters would work out better.

I should point out that such a set of contracts would not have anything to do with sex, religion, or consaguinuity. It would be the same as any set of business contracts in the rest of human dealings.

In that way, those who regard homosexuality as a sin, would not be forced into accepting something that is morally wrong. Those who wish to have a "relationship" can decide whether or not this relationship is financial and legal or according to the rules of their specific religion.

Let's see...now we're back ... (Below threshold)
-S-:

Let's see...now we're back to the "'gay' 'marriage' is equivalent to interracial marriage" ruse...

Which are, more accurately, not related or similar in issue, however much proponents of alterating the concept/definition of marriage in our society.

Society will, I am sure, persevere in maintaining a level of order as to who, how and by what means human beings can intimately communicate.

The institution of marriage is not about nor is limited to racial types and licenses.

And that's what most people continue to believe and intend for future generations.

If left to a general vote, that'll be the decision, I am sure, and that is to maintain the definition of marriage as being between one adult male and one adult female.


Because, liberty isn't abou... (Below threshold)
-S-:

Because, liberty isn't about permissiveness, it's about absolutes.

I should point out that ... (Below threshold)

I should point out that such a set of contracts would not have anything to do with sex, religion, or consaguinuity. It would be the same as any set of business contracts in the rest of human dealings.

Careful there, Sabba, or you'll be accused of setting the stage for one of those eeeeevil "slippery slope" arguments. ;-)

"Let the people decide"...m... (Below threshold)
Maggie:

"Let the people decide"...my God, didn't you hear what happened to Chirac when he thought that was a good idea.

"Which are, more accurately... (Below threshold)
McCain:

"Which are, more accurately, not related or similar in issue, however much proponents of alterating the concept/definition of marriage in our society. Society will, I am sure, persevere in maintaining a level of order as to who, how and by what means human beings can intimately communicate." --S--

You have to define "society" in your statement. If you are talking about society in the individual states, you recognize already that civil marriage definitions vary between states. In Nebraska, for example, you have to be 19 to marry, unlike any other state. In Massacheussetts, and soon to be in California, gay marriage is legal. In the 1960s, many states banned interracial marriages. Earlier in our history, Utah allowed polygamy. So the definition of marriage varies between our various states and there is nothing wrong with that fact alone. I assume that your reference to "society", therefore, is a defense of individual states deciding what is best for themselves. Big-government folks, of course, want to trounce federalism by legislating issues like this at the federal level, but I suspect that this blight on the conservative movement will pass with time and perspective. That isn't your argument.

Whether or not the gay marriage debate is equivalent to the interracial marriage debate (it certainly IS), one of the questions that must be addressed is where shall the people's voice be heard. The federal level or state level? You are arguing for the state level. However, we know what "the people" tried to do against interracial marriage at the state level. We know what they are doing against same-sex marriage at the state level this time. All of this is expected, and someday will be put into the same context as the bigotry that came before.

Continuing the current path, we will end up with legalized gay marriage (or certainly civil unions with the same perks) in a small handful of states, and bans in the others. It will change and grow over time after the 50 societies have a chance to reflect. I supposed there is nothing wrong with that from a federalist perspective, but I do see the Supremes eventually interfering for the same reasons as the did in the 1960s. It seems inevitable. And 20 years after that fact, you will by lying to your grandchildren about which side of the fence you were sitting on. Even my lovely grandmother today pretends she supports interracial marriage back when it mattered.


Because, liberty isn't a... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Because, liberty isn't about permissiveness, it's about absolutes.

John Stuart Mill, right? You are a crackup Suzy.

I absolutely agree, having ... (Below threshold)
Just Me:

I absolutely agree, having gay marriage force fed by the courts resulted in a backlash at the polls in November.

Connecticut's legislature opted to have gay marriage, and hardly a peep was made in the news, because the legislature debated on it and voted in favor of it, and the governor signed it.

That is how this is supposed to happen, not by judicial fiat.


In the end I think the move to push for gay marriage in the courts set back the movement for those who want it recognized everywhere.

Marriage -- a real marriage... (Below threshold)
Michael:

Marriage -- a real marriage and not a "civil union" -- is not just a contractual arrangement between consenting adults of any type. There are third parties involved. They're called children. In the ideal, the institution of marriage is principally about children. That's why most of us gag at the notion of gay marriage. It's not about children, and we don't think children should be raised in that environment.

And yes, I understand that there are very many heterosexual marriages that are not about children either. Lots of straight couples have second and third marriages when they are well past child-bearing age.

But the fact that they are doing so represents a failure of the institution of marriage, which in the ideal, should have been a life-long bond between adults who would be united by their love for each other, and their children, and their grandchildren.

When we sanction gay marriages, we sever all ties to what the institution should have been about. It should have been about families, children, inter-generational bonds, cousins, and family traditions. Not inheritance rights and medical benifits.

Personally, I think governm... (Below threshold)

Personally, I think government should ban marriage. Government should never grant you a "marriage license". Marriage is a religious definition, it is government's encroachment on that to *add* all their legal standards is what is screwing up the whole debate.

I say give *EVERYONE* who wants one, straight, gay, 6 people that want to live in a commune, etc, a civil union. Don't issue marriage licenses at all. As long as it's consenting adults, what's the problem?

Let the church decide who gets married, and let the state do what it is designed to do, enforce legal contracts. We need to divorce the legal and religious definitions of "marriage".

No slippery slope, right Mc... (Below threshold)
Sue Dohnim:

No slippery slope, right McCain?

You're right, of course. It's not really a slippery slope when the activists announce their intentions. It's more like stepping down rungs on a ladder.

2. Repeal of all state laws prohibiting private sexual acts involving consenting persons [note: not adults]; equalization for homosexuals and heterosexuals for the enforcement of all laws.

7. Repeal of all laws governing the age of sexual consent.

8. Repeal of all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into a marriage unit; and the extension of legal benefits to all persons who cohabit regardless of sex or numbers.

We're already being softened up with stories about grown women raping young boys and "peer-reviewed" studies stating that sex with children is harmless and sometimes is even beneficial to the little tykes.

It's just a matter of time before we read a U.S. Supreme Court opinion that pines for us to revive Sparta and all of its wonderful practices. We're practically halfway there already.

Marriage -- a real marri... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Marriage -- a real marriage and not a "civil union" -- is not just a contractual arrangement between consenting adults of any type. There are third parties involved. They're called children. In the ideal, the institution of marriage is principally about children.

Maybe in your ideal, but many people marry, while still of child-bearing age, with no intention of having children, and many are unable to for a variety of reasons. Should they not be permitted to wed?

That's why most of us gag at the notion of gay marriage. It's not about children, and we don't think children should be raised in that environment.

Who cares what you gag at? I gag at the notion of dirt-poor people having hordes of children they can't support. I gag at the notion of people who thrust their children into the entertainment business or are obsessed with their children becoming pro-atheletes. I don't think children should be raised in those environments, but I don't get to say who can have children and who can't, do I? And many gay people conceive or adopt children, and would like to get married also. Isn't that about the children?

But the fact that they are doing so represents a failure of the institution of marriage, which in the ideal, should have been a life-long bond between adults who would be united by their love for each other, and their children, and their grandchildren.

Once again, in your ideal. The failure is not in the institution of marriage, but in reality matching up to your ideals. Get used to it.

When we sanction gay marriages, we sever all ties to what the institution should have been about. It should have been about families, children, inter-generational bonds, cousins, and family traditions. Not inheritance rights and medical benifits.

Marriage should be about cousins? Maybe where you're from...

We voted for limitations on... (Below threshold)
kma:

We voted for limitations on illegal immigration with Prop 187 and got shafted by the politicians.

We voted that the definition of marriage is between a man and a woman with Prop 22 and got shafted by the courts.

Yes, cousins. And u... (Below threshold)
Michael:

Yes, cousins. And uncles and aunts. In other words, extended family relationships. If you've never had kids, I can assure you that it means a lot to them.

I missed the part where a a... (Below threshold)
skegatz:

I missed the part where a a bond of love had to be recognized by a government. Isn't it more important to share that bond than to have a governing entity recognize it as legal?

Regardless of anyone's opinion on this issue, if we all want to respect the idea of equality in this great country, a union of man and man logically should be recognized as equal under the law. That doesn't mean I agree with it, but equality should extend to all adults, regardless of their partnering/sexual preferences. Society already accepts the fact that there are people who prefer the 'company' of the same sex. You can certainly bequeath your assets to someone of the same sex, have them on your health ins., so what if they have a piece of paper that unites them under the law of a state?

Inevitability....

An intersting thing about k... (Below threshold)
Michael:

An intersting thing about kids is that, even at a very young age, they readily distinguish between family and friends. In a lot of ways, my kids were closer to George and Linda next door than to any relative. George and Linda loved my kids, and the kids loved them. But George and Linda were never the same as Uncle Stan and Aunt Nancy, or Uncle Dave and Aunt Julia. They were family, and the kids knew the difference.

The concept of gay marriage flies in the face of what we all know in our bones: children come first, and blood relationships matter in the raising of our children.

"Regardless of anyone's ... (Below threshold)
Michael:

"Regardless of anyone's opinion on this issue, if we all want to respect the idea of equality in this great country, a union of man and man logically should be recognized as equal under the law."

That's just silly. The "idea of equality" does not mean that different things should be treated the same.

As a matter of public policy, I'm not opposed to measures that encourage stable, responsible homosexual relationships. I'm fine with letting them have inheritance rights, guardianship rights, medical benifits, and so on. Never mind that I consider these relationships to be sinful, that's just my Christian moral bias. Such relationships exist, and we should have a rational public policy to deal with them.

It really just boils down to an issue of terminology. I, and many others, just don't want to call these relationships a marriage, because in our head we have a concept of what marriage is supposed to be, and sanctioning a homosexual union as a marriage means that our society has abandoned that concept.

I've watched this thread th... (Below threshold)

I've watched this thread through the day, and several posters have hit a glancing blow to the nail's head, but nobody seems to have really pegged the issue yet.

Gay marriage is an initiative being pushed by the gay rights movement such that homosexual couples will have the opportunity to raise adopted children in their lifestyle.

Period.

Nobody enters into marriage for the "benefits." Further, nobody in the gay rights movements talks about the alternate of "civil unions" that would grant all the benefits, excepting that of adoption. On top of all this, we've been hearing for years that marriage was optional, that it was an institution that, although sweet, wasn't necessary for the "modern couple."

Time to take off the "PC Goggles" and look at this issue from a standpoint of brutal honesty. Homosexuality is a sexual diversion at best, a perversion at worst. When an individual significantly alters his lifestyle because he has a fetish for diapers, we get him counseling. When he alters his lifestyle due to a fetish for same-sex sexual partners, we give him a medal.

Perhaps the greatest farce of all is the extension of minority consideration to homosexuals. Members of honest minorities should be enraged. The consideration under the law of one's minority status is to help offset factors beyond that individual's control, not to reward someone for making a "lifestyle choice" that's in direct rebellion to the norms of civilization.

The activities of consenting adults behind closed doors is their private business. Keep those activities out of public policy.

"Gay marriage is an init... (Below threshold)
Michael:

"Gay marriage is an initiative being pushed by the gay rights movement such that homosexual couples will have the opportunity to raise adopted children in their lifestyle.

Period."

Exactly. Marriage is about children, and gay people want the "legitimacy" of being equally accepted as parents. They're not satified with being accepted. They want the rest of society to proclaim that they are no different from us when it comes to the core purpose of marriage -- children.

I agree with Michael on his... (Below threshold)
McCain:

I agree with Michael on his latter point. The English language is unfortunately imprecise. The eskimos have seven words for snow, but we have only one for marriage. There is really nothing wrong with using one word to define opposite-sex unions, and a different word for same-sex unions. We use different words to define heterosexual and homosexual behaviors, so why not marriage. But whether we use the same word or a different word, the correct moral outcome must be the same civil protections and silly perks under the law.

As to your earlier point, that marriage is about children, I see that as neither the objective of our laws or the reality of our freedom. You can legally have children out of wedlock. You can legally get married and not have kids. Marriage just doesn't seem to be about children under civil law. Rather, it seems much ado about rights and perks.

We are talking of course about civil law. Under religious law, at least Catholic law, marriage is a great deal about children, and it is also about many other things that have no place in any civil definition of marriage. And this is why, of course, that civil marriage and religious marriage have different defintions and requirements, just as they should.

You can get a great example... (Below threshold)
Michael:

You can get a great example of the gay agenda by renting a copy of La Cage Aux Folles. Gay couple provides wonderful parenting to straight boy.

Plus, it's a good movie.

BoDiddly, that is a wonderf... (Below threshold)
McCain:

BoDiddly, that is a wonderful red-herring you raised. It might be interesting if it weren't for the fact that several states already explicitly allow adoption by gays, a handful don't, and the vast majority have no law either way. It is a separate issue from gay marriage, but nice subterfuge.

And as a learned scholar, I'm sure you are aware of the mounting evidence that homosexuality is not actually a "lifestyle choice" or even a product of nurture, but is derived from nature. At least for most people. Have you read the evidence and do you care to present your contrary evidence to support your own view?


The purpose of the Constitu... (Below threshold)
JimK:

The purpose of the Constitution is to enumerate rights and to protect the rights of the minority from the tyranny of the majority.

I realize that you're saying "put this up" because you want it to fail, but do you really want to put all of our rights and laws up for referendum? Have you really thought this through?

Do you think gay marriage is the last issue to which a majority vote could apply?

What rights to you consider mportant? Are you willing to put them up, forever, in today's media-blitz, vote from your emotions and not the facts world?

Forget gay marriage. Pretend the topic has never come up. Pick a right you currently enjoy, one that you believe to be sacred.

Now imagine that right in the hands of the voting public...can you really trust the masses to protect the rights of the individual?

Let's look beyond our own noses here and think this through. It has ramifications that go WAY beyond the religious or "moral."

JimK:Amen, brother... (Below threshold)
Michael:

JimK:

Amen, brother. Which is why a successful democrocy, if it is not going to become a thugocracy (look at Russia today), is always founded on the rule of law. That means respect for the constitution and an independant judiciary. Which means that we have agreed on values that are so important that we entrust them to a counter-democratic elite.

That's why the credibility of the Supreme Court is so important. And that's why Roe v. Wade is so wrong. I'm actually OK with the result -- at the time most state legislatures were headed in the same direction. Back then, safe and legal abortions were easily available to rich girls who could afford a flight to Sweden. The states were addressing this problem. That takes time, and the Supreme Court should not have intervened with its pathetically reasoned opinion. So what if Missouri would never have legalized abortion? It takes half a tank of gas to get to Illinois or Kansas.

The crime of Roe v. Wade, is that the credibility of the court as the guardians of the rule of law was severely damaged, because they cut themselves loose from thier constitutional moorings,

And you're an irresponsible... (Below threshold)
-S-:

And you're an irresponsible insulting marxist, mantis.

The boomerang effect, you know.

And, I really, really doubt... (Below threshold)
-S-:

And, I really, really doubt that you want or understand "marriage," mantis. Reading you limping along with the faux defintion of "marriage" sure does make my mouse-wheel spin!

I hope you come in one day from the cold. There's much you could learn.

And you're an irresponsi... (Below threshold)
mantis:

And you're an irresponsible insulting marxist, mantis.

How so?

And, I really, really doubt that you want or understand "marriage," mantis. Reading you limping along with the faux defintion of "marriage" sure does make my mouse-wheel spin!

You doubt I want or understand marriage? Well, you're right that I don't want it, however that is because I do understand it. As far as my "faux" definition of marriage (I don't believe I ever proffered a definition; maybe you can enlighten me as to which one is mine), since when do fundamentalist Christians get to define marriage for the entire citizenry? If the bible is what you're going by, I consider your "traditional" definition to be false, based squarely upon the subjugation and disenfranchisement of women. If you're interested in narrowly defining marriage to suit your religious views, keep it inside your church where you can be discriminatory all you like, and argue endlessly about semantics. I'm more interested in individual liberty (another word you have a warped definition of).

Btw if I'm your definition of a marxist I'd be suspicious of all your definitions.

Michael and McCain: please... (Below threshold)
-S-:

Michael and McCain: please provide me with identifable characteristics by whence a man bears a child, or a woman sires one.

The issue about genders and the "gender blending" need by homosexual proponents and homosexuals themselves is the issue here. To even entertain or try to ruminate about the very notion of "'gay' 'marriage'" along the lines of how you're attempting to present it, is to lose site with reality.

But, that's the entire premise right there, that there's nothing absolute, that anyone can be anything with anyone, that all is relative and nothing is simultaneously.

It used to be that anyone who didn't bend with the wind like that was plasted with pejoratives and now that most of those have been exhausted, the various interests bent on the "'gay' 'marriage'" theme are from the very perspective that they worked so hard to 'overcome': that homosexuality is "like everything/everyone else" and that there's no differentation between genders and combinations of genders and who, what, with, etc.

Based upon that level of relativism, then, of course, there are no differentations nor issues assignable based upon reality. If everyone can be whatever they want and how, then there's nothing to be reserved with any specialness or particularity, etc.

And, "love" in those terms is also fleeting and again, relative. You'll "love" while the moment is sustainable as to mutual realities but then again, once one or both drift to their next permutation, there's a split, and no anchors to maintain anything. And, based upon relativism, it doesn't matter, anyway, right?

I'm willing to agree that some people experience a degree of compulsion and are, therefore, "unable" and "powerless" to control certain behaviors. Based upon that, then certain sexual behaviors are inevitable for those so affected. Alright, let's accept that.

But, society -- a representation of what most people perceive is a workable organization to such a degree that things work to the best advantage for most -- has and always will arrive at general standards by which some organizations are maintained and preserved and some possibilities of human behavior are not sanctioned (it doesn't mean that some people won't engage in those behaviors, just that society won't sanction them, and some we'll even penalize with incarcertaion, ostracization and denigration if the behaviors are offensive/threatening enough to segments of society).

This is just basic stuff but "'gay' 'marriage'" proponents insist that there are no social standards that can be threatened, or will be or behaviors that exist that are harmful such that they need to be identified, or even concerned with and about.

It does not make it so.

Because, to be frank here, I've yet to ever read much by the homosexual community that doesn't eventually involve various relationships that most in society consider to be entirely offensive and would not want their children exposed or even knowledgeable about. It's a case of things not being as breezy and light as "'gay marriage'" proponents attempt to frame these issues, either.

Marriage is nearly routinely in almost all communities regarded as being between one adult male and one adult female. You have communities nationwide that are heavily influenced by homosexual interests and such, but in most of the country, the relationship of marriage will and has been defined as it is and that will remain. I am confident of that.

A lot of people do still believe that homosexuals should not be able to legally adopt, and for many of the reasons I've mentioned here. I agree with that -- and just becuase there are some homosexuals who have successfully raised children, does not mean that there is any standard and consistency there within those terms.

If left to the states, most states will vote to preserve marriage between one adult man and one adult woman and the few states who don't (maybe Massachusetts, maybe New York, maybe Illinois because Illinois is governed by the Chicago voters, but even in CA, the suggestion of "'gay''marriage'" is routinely and by a wide margin not acceptable -- you may have one or two or three states where the idea is allowed (eventually), but what'll then take place is that most families will relocate to the states where it isn't deemed acceptable and you'll have a few states going a tad berzerk while others don't.

The gay community needs heterosexuals if for no other reason than to lecture to, but about nonsense most of the time. I think that the issue is harming homosexuals far more than they think becuase it's only encouraging most in society to more definitely define marriage as being between a man and a woman and to consider homosexual behaviors as more problematic than ever before.

I understand that for most who consider themselves homosexual, that's their perspective. I can't count on one hand the times I've ever taken issue with anyone who experienced themselves so. But, I can count on a field of straws the times I've heard and read homosexuals with problems about and with everyone else. I think there's a lot of indication lately that the "gay" experience is a form of mental disturbance.

As to the definitions of marriage, the issues of late have helped most people to better define their understanding of and about it. And, that's that marriage is a relationship sanctioned by society between one adult male and one adult female.

Why do homosexuals even want that relationship? On what terms? A "homosexual" marriage? Which is all "gay marriage" means, to be clear here. So, you want/seek a redefinition of marriage.

Most of society does not. If up to a vote, society's opinion will carry.

mantis: I have nothing mor... (Below threshold)
-S-:

mantis: I have nothing more to write to or about you. There's no point.

A lot of people do still... (Below threshold)
mantis:

A lot of people do still believe that homosexuals should not be able to legally adopt, and for many of the reasons I've mentioned here. I agree with that -- and just becuase there are some homosexuals who have successfully raised children, does not mean that there is any standard and consistency there within those terms.

Of course it doesn't. You can't depend on you're personal experience and selected stories you hear about to show the bigger picture in overall trends. Which is why we have people who research such things. Let's see what the findings are from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health:

Lesbian couples raise well-adjusted teenagers

Each teen studied was matched with a counterpart from a heterosexual family, who shared the same sex, age, ethnicity, adoption status and family income, among other factors.

The researchers found no differences between the two groups in terms of depression, anxiety, self-esteem and school grades. Exactly the same proportion of both groups also reported having had sex (34%).?

The single most important predictor of the teens' well being, the study showed, was their relationship with parents - regardless of family type. “What's really important is the quality of the relationship,"

What do you have? Conjecture?

Suzy,Again, CIVIL ma... (Below threshold)
McCain:

Suzy,
Again, CIVIL marriage has nothing to do with kids or love. It is some paper status granted by the cold-arm of state that allows certain rights and privileges under the law. There is no required vow of love, oath under God, or suggestion to sire or bear children. There is an age requirement, STD test, and requirement that you not already be legally married. Your personal feelings about the wonders of marriage have nothing to do with how marriage is defined in our free society under the law. Thank God we have religious marriages for those who believe as you and I do. My church does not recognize civil marriages at all.

About "society", how to you reconcile the wishes of individual state societies with the wishes of the entire country, the federalism dichotomy? Do you support states making up their own minds according to their own constitutional processes?

Hey mantis! You deliberatel... (Below threshold)
kma:

Hey mantis! You deliberatele omitted the fact that the findings were based on only 44 kids. How obviously dishonest of you.

Civil Rights had to be forc... (Below threshold)
nova:

Civil Rights had to be forced down people's throats once before, and it still didn't change the opinions of legions of racist white folks.

These laws aren't meant to change the opinions of hateful, xenophobic and homophobic people. They are meant to protect people from harmful discrimination, oppression, and prejudice.

Personally, I disagree with letting the 'Church' decide who it will marry. But it would be a lot more fun to watch that struggle, because Church structures are inherently undemocratic. And it would bring out a lot of deep-rooted rot in the many institutions.

Lets allow the people to vo... (Below threshold)
MyPetZygote:

Lets allow the people to vote on:

Legalized slavery.
Bi-racial marriage!
Murder!
Rape!




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy