The law of unintended consequences works both ways though. While it's true that those that defend marriage as between a man and a woman because of their ability to produce offspring have backed themselves into a corner here, if this were to pass as a law, Gay marriage would be off the table for good.

The gay rights groups may think this is clever right now, but it could backfire on them.

Piffle.

This is a bill to knock down a straw man of its advocates' own making. I assume, Jay, that you would not be comfortable allowing your debating opponent to represent your view. That's what the advocates of this bill are doing, and dishonestly so, IMHO.

All that aside, why 3 years? Why not immediately? Why not 25? What about adoption?

This is a bill to knock down a straw man of its advocates' own making. I assume, Jay, that you would not be comfortable allowing your debating opponent to represent your view. That's what the advocates of this bill are doing, and dishonestly so, IMHO.

I can't count the amount of times gay marriage opponents have repeated the argument that the only purpose of marriage is to procreate, to have and raise children. Aside from "the Bible says so" and slippery slope arguments about beastiality and whatnot, it is the only argument they have. A straw man it most certainly is not.

This is a grandstanding stunt which does absolutely nothing to bring gay marriage any closer. In fact, the more ludicrous the tactic such as this, the more entrenched th anti-gay marriage forces will be. Also, this can tend to drive some people who are undecided or moderate on the issue away. It smacks of third-grade tactics.

Breeding as a requirement for marriage? Interesting concept. Perhaps we could ammend this so that the only way you could get married is to prove you are fertile, would you need a breeding permit to practice before hand? Are there Stud fees involved? would you have a short term license or a learners permit? perhaps you could have a free trial basis to see if you and your chosen broodmare/stud are a suitable match? or limited domestic contracts for X number of years with so many option years available. Do I get a refund on my "fees" if it doesnt work out? Is there some kind of mail in rebate or membership discount. Do we have a secret handshake?
What two concenting adults do between them is of no concern to anyone else. If they love each other and wish to spend the rest of their lives together fine, let them. Give them a certificate that says "we vow to love honor cherish etc.. for the rest of our lives yadayada..." they are partners in life. Give them the rights of partners, but make damn sure they cant just walk away anytime they want to because they technically arent married. you want the rights and benefits, you take the same risks as all us married folks, if things dont work out you cant cut and run, you have to go through the same process to dissolve the partnership as legally married couples. you get the BAD with the Good, or no deal.

sigh.

trying to call an apple an orange.

Definition of "marriage":

The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.

This is what marriage is. Gays have civil unions. What's the big deal? Why does it have to be called a marriage?

Don't start with health care and wills. Every place I have worked has health care options for companion. And as far as wills go, you can will all your stuff to a dog in this country if you want to.

OK what happens if you breed and the children grow up and leave home? if the marriage is only good while you are breeding, does that mean that once my children are grown the marriage is then void or expired? What if we have to raise our grandchildren? do we then have to apply for a new marriage license? And what of those folks that breed out of wedlock? are they somehow instantly married because they procreated?
Wow this debate could go on for years, or at least until we get bored with it... Ok ....Next topic?

And as far as wills go, you can will all your stuff to a dog in this country if you want to.

Not social security benefits. You also can't make life-or-death medical decisions, funeral arrangements, etc. if you aren't married or next of kin. I agree that these problems could be solved by civil unions, and I don't care what you call it, but there must be equal protection.

Keep in mind that many state resolutions passed in recent years ban civil unions (even if they don't exist yet) and marriage to homosexuals.

I'm glad that I am not the only one who saw this as a blatant straw-man argument. Why three years? Why not 9 months? What about abortion? Doesn't that take away from the couple's right to an abortion? Where's the woman's right to choose? ...

This is laughable. Are you feeling OK lately Jay? I think your new job has your brain a bit tired.

What has always surprised me is that the gay people -*want*- their unions called marriage. Getting married is what straight people do. I always expected the gay people to come up with their own name for choosing a mate. How un-original.

"I can't count the amount of times gay marriage opponents have repeated the argument that the only purpose of marriage is to procreate, to have and raise children. Aside from "the Bible says so" and slippery slope arguments about beastiality and whatnot, it is the only argument they have. A straw man it most certainly is not."

OK, Mantis, I'll bite. If there's so many examples that they can't be counted, maybe you could readily supply a small handfull of links to websites, articles, etc., where opponents have said, in their own words, that "the only purpose of marriage is to procreate, to have and raise children."

As one who opposes gay marriage, I'd be interested to learn who on my side holds that view, because it's not one I've heard publicly expressed.

Thanks for this Jay..my wife read it to me yesterday...(I too was snipped...after we had our second child it made more sense then serious surgery for my wife)...just like the guy who took over Joe Lieberman's pretend political party..these folks are simply highlighting a hpocritical stance...
well done...it will be interesting to see if they get the signitures..
...remember how the Michigan "marriage law" stripped rights from hetro common-law relationships...

A better idea is to just put it up for a straight vote, on what the definition of a marriage is.
Let the people decide instead of a bunch of lawyers and the courts.

You also can't make life-or-death medical decisions, funeral arrangements, etc. if you aren't married or next of kin.

Well, that's not true; I know couples -- both straight and gay -- who have been written into wills, have health care POAs, etc. Some are established 'couples', some are roommates. This entire discussion is focused on gay vs. straight, when it should not matter.

Should there be a mechanism to make it 'as easy' to get all of these privileges as it is for marriage? Yes. Should the antediluvian definition of marriage be changed? No.

I agree with those who scoff at this ridiculous ploy.

Besides being hilariously unconstitutional, it is aimed solely at (what I consider) the weakest of the fundamentalists' (one small element of the opponents) justification for hetero-only marriage ("marriage is for procreation" -- ugh).

(dave, careful what you ask for).

The debate is about defying the "natural order" of things. Turn it into a Christian vs. Atheist thing all you want -- it is not that at its heart. I think even supporters of gay marriage understand the concept. They might not agree with it politically.

Now I'll brace for brickbats from the moonbats and get da hell outta dodge.

From The National Review 2004

"For a simple and compelling reason, traditional marriage has been the norm in every political community for 5,000 years. Society has an interest in the future generations created by men and women. Decoupling procreation from marriage in order to make some people feel more accepted denies the very purpose of marriage itself. And such a radical transformation should not be imposed by judges upon people who would not choose it for themselves. Yet absent a constitutional amendment, that is precisely what we face."

-- The Honorable Orrin G. Hatch is a Republican senator to the United States Senate from Utah. Senator Hatch is chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

*

OK, Mantis, I'll bite. If there's so many examples that they can't be counted, maybe you could readily supply a small handfull of links to websites, articles, etc., where opponents have said, in their own words, that "the only purpose of marriage is to procreate, to have and raise children."
As one who opposes gay marriage, I'd be interested to learn who on my side holds that view, because it's not one I've heard publicly expressed.

Well, the State of Washington, for one. I assume you have the ability to do your own Google search for more.

of course Sen. Hatch is no longer chairman...this was the end of the article..

This tactic, while providing a certain amount of humor, is simply silly. The states that define marriage tend to define it as a union between one man and one woman. On it's face, there is no equal protection issue with that definition -- each man has the right to marry one woman, each woman has the right to marry one man. No one is depriving anyone of that right by virtue of their race, religion, age, or any other constitutionally protected class. Even if you want to raise sexual orientation to a constitutionally protected classification, the definition of marriage does not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. A gay man can still marry one woman. Now, the gay man may not have any particular desire to exercise that right, but he has the same right as a straight man.

The proposal here, however, to limit marriage to couples who can and will procreate, is fraught with equal protection problems. It clearly discriminates on the basis of age -- no woman above child-bearing age could marry. It also discriminates on the basis of disability (infertility).

The fact of the matter is that the debate over gay marriage does not and should not rise to constitutional levels with court's creating "constitutional" rights that do not exist out of thin air solely to further a political agenda. While both sides are free to pursue their political agendas on the gay marriage issue, political agendas should be kept in the political arena. Politics belong in the legislature, not in the courts. Courts make bad decisions when they use the constitution to resolve political debates.

One word--eeeeeeu.

This is a grandstanding stunt which does absolutely nothing to bring gay marriage any closer. In fact, the more ludicrous the tactic such as this, the more entrenched th anti-gay marriage forces will be. Also, this can tend to drive some people who are undecided or moderate on the issue away. It smacks of third-grade tactics.

Posted by: Steve L. at February 7, 2007 02:53 PM

Words of wisdom.

And to the OP: Are you stoned?

If ya want I can do a bunch more..most have to do with Republicans speaking in favor of a Constitutional Amendment..after all I live in Musgrave's State...marriage to those speaking in favor of the Amendment is about "babies" or direct quotes from the Bible..according to stuff I found...
I won't even get into groups like Focus on the Family

OT, sorry. Salon and NRO are reporting that Edwards has fired his potty-mouthed bloggers Marcotte and McEwan. The nutroots going crazy, Wizbang trolls likely weeping. I'm making popcorn.

"In fact, the more ludicrous the tactic such as this, the more entrenched th anti-gay marriage forces will be. Also, this can tend to drive some people who are undecided or moderate on the issue away. It smacks of third-grade tactics."

Is that kinda like the ludicrous tactic of"The Surge"? Why should ludicrous tactics not be shared?
To claim that ludicrous tactics are limited to a single ideology is unAmerican

I would not dismiss what the Bible guides us to do. Well, you can at your peril. ww

So, Jay Tea, you want a half million more 50 year old horn-dogs with low sperm counts and a bottle of viagra throwing money at schoolgirls because they CAN'T have a wife with a rolling pin at home?

ah Cott..I mean coot I just checked your sources and there is nothing..I checked the "nutroots" nothing..cause,; Coot's World does not apply to reality..

Willie..is it ok that we ignore this part of the Bible? http://www.rationalchristianity.net/slavery_ot.html#general

nogo,

It would be much better for all if they (and you) attempted to actually understand a topic before (mis)using it.

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qnoslave.html

Based on comments you have made on this blog, you yourself ignore parts of the Bible.

Well, it is an interesting law to be proposed. Assinine, ill-founded, foolish, but interesting.

The whole debate can be solved if the government, at any level would just stop regulating and controlling marriage. Inheritance rights can be handled with a well executed will. Medical decisions can be handled with a properly written POA, etc. Even Paternity is better established with a DNA test than a birth-certificate now as well.

If people want to identify themselves as married, life-partners, buddies-for-ever, or whatever let them. If they want to be part of an organization, religion, philosophy, cabal, club etc that recognizes their relationships, give them names, let them.

Well, let's extend that "argument" a bit further.

That means that brothers and sisters or fathers and daughters can get married and stay married if they have a child within three years of the marriage...correct?

There's your "logic."

Straw man.

It isn't the marriage, it's the institution.

It's whether the institution deserves priviledged status in society and that requires it benefits society.

Everyone can get married... it just has to be to someone of the opposite sex. It's been that way... forever. Given that same-sex marriage represents a 'change' in this by granting preference to someones preferences the burden of proof is upon advocates to prove that same-sex-marriage deserves preferential status.

I myself am secular, I have a "civil union", in effect because I don't care who sanctified it. So I would not argue against any two consenting adults wishing to enter into a "civil union".

But the red flag for me was watching the arguments FOR "civil union"s being used to support same-sex marriage in my state when a referendum had to be passed to restate the plain language of the law.

The real difference?

The real difference is the 800 lb Gorilla in the room. Gay activists hate "Christianists" and want to show up at every church and demand they be accomodated.

In other words... force the Christians to change their religious views.

I will not be a party to the continuing onslaught of bigotry against Christians.

If people want same-sex marriage, advocate for that change, but the burden is upon those advocates to convince the majority.

But don't insult me by advocating for same-sex marriage by making the arguments for civil-unions because it leaves me suspecting the actual motives.

Jay,

This gives the other side the choice of accepting the logical extension of their arguments, or having to admit that their agenda isn't what they have been saying it is.

Another alternative is to demonstrate the logical extension of the gay marriage supporters argument is invalid, and that's what I have done many times on this blog.

The reality is that the government deals with people by type not by individual capability, and thus, marriage is reserved for procreation type couples apart from any individual capability. For example, individuals of type 65 and older can claim an extra tax exemption on their income tax returns. If the government treated these people as individuals rather than by type, the income tax return is the perfect place to see which of the elderly really needs the extra exemption. Even within couples of one-man one-woman, those that are of type "closely related" are not allowed to marry, which proves that marriage has always been about procreation of the next generation of law abiding citizens. It has nothing to do with love, stability or commitment. Those are benefits the individuals get from marriage, but society gets the next generation of law abiding citizens; without which it cannot survive. It's for that compelling reason and that reason alone that society grants scarce benefits to married couples.

If gay marriage supporters want the government to treat people according to their individual abilities rather then by type, then by extension of their logic, seniors must be treated as individuals when it comes to that extra tax exemption. People would also have to prove they were competent to vote, which the law now assumes those of type 18 and older are and those under 18 are not. Affermitive action would have to be likewise modified to make sure potential recipients have in fact suffered from discrimination. Just being of a particular type of race or gender wouldn't cut it any more.

Logically extending the gay marriage supporters argument would mean that government could no longer define people by type. Not for purposes of tax benefits, not for marriage, not for voting, not for affirmative action, not even for the military draft. Does society really want to turn itself inside out to accommodate the greed and sexual appetites of a few percent of the population? Is there injustice in the current system? No more so than for the quadriplegic who cannot get the extra tax exemption that a blind person gets, or the young man who was forced to register for the draft to get federal tuition aid while all the young women were exempt. What about the injustice suffered by young men in the late 60's and early 70's who were subject to the draft while all others were exempt?

I suggest we go back to the old version of marriage. A couple would post "Banns" which was an intent to marry. Once the bride to be was confirmed to be pregnant, they are married by a priest. This was standard practice in many cultures since marriage was about the children.

And it also shuts up the same-sex marriage crowd.

The reality is that the government deals with people by type not by individual capability, and thus, marriage is reserved for procreation type couples apart from any individual capability. For example, individuals of type 65 and older can claim an extra tax exemption on their income tax returns. If the government treated these people as individuals rather than by type

You disprove your own argument. If it's appropriate to treat seniors by "type", and marriage "has always been about procreation", then seniors should be prohibited from marrying.

Also, by your argument, children, and certainly post-pubescent children, should be allowed to marry.

Brian,

You disprove your own argument. If it's appropriate to treat seniors by "type", and marriage "has always been about procreation", then seniors should be prohibited from marrying.

Not at all, what I have disproved is that government treats individuals by their actual circumstance or ability. In the case of marriage, government bestows that status on procreation type couples based on their gender and blood line (can't be too closely related).

Also, by your argument, children, and certainly post-pubescent children, should be allowed to marry.

Marriage is also a legal contract between the parties and that requires they also be of type 18 or older in most states.

Marriage is currently based on the two rock solid principles of procreation biology and the equality of the partners. Simply stated as one-man one woman.

The real difference is the 800 lb Gorilla in the room. Gay activists hate "Christianists" and want to show up at every church and demand they be accomodated.
In other words... force the Christians to change their religious views.

Wow, that viewpoint is almost comical, and contrary to everything the gay marriage supporters are trying to do. When San Francisco started issuing marriage licenses for gay couples, it was strictly a secular affair, with no "Christianists" involved. But the thousands that showed up were perfectly satisfied with that.

No one asked Christians to change their religious views. The only ones bringing religion