Liberty and limited government

Just as you concede Andrew Sullivan's point about gay marriage, I have to concede yours about the New Orleans archbishop.

Yet and still ...

While the conservative bishops who conspired to humiliate the hapless Kerry no doubt thought the evil they were battling (abortion) was akin to if not greater than the segregation of New Orleans, I still see a historical blindness in their moves to all-but-endorse the Republican Religious Right incumbent -- and one who was and is promulgating a war the Catholic Church has labeled non-just, no less -- just 44 years after the Religious Right bigotry against Catholics during the 1960 Kennedy-Nixon campaign.

I'm curious Rod; have you ever addressed the question of why government at any level should be involved in people's relationships? I understand you're not likely to be supporting a libertarian position, but I am curious what the traditionalist conservative has to say on the subject.

To use my favorite example, liberals who despise some Catholic bishops denying communion to pro-choice politicians must, on principle, reject the New Orleans archbishop who excommunicated some segregationist Louisiana Catholic politicians in the 1960s for their attempt to force the Catholic schools to abide by segregationist laws.

Actually, that example doesn't really hold up. I don't know anything about what happened in New Orleans in the 60s, but the politicians were apparently excommunicated for trying to make the Catholic Church itself abide by immoral policies.

Which isn't equivalent as being pro-choice...it's more equivalent to attempting to pass laws requiring Catholic hospitals provide abortions. So, in fact, a distinction could be made there. However, as a non-Catholic, I don't feel free to talk about what they can and cannot excommunicate people for. (And, religiously, I don't believe in 'excommunication' meaning anything, but that's just me being a Baptist.)

I do, however, feel free to comment about how their excommunication policies appear to be somewhat skewed...they don't seem to have a problem with pro-war politicians. And they seem be be timing some of these decisions with elections. So there's a political agenda there, but I don't think it comes anywhere near the line we need to worry about.

But you're right about the whole gay marriage thing. One side sees that as a civil right, and the other does not. Or, rather, the pro side asserts that all government services should be provided in a non-discriminatory matter, and they see the ability to marry only some people as discriminatory.

And, in a technical sense, I have to agree with them. Saying you can't marry half the population because you're a specific gender really is sexual discrimination, no if, thens, or buts. The fact that the other gender is similiarly restricted isn't an argument...that's arguing separate but equal, and that doesn't fly anymore.

Before anyone mentions non-unisex restrooms being 'sexual discrimination' under that concept, I suspect that you would indeed have a case if you could demonstrating that having to use one restroom instead of the other was, in any way, specifically harming you. (Perhaps business deals are being done in there.) Whereas not being able to marry a specific person is fairly obviously harm.

Theoretical question: didn't "separate but equal" not fly because it was "separate and not equal"? Wouldn't it being equal make it flyable? And yes, I'm aware that's not quite a word.

"(And, religiously, I don't believe in 'excommunication' meaning anything, but that's just me being a Baptist.)

I do, however, feel free to comment about how their excommunication policies appear to be somewhat skewed...they don't seem to have a problem with pro-war politicians. And they seem be be timing some of these decisions with elections. So there's a political agenda there, but I don't think it comes anywhere near the line we need to worry about."

The Catholic position on war is not pacifist: it embraces the just war tradition, which means that on the question of a whether a particular war is just there may be an array of differing opinions among thoughtful Catholics. This is why Catechism states: "The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy [of a just war] belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good." (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a5.htm) There are no just abortions in Catholic moral theology (if abortion is defined as the indirect or direct intent to kill an unborn human being).

On matters of prudence--such as that involving questions of a just war--the Church does not have the power to excommunicate on grounds over which legitimate prudential judgments vary. Although Catholics may disagree on strategy or tactics for the eventual ending of abortion (such as supporting a partial-birth abortion ban when a stronger ban is not politically possible), no Catholic may advance the position that there is a "right to abortion," for such a right is inconsistent with the dignity of all persons regardless of size, level of development, environment or dependency.

I am sure you regret that Baptists, especially in the deep south, couldn't excommunicate, for it meant that you had to tolerate Klansmen populating your pews and pulpits.

quote: "I do not understand how allowing gay people to marry threatens the institution of marriage, and the cataclysmic rhetoric I hear on the right makes me think its purveyors are either craven or crazy. If my gay friends are allowed to marry, it doesn't affect my marriage in any way. It all sounds like a bunch of hysteria-cloaked bigotry to me, but I don't want to conclude that without hearing a reasoned explanation of the other side."

The problem with gay-marriage is the following:

1) If allowed it will be used as a tool by the gay rights movement against those (namely traditional religious types) who believe that homosexual behavior is immoral. Those who hold said beliefs will be marginalized in the public sphere as gay marriage becomes "normalized."

2) If gay marriage is allowed, there is no logically reason not to allow polygamy, group marriage, and incestuous marriages, provided of course they are between legal and consenting adults. Since those who favor gay marriage generally deny this and shy away from legalizing polygamy it shows they aren't interested in "equal rights." It's about using the state to normalize homosexuality via "gay marriage." The problem is that isn't the state's business.

There is a good case to be made for gay marriage (or more specifically just getting the state out of the marriage business) from a libertarian point of view. But those on the left aren't libertarians, and if they are successful with their agenda it will damage civil liberties in this nation.

rr

RR- with all due respect, you didn't really answer Richard's question, if gay marriage is allowed, how are your civil rights affected?

I read the piece referenced, and just don't see the issue here. It is of course extremely lamentable that this valuable adoption agency will no longer function. The Catholic Church does indeed have the right to exclude the option of placing children with gay families for their members. In the same vein, but endlessly more extreme, Reverend Phelps and company has every right to preach that "Fags burn in hell" in their church.

However, the state regulates the adoption industry for the welfare and safety of the children involved. They have every right to exclude organizations that engage in discriminatory practices from taking part in that work, as an extention of the stated public will from the legislation legalizing gay marriage. There is absolutely no limitation on the religious rights of the people involved in the adoption business, or the church. Believe as you will. If you believe the law makes it immoral to engage in placing children with same sex couples, then simply don't engage in that business. Do something else. Running an adoption agency is not a religious right.
Doubtless, the absence of such an organization will create a demand, which will eventually be filled by organizations which have no such moral objection. Life will go forward.

Gay marriage poses absolutely no threat to traditional marriage, in that whether or not gays marry has no effect on whether non-gays do, or how successful those marriages are. Obviously, it can have fiscal impacts involving government services, insurance etc. Those matters are best decided through legislation and reasonable jurisprudence.

The Church, Synagogue, Temple, or Mosque has every right to limit the terms of marriage for the parishioners, and no right whatsoever to try to push those limits onto the broader population, beyond their obvious right to be involved in the political process. France has it right here. EVERY marriage is a civil marriage, which can then be blessed/sanctioned for religous purposes by whatever church organization to which the spouses see fit to belong.

The argument that those who believe that homosexual behavior is immoral will be marginalized in the public sphere is neither here not there. Feel free to make your case in the public forum, using the many tools available. Those who agree with you will side with you. Those who disagree may well marginalize your position. If the majority disagrees with you, THEY aren't marginalizing you...YOU are. You ARE then in the margins, although you were once in the mainstream. Just as gays, who were once in the margins, will now be in the mainstream. That's life. Things change.

Conversely, should your side prevail, you will continue to marginalize the other side. That's life too. Things don't always change.

Bottom line: religion has every right to have a position on the issue, and to demand that the followers of that faith agree with that position. Religion has no right to force that position on the body politic, short of using the same access to the political and judicial process that all other parties possess.

May what is best for all of us in the long term prevail.

JPL,
So to extend your argument, you would have no problem with a man marrying say 3 women or a woman marrying 3 men or a 40 year old marrying at 12 year old?

Just curious.

Daniel,

I'm really surprised that you would argue that people would take marriage less seriously if gays were allowed to marry. I misunderstood your position on gay rights, I guess.

What is distressing is that you do not play the morality card, which is the usual grounds for objection, but rather assert in effect that gay people and gay relationships can't be taken seriously. It seems inconsistent to me for people who claim to have no problem with gay people to have problems with gay marriage.

While I don't agree with people who think gays are the ultimate bad, at least I understand those people's objections. For everyone else who's not willing to say unequivocally that gay relationships are inherently more immoral than divorced people who remarry and go against Jesus Christ's own words in the gospels, I do not see how you can tolerate legal divorce/remarriage but deny me the right to marry. If there is a concern about people taking marriage less seriously, you concerned straight people missed the boat a long time ago when you did not seek a federal amendment to the consitution that would prevent divorced people from remarrying while the ex-spouse remained alive. Why you are willing to spend millions to cut me off when you refuse to acknowledge and deal with the real problem affecting the institution of marriage just kills me.

What's the most galling in this hypocrisy is that many of the gay people who are, in spirit if not in law, married would tell you that they take their vows seriously -- monagamy, to-death-do-we-part, etc. etc. To see the likes of Gingrich, Bill Clinton and others get all pious on us burns pretty bad.

Still working on that auto-posting software, but now changing the one-liner for Daniel :-(

"I'm really surprised that you would argue that people would take marriage less seriously if gays were allowed to marry. I misunderstood your position on gay rights, I guess."

That's not MY argument, that's one of THE arguments. I don't believe it at all, but I understand it.

Daniel, glad to know I was wrong and you still got my back ... well, you know what I mean :-)

Rod, Are you applying the term "limited government" equally in each state as well as federally in order to be a limited government conservative? I usually interpret limited government more as a federal idea, resulting from the tenth amendment and James Madison's Federalist #45

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State Governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negociation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will for the most part be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects, which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties and properties of the people; and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State."

Thus it is possible that one could believe in limited government at the federal level and see the possibility of a constitutional amendment at the state level if that's what the people decide through the representatives they elected.

But I wouldn't consider a constitutional amendment to the US Constitution consistent with the powers of limited government at the federal level, because their powers are "limited" to external objects.

If it's lost its meaning its because our politicians are the ones who have diminished it. Huckbee for example lobbied the Republican Party for a states rights position on the human life amendment in 1995 and supported the same idea up until 2006 when he was testing the Presidential waters. Now his website claims he has ALWAYS supported such a constitutional amendment. So the issue has been muddied by the politicians who campaign on "limited government" but giving it little definite meaning.

DeeAnn asks

"JPL,
So to extend your argument, you would have no problem with a man marrying say 3 women or a woman marrying 3 men or a 40 year old marrying at 12 year old?

Just curious."

In the first case, you are half correct. I'm perfectly fine with the possibility of group or polygamous marriages, assuming we can discover ways to deal with the thorny legal complications of inheritance, etc. I am not fine with the second case, as we have legally determined, and I believe correctly, that a 12-year-old in our society almost always woud lack the emotional, mental and physical development to not find such a relationship harmful. Obviously, 12-year-olds in some earlier societies did marry. I don't know enough to say whether this was wise or inappropriate in those cultures. In ours, I would think it is clearly not. So willing polyamory yes, pedophilia no.

I find Rebeccat's argument heartfelt, but specious. She argues that

"Traditional marriage served the purpose of largely confining procreation to two parent families which are the most stable, create the least need for government supervision and on average (although certainly not in all specific cases) creating the healthiest, most responsible new citizens for the perpetuation of the society."

I disagree, as do the vast bulk of sociologists and historians. Marriage throughout most of human history was property law. Men owned their wives and children, in the exact same manner as they owned their animals, land, etc. If any thought was given to the issues she raises, it was largely incidental. The point was ownership, and wealth accumulation through property inheritance through lineal descent. One of the simplest pictures of this is the commandment in Exodus 20:17 "You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife; or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor."

Simply property rights. Wives don't even get top billing, for God's sake. She is simply something you own, and marriage is the contract by which you purchase her from her father.

The idea that children are being deprived of some God-given right to be raised by two parents is just silly. Children have no such right, nor is it even possible to grant it within the bounds of our existing or past systems. Some children have one or more parents die. Some are born out of wedlock. Some are raised by single divorcees. When a gay couple adopts a child, there is no guarantee whatsoever that, had they not, the child would have been raised by a heterosexual couple. In the case of most adoptions, the child would far more likely have been raised by the state, or in some "alternative" structure. The number of stable, happy, heterosexual two-parent families who put children up for adoption is few and far between. And the number of such families looking for children is far, far below the number of children worlwide seeking adoption, particularly when we include children who are from Third-world countries, children with disabilities, etc.

Beyond which, even should there be science that proves that statistically, children raised by heterosexual couples uniformly do better than in other circumstances, we would have to note that such couples have enormous cultural supports, and have been "doing the family thing" for generations. Only recently has it become possible for gay couples to even consider adoption, and so our knowledge of the long-term results of children raised in such environments probably needs further development.

But all the short-term indicators we have demonstrate that children raised by stable, loving homosexual couples do no better, and no worse, than those raised by similar heterosexual couples. Children raised by unstable couples, of either preference, or by single parents, do demonstrably worse.

(It's worth noting that, even though we have reams of evidence that chidren raised by single, straight parents do worse, no one would consider the idea of forbidding single parents to raise children. Additionally, should we somehow discover that children raised by gay couples do poorly, are we seriously suggesting that we should forbid those couples to use surrogates or in-vitro methods to conceive...to sterilize them in essence, if not in fact? After all, the good of the children comes first, right?)

The bottom line is that, based on our current (admittedly imperfect) evidence, gay couples do no better or worse raising kids than do straight couples. Gay couples seem to do no better or worse at keeping marriages together than do straight couples. And frankly, even if they did, I'm not sure how much it should matter. We allow all sorts of barely capable people to have and raise children today, and only once you reach the "Britany" level do we step in. Surely, most gays are going to do at least as well as Paris Hilton's parents, and we didn't stop them from raising kids.

Eugene Flynn
Theoretical question: didn't "separate but equal" not fly because it was "separate and not equal"? Wouldn't it being equal make it flyable? And yes, I'm aware that's not quite a word.

No, they said 'separate but equal' was, itself, inherently unequal, from what I understand. That merely separating people was inherently unequal at a societal level. That separate facilities are automatically unequal.

But that's rather moot as individual people are not 'equal' to each other in any legal sense, so the example doesn't really work. A person in a marriage cannot be replaced with someone else of 'equal' quality. People are unique individuals. Even if 'separate but equal' was still the law of the land, people's interactions with each other are not part of that.

Although it would certainly be hilarious to see two gay people demanding, if the government will not let them marry each other, to provide them with 'equivalent straight partners' they can marry and who would be willing to marry them.

Of course, if it did, they'd have a point that none of the replacements were physically attractive to them. And physical attraction in a spouse actually has legal existence, as evidenced by damages awarded in lawsuits for damaging that specific thing and the harm resulting from that, so I'm not just being silly there.

So there's actual demonstrative legal harm in that they cannot get a spouse that as attractive to them as someone of the opposite gender would be able to get.

Anyway, in the modern day, while many people mention Loving v. Virgina when talking about gay marriage, it might be interesting to look at McLaughlin v. Florida:

'That a general evil will be partially corrected may at times, and without more, serve to justify the limited application of a criminal law; but legislative discretion to employ the piecemeal approach stops short of permitting a State to narrow statutory coverage to focus on a racial group.'

I don't see how legislative discretion permits a state to focus on a specific gender and what it can or cannot do, either.

Gays and lesbians are allowed to marry now. They just aren't allowed to marry someone of the same sex. Neither are heterosexuals allowed to marry someone of the same sex.

What gays and lesbians want is to redefine marraige according to their desires.

The same arguments for same sex marriage is being used in Germany for a case in favor of sibling marriage, because, hey, as the reasoning goes, if it's all about consent and desire, who should stand in the way.

Two men don't make a marriage, just like two left shoes don't make a pair. It is what it is.

"Once society becomes relativistic and “anything goes”, then individual liberty goes too. Society fractures into “interest groups”, where the criticism of any group is regarded as “fighting words” and thus can be proscribed. This is basically where the universities are at now."

Don't kid yourself, Scott. Just look at how prickly people here are when Huckabee is called a "fundamentalist," which is considered fighting words in the identity politics of Evangelical conservatism. The PC police come out, just as they Bill Donohue issues a press release at the slightest offense to Catholics.

As for gay marriage, I don't view it as "anything goes" for two people to want to commit to each other and have their relationship recognized by the state. It is as American as apple pie to want to get married and be treated as "equal" and a part of the American dream. Gay marriage isn't about "anything goes" orgy marriages or children our of wedlock or rampant divorce; heterosexual have most of those bases covered. Instead, it is about being part of American, recognizing that your life and your relationship is as valuable as the people next door, that you have "individual liberty" that need not be trampled on to accommodate the majority.

Believing in gay marriage isn't believing "in anything," it is about believing something very specific, something very American. That we are all equal, that America doesn't tolerate injustice, and that we will not become a nation that puts theology over democracy. That's important stuff.

Daniel, the fact that people were incorrect in the past is in no way evidence that they are in error today. Are you really prepared to argue that the differences between men and women are not real? Because, like I said, there's this shrink I know.

Daniel, actually I am well aware of the history and rhetoric surrounding interracial marriage. And to be perfectly honest, the striking similarities did give me pause for a long time. That's probably why I am able, pretty much on the spur of the moment to give a pretty complete explanation of what I think about gay marriage - because I really did have to stop and think about it. To be perfectly honest, I think that any one who denies the similarities of the arguments and rhetoric used for both issues is living in lala land. And anyone who doesn't have to stop and think twice in regards to their opposition to gay marriage after observing the similarities is at best intellectually lazy and at worst intellectually dishonest.

All that being said, it is also at best intellectually lazy and at worst intellectually dishonest to insist that the issues share more than superficial similarities. Once one has looked past the rhetoric to the heart of the arguments being made, a very real and incontrovertable fact becomes clear: the challenges to inter-racial marriage were premised on the completely erroneous idea that blacks and whites were fundamentally and substantially different. The challenge to same sex marriage is based on a completely true and verifiable reality: that men and women are, in fundamentals and substance different.

And the "not a shred of evidence" argument offered by liberals in regards to the potential for damage as the result of social changes turned out to be 100% wrong for issues they championed like acceptance of sex outside marriage, single parenthood and easy divorce. If we are to judge today's arguments by the how well yesterday's arguments held up to reality, I'd have to say the liberal's have no better track record than the segregationist of old.

rebeccat
A woman who marries another woman is marrying someone who is quite different in fundamentals and substance than she would be if she were to marry a man.

I'd like a list of ways most men differ in 'fundamentals and substances' from most women, please. (1)

And then after that I'd like some sort of logical reason that women should be only allowed to marry people who met the first specifications and not people who met the second. Any reason at all.

It can't because because we need them to be paired with 'fundamentals and substances' from the first, because we don't require them to get married at all. (Or are you saying that a women needs a man?)

It can't be because we don't want them to have access to the 'fundamentals and substances' of the second, as they themselves are women and presumably already have all those 'fundamentals and substances'. (Maybe these 'fundamentals and substances' grow at exponential speed, so two of them are much more powerful than one times two!)

I don't know where you're going with this 'fundamentals and substances' stuff, but it is rather sexist in assuming that all men have specific traits that all women do not, and vis versa, and doesn't make any sense at all on top of that, as the government does not belong in the business of telling people what other people are well suited for them.

You might be able to get away with some logic that 'men and women differ' WRT gay adoption, by arguing different childrearing skills, but not gay marriage. (And adoption is so broken nowadays that anyone who would have a gay couple turned down, which in practice results in the child being raised in the foster care system, is a fool. We can argue who is 'best' at raising children when we actually have enough people competing to be selected.)

1) And I should mention that, in a list of most men and most women, it's possible a list would fail exactly where it comes to homosexuals, as there are quite a lot of feminine gay men and masculine lesbians. Arguing that relationships need a man and a woman because of their 'traits' is rather hilarious as an objection to gay relationships, as it's been noticed that they often do have a 'man' and a 'woman', both the same gender. Or at least people filling those roles, and who date people filling the other role. Not always, perhaps not most of the time, but often enough to be noticed. (Or maybe it's other people hallucinating those gender roles, which actually somewhat implies they don't exist anyway.)

Rebecca,

What in the world do you mean by 'fundamentals and substance'?

Are you getting metaphysical? Gays are conscious, emotional, free rational choosers, and so are women. These are the traits I think that allow them to fall in love.

They have feelings, make choices, sacrifice for others, make goals, show affection, nurture, experience erotic attachment in short and in the long term, can
choose monogamy, etc - what in the world would differentiate these two groups
(gays and women) such that one would be able and worthy of marriage and the other not worthy of it?

i Come to think of it, what if heterosexual people decide that they have the right to call themselves "gay" and demand special treatment because they are "gay"?

If they want the special treatment that comes with hate crimes, intolerance, and faith-based bigotry, I'm not sure anyone is going to stand in their way. I'm sure people are going to line up to be tossed out of the house by their parents who believe their kids are an abomination, to face employment discrimination, to have their very lives used a fundraising-fodder by social conservatives.

You've taken a right turn into crazy town and you are now practically incoherent.

I guess I understand (though I don't entirely agree with) the argument that marriage must be between men and women because that has how society has always sanctioned child-rearing. (Never mind that, as has been noted, society has previously enforced many rules in ways that are now considered reprehensible -- and that, if cohabiting heterosexual couples are counted, according to the Census there are now more declared heterosexual couples without children than with.)

But if we're really talking about TRADITION ... marriage in its ultimate sense is a contract between two people. As in the number "2." As in T-W-O.

And as in people. As in human beings. As in members of the species homo sapiens.

So the argument that gay marriage is such a huge extension of heterosexual marriage as to be unacceptable is almost incomprehensible to me. (On a LEGAL basis -- religiously, believe whatever you want.)

And the argument that gay marriage sanctions polygamy and bestiality is CERTAINLY incomprehensible.

Come to think of it, what if heterosexual people decide that they have the right to call themselves "gay" and demand special treatment because they are "gay"? What if, when you object that they certainly aren't gay, they insist that defining "gayness" as something that excludes straight people is bigoted and exclusionary? What if they start tallying up all of the hate crimes legislation et. al. that they're not protected by because they don't have the legal right to the same protections as gay people do? Are you being bigoted when you insist that the very definition of the word "gay" excludes them? What if they demand that you are obligated by the constraints of civil rights to change your bigoted, exclusive definition?

I know of absolutely no hate crimes legislation, or in fact any discrimination legislation, that includes gay people but not straight people. This would be because none of them actually use the word 'gay', but talk about discrimination and crimes based on 'sexual orientation'.

Heterosexual is a sexual orientation. If you are attacked or denied a job because of your heterosexuality, and your jurisdiction has passed laws laws talking about 'sexual orientation' WRT those things, you are covered under them. (Of course, many places have no passed such laws, so neither gay nor straight people are protected.)

As for the term 'gay', what does that have to do with anything? If straight people want to call themselves 'gay', or even 'homosexual', no one will care, although plenty of people will be confused. This is because no one is demanding only gay people get to do something legally, and thus it doesn't matter if straight people 'join in'. There's nothing to join.

People are not demanding that 'gay' people should be able to do something straight people cannot, they are demanding that men no longer be restricted to just marrying women, and women no longer be restricted to just marrying men. They want, instead, that everyone, man or woman, is allowed to marry anyone else, man or woman.

And, yes, I see the argument you're making about defining terms, but I point to the different between social and legal definitions. 'Gay' is a social group. There are no specific legal rights associated with it. Marriage is a legal term, and has rights to go along with it.

And it's worth noting that gay marriage proponents have produced an alternative under another name, 'civil unions', so whinging about the definition of 'marriage' is a bit silly, because if you'd give in on 'civil unions' the marriage demands would instantly almost entirely stop.

"The entire framework of law as it relates to marriage assumes that we are talking about two people of different genders, as does every cultural reference and historical connotation."

Until the late 1800s, the entire framework of property law assumed that it only involved men, as did every cultural reference and historical connotations.

In the US, the entire framework for voting rights assumed that it only involved white men, as did every cultural reference and historical connotation. Then, it accommodated it black men. It took 50 more years before women were included.

Before the framework of law as it relates to marriage was created in the 18th or 19th Century, cultural references and historical connotations never assumed it involved just two people of different genders in a companionship relationship. Such an assertion would have been considered bizarre to the people who wrote the Bible and who lived in Jesus time.

Erin,
In a post gay-marriage world, words like "husband, wife, mother, father, bride, groom," and so on will have to be completely removed from our vocabulary, because anything less still elevates heterosexual relationships above homosexual ones.

Why? I know a few gay couples who consider themselves to be married religously (I'm a pagan UU, both groups that don't have religious objections to SSM), and they all use the appropriate term when referring to each other (i.e., both men talk about "my husband").

This feels like grasping at straws, which is a little disappointing coming from you.

There can be no notion in law or any aspect of public life that it is a preferable or even a good thing for parents to raise their own biological children, as that, too, will be de-facto discrimination against gay couples who as couples are intrinsically incapable of reproduction.

No more than infertile child-wanting heterosexual couples, surely? Ultimately, I'm afraid that you are assuming that the hardest-core activists represent the whole gay population; much like the liberals who feared that Bush would establish a Christian theocracy, or white people who think that all black people agree with Al Sharpton and Louis Farrakhan.

The entire framework of law as it relates to marriage assumes that we are talking about two people of different genders, as does every cultural reference and historical connotation.

The entire framework of law, and every cultural reference and historical connotation, assumed we were talking about one person who owned another person until very recently. (Or, believe it or not, multiple other people.) As Daniel pointed out.

We've already completely shattered the concept of marriage in the last few hundred years.

We've 'invented' sexual equality, domestic abuse, and spousal rape, none of which had any meaning at all 200 years ago.

Oh, and we've invented government marriage licenses and child support and alimony. And joint income tax. And medical decision making. (Most of the things people who want civil unions want was literally invented within the last 70 years.)

In the thousand years before that, we 'invented' divorce and marriage as a church sacrament. Oh, and first romantic love, and then marrying for love.

There can be no notion in law or any aspect of public life that it is a preferable or even a good thing for parents to raise their own biological children, as that, too, will be de-facto discrimination against gay couples who as couples are intrinsically incapable of reproduction.

First of all, it's not preferable that parents 'raise their own biological children' as opposed not having any and raising someone else's. It's preferable that all children are raised in a stable household that loves them and can provide for them, not that they are biologically related to anyone in it.

I don't know where you get that, but I would, indeed, be upset if you went around asserting that parents that adopted were not as good as parents that gave birth. Is that want you want to run around telling adopted children, that their family were not 'good things'?

In some sort of magical ideal world where children had the choice of multiple stable families, some of which were related to them, if you want to argue that they should be with the related family, okay. But children in gay households are either adopted, which means that, for whatever reason, they already aren't in a stable household.

Or they're biologically related to only one of the parents, which is a stupid complaint, as society already has plenty of stepparents in it, but, more to the point, the only other option is the kid wouldn't even exist.

And, practically, the only option you can actually legislate is the first one, so that's what you're actually talking about when you talk about children growing up with gay parents.

rr,

"The problem with gay-marriage is the following:

1) If allowed it will be used as a tool by the gay rights movement against those (namely traditional religious types) who believe that homosexual behavior is immoral. Those who hold said beliefs will be marginalized in the public sphere as gay marriage becomes "normalized."

This is absolute poppycock, rr. I am from a traditional religious background (even though I have long since left it). I have been extremely active in the equal marriage work, and know dozens of married same-sex couples - NONE of whom have (or would dream of) doing what you fear will happen. Those religious faiths that do not agree with SSM are free to refuse to perform the ceremonies - it's called freedom of religion. WE do not marginalize them; by refusing to treat ALL of God's children equally, they marginalize themselves.

The reverse MUST then hold true - those religious faiths that DO wish to perform them MUST be free to do so or THEY are the ones that have been denied freedom of religion.

"2) If gay marriage is allowed"

Um, a little hint here - it already IS allowed - in Belgium, Spain, the Netherlands, Canada, South Africa and the United States of America (remember Massachusetts?) - and that's not including the 17 countries or so countries (and about a half a dozen States) that have "Civil Unions" or Domestic Partnership laws, like Uruguay, Israel, Mexico, etc. Please DO feel free to catch up, rr.)

I'm not going to bother dignifying your allusions to incest & polygamy with a resonse. They aren't what we're discussing here, and it is transparent fearmongering and little else. Why not attempt comparisons to beastiality and necrophilia? I mean, they are SO 'helpful' to your 'cause'. NOT!

"It's about using the state to normalize homosexuality"

It already IS normal - for gay people. DUH!

Like I said, you're gonna need much better arguments if you hoope to continue denying equal treatment before the law to gay citizens.

rebeccat,

"in order for a same sex couple to have children, they must willfully deny a child the right to live in a stable family environment with both their mother and their father."

Apart from the fact that this thread is (at least supposed to be) about marriage and not makin' babies, what you typed is demonstrably false in the case of adoptions. We do not "wilfully deny" anyone - we take many unwanted children. Ask JohnQ (father to 4, I believe) who posts here regularly. Their biological mothers and fathers simply ain't around. Get a clue. Please.

DeeAnn,

"you would have no problem with a man marrying say 3 women or a woman marrying 3 men or a 40 year old marrying at 12 year old?

Just curious."

That ain't curiosity, that's morbidity. We aren't discussing polygamy (which isn't allowed for hets, so how it is related to gays escapes me) nor are we discussing statutory rape. I'm surprised Rod allows your comment to remain. It was pretty disgusting, not to mention irrelevant.

Francis Beckwith,

"What is marriage, anyways?"

The public declaration of a commitment to the person you love before a secular or faith community. Mine happened to be before my faith community. Thanks for asking.

Max Sadenfreude,

"Gays and lesbians are allowed to marry now. They just aren't allowed to marry someone of the same sex."

Oh, that helps a LOT!

"Neither are heterosexuals allowed to marry someone of the same sex."

Ah, but the difference is YOU wouldn't want to. So much for individual liberty, eh?

"What gays and lesbians want is to redefine marraige according to their desires."

How would YOU 'know' what gay people want? Here's a hint for you: We want equality under the law.

"Two men don't make a marriage"

That ain't what it says on my marriage certificate. YOU just don't happen to lick it. Tuff. Get over it.

richard,

"I'm curious if anyone here thinks there is such a thing as a right to marriage in the first place. Many people think that gays don't have this right."

No. This thread is about LIBERTIES, as in the 'promise' or 'self-evident truth' that ALL citizens do, indeed, have the right to life, LIBERT and the PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS". (Whatever happened to THAT argument? Are gay people not allowed that right/liberty?)

Erin,

"the rhetoric of "you're denying gay couples the right to marry!" is a ridiculous argument."

No it isn't. It is FACT. It is TRUTH (as in, "You can't handle the truth.")

"Marriage isn't a universal right but a legal contract."

From which gay couples are EXCLUDED. What part of that don't you understand?

"There are conditions attached to it"

Not ONE of which is procreation.

"Take consent, for instance"

Can gay couples not consent to enter into such a contract? You only argue about "the civil rights of someone who believes he ought to be able to marry someone who doesn't consent to the marriage." What of those of us who CAN and WOULD consent to the contrac of marriage?

"If a group of people demanded the right to marry people who don't (or can't legally) consent"

But, of course, not a single person IS demanding that. I'm not even sure where this consent/lack of consent 'argument' comes from. It sure as heck ain't relevant to what we are discussing.

"The same is true when we talk about same-sex marriage. Saying that there is no difference at all between the notion of marriage as it applies to a heterosexual couple and the notion of marriage as it applies to a same-sex couple is to ignore biology, history, and every law concerning marriage from the past to the modern age."

No. It is only to ignore (and rightly so) HETEROSEXUAL biology, history, etc.

"The entire framework of law as it relates to marriage assumes that we are talking about two people of different genders"

Not since January, 2001 (in the legal sense) and not since millenia ago in SOME (admittedly few, but they did - and DO - exist) cultures.,

"as does every cultural reference and historical connotation."

"Every"??? Laff!

"In a post gay-marriage world, words like "husband, wife, mother, father, bride, groom," and so on will have to be completely removed from our vocabulary, because anything less still elevates heterosexual relationships above homosexual ones."

Nonsenese. I have a husband, and every one who knows us knows that he is the one I am married to, just as when you use the word "husband" every one who knows you knows you are referring to the man you are married to. Try a little logic.

"There can be no notion in law or any aspect of public life that it is a preferable or even a good thing for parents to raise their own biological children ..."

For once and for all, please try to get it through your head that PROCREATION IS NOT REQUIRED of married couples. Never has been. And NO ONE is tryin' to take your babies away from you.

"as that, too, will be de-facto discrimination against gay couples who as couples are intrinsically incapable of reproduction."

Such nonsense, considering reproduction is not a requirement. Give it up already.

"If you think I'm being hysterical"

IF?????

"look at those places where gay marriage has already been legalized, and you'll find that I'm merely being accurate."

Erin, I live in one of those places (Canada) and know that you are talking nonsense. Not even CLOSE to "accurate". Nothing of the sort has happened in South Africa either. Or Massachusetts. Or Spain. Etc.

Fear-monger much?