"It fundamentally turns the institution of marriage, the union of a man and a woman before God and man"

All that this proposal will do is place the "before God" portion of this institution back into the church, where it belongs.

Even if Ms Lifton is serious, the civil institution still has to be defined.

If there is nothing "special" about the gender of the people involved, then what's so special about the number? Or the familial relationship between the members petitioning?

If there is nothing "special" about the gender of the people involved, then what's so special about the number? Or the familial relationship between the members petitioning?

The specialness is manifest in the equality of application.

Common Law has dictated "two"; gays want only equal application.

I think it was cowardly and craven for two courts to wash their hands of Equal Protection enforcement, throwing it back to legislatures, when then didn't in the 60s.

From the civil point of view, and I'm sure Darleen will correct me here, that's the only real reason that the government is involved, because it is a civil contract between a man and a woman, currently.

No where in a marriage license does it specify what religion you have to be or if you even have to be a religious person, to get a marriage license. Religion does not enter into the equation, from the government side of things.

It's purely a contractural arrangement, and as cold and impersonal as that may seem, it appears that way to me. Speaking as someone who has been through the ending of a marriage and experienced the "settlement of the contract terms" as it was.

rwilymz

Common law dictated one man/one woman ... and?

You're arguing in circles. Either The People can define a public institution or they cannot. If they cannot then the institution cannot limit itself by another other than age of participants (minors cannot contract).

I'm only shocked that there are still some commonsense judges in NY.

Not surprised that the NYTimes is wringing their hands...when the Left sez "power to the people" they don't really mean it.

Religious people should be able to have whatever kind of religious marriage in whatever church they want, but it doesn't make any sense for a religious sacrament to be codified within state policy. (Especially a secular state like the United States.) I completely support the idea that marriage licenses be replaced by some other legal document, while allowing every religion to perform whatever ceremonial rights they want and excluding whomever they please.

Kurtz's empirical arguments about the effects of the liberalization of the institution of marriage are half-baked, unsurprising since most of his recent data comes from Holland. (Ba-doom-ching!) Birth rates might decline--oh no! We need more human beings!!! I think his "research" is motivated by a racist concern over the dramatic change in the racial make-up of the U.S.. He, out all the writers of the National Review excluding Jay Nordlinger, deserves the least attention.

DavidB

Even more than not asking religion, they don't even ask sexual orientation or about love. ANY two adults, not family related, can get a civil marriage license, as long as it is two adults of opposite sex.

If same-sex marriage is to happen in our society it has to come from ss advocates persuading the majority of their fellow citizens it is in societies best interest to redefine the institution.

NO ONE is interferring with same-sex couples from privately taking all the legal avenues open to them to grant guardianship, set up inheritance, set up medical PoA, etc.

Matt

what is "racist" about worrying about the devaluation of family and children?

To paraphase Robert Heinlein, when a society rejects the moral imperative of "women and children first" it is doomed to extinction.

Darleen, the people get it wrong a lot of the time. The people opposed the legalization of bi-racial marriages. Thank goodness the judge who struck down that idiotic prohibition was smarter than the masses.

What is right, and what is wrong, is open to interpretation, but it ought not, and CANnot, be considered a popularity contest. People's opinions, and people's actual interests, are divergent in a very important sense.

It fundamentally turns the institution of marriage, the union of a man and a woman before God and man, into nothing but an impersonal and emotionless legal contract akin to a business transaction.

And here is the crux of the issue, from the perspective of the state, this is the only interest it has, the contractual dimension and the benefits that contract provides.

All religions have different standards that they impose on marriage. There are people who are married legally as far as the state is concerned that are not recognized by the Catholic Church. As far as the RCC is concerned any one who was not married under their auspices is not married.

Now my question is, should the state go to the Roman Catholic dioceses of the United States and tell then that since the US government recognizes married couples joined without the blessing of the Church that they should be forced to recognize those marriages as well? Of course not, the separation between the religious and civil aspects have been well understood since the founding of the country.

Since the state has no interest in what religious organizations do WRT marriage then any input from religious institutions on the conditions for marriage have no standing under the law. A church can marry any two people, they can call them married but the civil part will not be recognized by the state.

So what we are talking about with marriage as far as the state is concerned has nothing to do with the traditional aspects of the institution, the states interest begins and ends with only the civil contractual part of it. You could easily craft a domestic partnership law that would have no overt sexual aspect involved for say two same sex elderly people that want to join in a relationship with each other for their mutual protection in their golden years. These people might not be in a sexual relationship of any kind.

There is no reason not to extend the right to any two people who want to be in a legally recognized relationship. People in the same family have no need to marry because they are already related and that relationship is recognized by the state, marriage would be redundant. Well other then to make a big political culture war fight out of it.

Hmmmm.

Then we'll have:

1. Multiple partner civil unions.

2. "Line" contracts.

This is where new partners are added to an existing civil unions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_marriage

3. Then we'll also have *Time* based civil unions.

This is where you agree to love, cherish and all that stuff for 4 years with an option to extend for another 2 years if some specified targets have been met.

...

Frankly the only people who'll gain anything from this crap are:

A. gays.

B. polygamists.

C. Dirty old men looking to "marry" 18 y/o girls in short term civil union contracts with escape clauses. Considering that I'm slowly entering into this demographic let's keep this one on ice for the moment just in case.

Joy. Let's see what else we can collecively turn into crap.

Common law dictated one man/one woman ... and?

Common law was superceded by statutory. History. Not just for high school graduation.

You're arguing in circles.

That's certainly news.

Either The People can define a public institution or they cannot.

No one suggested otherwise, did they?

The answer is "no, they did not, and I just made a false assumption by insinuating it."

If they cannot then the institution cannot limit itself by another other than age of participants (minors cannot contract).

More history for yuz: We The People didn't define "marriage" as "man - woman - one each" in more than about 1/3 of the states until about 10 years ago. So ... technically ... in most states, two guys could go down to the county clerk's office and get a marriage license, and nothing under the law could have been done to prevent it. "Assumption" isn't a legal basis for anything except getting yourself into trouble.

I'm only shocked that there are still some commonsense judges in NY.

Yeah? Which one's that?

Not surprised that the NYTimes is wringing their hands...when the Left sez "power to the people" they don't really mean it.

"Power to the Poeple" of the same sort in the 60s would have left blacks in the back of the bus, wouldn't it have?

The answer to that is, of course, "Why, yes it would have; darn, you caught me being a superficial hypocrite yet again."

There are still several states where the laws do not require a marriage license be gotten for a man and woman. In those states, if a clerk denies a license to two women, technically he is in violation of the law.

And that has nothing to do with the Constitutional argument that gays are the only people [here, as regards this specific aspect of property and contract law] to be left out of Equal Protection.

The issue is, for the simple-minded, We The People have every authority to define social and contractual institutions, but those institutions cannot deny the participation of everyone who chooses to participate. Equal Protection was so important that we put it in the Constitutino twice.

...devaluation of family and children?

What about letting two men or women get married devalues family and children in a way that 50% divorce rates among heterosexuals doesn't?

While I agree that kids should have two parents the fact is that the biggest offenders at creating single parent famlies are hetrosexuals, the gays have nothing to do with it, letting them marry will not change anything in the hetrosexual world.

Then we'll have:
1. Multiple partner civil unions.
2. "Line" contracts.
3. Then we'll also have *Time* based civil unions.

1] only if laws are created forming them; allowing gays to participate in currently-existing laws won't accomplish this.

2] only if laws are create forming them; allowing gays to participate in currently-existing laws won't accomplish this.

3] we already have this; it's called "no-fault divorce".

Multiple partner civil unions.

You mean like the ones in the bible? I thought you all wanted to return to the traditional notion of marriage.

Sorry Darleen, our last posts crossed. My bad!

Well, last I checked Heinlein wasn't an evolutionary psychologist OR an anthropologist, so I don't see your point.

I find Kurtz to be racist, because I think he would still be up in arms if (hypothetically) people of European/Semitic heritage stopped having kids entirely, while all of the Hispanic, Asian, and African people subsequently replaced them with non-white offspring.

I'm glad that there are men and women who reproduce. They will still be doing so long after the Supreme Court has recognized gay marriage, or replaced the word 'marriage' with 'civil union' within the law. All of the evidence that suggests gay people make worse parents is bunk; and even if gay people were more likely to have gay children, which is a tenuous claim, that wouldn't be relevant because being gay is perfectly normal.

If Kurtz cares so much about the family, he should investigate the crazy divorce rate amongst Congresspeople, especially Republicans.

Why is there a marriage restriction on family members "tying the knot"? If the word "marriage" is to be redefined from it's traditional meaning then why can't it mean anything the happy couple wants it to mean.

In fact, why just a couple? Marriage contracts don't say anything about couples, does it? Why can't all of my neighbors join each other in {Holy [redacted]} Matrimony. I think I'd like to marry my golden retriever; oh, wait, I haven't got one; but if I did I'm marry her (or him).

And if we can have this much fun redefining "marriage" think how much fun we could have with "liberty" "privacy" "Right to Life, (Liberty & Happiness)." Pretty soon we'd be just like the pigs in "Animal Farm." Or would we be in a predicament more like the other animals and be at the mercy of the pigs?

Matt

The laws against "mix-raced" marriages were not widespread, had little American historical precedence and the biological myth of "race" is in no way equivalent to gender.

Biologically and legally, men and women are different.

Understand, I AM in support of extending the public institution of marriage to include same-sex couples...but ONLY when it comes from a consensus of my fellow citizens and I will fight HARD against any attempt to designate same-sex marriage a "right" newly discovered by the judiciary. The implications for society and law are much more far reaching than people realize, or "same-sex marriage as a RIGHT" advocates will publicly admit.

Why is there a marriage restriction on family members "tying the knot"?

Because from a civil standpoint "marriage" is joining two unrelated people into a legally recognized relationship, marrying your sister is redundant; you're already related in the eyes of the law.

Rick

Monogamy was a huge step forward in the rights of women.

Why should anyone wish a return to society with "women as chattel" to be bartered and numbered like prize cows?

"right" newly discovered by the judiciary.

All unenumerated rights were "discovered" by the judiciary including the right to free association, the right of corporations to be a "legal person" under the law, the right to have the bill of rights apply to individuals and override state law.

Read the ninth amendment to the constitution, it was out in there by the founders on purpose.

For thousands of years, the established definition of the word "marriage" has been one man and one woman.

Gays have the right to create a similar tradition that would grant them exactly the same legal status from the government - but they DON'T have the right to come in and redefine what the word "marriage" already means to people who are already married and hold the concept of marriage sacred.

After all, if someone came along and wanted the established definition of the word "Gay" to suddenly be changed to include pedophilia and beastiality, I'm sure Gay people would fight like hell to stop it.

This is what married people are fighting for now. Gays DON'T have a right to impose their beliefs on other people by changing what marriage means. They need to go do their own thing, start their own tradition, under their own terminology, and leave other people's traditions alone.

Rick

But a brother/sister relationship doesn't automatically confer the legal benefits that being spouse would add.

Again, YOU are drawing an arbitrary line at unrelated people, other people draw the arbitrary line at number, currently the line is number, gender, family relationship.

It is not incumbent upon the status quo to prove its position, it is incumbent upon the challengers to persuade those of the status quo to change.

Remember (since Matt decided to bring "race" into this) .. that it was moral persuasion that allowed the success of the Civil Rights movement.

I've yet to see a convincing argument as to why the state should be involved in personal relationships period. Marriage, as far as the state is concerned, is simply a legal contract. Marriage, as far as the church is concerned, is more than a legal contract.

My primary concern, should the state decide that marriage (the legal contract) be availabe to anyone, is that certain groups will try to use the courts to force the churchs' participation (e.g. using their tax exempt status as leverage).

- MikeB

Monogamy was a huge step forward in the rights of women.

So then you are in favor of changing the institution of marriage when it suits you personally? Interesting, that is exactly how gay people feel.

No I don't give a whit about the "traditional" notion of marriage. How other people live dosen't effect me. But the specter of polygamy gets trotted out all the time in the "gay marriage" debate and I find it ironic that one argument is that marriage has been "unchanged for 1000's of years yet you all seem to be OK with one of the major changes that was made to the institution.

The laws against "mix-raced" marriages were not widespread

By "not widespread" you probably mean "ubiquitous".

At one time or another, every state had de facto laws or de jure practice against "miscegenation".

...the biological myth of "race" is in no way equivalent to gender.

So because "gender" =/= race" the concept of Equal Protection does not apply?

You aren't serious, are you?

Biologically and legally, men and women are different.

Biologically, in many ways, legally, in only a few.

Yet ... Equal Protection is supposed to apply regardless.

Understand, I AM in support of extending the public institution of marriage to include same-sex couples...but ONLY when it comes from a consensus of my fellow citizens

Then you shouldn't be quibbling, because that consensus is already achieved. See the 5th and 14th Amendments, and the words "Equal Protection". Now, I will grant that this is one of those unforeseen applications of same that may be hard to swallow for some -- or even most. But the consensus has declared, not once but twice, that We the People are to be treated equally, and given the same opportunities.

I will fight HARD against any attempt to designate same-sex marriage a "right" newly discovered by the judiciary.

Were you equally obstinate about the "newly discovered" "rights" of blacks? or women?

The implications for society and law are much more far reaching than people realize, or "same-sex marriage as a RIGHT" advocates will publicly admit.

Such as?

Gays will be forced to hire divorce lawyers before splitting up the goldfish?

Rick

Again... civil marriage is a public institution in which people contract. Parameters which define contracts are not about "rights" but about what the State considers in the best interests of citizens it is charged with protecting. Thus we have laws governing landlord/tenant relationships, business partnerships, etc. Two consenting adults cannot make a contract where one sells him/herself to another in slavery in return for forgiveness of debt.

But Darleen, the achievements of the Civil Rights movement would have been no less praiseworthy had EVERY SINGLE AMERICAN opposed them! Morality is not dictated by mob rule!

Please explain what the "far-reaching" implications for society would be, were gay marriage to be legalized (or marriage scrubbed from the law). Empirical evidence would be nice. Slippery slope arguments are unsound, as rwilmyz explained above. Why should anybody care? The "family" has never been a static concept, especially not as described in religious scripture (not that I care about scripture, but I suspect you might).

For thousands of years, the established definition of the word "marriage" has been one man and one woman.

Sorry to be pedantic here, but I must; there's too many others attempting to be pedantic to not return the, um, "favor".

For "thousands of years" there was no word "marriage". "Marriage" is an English word, and English, as we understand it today, wasn't spoken before, roughly, the 1500s. Avail yourselves of dictionary.com to find the etymology.

Additionally, "for thousand of years" the United States of America didn't exist, and laws of same had no meaning since they, frankly, didn't exist.

We are talking about a US Law thing here, and that only goes back 230 years -- almost to the day. [223 years, if you want to get really pedantic and start from the time of US creation by the Treaty of Paris and international recognition which came from it].

But, since we're talking US law, and US state law at that -- the feds still largely absolve themselves of marriage -- it wasn't until the last decade that states started legally defining marriage as "one man one woman". Most states had vague definitions of "marriage".

"Thousands of years" is wholly irrelevant to the issue.

Let's see if this comment survives today...

Marriage is about "doing it" for the children (beget, begat, begot). Production of a new child still requires a contribution from each gender, as opposed to cloning (re-production?). As far as I am concerned, the only "state interest" served by the government involvement in marriage is minimizing the progeny of incest. Beyond that, anything else between two people is a partnership.

rwil

Are you really saying there are no differences between men and women?

Should gender-specific public restrooms be banned? Gender specific gyms and the lockerrooms within? How about gender specific schools, camps, organizations?

If same-sex marriage is a "right", what do you want to do to churches that preach the homosexual act is a "sin"? Lose their tax exempt status? What about schools they run, or facilities that host Little league teams?

The US military is a public institution that grants special benefits unavailable to people who don't join AND the instition discriminates (original meaning of the word) on who gets to join ALL THE TIME. Is that a violation of equal protection?

Because the institution of marriage defines parameters for participation and grants benefits unavailable, does that mean it is a violation of equal protection that a single person cannot get those benefits? Three people? Six?

Stop conflating "equal protection" which deals with individuals with a CONTRACT.

Darlene you can't possibly be so clueless as to say this: civil marriage is a public institution in which people contract. Parameters which define contracts are not about "rights" but about what the State considers in the best interests of citizens it is charged with protecting.

You are, at once, declaring gays to be incompetent to marry [i.e., in need of legal protection from the civil institution of marriage], and utterly in denial about a citizens freedom to contract -- one of those 9th amendment court-created things you are going to fight tooth and nail to deny everyone.