« Carnival of the Trackbacks LXXVI | Main | To Seem Rather Than To Be »

Sauce for the goose, sauce for the ganders

One of the reasons the gay marriage debate is so complicated is that while the principle is simple, the implications, consequences, and ramifications are far-reaching. It's a tremendous can of worms, and a great many of these issues will need to be hashed out before the matter can be resolved.

One of those worms is playing itself out inside the hallowed (and increasingly empty) halls of the Boston Globe.

For years, the Globe (a very gay-friendly environment, and one of the major forces behind the gay marriage push in Massachusetts) has offered benefits to the "domestic partners" to its gay employees. Simply fill out a form, and your live-in lover had access to health insurance and all the other perqs working for the Glob entail.

However, those only were extended to the gay employees. Straight employees had to marry their significant other before they could carry them.

Well, now that gay marriage is in in Massachusetts (and, apparently, to stay), the Glob has decided to end this rampant double standard. After January 1, no "domestic partners" will be offered coverage -- only lawfully-married spouses, of whatever combination of genders.

This is a very, very clever move by the Glob. On the one hand, they are simply implementing fairness and equality across the board, with a single standard offered to all employees. On the other, they are coercing their gay employees to join the ranks of the lawfully-wed, and giving them even more of a stake in seeing the status quo (legal gay marriage) preserved, and not overturned, as a great many of the people in Massachusetts would be inclined to do. They are also setting up more and more people to demand to have their marriages "grandfathered in," should the ban pass, as they will not want their marriages declared invalid after being sanctioned by the state.

This is yet another reason why I argue that the way gay marriage was implemented in Massachusetts was exactly the wrong way. A panel of seven judges heard the arguments, and four of them (led by Chief Justice Margaret Marshall, married (in a non-gay way, one presumes) to New York Times columnist Anthony Lewis) decided the issue for the whole state. The public outcry was as loud and angry as it was predictable, and the political fights since then have been indeed bloody. The legislature -- which should be the body to decide on the matter -- has repeatedly and forcefully and determinedly shirked its responsiblities, dodging the issue at every turn, even actively crushing petition drives to put the matter before the electorate in a state-wide referendum.

Many, many people in Massachusetts have very strong opinions on gay marriage, and they want a chance to make their voices heard. They want to be able to vote on the matter, to have their say in it, and they are not happy with the judges that made the decision for them. They are also growing increasingly angry at the legislators who are doing all they can to keep them from voting.

But, come November, I am willing to bet that nearly every one of those legislators who've been fighting against the people's right to vote on gay marriage will be sent right back to Beacon Hill, safe for another two years. Oh, maybe one or two will be defeated, but hardly anyone will end up paying the price for their snubbing of the voters.

After all, this is Massachusetts, after all, the same state that keeps re-electing Ted Kennedy (D-Chivas), John "Just a gigolo") Kerry, and almost gave us President Dukakis.


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Sauce for the goose, sauce for the ganders:

Comments (49)

Serious question: Can two ... (Below threshold)
ted:

Serious question: Can two same sex but completely heterosexual males, or two same sex but completely heterosexual females get married in Massachusetts?

Can a mother get married to her daughter? If not, why not?

One of those worms is pl... (Below threshold)
astigafa:

One of those worms is playing itself out inside the hallowed (and increasingly empty) halls of the Boston Globe.

Geez, what a mixed-up metaphor!

After all, this is Massa... (Below threshold)
astigafa:

After all, this is Massachusetts, after all, the same state that keeps re-electing Ted Kennedy (D-Chivas), John "Just a gigolo") Kerry, and almost gave us President Dukakis.

...fish in a barrel.

Never mind; I'll go see what the grownups are doing elsewhere.

See ya later, Mr. "Editor."

Clarification on question, ... (Below threshold)
ted:

Clarification on question, can a solely heterosexual mother get married to her solely heterosexual daughter in Massachusetts; or a solely heterosexual father get married to his solely heterosexual son (there are no incest taboos because there will be absolutely no sex between those couples)?

Can somemoe, or perhaps someone at "Ask the Globe" answer this?

[talk about can of worms]

Thank you.

Serious question: Can two s... (Below threshold)
Reality:

Serious question: Can two same sex but completely heterosexual males, or two same sex but completely heterosexual females get married in Massachusetts?

Uh, yes. Just like a homosexual man can marry a heterosexual woman and vice versa.

Clarification on question, can a solely heterosexual mother get married to her solely heterosexual daughter in Massachusetts; or a solely heterosexual father get married to his solely heterosexual son (there are no incest taboos because there will be absolutely no sex between those couples)?

Uh, no, just as a hetrosexual man can't marry their daughter, and vice versa.

Are you sure these are "serious" questions? Let me guess, is the next question about you and your gay dog?

So Jay Tea, should the repe... (Below threshold)
Reality:

So Jay Tea, should the repeal of Jim Crow laws have been put to a vote down South?

Should seperate but equal have been put to a vote?

As every day passes, it bec... (Below threshold)
jpm100:

As every day passes, it become clear that this is not about granting homosexuals the same priviledges that marriage brings. It's about deminishing what marriage is.

Its an attack on the traditional family.

Gaaah...Mothers ca... (Below threshold)
Totally Matt:

Gaaah...

Mothers cannot marry their daughters, Ted. Incest laws won't be affected by SSM legislation, as incest is a harm (whether or not it produces flipper-baby progeny). It doesn't matter if a dad says "My son and I want to get married, but we don't plan on doin' each other." SSM marriages advocates are not making a mockery of the institution as these hypotheticals would be; in fact, they want to be included within the institution in part for the symbolic (and perhaps even holy) bond it represents. Letting people marry their kids for tax purposes, or whatever, is not in the interests of SSM advocates; and its legality does not follow on a slippery slope from SSM. Incest, beastiality, polyamorous marriges, and children marrying adults or other children all involve specific harms that make it impossible for these relationships to meet the marriage criterion of 'two people, in an equal partnership' that SSM advocates want applied equally to themselves.

Two hetero guys would be able to marry each other for whatever benefits they might get. Who cares? One of my friends, a lesbian, married her best friend, a flamboyantly gay hairdresser, so they could get better student loans. That's already legal, so there's no reason to care about sham marriages now. (Dang that was a fun wedding party, though.)

And jpm100, I expect you wo... (Below threshold)
Totally Matt:

And jpm100, I expect you would have said the same thing when they made it illegal for a man to smack his wife with a stick no wider than his thumb. I expect you would have said the same thing when women demanded the right to leave abusive marriages.

Traditionalism has no traction in this 'debate'. It's no longer a debate, but a bunch of faux-conservatives yelling "Eww!" and insisting that this be taken to the ballot box. Well, anti-miscegenation laws were struck down against the will of the majority, and this idiocy will be rectified by a panel of legal scholars who have their jobs precisely because they are better equipped to deal with complex legal issues than Joe Sixpack.

If you think respecting the Supreme Court's role in American civil society makes me an elitist, a fascist, or a loony liberal, you're mistaken. Disrespecting it makes you un-American.

Ahha!! Totally Matt and Rea... (Below threshold)
ted:

Ahha!! Totally Matt and Reality, OK, your reasoning is that other so called "no no's" would prevent father son or mother daughter marriages, and there is no slippery slope re same sex marriage, but, but, but, THE BASIS IN MASSACHUSETTS FOR UPHOLDING SAME SEX MARRIAGE WAS THE STATE CONSTITUTION FORBADE THE UNEQUAL TREATMENT RE SAME SEX COUPLES, THAT IS NO LEGITIMATE BASIS FOR STATE TO DISCRIMINATE.

Soooooo, where is the state constitutional basis to forbid father-son or mother-aughter marriages by hetereosexuals for whatever reason.

There is NO basis or difference, so those should be legal in Massacachusetts as well, as well as poligamy. The state constitution can't be used to prohibit discrimination against one set and not the other.

Argue on that point, my friends!

Incest is psychologically d... (Below threshold)
Totally Matt:

Incest is psychologically damaging, and almost always predatory. Homosexuality is natural, occurs in a significant percentage of the population, and involves no more harm than traditional heterosexual relationships.

There's a clear-cut distinction for you, ted. As for people who want to marry their dogs (Santorum seems taken by the idea), dogs cannot consent. Neither can minors. Neither can dead people. And polyamorous relationships are inherently unequal; marriage in this society involves equal partnership, and equal partnership is psychologically impossible to maintain at all times within a polyamorous relationship. Mormons will tell you otherwise, but then Mormons will tell you all kinds of crazy shit.

And I'd still be okay with Mitt Romney for Prez. :)

Face it: if 2 men are allow... (Below threshold)
Les Nessman:

Face it: if 2 men are allowed to 'marry', then there is no Constitutional or logical reason that 3 men can't be allowed to marry. What gives anyone the right to say that 2 is o.k. but 3 consenting adults is not?

There is no proof that being in a three way relationship is always worse than being in a two way relationship. A three way relationship can be just as fair as a two way.
If a man and 2 women come forward and say "We are o.k. with this threeway relationship and demand to be married", then who has the right to deny them but allow gays to be married?

This is about a tiny fringe of our population wanting the rest of society to accept homosexuality as normal. It is not. For some reason (hormonal imbalance in the womb, chemical imbalance, whatever - we do not know yet) a tiny fraction of people are born who are attracted to the same sex. We should show tolerence towards gays as fellow human beings, but we should not be forced to accept homosexual behavior as 'normal'.

Jay Tea:You hit on... (Below threshold)
pennywit:

Jay Tea:

You hit on something here that' sstruck me for some time. If courts seem more activist today than in decades past, part of the reason may lie with the legislatures, which have developed severe allergies to political risk.

And if legislatures fail to address issues adequately, then courts are going to inevitably step in to resolve disputes, (hopefully) using existing laws as their guideposts.

--|PW|--

Les, back to your tired arg... (Below threshold)
VA Gamer:

Les, back to your tired argument that if two men can marry why can't three. Let me throw the question back at you. Marriage between a man and a woman has been legal since the foundation of our country. Why can't a man marry two women? If marriage is about procreation (thus gays cannot marry), why isn't it legal for a man to have more than one wife?

That is why your argument is bunk, Les. Stop clouding the issue. This is about equality, NOT attacking "traditional" marriage, NOT trying to win acceptance, NOT attempting to bring down this country.

Jay Tea, isn't it a bit cyn... (Below threshold)
VA Gamer:

Jay Tea, isn't it a bit cynical of you to ascribe nefarious motives to the actions of the Boston Globe? I think it is wonderful that they are ending domestic partnership benefits. I think it is completely about fairness and equality.

Gay people fought for equal marriage rights in Massachusetts, and they won. Now that they can get married, why should they be given special rights regarding benefits. Straight people don't get benefits for someone with whom they are shackin' up, so why should gay people?

Les,Homosexuality ... (Below threshold)
Totally Matt:

Les,

Homosexuality occurs in a variety of species, none of which have been endangered because a small percentage of their members don't reproduce.

If by "normal", you mean fitting the most statistically common version of a type, then no, homosexuality is not normal. But then neither is artistic genius. It's not a tiny fringe, either. Estimates range as high as 10%, which is silly, but I've never seen anything credible claiming that less than 2% of people are homosexual. That's 6 million Americans.

It has been demonstrated that gays can be converted to heterosexuality, albeit with a high recurrence rate. On the other hand, though, the same methods would almost certainly work for converting heterosexuals to homosexuality. "Normal", I guess, isn't very helpful here.

As for who gets to tell polyamorous groups of people that they don't get to marry, I guess it will fall upon the same people who don't let people marry their golden retrievers. "But we wanna!" isn't justification, and that isn't the argument that SSM advocates make either. It's hardly straightforward, but psychology does prevent us from engaging in an equal loving partnership with more than one person at the same time. Joe can love Jill and Jane, but not at the same time. Love presupposes a focus that cannot be so divided. Thus that sort of arrangement is contrary to the spirit of marriage in American society, whereas allowing two men to engage in the same practice as a man and a woman is not.

Reality,If marriag... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

Reality,

If marriage is not about procreation biology in Massachusetts, then by what principle would you deny adult siblings of the same gender the same benefits as gays? There are lots of adult siblings who live together for various reasons, why would you deny them equal rights?

Totally Matt,You g... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

Totally Matt,

You got it totally wrong. The people wanting to vote in no way disrespects the Supreme Court of Massachusetts. It's those who oppose letting the people vote who disrespect the constitution upon which all governmental authority is derived. That is unless you live in a place were government is not for the people and by the people.

VAGamer:"Les, back t... (Below threshold)
Les Nessman:

VAGamer:
"Les, back to your tired argument that if two men can marry why can't three. Let me throw the question back at you. "

Heh. If my argument is tired, it's because you and your ilk never put up a Constitutional or logical response to it, so I have to keep repeating it. Address it or quit griping about it already.
(Hint to Wizbang readers: VAgamer et al., will not provide a logical answer to my question on this or any other thread here. Look at the previous post about same sex marriage for further proof. Actually, I'd be happy if SOMEONE actually did provide a reasoned Constitutional or logical explanation why it's o.k. for 2 women to get married but it's not o.k. for 3 women to get married.)

As I've said before, I really don't care what consenting adults do; just don't call it a Marriage.

Totally Matt, it seems you'... (Below threshold)
ted:

Totally Matt, it seems you're predicating your argument -- that is, it's OK for man to marry man (but not OK for man to marry two women or man to marry a man and a woman) on very slippery ground.

Perhaps I'm missing something here. Please explain this distinction -- homo marriage OK, but polygamy not OK -- in terms of how it should be legally and constitutionally applied differently.

Thank you.

tm:"It's hardly stra... (Below threshold)
Les Nessman:

tm:
"It's hardly straightforward, but psychology does prevent us from engaging in an equal loving partnership with more than one person at the same time. "

You're right, it's hardly straightforward. It's just your opinion about a theory of psychology. I'd like some proof, please.

"Love presupposes a focus that cannot be so divided. "
If you have more than one child, do you only love one but not the other?

In fact, can ANYONE answer ... (Below threshold)
ted:

In fact, can ANYONE answer my question?

Thank you.

Are posters saying that psy... (Below threshold)
ted:

Are posters saying that psychology constitutes a constitutional or legal difference to be recognized by the law? (Even assuming that "psychology", which I question, is even germaine.)

Ted and Les,Polyga... (Below threshold)
VA Gamer:

Ted and Les,

Polygamy and SSM are two different creatures. You are clouding the answer by insisting that we answer your questions. Why don't you address SSM? What are your reasons against it? Why deny equal rights to gay couples?

VA Garner, OK, YOU CAN'T AN... (Below threshold)
ted:

VA Garner, OK, YOU CAN'T ANSWER!!! (with the excuse of "clouding" and "insisting" bla bla bla)

VA Garner, WHY deny equal r... (Below threshold)
ted:

VA Garner, WHY deny equal rights to poligamists???

Ted,Note the title... (Below threshold)
VA Gamer:

Ted,

Note the title of this thread. We are discussing SSM, NOT polygamy. Stay on topic. Thus the question remains, why should you deny equal marriage rights to gay couples?

VA Garner, I'm not necessar... (Below threshold)
ted:

VA Garner, I'm not necessarily saying I'm against SSM. I AM SAYING IT IS UP TO THE LEGISLATURE, NOT THE COURTS WITH SOME PHONY CONSTITUTIONAL ARGUMENT!!!!!!

VA Garner, if the legislatu... (Below threshold)
ted:

VA Garner, if the legislature wants to pass egual marriage rights, so be it -- NOT THE UNELECTED COURTS on the basis of a fictitous argument -- THAT IS PRECISELY THE TOPIC OF THIS THREAD.

ted, the idea that legal an... (Below threshold)
Totally Matt:

ted, the idea that legal and moral questions of rights ought to be left to the legislature is contrary to the spirit of the Constitution. Again: anti-miscegenation laws. (Mandatory red-herring repellant: the Supreme Court used to be full of racists and misogynists, so citing bad decisions from centuries past is diversionary and unhelpful for you or anyone else.) So the topic of this thread has been addressed, and supporters of rigorous judicial oversight and debate have come out on top. If you think otherwise, then you hate the United States' Constitution. And nobody here does. Right?

Unless you're with Mike who thinks we need majority support to justify humanitarian intervention (and who himself would vote against such intervention if it served no American interests).

As for the slippery slope of SSM-to-polygamy, yes, I am making an argument based on human psychology. Think about the emotion of love, on which marriage in America is based (today, at least). Then think about being in love with two people. I have been before! But not simultaneously, meaning, I was conflicted. It was not a fair partnership for anyone. Polygamists have to think this conflict can be ameliorated in order for the partnership to be fair and equal, but there is no reason to think that. As for parents loving all of their children, I hope they do! But it's totally irrelevant because that's familial love, which hopefully strikes you as distinct from the kind of love between two adults who are in love. You cannot feel romantic love for more than one person at the same time. Sexual attraction, perhaps, but nobody has so far asserted that sexual attraction is or ought to be grounds enough for a sufficiently general description of what marriage means for Americans.

So I'm as loathe as you to write psychology into the law, ted, but I'm explaining how human psychology eliminates the utility of arguing a slippery slope to the Church of Latter-Day Saints.

Let the record show that VA... (Below threshold)
ted:

Let the record show that VA Gamer or anyone cannot legally and/or constitutionally justify the basis to allow SSM but not allow poligamy.

Totally Matt, so the crux o... (Below threshold)
ted:

Totally Matt, so the crux of your argument seems to be that, homosexuality is morally OK and poligamy is not morally OK -- and that is the basis for a court to draw a distinction!

Except in Massachusetts, ma... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

Except in Massachusetts, marriage is based on two sound principles which are procreation biology and equality of the partners. The state awards many benefits to married couples for the sole purpose of procreating the next generation of law abiding citizen, which are vital to the continuance of society itself.

Not every heterosexual couple can procreate, but it's the only type of union that can. In many ways the government deals with people by "type", not as individuals. For example, anyone of type 65 and older is entitled to an extra exemption on their income tax, regardless of their actual finical status. Ross Perot made the point when campaigning for the presidency that if you paid into the social security system the minimum number of years, than at age 70 you get a social security check regardless of whether or not you want it. The government doesn't see Perot as an individual, but by type. There are many examples of the government dealing with people by type in everything from the military draft, to driving privileges to voting rights to affirmative action. Marriage is just another example of the government dealing with people by type, in this case the procreation type.

One of the main augments gays made to the Massachusetts Supreme Court was the many financial benefits of marriage they were being denied. Most of these benefits are funded by tax dollars, yet with homosexual type couples, society doesn't reap the benefit of the next generation of law abiding citizens. Including homosexual type couples in the marriage statutes either increases the tax burden or dilutes the benefits procreation type couples need to raise the next generation of law abiding citizens.

If marriage is no longer based on the principle of procreation biology, then there is no valid argument for denying marriage benefits to couples made up of adult same gender siblings. That group may force the door open for others who feel they deserve those same benefits. Before going down that road, tax payers deserve the right to vote on this issue as they are the ones who will be funding all these barren type couples.

Just did, ted.Let ... (Below threshold)
Totally Matt:

Just did, ted.

Let the record show that ted ignores arguments that he hasn't read or does not (or chooses not to) understand.

Even if it was a valid slippery slope argument, which it isn't, if gays can demonstrate that they deserve the right to participate in the institution of marriage, then it behooves the legislature and/or the courts (I'm not sure in this case) to figure out a way of preventing polygamists of using SSM as a justification for their own unjust and incoherent marriage practices. The burden does not fall upon gay people or SSM advocates. Why not?

Well, let's say that back in the day, a really gifted (but morally bankrupt) rhetorician made the case that if we free the slaves, we'll have to free the farm animals. (I am not saying anyone would be disposed to making this sort of argument, but there have been crazier things said.) Would you say that a) blacks then must be keep in bondage because we need livestock, or b) separate issues ought to be addressed separately?

SSM will only set a useful precedent if you can explain to me how a man or a woman can look into the eyes of two or more men/women simultaneously and say "I love you" and mean the exact same thing that we do when we say it to our partners. Otherwise the slope has definite principled traction to go along with the obvious substantive differences between the two issues.

And now I am definitely going to the beach with my girlfriend and her co-workers. It's a gay-friendly beach, which is too bad because now we have to watch people cuddling romantically with their dogs and nieces and nephews all the time. ;)

ted--umm, yes? The Court th... (Below threshold)
Totally Matt:

ted--umm, yes? The Court thinks it's morally okay to kill in self-defense, but not for fun. The Court makes moral distinctions all of the time.

Sheesh.

I won't be back until tomorrow, I expect, so you'll have a few hours to come up with better arguments.

Questions of social benefit... (Below threshold)
Totally Matt:

Questions of social benefit are of no use here, Mac Lorry, as social utility is irrelevant when it comes to equal protection under the law. Loving partners? Check. Of legal age? Check. Not related? Check. Of a type of partnership that can produce offspring? Huh?

The world doesn't need more children. There are too many. The law should not be designed to encourage it, as it has nothing to do with legally sanctioned loving partnerships (although it is often a happy by-product of them).

Totally Matt, OK, just to b... (Below threshold)
ted:

Totally Matt, OK, just to be clear where you stand, 2-way same sex acts are morally OK, but 3-way sex acts are not. And that distinction gives a constitutional basis for SSM but not poligamy.

OK, I think I get it.

Whomever made the point tha... (Below threshold)
Judith:

Whomever made the point that our legislature is composed of a bunch of cowards was right on the money! I watched the bozos obfuscate, bob and weave and in all possible ways prevent doing their job.
Also, it is the job of our legislature to MAKE THE LAWS. Matt, you need to bone up on law and the structure of our government a little bit more.

So Jay Tea, should the r... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

So Jay Tea, should the repeal of Jim Crow laws have been put to a vote down South?

Should seperate but equal have been put to a vote?

Seeing as how SCOTUS made them legal (Plessy v Ferguson) --- it would've been better that than to go with the SCOTUS.

Incest laws won't be affected by SSM legislation, as incest is a harm (whether or not it produces flipper-baby progeny).

Care to explain how?

Feel free to cite evidence.

Letting people marry their kids for tax purposes, or whatever, is not in the interests of SSM advocates;

That the lot of you ignore exactly what your inane campaign logically leads to shows how poorly you are able to logically consider a position.

and its legality does not follow on a slippery slope from SSM. Incest, beastiality, polyamorous marriges, and children marrying adults or other children all involve specific harms that make it impossible for these relationships to meet the marriage criterion of 'two people, in an equal partnership' that SSM advocates want applied equally to themselves.

Who says it has to be two people? How is that NOT "discrimination"?

Or do you only support discrimination when you like it?

Incest is psychologically damaging, and almost always predatory.

This is when brighter debators would provide a link to a study showing this to back up his/her claim.

Homosexuality is natural

Proof of this is where?

occurs in a significant percentage of the population

1-3% is a "significant percentage"?

and involves no more harm than traditional heterosexual relationships.

Feel free to provide ANY evidence for this, too.

And polyamorous relationships are inherently unequal; marriage in this society involves equal partnership, and equal partnership is psychologically impossible to maintain at all times within a polyamorous relationship.

Feel free to prove THIS claim, too. Come on, a little proof for your claims would be a nice change.

Marriage between a man and a woman has been legal since the foundation of our country. Why can't a man marry two women?

Seeing as how we support a rather clear definition of marriage, under OUR system, they cannot.

Under YOUR system, there would be no legal reason they could not.

If by "normal", you mean fitting the most statistically common version of a type, then no, homosexuality is not normal. But then neither is artistic genius. It's not a tiny fringe, either. Estimates range as high as 10%, which is silly, but I've never seen anything credible claiming that less than 2% of people are homosexual. That's 6 million Americans.

So, any group of 2% of Americans deserves special protection?

Got it.

As for who gets to tell polyamorous groups of people that they don't get to marry, I guess it will fall upon the same people who don't let people marry their golden retrievers. "But we wanna!" isn't justification,

It's all you have.

It's hardly straightforward, but psychology does prevent us from engaging in an equal loving partnership with more than one person at the same time.

Once again, provide any proof of this.

Joe can love Jill and Jane, but not at the same time.

Proof?

If you think respecting the Supreme Court's role in American civil society makes me an elitist, a fascist, or a loony liberal, you're mistaken. Disrespecting it makes you un-American.

You freely admit you're an elitist. You've boasted about it.

And I've pointed out 8 central points of your argument that, LITERALLY, have no proof behind them whatsoever.

Polygamy and SSM are two different creatures. You are clouding the answer by insisting that we answer your questions. Why don't you address SSM? What are your reasons against it? Why deny equal rights to gay couples?

That if you allow gay marriage you also, legally, cannot forbid polygamous marriage is one of the complaints.

A complaint that your side, mind you, cannot argue against.

ed, the idea that legal and moral questions of rights ought to be left to the legislature is contrary to the spirit of the Constitution.

So, in addition to Latin, basic logic, history, and sociology --- we have to add the US Constitution to your ignorance list?

If that was the case --- there would be courts ONLY. Hell, JUDICIAL REVIEW isn't in the Constitution. SCOTUS made them one up for themselves.

Again: anti-miscegenation laws. (Mandatory red-herring repellant: the Supreme Court used to be full of racists and misogynists, so citing bad decisions from centuries past is diversionary and unhelpful for you or anyone else.)

We should trust the SCOTUS, except when they are completely wrong? The voters are wrong less often than the courts.

As for the slippery slope of SSM-to-polygamy, yes, I am making an argument based on human psychology.

Something you know virtually nothing of.

Think about the emotion of love, on which marriage in America is based (today, at least). Then think about being in love with two people. I have been before! But not simultaneously, meaning, I was conflicted.

And while your personal anecdotes are lovely and all, they don't hold up well under any, well, court of law.

You need proof.

And, this is now central point #9 you can't prove.

It was not a fair partnership for anyone. Polygamists have to think this conflict can be ameliorated in order for the partnership to be fair and equal, but there is no reason to think that.

Point #10 that lacks any evidence behind it.

All you're doing is aaying "Ewww!"

You cannot feel romantic love for more than one person at the same time. Sexual attraction, perhaps, but nobody has so far asserted that sexual attraction is or ought to be grounds enough for a sufficiently general description of what marriage means for Americans.

Point #11 you haven't proved.

You're REALLY bad at making a point.

So I'm as loathe as you to write psychology into the law, ted, but I'm explaining how human psychology eliminates the utility of arguing a slippery slope to the Church of Latter-Day Saints.

Except you don't have psychology.

You have ANECDOTES, which are about as useless as discarded toilet paper.

Just did, ted.

Ted asked for evidence.

You gave fluffy anecdotes.

You didn't provide one word of evidence.

If all you need is anecdotes, gay marriage is in DEEP trouble.

Even if it was a valid slippery slope argument, which it isn't, if gays can demonstrate that they deserve the right to participate in the institution of marriage, then it behooves the legislature and/or the courts (I'm not sure in this case) to figure out a way of preventing polygamists of using SSM as a justification for their own unjust and incoherent marriage practices.

Ah, so you DO support discrimination.

SSM will only set a useful precedent if you can explain to me how a man or a woman can look into the eyes of two or more men/women simultaneously and say "I love you" and mean the exact same thing that we do when we say it to our partners.

They don't have to prove love.

Love is IRRELEVANT in this issue and it's BEYOND pathetic that you are too dense to grasp this fundamental point.

It does not matter if they love each other. Prove that they don't deserve "equal protection".

You can't.

ted--umm, yes? The Court thinks it's morally okay to kill in self-defense, but not for fun. The Court makes moral distinctions all of the time.

Not when it comes to equal usage of Constitutional law. And if you think self-defense is a strictly
"moral" issue, you're really dense.

Questions of social benefit are of no use here, Mac Lorry, as social utility is irrelevant when it comes to equal protection under the law.

Which kills your argument against polygamy.

Wow, you finally refuted an argument.

Shame it was YOUR own argument.

The world doesn't need more children. There are too many.

1) A more morally reprehensible statement has not been uttered in years.
2) A more factually inaccurate statement has not been uttered in a little while.
3) If you think there are too many babies in the world, feel free to take out your family's children first. Stand up for your convictions.

See, I don't think we have too many kids. I adore my nephews. I adore the son I have basically taken over the role of dad for. They are not superfluous to the world.

Ted, TM's argument comes down to this:

Polygamy is icky and I don't like it.
-=Mike

Totally Matt,<blockqu... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

Totally Matt,

Questions of social benefit are of no use here, Mac Lorry, as social utility is irrelevant when it comes to equal protection under the law.

Equal protection under the law is not absolute, not even close to being absolute. One example is the military draft. How can young men, and only young men, be compelled to serve in the military? While not currently active, the selective service laws are still on the books and have survived repeated court challenges. What about the extra tax exemption for someone 65 years or older regardless of their financial situation, where's the equal protection under the law for the 62 year old who was forced into early retirement due to his job being exported? Why is there an extra tax exemption for those who are legally blind, but not for quadriplegics. Where's equal protection under the law for woman who want to go toppless in public just as men do? Your equal protection under the law argument is so full of holes that it's worthless.

Loving partners? Check. Of legal age? Check. Not related? Check. Of a type of partnership that can produce offspring? Huh?.

There's no legal requirement for love in marriage, never has been, so it's irrelevant. Age is obvious. Relation is based on the biological needs of procreation, so if procreation is not possible due to same gender, then it's also irrelevant. Society has a compelling interest in procuring the next generation of law abiding citizens and only procreation type couples can provide that. It's for that purpose and that purpose alone that society grants special benefits to procreation type couples. Given the limited tax dollars available, it's in societies best interest to limit those benefits to couples of the type that can provide the next generation of law abiding citizens.

"And jpm100, I expect yo... (Below threshold)
jpm100:

"And jpm100, I expect you would have said the same thing when they made it illegal for a man to smack his wife with a stick no wider than his thumb. I expect you would have said the same thing when women demanded the right to leave abusive marriages."

I say traditional and you accuse me of being an advocate for wife beating. Hmm, an ad hominem attack right off the bat. You must look at the 'traditional' family with such contempt you have to reach for issue unrelated to the topic at hand to drudge up and add to the argument. So basically I can take it that the rest of your argument has more words but less substance than my statements.

"Traditionalism has no traction in this 'debate'. It's no longer a debate, but a bunch of faux-conservatives yelling "Eww!" and insisting that this be taken to the ballot box. Well, anti-miscegenation laws were struck down against the will of the majority, and this idiocy will be rectified by a panel of legal scholars who have their jobs precisely because they are better equipped to deal with complex legal issues than Joe Sixpack."

Nice how you slip in a bit of that first ad hominem as you allude to my kind being wife beating sixpack drinking low brows. Regardless, it's not a legal issue. Its a social issue. Marriage is a traditional item of nearly all societies because of the importance a married couple has to those societies. A marriage was a protected union with penalties for violating the trust (adultry, etc) because a marriage (common law or otherwise) was the foundation for a family. For family, read producing children. These are important elements to any society with a future.

Not only does marriage set boundaries about how we are suppose to treat that couple (ex. you don't hit on a married man or woman), but it also recognizes that a married couple should receive some breaks. These include extending benefits. Why? Because the expectation was that there would be children forthcoming.

Also along with this is the fact marriage is about a society's recognician of a couple. It was always performed by high ranking members of a society, a judge, priest, ship's captain, witch doctor, ...

And guess what, it was never automatic. "Let him speak now ..." ring a bell? The moment it is forced and taken out of the hands of society or has no standards set by society is the moment it becomes a hollow ceremony. An expensive hollow ceremony at that.

And as long as society does not want same-sex marriage, same-sex partners will never be married. Except in name only if you force it upon society. But then, all you do is confuse and wreck an instutition for those who do meet societies standards for marriage.

If you think respecting the Supreme Court's role in American civil society makes me an elitist, a fascist, or a loony liberal, you're mistaken. Disrespecting it makes you un-American.

Actually when you look at the SC and decision like Kelo, I hold the Supreme Court in low regard. The founding fathers did not intend for us to have Judge-Kings. And holding thing them in low regard when they do that type of legislating from the bench is as American as throwing Tea into the Ocean.

"Let the record show th... (Below threshold)
d_Brit:

"Let the record show that VA Gamer or anyone cannot legally and/or constitutionally justify the basis to allow SSM but not allow poligamy. Posted by: ted" - Stating the painfully obvious: $39.95

"the idea that legal and moral questions of rights ought to be left to the legislature is contrary to the spirit of the Constitution. Totally Matt - Seriously proposing the ludicrous: $99.95

Questions of social benefit are of no use here, Mac Lorry, as social utility is irrelevant when it comes to equal protection under the law.

Which kills your argument against polygamy.

Wow, you finally refuted an argument.

Shame it was YOUR own argument.

Conclusively demonstrating intellectual bankruptcy: Priceless...

I've read about half-way th... (Below threshold)
-S-:

I've read about half-way through the comments section here, and would like to at best try to restate a few points and at best try to again discount several of the memes I read right here (and at only half-way through reading!):

(1.) "homosexuality is 'normal'":

--No, it's not normal, and it is unusualy and abnormal behavior; it's behavior that is present and practiced in approximately two, perhaps three percent of the human population and by that fact alone, is not "normal" in any behavioral sense -- "normal" behavior is a standard, is present and recurring in and among the average, or mean, within a population, and, in the context of sexuality, SEX is sexual...one male, one female, engaging in SEXUAL acts with one another or others of the opposite gender (thus, sexual);

-- the nomenclature of homosexuality is "pop" psychology, a method of using terms from our shared language intended to encourage individuals to become and behave more comfortably within the context of individual issues, individual dilemmas and/or anxieties -- but to apply the term, "normal" to abnormality is miscarriage in medicine, in clinical approach where problems are presented; however, it's the language of placation: advise and regard that which is abnormal as "normal" inorder to encourage an individual to become more accepting of and less troubled by some tendency or compulsion or behavior (but not to modify the tendency, compulsion, behavior), which is where psychology has wandered off into today: instead of treating or contending with the issue, they're treating and contending with how the issue is accepted or rejected and encouraging acceptance;

-- thus, applying "normal" to an abnormal behavior inorder to encourage increased acceptance and decreased anxiety to the behavior (of homosexuality); but "normal" it most certainly is not, and will never be until or unless it becomes the average experience of the average human individual without encouragement or introduction by or from another individual (and it won't be due to our biological imperative to survive and to survive through to completing reproduction);

(2.) "homosexuality is inherent:"

-- NO, it is not inherent, it is not inherited, it is not genetic, it is not biologically based;

-- a human being is not born with sexuality nor with awareness nor knowledge of sexuality; aging individuals at some future time match up later experiences with later awareness and the project those experiences and awarenesses retrogressively over their lives, and inaccurately later define self awareness from a more developed state upon infant and/or a childhood state -- and thus, they at a later stage, after sexual maturity, project that later stage of development upon earlier experiences;

-- however, the earlier experiences, the earlier state of development was not sexual and had no sexual context and the remarks in later life of "I was always awkward, I remember being in kindgergarten and thinking I was alone and isolated" with their later sexual exeperiences at a later age and say, "aha, that means I was always a homosexual" upon their earlier experiences, when nothing could be farther from the truth;

-- homosexuality is behavioral, is a behavior:

-- YES, true; it's cultural and social in nature and the recent researcher in Canada who alleges that "the womb of the mother" induced or induces homosexuality "because the mother forms antibodies to the male child while in utero" is unfounded to all but this Canadian researcher and the research funding from a homosexual male in California who devotes a great deal of money to medical research for both AIDs exploration and the "cause" of homosexuality.

Thus, no wonder a researcher is going to find a cause where and how he can conjecture research to fit his desired goal, certainly well incentivized to find that hostile womb.

This also does nothing to explain or substantiate a "hostile womb" condition or inducement to lesbian behavior -- perhaps the Canadian researcher has plans to expose male sperm as being repugnant to the female child that sperm helps to produce, which is as likely to occur as the "hostile womb to the male child" line of "research."

There IS research that substantiates that the brains of male homosexual adults are structurally different than the brains of male heterosexual adults; however, this is limited to post-mortem sampling (obviously) and it is unknown whether or not the BEHAVIOR of an adult homosexual has, over time, affected the brain structure prior to death, which is thought to be likely, given the biological influences upon the body (and brain, accordingly) by certain behaviors while alive.

But, to repeat, a child is not sexual nor has sexual awareness, nor is a human being born into a sexual state after birth nor in childhood. Sexual awareness garnered or gained later in life after brain and other biological developments does not equate with the state of development that exists in infant and childhood among humans. When a person says they've "always known (they) were gay" or similar, they could not have nor have so known but are projecting later developmental events upon earlier childhood and redefining infant and childhood experiences within an adult context (which is abnormal in and of itself).

-------------

About the Constitutional issues (mentioned here earlier), a person wrote here that three males or whatever other combination beyond two males and two females "marrying" was to be rejected as being "harmful" to society and therefore by the Constitution, while, to MOST ADULTS (the majority), homosexuality IS abnormal and IS "harmful" to society in many aspects, particularly as to the damaging effects attempted upon the issue of marriage and how it is defined (but also in other dimensions within society).

And, it is not a case of a court or some panel of better educated whoevers to determine what marriage is, but a case of society doing so, just as it/we have for as long as human societies have existed. To think that society must have a new definition imprinted or inflicted upon us by a limited few is to reject or refuse to recognize what society is.

"Totally Matt, OK, just to ... (Below threshold)
Totally Matt:

"Totally Matt, OK, just to be clear where you stand, 2-way same sex acts are morally OK, but 3-way sex acts are not. And that distinction gives a constitutional basis for SSM but not poligamy."

I'm all for wild orgies, ted, but they aren't really the same things as marriages. See, sex and marriage are totally different. Some married people have sex. So? It's the love criterion that cannot be felicitously applied to polyamorous relationships. You're just not thinking hard enough about it. Take your time. Go read Plato's Symposium. It's a short, fun, glib introduction to the moral psychology of love.

Love isn't in the eye of the beholder. It's an objective moral concept. Just because you haven't read technical academic literature on the subject, doesn't mean there isn't any.

Won't bother with tags, as ... (Below threshold)
Totally Matt:

Won't bother with tags, as they hate me (and Mike too--it's a bipartisan crisis)...

1. "Incest laws won't be affected by SSM legislation, as incest is a harm (whether or not it produces flipper-baby progeny).

Care to explain how?

Feel free to cite evidence."

How about you find one psychiatrist that will make the opposite case? That in general, incest is not harmful for at least one of the individuals involved? (I wasn't referring to social harm, if that's what you thought.)

2. "Homosexuality is natural

Proof of this is where?"

There are penguins that have same-sex relationships. My dad had a gay dog in a rural area in the 1960s, and no TV. So I don't think we can blame Hollywood for that.

3. "occurs in a significant percentage of the population

1-3% is a "significant percentage"?"

Between 3 and 9 million Americans are insignificant. Got it. Do all groups of this size deserve special protection? Depends. Depends on whether membership in a group is optional; if it isn't, as with homosexuality (blah blah, I know, provide proof that gays aren't just straights who for some reason choose to have sex with other men), then yes, they do deserve special protection (all things being equal/ceteris paribus).

4. "and involves no more harm than traditional heterosexual relationships.

Feel free to provide ANY evidence for this, too."

Burden of proof is on the homophobic bigot, which your remark reveals you to be. It makes more sense now why you care a lot about SSM despite your feeble protestations to the contrary.

5. I do boast about being an elitist. Thank you for reminding me, as I hadn't done so in over an hour. I have a high IQ, a great education, a sweet job, a hot and brilliant girlfriend, tons of nice clothes, and I'm a hit at cocktail parties that you wouldn't be let into (not that you would want to be there, as there's never any domestic light beer). If you'd like something to brag about, though, I don't own a car, so yours is automatically nicer than mine.

6. As for this "proof" you keep clamoring for, it's an argument based on the meaning of concepts. It's called conceptual analysis. You don't need empirical evidence, because subjective reports are totally irrelevant. I'm not saying they're irrelevant for psychology, but for moral psychology, which is a specific branch of philosophy. So I don't expect you to get the argument, and I don't expect to persuade you. I'm reassured by the fact that people a lot smarter than you (and I) find it persuasive. It took me a while to get it too. So unless you know what moral psychology even IS, you would do well not to claim to have refuted an argument within that context. And I feel no compulsion to only make arguments that you understand.

7. You think you identified 11 points I was trying to make? Distinct from one another? Or were you counting paragraphs? I'm confused.

8. As for love having nothing to do with it, you appfarently need me to explain to you that the issue is whether or not same-sex couples can demonstrate that they are entitled to the same arrangements under the law as hetero couples by virtue of the fact that they fit all criteria that we apply to heteros. In society today, the only necessary conditions for marriage seem to be legal consent, and love. (If love weren't part of it, how come "I don't love you" is such a good reason not to marry someone? Hence the loaded term "loveless marriage", which indicates a failed relationship. At least it should.) Same-sex couples can successfully demonstrate that these criteria apply equally to them, but polygamists cannot.

9. That's the most morally reprehensible thing you've heard/read in YEARS? It's not even among the top-5 most morally reprehensible things I've read on THIS BLOG in the past HOUR. I'm not talking about "taking out" anybody's kids. I'm talking about maybe thinking a little harder about whether or not we need 6 billion people on the planet; about whether or not every single couple should have kids, when there are so many terrible parents. And it's totally off-topic, because marriage has nothing to do with children, although oftentimes they are a happy by-product. Otherwise, you can explain to my remarried grandfather that his relationship with my step-grandmother, while in the spirit of the institution, lacks the functionality generally associated with it (by you, of course).

You can choose to get offended by whatever you want, and I can choose to laugh about how little I care about your opinion. As for your "arguments", they're straight-up lame. You'll understand why in a few years when same-sex couples can get married and only the knuckle-draggers bring it up anymore.

10. "Polygamy is icky"--fuckin' right it is. The state has no business recognizing these weirdos' desire to have multiple partner relationships because they are contrary to the spirit of the institution of marriage in our society. Real love is undivided. I'm talking about expanding the membership within the same institution, that's all. Gender is an ad hoc criterion. Number of partners is not. Also, every polygamous group I am aware of are unacceptably misogynistic. The Canadian courts are likely to start kicking around the idea of allowing polyamorous marriages, at the urging of Muslims in B.C.. Wait and see why a bunch of hosers who are smarter than you and I think it's a stupid idea, if they even bother to issue a ruling on it.

jpm, while I do use ad hominems, 'cause they're fun and express the level of respect I have for someone's position, the wife-beating analogy wasn't an ad hominem. It was a reductio ad absurdum, meaning that when you say no to wife beating, you say no to the utility of tradition within the context of this discussion. Mmmmmkay?

All this discussion about society needing progeny is stupid. Gay and lesbian couples I know (including the pair who went to Canada to get a marriage license so they can use it for toilet paper here) are no more or less likely to want kids than you or I (presuming there aren't any gay/lesbian readers of this thread--if there were, they've surely stopped reading a while ago). And there is no reason other than prejudice to think that two men or two women couldn't nurture a healthy, happy child just fine. If they can't, well, take the kid away. Same goes for "breeders" too. You might have an issue with the very real possibility that these kids would have a distorted sense of traditional gender roles, but even though I have no reason to assume that will happen, I hope it does. Traditional gender roles are immoral and disrespectful of women.

"And as long as society does not want same-sex marriage, same-sex partners will never be married. Except in name only if you force it upon society. But then, all you do is confuse and wreck an instutition for those who do meet societies standards for marriage."

If Joe marries Ken, do you and your wife say "Ah, fuck it!" and start snorting coke and abusing one another and starving your kids? NO! You buy them a goddamn wedding present, wish them well, and go watch Red Dawn for the four hundredth time. Why are conservatives so insecure?

I'm sad that you hate the Supreme Court. I'm also sad that the Supreme Court has sucked so bad, historically and presently. Their early history of extreme illiberalism must have had Jefferson spinning in his grave. Gotta support it in principle, though, because the alternative is mob rule and that's not good enough. The Founders didn't want that anymore than they wanted judge kings. It's a tricky balance. Government is hard. This is a question of rights, though, even if you think it isn't, and thus it behooves a bunch of law-nerds to hash it out. "Legislating from the bench" is Republican jingoism, pure and simple. You didn't raise a stink, I'm guessing, when they facilitated the ascension of the Boy King in 2000.

The irrelevance of social utility for marriage doesn't "kill" my argument against polygamy, d_Brit, because the argument against polygamy is based on the objective conceptual analysis of the subjective phenomenon of love. I don't understand this point at all, actually. I was talking about harms to an individual, who has rights; society doesn't have rights. I don't want to insult your reading comprehension or your intelligence more generally, so quit giving me cause to do so.

-S-, I respect your right to have whatever opinion you want, but your discussion of the phenonemon of homosexuality is an eloquent bit of question-beggary. You seem to imply some hard distinction between biology and psychology, a move you don't get to make. Scientists are now looking into how biology influences one's sexuality, not IF it does. But even if it were behavioural, it's not a *choice*. You think Billy wakes up in Mobile one morning and says, "Hmm, those guys on Queer Eye for the Straight Guy are just so cool! I'm going to go fall in love with a boy and start talking effiminately. Hopefully I won't get my teeth fed to me." Homosexuality is central to homosexuals' identities. To talk about "treating" it is quaint (to be polite). If I wanted to be a little impolite, I would say that it's insane and smacks of state-sponsored eugenics. And nobody wants to commit the ad-Hitler fallacy.

But it's nice to have a polite breath of fresh air in this discussion. I've got a busy work week ahead of me, so I don't know how often I'll be able to reply, but a four hour silence does not constitute a white flag. =)

8. As for love hav... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
8. As for love having nothing to do with it, you appfarently need me to explain to you that the issue is whether or not same-sex couples can demonstrate that they are entitled to the same arrangements under the law as hetero couples by virtue of the fact that they fit all criteria that we apply to heteros.

Except of course that homosexuals don't meet the primary requirement of procreation. Love has never been a requirement of marriage. That requirement is an invention of homosexuals to cloud the issue of marriage. Many people marry for financial and social reasons including not wanting a child already conceived to be born out of wedlock. In times past these were called shotgun weddings.

All this discussion about society needing progeny is stupid.

It's only stupid to those who can't meet the procreation requirement. The minimum sustainable birthrate per woman is 2.1 offspring. The current rate in the U.S. is 2.05 and dropping. In western Europe its as low as 1.5. Society as we know it simply can't survive a sustained low birthrate. That makes procreation promoting policies a compelling interest of the state.

And there is no reason other than prejudice to think that two men or two women couldn't nurture a healthy, happy child just fine. If they can't, well, take the kid away.

Neither is there any reason to think two men or two women could nurture children as well as the biological parents. It's ludicrous to think some unrelated man can replace a child's mother, or that some unrelated woman can replace a child's father. The foundation of society itself is the family and it's too important to risk on an experiment that's being imposed by 4 judges. Homosexuals who want children can and have married a person of the opposite gender, procreated, and stayed in that relationship until the children are raised. That's the honorable thing to do for the sake of the children.

Love has only recently beco... (Below threshold)
Totally Matt:

Love has only recently become the impetus for marriage in our society, Mac Lorry. I don't know any married couples that got together all business-like to breed. I also don't know why I should care about people wanting to get married so their kid isn't born in sin (although it was obviously conceived that way). I wish most of these couples wouldn't get married, because kids are better off when their parents love each other.

I'm not trying to be anti-family here. Surely anyone, myself included, would be disappointed once they got married to realize that their significant other was infertile (Nic Cage as H.I. in Raising Arizona: "The doctor explained that her insides were a rocky place, where my seed could find no purchase.")--IF they had hoped to reproduce. But does infertility constitute grounds for an annulment? Sure, if you don't love the person anymore because of that, I guess. (Not that you need grounds for an annulment...) If you still love the person, though, why not adopt a child? I mean, c'mon, what would Jesus do?

That's the first I've seen the love criterion referred to as a "homosexual invention", though. I guess hetero affection wasn't 'fabulous' enough to be labeled as such...? =)

As for a declining birth rate, yes, it will affect society "as we know it", but there are other people who would happily emigrate to the U.S. to take up someone else's spot. That idea will of course be distasteful to everyone here, but so long as somebody speaks passable English and is as loyal to the nation as the next guy, I don't give a shit where someone was born. Can't imagine how or why I would. I assume we'll have to agree to disagree about this.

I know anecdotes are anathema, but they're actually helpful 'intuition pumps' (as philosophers refer to them) that can clarify issues if used judiciously. Two of my mother's uncles were obviously gay but stayed married because a) they probably didn't realize they were gay, or refused to accept it; b) they were small-town Irish Catholic farmers; and c) the idea of divorcing their wives was crazy to them, plus they loved their kids and were good fathers. Their intentions were very honourable, but we can't expect that of people. It's psychologically damaging to deny a huge part of your personal identity. Again, homosexuality isn't a choice, and whether it's inborn or acquired behaviour is moot. Sure it could be "cured" with a questionable success rate, but if you think it's optional then so too must heterosexuality be, and heteros could then be converted to the Dark Side. You have to make the case here that heteros are morally superior to homos, and you haven't and won't be able to. There's a Log Cabin full of Republicans that would be happy to discuss this with you.

Since when do "club sandwiches" have overcooked egg plant on them? Lunch is gross now. I'm saddened.

Love has only rece... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
Love has only recently become the impetus for marriage in our society, Mac Lorry.

love as a requirement, rather than love itself, is a homosexual invention designed to cloud the issue of marriage. Given the practice of arranged marriages and marriages for economic and social reasons, love as a requirement for marriage has no basis in either tradition or law. Even within heterosexual relationships, love doesn't grant couples the right to marry. While rare now, many jurisdictions required blood tests to demonstrate genetic compatibility before a marriage license was granted. Even now, all jurisdictions in the U.S. reject marriages between first cousins and closer relations regardless of how much the individuals may love each other. The reason for this discrimination is the dictates of procreation biology, which has up until recently, been the underpinning of all marriages in the U.S.

I'm not trying to be anti-family here. Surely anyone, myself included, would be disappointed once they got married to realize that their significant other was infertile.

Happens a lot and those are the couples who should be and are adopting kids. Another point is that with heterosexual couples it usually can't be know if they are infertile or not prior to marriage. That's why the state considers couple's by their "type" rather than as individuals. Procreation type couples offer the state the required next generation of law abiding citizens and it's the only type that does.

That's the first I've seen the love criterion referred to as a "homosexual invention", though. I guess hetero affection wasn't 'fabulous' enough to be labeled as such...? =)

And a few post up you were bragging about being intelligent and well educated. If you read what I wrote, I said "That requirement is an invention of homosexuals. . ." I'm not comparing the depth of homosexual love with that of heterosexual love, as that comparison is irrelevant to the state's granting marriage benefits.

As for a declining birth rate, yes, it will affect society "as we know it", but there are other people who would happily emigrate to the U.S. to take up someone else's spot.

Currently immigration is taking up the slack in the U.S. as far as the numbers go, but the average age of emigrates is too high. What that does is rise the average age of the population, which means you have more and more retired people drawing resources out of the economy. In some countries in western Europe the averaged age is approaching 60 and there are simply not enough young people paying into the system to support them. They are already at where the U.S. will be in 2041 with a bankrupt social security system. Nations may soon be competing for young educated people to immigrate. The poorly educated and 40 or older individuals need not apply, which is already the policy in some nations.

It's psychologically damaging to deny a huge part of your personal identity.

That's not the issue. Few people care if two people of the same gender have an intimate relationship with each other, but asking tax payers to pay the bills for barren type couples who want to play house is ludicrous.

Again, homosexuality isn't a choice, and whether it's inborn or acquired behaviour is moot.

You could substitute "alcoholism" or any other trait pseudoscience says is equivalent to homosexuality and then press the courts to force society to pay for special benefits so that you won't be psychologically damaged. If we discover that there really is a "criminal" gene, then should we require such individuals to conform to the rules of society?

"And there is no reason ... (Below threshold)
d_Brit:

"And there is no reason other than prejudice to think that two men or two women couldn't nurture a healthy, happy child just fine." Totally Matt

The 'key' words in your assertion are: "there is no reason other than prejudice to think that two men or two women couldn't nurture a healthy, happy child just fine."

Others, as well as myself, (see the prior thread: If Gays Can't Marry, Then No One Can - Civil Commitments for Everyone) have provided plenty of valid reasons why two of the same sex, of necessity excluding the opposite gender, by definitioncannot offer a child the same AND the opposite gender parental bond needed for a fully integrated personality. You have not responded to these assertions. So you are intentionally ignoring them.

Your position is clearly that in this matter, any opinion or rationale contrary to the one you hold is by definition false, because 'others' are prejudiced...

So, no matter what anyone says, no matter what facts, logic or even common sense they assert, it is automatically dismissed by their having been labeled as, non-authentic.

You cannot debate, argue or even discuss issues of disagreement with someone who is of a truly closed -mind and reveals this by blanket accusations of shameful character. It ends the discussion before it begins, making any 'conversation' a waste of time.

Evidently you aren't interested in seeking a deeper understanding or discovering objective truth, much less a 'more perfect union'. But then, you already possess the sole and complete 'truth', don't you?

You are only interested in forcing others to conform to your views. That is revealed in your attempt to use the courts to gain what you cannot achieve otherwise.

Regardless of what sincere and valid objections are made regarding the unintentional consequences of your legal maneuverings, your response is refusal to address the objection in a substantive manner, or dismissal of objection through accusations of impure motive. You are hypocritically engaging in the same behavior in furtherence of your agenda as you accuse others of, the end justifying the means...

The only difference between those of your ilk and tyrants/totalitarians is the lack of power to make others conform. AND those of your mind-set are doing their level best to subversively gain that power through activist judges who subjectively interpret the constitution according to their agenda, distorted reporting in the MSM and indoctrinating as many students as possible into the 'correct' world-view.

I'm new to commenting on this blog but already I can see that your 'MO' is simply not responding to points you cannot refute or responding nonsensically and pretending it's a valid response.

Since you don't acknowledge the point made AND even frequently comment in a later post or thread in such a way as to imply that the point was never made, you are being intentionally dishonest.

But then, you've already admitted to being a troll...so I have to credit you with at least a moment of honesty.




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