Gay marriage, family and civilization

Also, what do you think of the argument that gay marriage is, for gay couples, a step towards community and away from the individualism of non-legally-recognized relationships?

In the past, one of the things that assured that a concept like gay marriage would be unheard of was the fact that people who might be inclined to undertake it didn't feel free to say so, or often even to
admit that they were gay. Strong social pressures and expectations
meant that most people kept quiet about such things for fear of disapproval from others.

In our society today, though, since many or most people who are so inclined do feel relatively free to say so, how does the genie go back in the bottle?

To many young people in our society in particular, and to many older ones as well, gay marriage has become an accepted civil rights matter,
equated morally with interracial marriage, which was also, of course, banned in most parts the U.S. until a time well within the living memory of many.

If rebuilding a strong society really means wresting the designation
and dignity of "family" from the hands of all those who are not heterosexual married couples (whether married by a religious comunity or simply by the state), it's certainly going to be a very, very big job.

"Because other arrangements have proved hard to balance?"

I'll give you the "standard" answer:

It hasn't worked because its practitioners have been marginalized by society. If society was open to polygamy, these guys in El Dorado would be able to look elsewhere in a more open and tolerant society. Instead, they are forced to go underground and prey on young girls. Polygamy, of course, is the not same as pedophilia. So, when you equate the two, you are showing your true poly-phobic colors.

Men and women cheat all the time. It's in our genes. All that legalized polygamy would do is to allow these "cheaters" the benefit of the social order. You know how many adulterers and their victims kill each other and/or commit suicide? Lots. Why? Because their lifestyles have been called "bad" and "evil" by prudish liberals and conservatives who believe that love can only be limited to the narrow number of two persons.

Polygamy allows for one's love to be embraced by a larger ensemble of persons of like-minded interests and erotic sensibilities. If you don't see it, then you are trapped in your old-world, narrow-minded "numberism," the belief that love can only be limited to two. But who are you to judge? Hugh Hefner and his five buxom buds seem to be doing just fine. They just want to be left alone as well as force their fellow citizens to give their approval of the arrangement.

We want a society in which everyone who disagrees with sexual egalitarianism (all sexual practices are permissible as long as the adults consent) is kept quiet and punished if they resist it. You have no right to tell me the proper use of my genitals, though I have the right to tell you the proper use of your mind. That's tolerance, baby. Get used to it.

(The above is NOT what I believe. I have just given an answer that I think would be given if one were to take the logic of same-sex marriage and apply it to polygamy).

Except the whole point of anyone disagreeing is kept quiet and punished.

Find me ONE person who has proposed opponents to gay marriage are to keep silent or be punished for speaking?

Unlike some, I'm not the one trying to forbid other people from living as they wish because I disapprove.

Further explaining the legal complications, what if wife two comes into the marriage with significant family assets. Now, arguably she could create a prenup. But if she doesn't, the a death without a will means one family's assets and property will be passed onto not just one legal spouse and their natural offspring, but to three spouses and potentially all the offspring of the father (and these relationships always involve one man and multiple women). That not only tosses common law as it relates to marriage on its head, it also tosses property law on its head.

Again, none of this legal chaos is created by the consensual marriage of two people, either opposite sex or same-sex.

"What does this have to do with gay marriage? Redefining marriage to include same-sex partners within its definition radically changes the institution, reinforcing the idea that it has no transcendental meaning, but can be changed at will."

Marriage is a social construct which varies across time and culture. Its meaning is not fixed like some eternal platonic ideal. Anthropological field work has show that the institution varies enormously across cultures. The "transcendent meaning" imputed to the institution is itself an illusion not shared by other cultures. Once marriages were economic contracts and women were chattel. In some other cultures it still represents such. As you note, ideas have consequences. Free agency, respect for individual rights, self-determination are the central idea of western civilization dating back to the time of the Greeks. This conceptualization of the person clashes with communitarian and tribal concepts of the person implicit in much of the biblical narrative, especially the old testament. If one takes western values and beliefs about the value of the individual seriously, it is impossible to argue against same-sex marriage or civil unions. However, to suggest that these trends represent moral decline and atomism is an intellectual reach too far.

"What does this have to do with gay marriage? Redefining marriage to include same-sex partners within its definition radically changes the institution, reinforcing the idea that it has no transcendental meaning, but can be changed at will."

Marriage is a social construct which varies across time and culture. Its meaning is not fixed like some eternal platonic ideal. Anthropological field work has show that the institution varies enormously across cultures. The "transcendent meaning" imputed to the institution is itself an illusion not shared by other cultures. Once marriages were economic contracts and women were chattel. In some other cultures it still represents such. As you note, ideas have consequences. Free agency, respect for individual rights, self-determination are the central idea of western civilization dating back to the time of the Greeks. This conceptualization of the person clashes with communitarian and tribal concepts of the person implicit in much of the biblical narrative, especially the old testament. If one takes western values and beliefs about the value of the individual seriously, it is impossible to argue against same-sex marriage or civil unions. However, to suggest that these trends represent moral decline and atomism is an intellectual reach too far.

"The idea is that unless you can demonstrate that a gay marriage directly harms traditional marriage, there is no rational objection to gay marriage. But this is a shallow way to look at it."

That's an understatement. So is the sentence that precedes this one.

I can't even make the effort to participate in the debate. It's like debating whether circles shall henceforward be considered squares, and squares circles.

I have no hostility to homosexuals, but the man-woman relationship is ontologically different from man-man or woman-woman relationships. No debate is going to settle the argument between those who see that and those who don't.

Sorry if this posts twice--"internal server error" on first try.

Welcome to the Land of Inevitability. I think we are all pretty much agreed that gay marriage is inevitable in some way, so the real question is how does society deal with it, or rather how do individuals in society deal with it during the interim period between its inception and the near total acceptance of it that will come within a generation after its inception.

And I agree, polygamy is most certainly next as there really is no rational argument that can be made against it being legal.

Rod's use of slavery is an interesting and somewhat flawed example because the truth of the matter is that had the Confederate States had been run by people with brains, (ok, they were Southerners, we have to make allowances) they would have realized that there never would have been enough anti-slavery votes in the North to pass the constitutional amendment necessary to end it at that time. It was the act of war that turned the people of the North really against slavery. The bulk of the voters really did not care. Lincoln won a distinct minority of the popular vote and if a President had an election like that now he would not be able to govern at all. But once the Southerners seceded and fired on Fort Sumter, the Northerners got mad and slavery was a convenient excuse.

I have no hostility to homosexuals, but the man-woman relationship is ontologically different from man-man or woman-woman relationships. No debate is going to settle the argument between those who see that and those who don't.

Once you take childbearing out of the picture, there really isn't much of an ontological difference as far as the marriage is concerned, because then the relationship, whether man-man or woman-woman, is based on friendship & companionship, compatibility, security, and physical & emotional attraction & attachment.

Childrearing might still make them different - i.e., raising a child in a male-female household versus a male-male or female-female household.

"The divorce law was changed because more people wanted to be able to divorce. The possibility didn't cause the desire, it merely allowed the desire to be carried out.

"You overlook the prevalence of desertion when divorce was not possible. It certainly was not socially approved, but it happened all the time in previous generations."

And trying to prevent family breakup by making divorce more difficult is like trying to prevent murder by making burial more difficult.

"Isn't it sad that the best arguments put forth in the public square deal with harm? Is harm the only category left available to our fragmented moral culture?"

Ummm, isn't this redundant? Harm is anything we are against. The Golden Rule, in all of its various incarnations, is "thou shalt not do harm to a human being." The fact that the various religions and moral philosophies of the world have such trouble talking to each other results from the fact that they have a hard time agreeing on the meaning of "harm" and "human being" in that context.

"Once you take childbearing out of the picture, there really isn't much of an ontological difference as far as the marriage is concerned..."

And there you have the matter in a nutshell.

The only reason for civil marriage to exist *at all* is because when the law looks at the consequences of male-female sexual relationships, historically the law has noticed that children are, a vast majority of the time, the *natural and expected* result of the relationship. (Always good at recognizing the blindingly obvious--a feature of civil law.)

Yes, there've always been infertile couples. What was the law supposed to do, require pregnancy as a pre-condition of civil marriage? Cart before horse, by a mile.

No, the law essentially said that *most* male/female sexual relationships ended up with children as the *natural and expected* result of the relationship, and that when legal protections for these children weren't somehow tied to the male/female relationship, then the law (and society itself) ended up having to take care of the children.

Fast forward to widespread artificial contraception and abortion. Children are no longer the natural and expected result of any male/female relationship, 'cause they're so easy to kill in utero. Plus, if they're born outside wedlock, we've created a whole social system around the notion that women don't particularly need men (except to be baby daddies, after which they're expendable). Our social safety nets downright encourage pregnancy outside of marriage--what does getting married have to do with having kids, anyway?

So letting people for whom conception of their own biological children is completely impossible, not even close to being a natural and expected result of the relationship, get "married" is just another stage in the rendering of the word "marriage" an utterly meaningless concept. Pretty soon, saying you're "married" will mean that once upon a time you had a great party with your current sexual partner and your assorted friends, but you're open to the notion of replacing that partner anytime now if somebody makes you a better offer; the kids you have chosen to allow to live till birth and beyond don't have any sort of biological link to the person living in your house with you, but society wouldn't expect them to.

My honest inclination these days is to agitate for the abolition of civil marriage altogether. There's just not going to be any such thing anymore, so why bother propping up what's rapidly becoming a meaningless notion? Tax laws will be simplified--everybody who earns an income can be taxed at the same exact rate, and people won't get any breaks just for living in the same house together--why should they?. As for the kids--well, it's the woman's "choice" not to abort them, so why should she expect any tax breaks for having them? All other civil "privileges" attached to marriage can just go away, too. Most of them already have: I can't deposit a check to my husband's and my "joint" bank account unless *both* of us endorse it, and when the doctor called my mother-in-law the other day he refused to discuss my father-in-law's test results with her, thanks to HIPPA's medical privacy rules. Civil marriage is already about 90% meaningless, and when gay marriage is legalized it'll be 100% meaningless.

Let's end civil marriage. It's utterly worthless as it is.

"Let's end civil marriage. It's utterly worthless as it is."

And lo, on May 17, 2008, Erin Manning was converted unto the faith of libertarianism and anti-statist freedom of contract as the basis for human relationships. Ayn Rand got her wings that day.

"Oh, don't be silly, Mark. If I thought this society had a whelk's chance in a supernova of being saved I'd fight for it. As it is, the sooner it disintegrates altogether, the better."

Hey, America - love it or leave it, pal!

Man, I'm channeling all sorts of right-wing spirits today.

Part of the argument raised against gay marriage is that it is against our traditions. It is equated with polygamy. Both are characterized as being so "wrong" that most people don't have to think about it. They just "know" those things are wrong. Arguments based solely on tradition are weak. Traditions change and what seemed so right or wrong that one did not have to think about it are no longer accepted.

In the antebellum South, slavery was the tradition. After all, it was formalized in our US Constitution. It was precisely because people did think about it and defied the traditions that slavery was made illegal. Anti-Semitism was a "tradition" among certain groups for centuries. People just knew it was okay to hate Jews. History's scrap heaps are filled with "traditions" that everyone just knew.

What is the harm to traditional marriages in gay marriage? That is a question that should be answered. Would allowing gays to marry change the definition of marriage? Yes. But how would it harm it? Does anyone think that someone would end their marriage because gays can get married? People want to get married because they think they want to spend their life with their partner. That's true of gays or straight people. Maybe gay marriage would strengthen traditional unions.

If you want to strengthen marriage as an institution, find out its weaknesses and work on those. Don't pretend that not allowing same-sex couples to get married will strengthen heterosexual unions. One has nothing to do with the other. Heterosexual marriages fail for a lot of reasons, but none of those reasons is gay marriage. People get divorces because they are unhappy not because of some nebulous weakening of marriage as an institution.

Rod,

This is terrific stuff. Of course, you make ten times more sense than Doug Kmiec, who is unimpressive despite all his credentials.

Two things about your post were most interesting, the first of which I will use in my own advocacy:
(1) the concept of "moral ecology" and your analogies to the crimes of slavery and abortion.
(2) the idea that homosexual & lesbian marriage "emerged as the working-out of the logic of our civilization and its exaltation of individualism"

You seem morose about the prospects for stopping so-called same-sex marriage. Your crystal ball may be right.

Nevertheless, I think it is a fight that must be made. Same-sex marriage may indeed be the latest manifestation of the "exaltation of individualism." But if this ultra-individualism is to ever be halted and reversed, can it not begin with this?

The successful defeat of this insanity may very well be our "Battle of Lepanto" (1571), when the fleet of the Holy League decisively defeated the Ottoman fleet. After Lepanto, the pendulum of power swung away from Islam and toward the Christian West. With prayer and effort ("ora et labora"), this fight against same-sex marriage should be made and a victory sought in order to begin reversing the tide of irresponsible individualism and libertinism. We must pray that it happens eventually. Why not here and now?

Sorry, that was me above, saying, "Erin Manning, be careful what you wish for..."

Reaganite, how is the desire for marriage a product of "individualism?" When people marry, they form a community (starting with themselves, then extending to their parents, siblings, any children they might eventually have, sometimes existing children.) Even the act of marrying itself means giving up some of one's own "individualism."

Society has a vested interest in encouraging gay people into stable, long-term relationships: the *same* as with heterosexual people. People are happier, in general (assuming the relationship is a good one.) They care for one another. They care for their homes, for their communities. How is this in any way, shape or form a bad thing?

Not all polygamists are like the FLDS people. They're not all "cultists" living in compounds. Some just set up multiple-partner households, go to work, cut their grass like everybody else.

The FLDS people show how easy it is (even in the US) to retreat to some bunker and keep the women and kids confined.

Incidentally, it's worth pointing out that the problem with this 'polygamy' things in the news, is not polygamy, and isn't really child marriage either.

It is, in a sense, incest. Not actual incest, but young girls are being raised in very small communities and married off, as possessions, to much older men who helped raise them. They have no options, no conception of the outside world, and they are literally pregnant and barefoot. Women 1000 years ago had more rights and opportunities.

The size of the community is the problem. No community needs to be less than 50 people. No community needs to have no contact with the outside world. No community needs to operate its own laws. And, most important, no one needs to be raised in such a place. Such places will invariably degenerate to 'might makes right', and I think we can figure out what happens to women under such circumstances, especially little girls.

It's not a polygamy issue. You could have exactly this happening without polygamy. It simply tends to turn into polygamy as certain men are more powerful than others and 'earn' more brides, but the fundamental problem is treating women like possessions, and not very valuable possessions at that, which is caused by the even bigger problem of operating without any checks.

"But this is a shallow way to look at it. We all share the same moral ecology. You may as well ask why it should have mattered to the people of Amherst, Mass., if some rich white people in Charleston, SC, owned slaves. Don't believe in slavery? Don't buy one."

I'm a woman of colour, and I stopped reading right here. This is absurd, offensive, and anyone with a wit of sense knows it.

Why white folks think it's fine to trot out the history of people of colour to make these sort of ridiculous comparisons is beyond me. If you can't see why, oh, the issues of human bondage, torture, rape, and the separation of families make these things fundamentally different, then you're beyond help.

In the past month, I've seen slavery trotted out in arguments against meat processing, abortion, and now gay marriage.

People, if your pet issue needs to put along side slavery for your point to fly, you're in trouble in more ways than one.

Just some attempts at clarification, in no particular order, and based on direct discussion with people who actually practice it...

Polyamory is the preferred term, literally "many loves". Plural marriage, while accurate in a superficial sense, begs the use of the word "marriage" since it is illegal in the US.

Daniel, no form of marriage is consensual if one or more parties are given no choice in the matter. Whether it's the old tradition of arranged marriage or the extreme example of the FLDS, there is no value to the phrase "polygamy is not consensual" without any qualifier. To extend that to my first comment, polyamorists form triads, quads or (rarely) more only with the explicit consent of all parties. Anyone in a multiple relationship under duress or with any complaint or objection is not involved in polyamory at that point, and may never have been with those people.

Polyamory implies the general sense of a deep, committed love of more than one person. Sex is not the primary, let alone only mode of expression. Polyamorists are friends, or their relationships don't last very long. Those in it for the sex are swingers or some variant, not polyamorists.

And one general comment: polyamory is not a mainstream term, but it is a good one as an alternative to the default usage is "polygamy" and the default assumption is one man with two or more women. I don't know about anyone else, but I see a strong remnant of sexism in there. [grin]

And a personal note: from my POV, the primary obstacle to polyamory for any person is the conditioned notion that sexual fidelity and ownership of the mate are equivalent, one implying the other. I do not know any polyamorist who has not struggled with that notion, and was unable to participate in a triad or larger group until overcoming the conditioning in a rational, balanced fashion. It is that obstacle, and their awareness of it, that is the main rebuttal to those who are afraid that they will be forced into such arrangements should it be made legal. It becomes the same ethical question that already exists for adultery, extended to a relationship of three or more. Polyamorists do not blithely seek out sexual partners outside their committed group, and those that do are as easily labeled adulterers as would a person in a monogamous relationship.

This is minor stuff compared to what's on the horizon.

Cloning is going to cause all sorts of conniptions in terms of defining what/who a "person" is.

Blending/combining non-human genes with people and combining human genes with non-human life forms is further going to fuzz the definition of personhood.

Primitive constructs of the "soul" and when it "enters" or "joins" the body are not going to be able to hold sway in light of what we'll come to posit and know about the relationship between physiology and personality/behavior, indeed "personhood." I.e., when much of what we call a "person" or their "soul" or
personality/behavior can be shown to be chemically and physiologically dictated (a recent study shows that there may not even be such a thing as "free will" - i.e., there is detectable brain activity prior to making decisions that controls/dictates the decisions made - i.e., our choices are in a sense being made for us), the definition of who and what we are will change accordingly.

All of this - gay marriage, marriage, etc. - is at root a problem of who/what man is and is to be, and who/what individuals are.

Ah, newenglander, keep displaying that love and tolerance you liberals are so famous for.

In the meantime, I'm thinking maybe those of us who haven't sold out to the wild anti-philosophy of the 21st century might do better exercising the Benedict Option Rod's written about before. Provided we can dig a moat.

"Don't think I'm not considering it."

Saudi Arabia and Nigeria are beautiful this time of year.

Actually, no, it doesn't matter, to be honest. (And I hardly think 98 percent think it is wrong. Might still be a majority, but not quite that high.)

It matters about whether or not it is Constitutional.

Some late-night thoughts, and not necessarily lucid ones:

To me, "gay marriage" is an oxymoron or a self-contradiction. No matter how much you pretty it up or formalize or ritualize or glamorize it, or expound on its other benefits, marriage is intimately and teleologically related to reproduction. "Marriage" is how the spiritual nature of man sacramentalizes and sanctifies and hallows that which is at root the most basic aspect of man's animal nature.

That the Apostle would liken the union of a man with a woman to the relationship between Christ and the Church (and hence between Christ and the believer) is enough to blow your mind, if you think about it long enough.

You can legalize "gay marriage," but you can't make that which is not marriage to be "marriage" just by calling it such.

The heart (and God) has its reasons, that reason cannot know. It is a Mystery, a Mystery where the divine and the profane merge and become one. To the extent that one departs from that Mystery, or tries to conform it to one's ideas, instead of being conformed to It, one understands It less.

Argue away.

That's fine, Eric. And other people believe other things. Some religions view marriage as a contract. Others don't think it is valid, a real marriage unless it is arranged by the parents, or one party pays the other (whether a bride price, a dowry, or otherwise.)

It isn't up to the State to determine or decide what is sacred or sanctified.

It can still be all those things to you, and all those who believe as you do. And I doubt that the government made it those things, and the broadening, by the state, of the definition shouldn't change what it is to you.

For centuries, the government had no role in the institution of marriage at all. Christians manage to get married in countries where polygamy IS legal.

Are their marriages any less sacred, any less sanctified because of it?

Actually, that is a good question.

There are Christians in, say, Denmark. Christians who are married. In Denmark, gay marriage has been legal since the 80's.

There's Christians in Asian, African and Middle Eastern nations where polygamy IS legal.

Are those marriages in those countries, heck, in those continents somehow less sacred than yours? Less sanctified than yours?

"Gay marriage is and is not a sudden shift in the meaning of marriage. It started with the Reformation."

That's a provocative comment. Rod, can you please elucidate?

mdavid, I have some agreement with you, but will add that Christians must always try to be "wise as serpents and innocent as doves" in all this. We can not be too ghetooized, but we will need a community.

Concerning heterosexual marriage the key things to encourage:

1. Having a courtship prior to marriage, even if it is a secondary one for some time before the wedding, just interrupting co-habitation.
2. Joining a church and church community and supporting it and being active in it.
3 Using natural family planning as a basis for both spacing children and living your relationship with your spouse and kids. Flush systemic contraception.
4. Keeping your extended family within contact and in your social sphere.

How can we transmit valued to children? That is the key. Christians will be made, not necessarily born in the future.

Peace

You think cloning is going to be an issue about personhood? The real fun is going to be when we can take the electrical activity of the brain, what makes a person a person, and dump it into a computer, thus creating practical immortality for that person and the computer that the personality is resident in becomes legally that person.

Now, can computers marry? And is the compuperson still married to the spouse he had at the time of decantation? What about property and inheritance, to say nothing of insurance!

Oh and it is going to get better! The person will then ultimately be "reincarnated" into a human body specifically cloned from him for the purpose.

Sci-fi now, but give it twenty years. It is where the smart money in research is all going.

Of course the real fun will be watching poor Rod having to deal with millions of us Boomers, who will have all become, for all practical purposes, immortal.

Folks will look back on this gay marriage business as nothing compared to the fun to come.

Charles writes "Folks will look back on this gay marriage business as nothing compared to the fun to come."

Yes the Brave New World is coming. Charles, I think you have some of the details and events well out of chronological order. You are going to die, so forget about transferring your consciousness into a computer.

But nonetheless in the Brave New World most people do not understand or know when they are being dehumanized and those who do will not care much.

Let me be the eight millionth person (not on this thread but elsewhere) to point out that the state with the lowest divorce rate is the only state that currently allows gay marriage. It's all the Bible-thumping states that have people divorcing like mad. Call me crazy, but if you're going to be measuring the relative success of marriages within certain subset of people, probably divorce rate would be the most likely indicator.

I'm not saying that too much religiosity necessarily destroys marriages, though it would seem likely from tis evidence that it is a factor. I think there are a lot of factors that hold together or destroy marriages. Economic stability seems to me to be the strongest, and a society that nurtures strong family groups. Why is Massachusetts so successful in its ability to have people stay married? There is a strong emphasis on education and on sacrificing for the next generation's education. There are many other people who are in successful long-term marriages and they reinforce the idea of how this is a desirable way to live. There is an attitude of self-discipline and personal responsibility and tolerance. Although the economy isn't perfect there, a large percentage of the workforce is well-educated. These things are not as much in evidence in certain other states.

I don't think that gay marriages necessarily improve the success rates of straight marriages. However, I do think that there can be a strong link between self-discipline and tolerance. That is to say, people who are more worried about how they conduct their own lives than being thrown for a loop by the behavior of others, probably have a better chance of being successful at whatever they do, including marriage, than those who don't.

No matter how much you pretty it up or formalize or ritualize or glamorize it, or expound on its other benefits, marriage is intimately and teleologically related to reproduction. "Marriage" is how the spiritual nature of man sacramentalizes and sanctifies and hallows that which is at root the most basic aspect of man's animal nature.

The question is whether it is related to reproduction by design or by form. The Scriptures actually give us very little guidance on the purposes of marriage, especially on the concept of legal marriage. When the Scriptures refer to marriage, they are clearly not talking about state recognition but instead about a relationship blessed by the church. Even then, the transcendent nature of marriage that is often discussed today has to be inferred given the models of marriage that are described in the Scriptures.

On a practical level, it is true that marriage was created as a legal institution to protect the children born from a man and a woman, where the woman had not personal ability to protect the child because of her powerless state. To protect assets and property, marriage was created to care for the woman and the children. It is a far cry from the companionship, romantic marriage idealized now.

So to say marriage is related to reproduction is true, but incomplete. Reproduction occurs between men and women and legal marriage was created out of the practicality to protect children and women in societies where women and children were powerless. It had little to do with transcendent meaning and everything to do with legal and economic order.

That's the dilemma with same-sex marriage vis a vis legal rights being analyzed through the romantic and transcendent mythology of marriage. There's no argument that marriage has an important cultural and religious meaning--although I think the overwrought hystrionics over the collapse of the culture lack a touchstone with reality and are shockingly disconnected from the Scriptures--but we are also talking about important legal rights. The legal order that marriage creates and the legal significance of the provision of those rights is the focus of the courts and legislatures.

Donny, it's not helpful to this discussion to discuss in biological detail the proper use of mouths and anuses. Really, that's going too far, and I took out some of your last post. Frankly, I think overheated comments like yours make it hard to have a rational discussion here, but I'd have to take down five pro-gay marriage shriekers for every one of yours I took down, so yours stands.

I find it depressing that I spent an hour working on a lengthy post that actually tried to make an non-religious argument against the legalization of gay marriage (but more importantly, why it's not really possible to stop gay marriage, because it doesn't stand alone, but rather is a predictable part of a deep cultural logic that has been playing itself out in the West for 800 years), and what kind of response does it get? Pretty much the same kind of thing as if I'd quoted from the Collected Works of Fred Phelps. Thanks to those of you on both sides of the argument who have reacted as if this were something that could be rationally discussed instead of emoted over.

This is not an issue most people are interested in deliberating. I see that. The logic will continue to play itself out, and to my mind there's only one thing to be done, politically and legally: for those who resist it to construct as much of a shield for religious liberty as can be done under our constitutional order, and build the kinds of private communal structures that enable us to live out our faith and moral convictions, and pass them on to our children, while the world goes its own way.

Jack, to answer your question about how the Reformation plays into it, click on the extended portion of the original entry (the blue link at the bottom of the post). It has to do with privatizing religion and desacramentalizing marriage.

To the guy who jumped on me for giving a secular answer to a religious question: it does no good to give a religious answer to people who don't recognize the religion. We need to work to frame political arguments in terms that are convincing to most people in this pluralist democracy. It is not "cowardly" to do that, but it is certainly unwise not to even try.

Jillian, this pagan has seen nothing in the Bible that even comes close to Donny's ranting. I have read it more than to just browse. I even read it through cover to cover once, but that was (too) many years ago.

Rod's last words should be in the main banner of this page:

... it does no good to give a religious answer to people who don't recognize the religion. We need to work to frame political arguments in terms that are convincing to most people in this pluralist democracy. It is not "cowardly" to do that, but it is certainly unwise not to even try.

This pagan has tried very hard with as much civility as I can muster (less than enough at times, alas) to get this topic logically organized around the critically important distinction between secular and religious rhetoric in the realm of politics. I would disagree with Rod on just one point: finding a true and valid pluralistic approach to politics is what is missing from our political debates, and so long as it is seen in the same light as a football game or a boxing match, we will continue to see blood both actual and metaphorical. In short, it is criminally negligent to fail to promote pluralistic discourse.

Just watch your favorite campaign reporting, and all you'll see is supporters cheering the touchdowns and knockouts, and the pundits analyzing the play calling and foot work of the candidates. I have not had campaign coverage on my TV for more seconds than it took to change the channel, and I've held to that for a few years now. I prefer to not see my food a second time, thank you very much.

Rod, I find it depressing that I spent an hour working on a lengthy post [with poor response].

I hope you don't rely too much on comments (especially mine!) for a fillip to write. I read every word of these civilizational posts, and rarely comment on the parts I find the most educational.

I did read the post, and didn't agree with it. First off, every single one of the examples, the ones objecting could note that there was a person directly involved that due to the law was harmed or hindered.

Don't want a slave, don't own one? Sheesh. Only if 'don't want to BE a slave, don't be one' was an option too.

Gay marriage has nothing to do with that, since both parties directly involved are willing participants.

It isn't up to the courts, or the governments to be the guardians of the 'moral ecology' of society.

The polygamous people of the FLDS were not, ironically, accused OF polygamy. None of the men, that I'm aware of, legally married more than one woman. As far as the law was concerned, the man had one wife and a handful of mistresses.

They went for the accusations of abuse of the wives and children, then stayed for the underage sex, coercion and welfare fraud.

The reason that debate slips into craziness, Rod, is that, on the secular side, there really are absolutely no good reasons for not having gay marriage.

Here's the pros and cons, with no reference to morals or even civil rights. Pros:
1) Society has a vested interest in committed relationships. People in such relationships tend to be more responsible, raise better children, participate in the community in ways others don't.
2) Society has a vested interested in seeing those committed relationships are recognized by the state. This helps them stay together longer, it helps them get together in the first place, and it allows all of society to know of the relationship and operate in a 'default' mode WRT the two people, instead of everyone having contracts everywhere. (It's worth pointing out that the law often recognizes such relationships even when the people in them have not formalized them, aka, common-law marriages.)

Cons:
I'm sure everyone out there has turned into amateur sociologists and predicts the end of civilization in a decade if we have gay marriage, but that, honestly, is bullcrap. First of all, almost all predictive sociology is nonsense, and I'm talking about the actual formal science, not people making it up on the internet.

Society gets changed by huge trends, which sociologists can see at the time, and random inventions, which they can't until later, not because 2% of the married couples are the same gender. It's going to get changed a lot more in the next ten years by the existing credit crunch than gay marriage ever will, and it will change even more by some random new invention we've never heard of.(1)

The only effect, on culture, that gay marriage will have is, paradoxically, on gay culture, making it more like straight culture. This has actually already started...the fishnet stockings and whatnot of 'shock/rebellion' gay culture is vanishing as more and more the norm is to just find a nice partner and settle down. This is what sociologists are actually saying, that the rebellious gay culture is vanishing, just like the secretive gay culture has almost already done.

You guys don't like gay pride parades with half-naked guys humping each other and whatnot? Good news for you...in a decade or two, those things will be gone. Not in spite of gay marriage, but partially because of it. That weirdness only existed as long as gay could be a counterculture, and that, right there, is going to be the sole long-term impact on society.

WRT civil rights, of course, there's no contest. Women should have the right to marry women, it's just sexist to only allow men to do so. Same with marrying men. And, no, gay people getting married doesn't violate straight people's civil rights anymore than black people using the same restroom violates the civil rights of white people. You don't have a 'right' to exclude people from participating in activities you're participating in. And, as California's court pointed out, 'separate but equal' doesn't cut it either.

Frankly, if anyone can come up with any objection to gay marriage that isn't on moral or religious grounds, or on extremely shaky sociology, I'll be amazed.

1) For 'new invention', possibly read 'new webpage'. It's been discovered that people becoming adults now expect that they will never lose touch with school friends, thanks to email and IM and social networking sites. Which means, as these people grow up, they will have massive networks of people all over the country that they know and trust, thus reversing our cultural slide into isolationism because we change communities so much. That's right, myspace is going to change society more than gay marriage.

Gerry, has he proven it?

There's places where gay marriage is permitted, there are places where it is not, both in Europe.

Are the countries where it is permitted different from the ones where it is not? Not to any significant degree.

Hence, the idea that it is 'damaging civilization' (vague as that is) can't be verified.

Denmark's demographics are not very different from, say, Austria, which forbids any form of gay union. They don't have a significantly higher birthrate (Denmark is actually higher than much of Europe, there). There isn't a significantly lower rate of divorce (Denmark, again, actually does pretty well there, too.) And actually, in that statistic, the country that is in the top three is one where people are very vehemently anti-gay marriage. US is NUMBER TWO (we try harder)...

Of course, you'd have to get to about 8 in the low end of the list before you get to one you want to actually live in for a large amount of time, and those countries are pretty sparse until the middle of the list.

Marriage rates are an interesting statistic too. It actually (and only counting heterosexual marriages) went UP after 1989.

There's an analysis of these statistics in Denmark in this article. (And yes, I know it delays posting *sigh* But, worth it, I suppose.)

Where it specifically, with numbers, debunks Kurtz's points, one by one.

http://www.marriagedebate.com/print.php?page=/2004/05/marriage-in-scandinavia-m.htm

I predict that some variation on the Heinleinian social utopia is in our future, assuming of course we don't softly destroy ourselves economically:

Multiple marriages will become common, where two or more couples (all gender combinations) will form a family corporation to replace the functions and advantages lost by the disappearance of the extended family: shared child care, no single adult being the sole breadwinner (and putting the family at catastrophic risk from that person's loss of ability to support them), and the simple fact that the more hands doing the work, the less each pair of hands has to do and the faster the work is done.

There will be some distribution of internal monogamy (the people each couple keep each other as the only sexual partner) and extended relationship (what I've termed polyamory above). I make no prediction about what that distribution might be.

"Multiple marriages will become common, where two or more couples (all gender combinations) will form a family corporation to replace the functions and advantages lost by the disappearance of the extended family"

Franklin, sounds depressing--like Walden II. I really don't think that humans are as utilitarian based as our jurisprudence (except maybe lawyers and law students). Not everything "non-economic" is a mere societal convention.

I think gradually government will, perhaps unfortunately, no longer involve itself in marriage. In the end, there will be traditionalists and liberals--and they will form their own subcultures. Perhaps things will be a bit more stable and tranquil. I predict that because of this divergence of opinion, libertarianism (despite the fact I failed their online test) will be an increasingly popular tune. Nobody can agree on much, so aversion and fear of state power will be on the rise.

Don, I'm not sure what it is that you find depressing... perhaps it's a failure on my part to understand your perspective. Any clarification you can offer would be appreciated.

The "utilitarian" model to which I think you refer has a long-standing precedent: the "house" of unrelated and mostly single young adults on and around college campuses. Mostly single-family dwellings, personal space is limited to sleeping quarters; the rest is common, and commonly maintained. In general, no one (well, I stipulate the exceptions, having lived in one myself) is burdened with chores, living expenses are lower than in comparable apartments and often more spacious, and while sex is possible, it is not a defining characteristic of the living arrangement.

Heinlein described an ideal, and he avoided description of or debate around many important details (he was writing a story, not a sociological treatise, after all) that I certainly would like to see covered. I have only a vague recollection of Walden II, but I don't think that's a valid comparison only because my prediction is for mainstream society, not one or more sets of isolated communities. Think of it as a non-hostile oppositional idea to Rod's Benedictine ideas.

I think government must continue to be involved in the ramifications of social interactions. Economics is just as important as crime. Government's interventions can be reduced only as an increasing proportion of the society's members demonstrate ethical conduct voluntarily and in denial of the myriad temptations to act otherwise. That, I believe, is the main flaw in libertarian agendas.

At 12:41 AM Alexandra writes "Yes, I think gay marriage is deeply moral. And I think polygamy is not. Polygamy is an institution where women are treated like chattel. Very often they have little choice about whether or not they are going to be forced to be married at young ages."

I do not think "gay" marriage exists as I understand marriage.

However the overwhelming trend today is to permit anything as long as the participants have passed the magic birthday, usually 16 ,17, of 18 years old depending upon location. At our magic birthday all of us are no longer potential victims for life from sexual abuse, but are now potential pediphiles themselves.

The new potential pediphiles at the magic birthday could be male, female, straight, homosexual, bi-sexual, married, single, monogomous, polygomous, religious, secular, etc.

So polygamy is coming also, but for those beyond the magic birthday. The crime of the FLDS cult was that there were some members involved before their magic birthday.

One last idea.
Rod writes:'Redefining marriage to include same-sex partners within its definition radically changes the institution, reinforcing the idea that it has no transcendental meaning, but can be changed at will.'

I do not agree. Again, the question of exclusivity.

That something is traditional is no guarantee of 'transcendence' and that something is transcendent does not mean that we've always recognized it as such.

I accept that marriage can have a transcendental meaning but think in retrospect that gay marriage was a largely unrecognized member of that class. Perhaps there are others we've missed.

I do not think "gay" marriage exists as I understand marriage.

That was the point that I, too, was making. Call it whatever you want, but the covenantal union of a man and a woman, or a man and more than one woman, through which they breed and raise children together, is a foundational and distinct societal relationship, even though variant forms of that relationship (e.g., those between childless couples or between couples of the same sex) may share similar features. The birth of the child(ren) unites the parents and child(ren) in a unique way. So, call it marriage or call it foosball or call it oobleck, but such a relationship is uniquely formed and defined, and the term used for it and the reality it exhibits cannot be shared by a different kind of relationship, no matter how similar or overlapping their features seem to be or how "equal under the law" all such relationships are made to be. Though the term "marriage" has been made to include non-reproducing couples (and maybe always has included them), there is an ontological difference between them and those with children that no amount of placing them under the umbrella of the same word can erase.

Blue is blue and red is red, and calling them both purple doesn't change their spectral characteristics, though it may change the way they're discussed.

Should government or society maintain or erase such distinctions among/between different forms of couplings (and "couple" need not mean just "two")? Should it define a common term like "marriage" loosely or broadly enough that it encompasses several kinds of pairings, and groups those with and without offspring, as well as those incapable of producing joint offspring (male-male and female-female) together?

For a long time now the basic unit of society has been the family - Erin

Eh, I thought the basic unit of society was the individual

Sci-fi now, but give it twenty years. It is where the smart money in research is all going.
Posted by: Charles Cosimano | May 18, 2008 2:42 AM

I'll be very surprised if all that happens in twenty years, but here's hoping!

I now see the logic of that argument: marriage and especially children are now seen as something to choose, or not, based on the preferences and timetables of the couple, with little or no higher/sacramental/social/cultural considerations being determinative.
Posted by: Jack | May 18, 2008 10:47 AM

Well, yeah, a free people making their own decisions about their personal lives - how about that?

I predict that some variation on the Heinleinian social utopia is in our future, assuming of course we don't softly destroy ourselves economically
Posted by: Franklin Evans | May 18, 2008 11:04 AM

Here's hoping!

Give me one good reason why there should be secular marriage at all, in our post-religious framework. I'm betting there isn't one.
Posted by: Erin Manning | May 18, 2008 1:34 PM

To have uniform Federal tax/inheritance/property-right laws that apply to that class of people who have chosen marriage.

Gee, that was easy...

And why should people who have chosen marriage get treated better than people who haven't? Single people have to make wills. Aging baby boomers who raised kids don't get to claim them as dependents anymore. Why should we give privileges to people just because they chose to go through a meaningless archaic social ritual?

Try harder, John E.

And the secular purpose of marriage? Yep, John nailed it.

It is about a convenient package of rights and responsibilities involving child custody and care, property, etc.

Interestingly, the same reasons it mostly existed in the good old days in Europe, when marriage wasn't mostly a state OR religious affair, but mostly a family one, often officiated over by the parents of the participants (and a good sized contract).

And I'm sure they think you're wrong, including members of other faiths. *chuckle*

Should it be the State's place to officiate between various religions?

And why should people who have chosen marriage get treated better than people who haven't?
Posted by: Erin Manning | May 18, 2008 1:40 PM

I'll dispute your claim of getting treated better. They are treated differently.

To use an analogy, your question seems to me to be asking why a group of people who have chosen to organize their business arrangements as a partnership should be treated differently than a group of people who have chosen to organize their business arrangements as a joint stock company.

Likewise, a couple (or group if you want to go all polyamorous)might want to live together for a period of time but not intend to make a lifelong commitment to each other. On the other hand, some folks might want a lifelong commitment with all the legal entanglements that come along with that.

Oh, but Karen, the gay-marriage supporters I've talked to insist that marriage has *nothing* to do with child custody or care. And why should it? Isn't it a religious notion that people should raise their own kids? There are lots of other choices today--sterilization, contraception, abortion, putting the kids up for adoption, raising them as a single parent etc. So why should the state have any preference for, and give special privileges to, married people raising kids? Isn't that inherently discriminatory?

They get those done automatically by BEING married, but they don't have to get those 'advantages'. (Not so much an advantage when its debt you're inheriting, or when, in the case of community property, you're the one with more property.) All of which the parties can choose to NOT engage in by simply drawing up contracts that negate them. (For example, pre-nups).

Again, a simple convenience that those who participate either desire, or at least don't mind, and can refuse if they choose. This includes obligations and disadvantages.

Again, as noted above, similar to incorporating.

But you still haven't answered my question, Karen. *Why* should the civilly married get anything, conveniences, privileges, etc.?

Why should the state punish the unmarried?

Why should the state reward the married?

Isn't that wrong, given a secular premise?

You're taking for granted that married people are somehow entitled to these privileges. Why? What's so special about signing a contract that, in essence, says, "For the time being I agree to live with you and share stuff." What's the big deal?

My point, of course, is that absent a religious framework there's no logical reason at all to have marriage. It's pointless. All the legal conveniences aren't something any two people are somehow magically entitled to just because they make an easily breakable promise to live together. You might as well ask why there's no legal framework for college roommates to get some of these same privileges--their four-year stay in college will be longer than many so-called "marriages."

Single people have to make wills. Aging baby boomers who raised kids don't get to claim them as dependents anymore.
Posted by: Erin Manning | May 18, 2008 1:40 PM

Single people do not have to make wills. And when they die without a will, the State divides their estate according to secular law. That division is different when single people die than it is when a married person dies. Hence, the usefulness of secular marriage.

Aging boomers don't get to claim their grown children as dependents because their grown children are not dependent on them anymore.

Let's put it another way. Why should wives automatically inherit from their husbands, or husbands from their wives? Isn't that an affront to the individualistic autonomous underpinnings of our social structure?

Go back to my previous posts analogy to the business partnership - the married couple have formed an analogous legal relationship - hence the reason for the inheritance laws.

Why should husbands and wives have rights to each other's property greater than any roommate's right to share his roomie's stuff? When roommates decide to move on or out, they don't dream of getting to take each other's stuff by some kind of legal privilege. Why should spouses have any right to each other's stuff, either? Stuff bought in common can always be divided equitably without some archaic meaningless social ritual, after all.

And if the people involved want that sort of non-entangled relationship, they can have that by foregoing the process of civil marriage and simply live together.

As it is, in the present time, spousal property rights are just a way for the less ambitious, less employed spouse to rip off the more ambitious, wealthier one. Shouldn't we have moved past that by now? Nobody gets a free ride, you know.

No, as I said before, the married couple have created a partnership and agreed to entangle their finances.

Why should making a temporary, non-exclusive "commitment" to another person give you any special rights and privileges at all, in the secular framework?
Posted by: Erin Manning | May 18, 2008 1:47 PM

It doesn't. As I previously mentioned, people who live together without marriage don't have inheritance or property rights.

My point, of course, is that absent a religious framework there's no logical reason at all to have marriage. It's pointless.

I disagree. In fact, my coupling (pun intended) of "marriage" to breeding and raising children functions quite well without a religious framework, IMNSHO. My earlier post brought in Paul's likening the marriage/sexual relationship to that between Christ and the Church, but the point about marriage being able to be uniquely and teleologically defined in terms of a man and woman/women reproducing their children, which then defines that arrangement ontologically, does not need a religious framework to stand.

Heading out for the afternoon, but I just want to say one more thing.

Nobody's really answering the "why" question.

You're saying that marriage is just like incorporating, that these are conveniences that people can opt out of, etc. But what I want to know is why two people who happen to shack up for a time period should be entitled to *any* rights, privileges, conveniences, etc., or why the state should take any notice of their relationship at all?

Does the state care who you love? Does the state get dewey-eyed at weddings? Not so much.

There were reasons marriages came to exist at all, but we've done away with those reasons (except for Daniel, who's being surprisingly conservative in his assertion that these things still matter, or ought to). If we no longer believe that marriage has anything to do with the protection of children, the protection of women, the legal responsibilities of parents toward their (mostly) biological offspring, then what the heck is marriage for, anyway? And *why* should married people get some kind of convenience package deal to make their taxes and property rights easier to deal with than single people do? Because they've signed an easily breakable paper making a meaningless and utterly inconsequential "promise" to each other?

Back later.

The officiating of religious bodies at weddings wasn't even codified until the Council of Trent in the 1500's. Obviously, they had weddings and marriages without requiring any religious involvement for centuries before that.

Again, it was about protection of assets, a list of contracted obligations and rights between the parties involved, etc. (This list of rights and obligations changes over time, and between various governments. Women, for instance, had no rights to custody of children in some times and places, and an advantage at others.)

And why do corporations get the same thing? *shrug*

Heading out for the afternoon, but I just want to say one more thing. Nobody's really answering the "why" question.

I think the "why" question has been answered numerous times in numerous responses, but it's a collection of answers, not a single succinct statement.

I also think that your hypotheses:

There were reasons marriages came to exist at all, but we've done away with those reasons (except for Daniel, who's being surprisingly conservative in his assertion that these things still matter, or ought to). If we no longer believe that marriage has anything to do with the protection of children, the protection of women, the legal responsibilities of parents toward their (mostly) biological offspring, then what the heck is marriage for, anyway? And *why* should married people get some kind of convenience package deal to make their taxes and property rights easier to deal with than single people do? Because they've signed an easily breakable paper making a meaningless and utterly inconsequential "promise" to each other?

may be implying some "ifs" and things "we've done away with" that may not in fact be true.

See ya when ya get back! :^)

You're saying that marriage is just like incorporating, that these are conveniences that people can opt out of, etc. But what I want to know is why two people who happen to shack up for a time period should be entitled to *any* rights, privileges, conveniences, etc., or why the state should take any notice of their relationship at all?
Posted by: Erin Manning | May 18, 2008 2:05 PM

*Bangs head against wall*

Erin, the State does not recognize the rights, privileges, and conveniences or take notice of their relationship of people who shack up.

That's the point - living together without marriage is a different civil legal arrangement than civil marriage.

Does the state care who you love? Does the state get dewey-eyed at weddings? Not so much.

No, just like the State doesn't "care" if I form a partnership with some other person to form a company that sells used cars.

However - if my business partner and I have a disagreement that is associated with our partnership or if we dissolve the partnership, the State has a standard set of rules that apply to our partnership.

And *why* should married people get some kind of convenience package deal to make their taxes and property rights easier to deal with than single people do?

Because single people have not entangled their finances in the same sort of way that married people have.

Because they've signed an easily breakable paper making a meaningless and utterly inconsequential "promise" to each other?

Yes, exactly. Just as my hypothetical business partner and I can choose to dissolve that entanglement, so also can a married couple dissolve their marriage - and just as there is a default set of civil rules that apply to the business being dissolved, so also is there a default set of civil rules that apply to the marriage being dissolved.

Back later.
Posted by: Erin Manning | May 18, 2008 2:05 PM

Looking forward to it.

I don’t take Rod very seriously when he says the battle is already lost. Unless Beliefnet pays him by the number of responses in the comboxes, I can’t imagine why he would post this unless he thought that the ensuing discussion might help the defense of marriage.
***
To “square circles” by Maclin Horton on May 17 at 6:22 PM I say, “Amen. You beat me to it.” . Every headline about some court striking down a “gay marriage ban” grates as much for its insouciant debasement of language and subtle shifting of the onus of persuasion as much as for the blow to self-governance such decisions represent.
***
To those who think surplus single males are an argument against polygamy, how dare you force one of those losers on women who would freely choose to marry the Alpha male?
I think your allies in favor of SSM, who admit that polygamy is logical given the autonomy premise behind same-sex marriage, are candid and correct. I think you're either fibbing or kidding yourselves.
***
“The real question … is: Do gay relationships deserve subsidy from taxpayers? … Posted by: Rick | May 17, 2008 7:19 PM”

“Fast forward to widespread artificial contraception and abortion. Children are no longer the natural and expected result of any male/female relationship …
My honest inclination these days is to agitate for the abolition of civil marriage altogether. There's just not going to be any such thing anymore, so why bother propping up what's rapidly becoming a meaningless notion? … Civil marriage is already about 90% meaningless, and when gay marriage is legalized it'll be 100% meaningless … Posted by: Erin Manning | May 17, 2008 7:44 PM”

I group Rick and Erin's comments because of their kindred spirit.
I am not ready to abolish civil marriage yet because I don’t think the battle is irrevocably lost yet. But I do think that there is precious little governmental interest in issuing licenses, cutting tax breaks, providing for intestate succession and such for inherently-infertile same-sex relationships. (Yes, if we could reliably and unintrusively identify the free rider hetero couples, who never intended to have children – which I don’t think we can – the same would go for them.)
The purported increase in happiness when people pair up is, if true, its own reward. The only reason I see for the civil institution of marriage is the nexus with procreation. See Morrison v. Sadler, the Indiana same-sex marriage case, which is well reasoned (and in which my law firm filed an Amicus Brief)
***
“Gay's haven't been fleeing the country in droves for all the decades that gay marriage was illegal. Didn't hear much about "abandon ship" when endless bashings, hate crimes, murders, etc. were inflicted upon them. But now, as soon as it's legal for them to marry in a few places, conservatives like Erin are apparently fleeing for the hills of some Muslim country or other conservative stronghold.” JPL
I don’t believe you. I have listened carefully over many years, and I am strongly inclined to think that bashings, hate crimes, and murders of gays *as gays* are largely (not entirely) mythical. Hate crimes statistics, now being gathered, tend to support me on this.

Social/religious conservatives/traditionalists and secular leftists have two very different, irreconcilable theological worldviews. Consequently, as I’ve mentioned here before, the two groups simply live in two different moral universes. I don’t think any amount of facts or studies will change how we see these issues, because they run much deeper than facts or studies. For instance, I’m a religious conservative. While I highly doubt this will ever happen, my view of homosexual behavior and “gay marriage” wouldn’t change a bit if a solidly done study showed that “gay marriages” were as stable or even more stable than real marriages, i.e. those between a man and a woman. Why not? Because I see homosexual behavior as intrinsically immoral and "gay marriage" as a complete farce. The whole issue of “orientation” is irrelevant because the act itself is immoral. It would be the same if some study concluded that adulterous relationships and sex with prostitutes was more satisfying than sex between married couples. Since I believe that adultery and prostitution are morally wrong, the utilitarian approach to issues like this simply won’t fly.
I would argue that the same could be said for secular leftists. For example, some of them on this board argue for “gay marriage” but against consenting adults forming polygamous unions. Yet there is no logical argument for this, only one based in feminist ideology. Also, from everything I’ve read, despite the increased normalization of homosexuality, homosexuals have a higher rate of depression, domestic abuse between partners, and venereal disease. Likewise, divorce and illegitimacy impoverishes men, women, and children and has negative psychological effects on all parties involved. It also has an adverse affect on the environment by requiring people to split households and consume more resources. Divorce and illegitimacy are leading causes of childhood poverty. Yet secular leftists spend little if any effort decrying these trends (except to state that divorce is higher in red states, which is red herring since as in Europe many more people in blue states have simply given up on marriage altogether, thus cohabitation rates are higher there). Why not? Because it would throw all of the assumptions of the sexual revolution into question. And individual sexual fulfillment is more important to the secular left than anything else, including fighting poverty and protecting the environment. I heard on NPR not too long ago that a study showed that liberals and conservatives personal behaviors with respect to the environment don’t differ at all, and conservatives give more to charity than liberals.

I’m not interested in this thread in discussing “gay marriage” with the secular leftists on this board. So don’t be surprised if I choose to ignore whatever comments you may make with respect to this post. What I’m interested in is discussing the future with my fellow social/religious conservatives. How now should we live with the culture headed in the direction it is and with “gay marriage” and who knows what other nonsense and perversity likely to be imposed by the courts or even the federal government?
I think mdavid’s observations were good ones, and I’d like to offer some other thoughts religious conservatives should approach the next 10-30 years in this country.

1) Above all, our loyalty is to Christ and his church. Everything else is secondary to the Gospel. We should seek to be salt and light to the world, to tell others about Christ and to help the poor and those in need. Not everyone is going to believe the Gospel, and we will face opposition and possibly persecution to one degree or the other. This, however, should come as no surprise and it is certainly nothing new.

2) We should passionately and intelligently defend our convictions on the Gospel and on issues like abortion and sexual morality, but do it with love. Don’t forget we have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. This isn’t always easy, and I certainly hadn’t been perfect with this both on this board and other places.

3) We need to continue to engage the nation in the realm of its culture, politics, and in evangelism. Politics is important, but as the psalmist says “put not your trust in princes and sons of men.” We can’t put too much stock in politics or one party, and bigger cultural changes are ultimately of greater importance than elections. Politically, we might be better served by pushing for a more libertarian and federalists order, which would especially allow those of us living in more conservative states continue our way of life.

4) I’m convinced that on the long term, our biggest problem politically will be defending our civil liberties. I don’t trust the secular left for a minute with them, and think they would ultimately impose a kind of “soft totalitarianism” on religious conservatives if they could. As with everything else, the sexual revolution will be more important to them than first amendment rights, including freedom of speech and religion. The big battlegrounds will be things like teaching about/being forced to celebrate or acknowledge as normal homosexuality in public schools and other public positions, the right of Christian doctors and pharamacists to opt out of doing things that goes against their conscience (ex: artificially inseminating lesbians, the “morning after” pill, abortion, etc.).

5) I think we religious conservatives do need to engage the culture, but we will have to insulate ourselves from it more at the same time. Mdavid is right that we can and probably should circle the wagons more. Live close, work locally. Strengthen our families and our churches. Avoid social liberals and the so-called “culture” they produce. Have more children and focus on raising them to be godly. I attended a wedding this weekend where a lot of Mennonite families were present. I think we could learn a thing or two from the Mennonites and the Amish. They aren’t perfect, but they do tend to raise large families, and the vast majority of their children stay in their religious tradition.

6) Work with each other whenever possible. I’m a conservative Lutheran theologically. But I’m more than glad to work on all these issues with my brothers and sisters in Christ in the Catholic, Orthodox, and Evangelical churches. My beliefs and values are a lot closer to a conservative Catholic or Baptist than a liberal Lutheran, and I think the same is true vice versa. I expect the mainline churches will continue to die, and this is a good thing.

7) Finally, as Mdavid correctly points out, demographics and thus time are definitely on our side. Europe will either return to Christianity or become Muslim. Secularists there simply don’t have enough children to sustain their belief system in the long run. Same thing in this country. Secular leftists simply don’t reproduce in enough numbers, the only way they can grow is through "converts." Maybe we shouldn’t even get so upset about the farce known as “gay marriage.” After all, since it is inherently sterile. Even if allowed adoption and artificial insemination are troublesome and don't make for large families. Ultimately, it is doomed to failure as a sustainable form of family life anyway. Unless our churches and communities complete implode by buying into the ideas of secular leftists, in 30-40 years they will be a small minority anyway. They can “win” politically and possibly make our lives more difficult, but they can never “win” because of basic demographics and because the values of the sexual revolution don’t allow for the formation of long-lasting, larger, stable families.

Any other thoughts from fellow religious conservatives about how we should approach the future?

rr

As rr implies, and to paraphrase a popular saying: "He who dies with the most children wins."

Nobody's really answering the "why" question.

If the state had to become involved in great detail with how to divide every estate upon death, who gets to make decisions for minors or other people unable to make their own decisions, the state would come to a grinding halt. The state, absent religion, has great financial interest in people having stable relationships that do not require courtroom activity to resolve every problem. Stable marriages mean stable families which means better educational outcomes for children.

In a country with all atheists, there would still be a compelling desire by the state to have people marry, at least in our kind of economy. There may also be a compelling interest by the state to have gays marry if it promotes monogamous relationships. I have not read data myself on whether or not this is true in Europe where they have gay marriage, but others have suggested this to be the case. Giving up the gay bath-house anonymous sex routine would be a great boon to the state (please see healthcare costs in the US). Who gets to decide end of life decisions, who gets to visit in the hospital are all things that the state uses marriage to help us decide. Do you really want the state to rule on these things every time they happen? As it stands now btw, a stable monogamous gay couple in most states will have decisions made by other family members rather than their partner if they become incompetent.

Steve

Steve

Mark,

I do want to avoid lengthy discussions with secular leftist for the purposes of discussing how to live in the future with my fellow social conservatives. My comment was just a brief one to correct your laughable false assertion that liberals (and I'm not talking about politicians, but about the radical left that emerged from the 1960s and 1970s sexual revolution) are interested in protecting marriage. Oh, and finally, your friends may be Republican, but they sure aren't conservatives. Not all Republicans are social/religious conservatives, some are just country club/economic conservatives who are more interested in tax cuts and Wall Street than anything else.

rr

Mark in Houston @ 3:21 PM writes:

"Hey, I thought you were ignoring us social liberals! Also, how interesting, I didn't know that LBJ, George McGovern, Ed Muskie and other important liberal leaders of the late 1960s and early 1970s were wanting to get rid of marriage. Oh, you don't mean those guys, you mean a few writers and campus protesters in their 20s and living in a cloud of marijuana smoke? Ah, now I see. Sorry for the confusion."

If the said politicians wished to obtain their goals--maintaining their power and tenure in office--by accepting the support of the campus radicals, then they have to accept the supporters' goals. "To will the end is to will the means necessary to accomplish it."--S.M. Stirling.

"Oh, one last thing, dear. There are more than a few conservatives partaking in pre-marital sex and cohabitation, so let's not call that an exercise in liberalism. In fact, in my little world, it's my Republican friends who are more likely to be getting divorced or running around at topless bars than my (sometimes rather bland, frankly) liberal friends. But, that's life in the big city."

What happened to the stereotypical liberal acceptance of the imperfections of man ? Just because those who profess a particular view act hypocritically does not make the view itself incorrect. For "all have sinned and all fall short of the glory of God". Romans 3:23. The real question is what one does when one's imperfections are pointed out.....After all, Matthew 22:14 tells us "For many are called, but few are chosen." I take it, then, that your ox isn't the one being gored here ?

Hypocrite, thy name is Legion. Or Human, as the case may be.

Relishing the Sheer Entertainment Value of it all, I remain, most humbly.....

Your servant,

Lord Karth

To mdavid and others:
I just came back from singing a wedding in THE traditional Church. There were NO vows whatever. The couple voluntarily presented themselves for betrothal, then proceeded to the center of the Church where, over the next 45 minutes or so, the Priest sacramentally joined them in wedlock. The prayers over the couple (prescribed, not ad libbed) were pervasively procreative. It is simply impossible that two persons of the same sex could be so joined sacramentally; the procreative imagery would be a mockery.
Protestant SSM opponents need to consider seriously the argument that the Reformation, by denying the sacramental nature of marriage, pushed the institution onto a long and slippery slope. Since you presumably realize that you can't invent a new sacrament because deteriorating social conditions call for it, you should consider that the Reformers took a wrong turn by, when Rome refused to reform, inventing an ersatz "church" rather than looking eastward for a Church that needed no Reformation.

To SSM proponents:
I am fully aware that what I sang was sacramental, and that the state is not in the sacrament business. But SSM proponents can't get out so easily as that: the state, too, has an interest in procreative unions. Indeed, in my lifetime it was necessary that a marriage be consummated by vaginal intercourse (necessary in the sense that a ostensible marriage could be legally annulled without it; no divorce was necessary). No other orgasmic act would suffice. So unless one wants to treat the last 40 contraceptive years as the norm, which I refuse to do, there is some principled reason for viewing SSM as a "square circle."

"I just came back from singing a wedding in THE traditional Church. There were NO vows whatever. The couple voluntarily presented themselves for betrothal, then proceeded to the center of the Church where, over the next 45 minutes or so, the Priest sacramentally joined them in wedlock."

Last I heard, THE traditional Church took the position that the sacrament of matrimony is conferred on the parties by each other, and the priest (or deacon) is only the church's official witness. In a pinch, where no priest or deacon is available, the parties can enter into matrimony without one.

"This is a good versus evil situation through and through. How do you think Sodom and Gomorrah got to be Sodom and Gomorrah."

The Jewish tradition thinks they got that way by being stingy, vicious, and nasty to strangers, poor people, local wildlife, and any other beings with no local clout. Their proposed gang-rape of the angels was just a special case of how they treated strangers, and, like most rapes, was more about violence than about sex.

That, I think, is a selective reading of Scripture (e.g., Ezekiel 16) and ignores what Jude, a Jew writing/reflecting Jewish tradition, says about Sodom and Gomorrah. I.e., it was about sexual immorality.

Well, I see neither Erin, nor Rod, nor any other conservative cheerleader, took the challenge of my question.

That question was,if scientific, measurable proof were to arise that gay marriage incontrovertibly benefited human society on multiple levels (sociological, political, economic, psychological), how many of you would support it, regardless of your own religious beliefs?

For example, were I to become convinced that gay marriage really did hurt society, children, and families, I would oppose it, even though on a religious/moral level I believe it should be allowed. Should the reverse be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, Erin, Rod, etc, would you support it?

I suspect the answer is no, because to do so would oppose your church and faith. If not, state so now. If no amount of evidence could ever convince you otherwise, there is hardly any reason to discuss it with you. It's clearly nothing but a religious conviction you try to force on others, and hence to be resisted. If not, say so. Answer the question.

Also, what do you think of the argument that gay marriage is, for gay couples, a step towards community and away from the individualism of non-legally-recognized relationships?

Posted by z
==========================================================
Are you predicting that, with the advent of same-sex marriage, corporations and government will withdraw benefits for domestic-partner relationships, either hetero or same-sex? It won't ever happen. This would be viewed as a type of discrimination based on marital status. The genie is out of the bottle.

Are you predicting that, with the advent of same-sex marriage, corporations and government will withdraw benefits for domestic-partner relationships, either hetero or same-sex? It won't ever happen. This would be viewed as a type of discrimination based on marital status. The genie is out of the bottle.
Posted by: Catholic to the Core | May 18, 2008 7:15 PM

Eh? The companies I have worked for in the past that offered domestic partner benefits only offered them to same sex couples - on the grounds that heterosexual couples could marry and thus become eligible.

rr says (even though he's not paying attention to us secular liberals: "Not all Republicans are social/religious conservatives, some are just country club/economic conservatives who are more interested in tax cuts and Wall Street than anything else."

Thanks, I know that, having been such a Republican in an earlier life. The problem for social conservatives is, that other sort of Republican is the kind that writes the checks and makes the deals that allow the GOP to exist. They've made a pact with social conservatives that, while frayed, allows them to get what they want, and believe me, they aren't any kinder to social conservatives than people who proudly call themselves liberal Democrats. That's one of the reasons why our side does so well in the culture wars, because a good chunk of the GOP isn't really on board for those wars, so social conservatives have to watch their backs and flanks as well as the trenches in front of them.

And Lord Karth, I have no idea what you are talking about, in that I certainly wasn't criticizing my Republican friends who live like rock stars. I simply was pointing out that such a lifestyle isn't unique to the liberal left.

Eh? The companies I have worked for in the past that offered domestic partner benefits only offered them to same sex couples - on the grounds that heterosexual couples could marry and thus become eligible.

Posted by John E.
==========================================================
Not so. Check out the following from the Tucson Citizen. Just one example of many.

http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/ss/local/75655.php

"In short, it would allow state employees with domestic partners, gay or straight, to claim the same benefits as married couples."

It's true. All your children are belong to us. :)

quote: "Legal "marriage" simply doesn't mean anything anymore unless it's in a traditional church and the two people take their vows in a traditional manner. But homosexuals and the non-religious so desperately want a piece of this tradition by playing make-believe. It's really kind of sad. This is why the whole gay marriage thing really doesn't even make me blink - who cares? Libs are parasites on conservative culture, have been for decades now, and it's about all used up. Why grow flowers for liberal culture to mow down? Move the garden, and watch it bloom.

In truth, I'm glad the libs are overreaching so badly. It will take even more foolishness before Christians make a real solid break from the culture, so this sort of thing is a gift. More, please."

Mdavid,

I think you're on to something here. Any reaction to my earlier points?

rr

Well, I'm back. :)

JPL, I didn't answer your question because it's a begging the question kind of thing, along with being one of those hypotheticals like "What if you could steal one art treasure without getting caught--which would it be?" which is conveniently unanswerable by anyone who has previously expressed a moral opposition to stealing. I'll be happy to elaborate, but it's also kind of like saying "What if you could prove that murdering *some* people will help society--wouldn't you be in favor of legalized murder under those conditions?" The short answer is that this question too has a moral dimension, and trying to frame the question in such a way as to eradicate the moral dimension is attempting to force an answer in favor of the group that wants all the immorality.

As to the question I asked above, I think Reader John's post at 2:37 above comes the closest to answering. Why should the government bother to get involved in relationships that are not only inherently but intrinsically infertile? Where there can *never* be 'surprise' children who are the biological children of both parents in the relationship, and who might end up being wards of the state if the parents aren't prepared to accept the responsibility?

Gay relationships and heterosexual ones are inherently and intrinsically unequal because of this simple biological reality. For a gay couple to "have" children they have to be raising children who have at least one parent outside the relationship; they can never, ever raise children who are their, *as a couple,* own biological offspring.

Why should the law force one gay "spouse" to leave all of his estate to the other gay "spouse"? For the sake of the children? Whose children? The deceased "spouse's" children with his heterosexual ex-wife, who receives all of the responsibility of raising the children whom the gay "spouse" decided not to adopt, while receiving none of the estate to help her in this task?

No, once we approve gay marriage we have once and for all declared as a society that children are not even remotely connected to marriage, that "marriage," whatever else it is, is not a procreative relationship.

Why do I say that? Simple. It's called anti-discrimination laws.

The law will never give heterosexual married people a right that homosexual "married" people aren't entitled to. The law can't do that--it must treat all "married" people the same way.

So the law is going to have to stop acting like some people actually have their children with each other. The law will probably change, eventually, by tying all of the rights and all of the responsibilities concerning children to the birth parent; heterosexual couples who want the father to have any sort of automatic access and/or say over his children will probably have to go to court to get that, in the brave new future when all marriages are assumed to involve only *one* parent with any biological connection to the child/children.

Think Dad will simply have to do a DNA/paternity test to get rights? Think again. That would amount to an unequal treatment under the law, a privilege that only heterosexual couples would be able to access. No, Dad will have to do what the gay "dads" do: formally adopt his own children--who will not be seen as his in any sense without that step. I can't see any other way for the law to be "blind" here; that is, to continue to pretend that there is absolutely no difference at all between a heterosexual marriage and a homosexual one.

So, essentially, gay marriage abolishes automatic biological fatherhood as something the law recognizes as a feature of marriages. Now, I think it will probably take forty or fifty years for this little reality to play out in the court system, but it will play out. You can't have one legal state, "marriage," in which one type of marriage has rights and privileges attached to it, centering around the couple's biological offspring, that the other type does not and never can have.

"my libertarian side says that it's inherently wrong to deny secular rights (tax law, inheritances, insurance policies) to homosexual couples."

And what about single people? If we have been denied benefits in favor of hetero sexual married couples, presumably that was for the children. But as a single, what do homo couples do for me that I should have to pick up any tax burden on their account?

Maybe the next group which should organize and fight for special privileges are the singles. Or maybe all the legal privileges should be abolished as in 1789.

"But as a single, what do homo couples do for me that I should have to pick up any tax burden on their account?"

Caroline, I think you win. That's the whole point I was trying to make with my "why have civil marriage at all?" question.

It's one thing to ask singles to pay higher tax rates etc. when the benefits are going for the prorogation and raising of future generations, so to speak. If a few accidentally infertile married couples end up with access to the benefits, we shrug it off as still being for the good of the majority of parents who are raising their own biological children. But with gay marriage, you're opening all the benefits tied to the future of society to people who are intrinsically infertile *as couples.* Sure they can have kids outside the relationship, or adopt--but so can single people, who don't automatically get access to all the marriage privileges by doing so. So why *should* single people have to pay into layers of societal protection for people who will not unexpectedly "fall pregnant" as the British put it--not ever?

I've very confused that Erin apparently thinks we should have tax breaks for married couples. Um, if we want to help people raise children, using tax breaks, there's a trivial way to do that that doesn't anything to do with marriage, specifically, give tax breaks for children.

In fact, I think Erin's entire premise is somewhat faulty. Married couples usually don't get a tax break. While I'm not married, and thus don't know much about how the taxes differ, I do hear the term 'marriage tax'. Yet, suddenly when talking about gay marriage, they get magical tax breaks because society wants to support children. Which is it?

Regardless of which way that is, if we want to provide tax breaks for married couples raising children, let's provide tax breaks for married, gay or otherwise, couples raising children, and not for couples not doing so. We may not want to provide children-based tax breaks to gay people, but we don't want to provide them to infertile couples either! (Whether we should provide such breaks to single parents raising children is, of course, another issue entirely, as is whether or not we should reward couples simply for staying together...like I said, long-term relationships, regardless of children, are good for society. But both those issues aren't relevant here.)

Gay couples do not want marriage because of tax breaks. They want marriage because of other spousal benefits, benefits not provided by the government. Usually intangible things like hospital visitation/medical-decision making rights and inheritance issues, along with the whole host of things that a dozen contracts could, in theory provide, but marriage provides by default.

David TC: "While I'm not married, and thus don't know much about how the taxes differ, I do hear the term 'marriage tax'."

Aka: Marriage penalty. It's not a single penalty per se, but you can run afoul of it depending on each spouse's income level. I think it was particularly bad if both were working and had about the same income.

"Regardless of which way that is, if we want to provide tax breaks for married couples raising children, let's provide tax breaks for married, gay or otherwise, couples raising children, and not for couples not doing so."

Bingo. Mr. Molehill, meet Mr. Simple Solution.

"They want marriage because of other spousal benefits, benefits not provided by the government."

Not quite. Social security is a big thing. To the extent that couples can work together for decades, share sacrifices in support of each other, it's ridiculous to exclude one person in the couple from the SS benefits. That said, there are many other important issues that don't involve government benefits. And at least for now, gay marriages in the US carry no Federal government benefits.

I received an error message when I tried to post this, so I'm trying again:

Unsympathetic reader, maybe I can phrase it another way:

Is there any difference at all, at a fundamental level, between a heterosexual marriage and a homosexual one? If we agree that there is (e.g. at least the potential of reproduction as the ordinary and expected result of heterosexual marriage), how does the law equitably make distinctions between the two kinds of marriage while pretending that they're legally exactly the same? If we agree that the law, at least, must pretend that there's absolutely no difference at all between heterosexual marriage and the ordinary accompanying biological parenthood and homosexual marriage with its totally optional, completely not-expected, "children as accessories" occasional selective parenthood which has *absolutely nothing* philosophically (or, indeed, historically) to do with this kind of relationship--how do we suggest that the law do this?

What I'm trying to say is that it's inherently unjust to create laws, set legal standards etc. which pretend that people in the kind of relationship which *is* the kind of relationship which physically produces children (whether each and every individual couple is capable of reproduction or not) are *exactly the same* as people in the kind of relationship which can never, ever, ever physically produce biological offspring, and whose participants indeed can *never* "become parents" in the ordinary and expected way as a couple.

As Caroline asked above, why should she, a single person, have to pay into a system to take care of the children of other single people who decide to live together, adopt children or "create" them with sperm donors etc., and otherwise create for themselves the fiction that they're exactly like a heterosexual couple who share joint biological parenthood as one of the ordinary results of a heterosexual relationship? Aren't we really, at the deepest fundamental societal level, defining the married heterosexual family out of existence?

As you can see, Erin simply refuses to answer the question. Removing the "moral dimention" begs the question. As if the question over whether gay marriage provides a benefit to society sociologically, psychologically, economically, or in any other manner has no possible moral dimension.

Of course, she's being truthful. To her, and others like her, the ONLY moral dimension possible is "Does God approve?" or "Does the Church approve?" The possibility of a moral dimension that doesn't involve her chosen flavor of deity is simply inconceivable. Can't be addressed. Doesn't exist. Ignore the man behind the curtain.

At least she's smart enough to see the trap. If she said "Yes, I'd support gay marriage if incontrovertible proof came forward it benefited society." she undermines the entire religious argument, and in fact calls her faith into dire question. If ANY evidence could possibly turn her from the faith-based position she takes, it calls the faith into question, from the absolutist perspective she takes.

Conversely, should she say "No, I still wouldn't accept it, regardless of the benefit to society." it becomes evident that all the sociological, etc. arguments are pure smokescreen, and really it all comes down to religious conviction.

Which is of course the truth. Because in her mind, and Rod's, and minds of people like them, either their faith is correct, or gay marriage is correct. Not both. Their minds can't accept the idea of a valid religious belief that supports gay marriage. And that's why the incredible degree of reaction vented here.

I knew beyond question no honest answer would be forthcoming. Fear of God is supposed to be the beginning of wisdom, but for many here, it simply breeds a dishonest unwillingness to confront the truth about their own homophobia.

I've very confused that Erin apparently thinks we should have tax breaks for married couples. Um, if we want to help people raise children, using tax breaks, there's a trivial way to do that that doesn't anything to do with marriage, specifically, give tax breaks for children.
Posted by: DavidTC | May 18, 2008 10:00 PM

Don't we have that already when the tax code allows deductions for claimed dependents?

There's no point. It's [civil marriage] utterly meaningless, a tangle of laws to make divorce attorneys rich. Get rid of it.
Posted by: Erin Manning | May 18, 2008 11:09 PM

How is that different from saying that the laws and regulations surrounding joint stock companies is a tangle of laws to make corporate attorneys rich?

The point of civil marriage is to define the rights and responsibilities of the people who choose that association, both during the marriage and in case they dissolve the marriage.

Why does society do this? Because having stable relationships helps stabilize society.

Stefanie brings me back to my original question: if the protection of children no longer requires people to be married, why. have. civil. marriage. at. all?

Actually, she doesn't. She said it wasn't the fundamental basis, but she didn't sat it wasn't some basis or even a purpose. The mere fact that we don't do fertility testing to obtain a marriage license, we allow the elderly to marry, we even allow prisoners who will never leave prison and never have sex to marry undermines the notion that protecting children is the FUNDAMENETAL basis for civil marriage.

That doesn't mean, however, that it isn't a significant basis for marriage or even an important basis for marriage. It just isn't the sole purpose of marriage, which is what you keep insisting.

Gay people represent a small number of people overall in society. The number of couples who already cannot have children who are allowed to marry is likely greater than the number of gay marriages that will be created. Yet, Erin wasn't prepared to toss out marriage once the infertility rate rose and I bet she never suggested that infertility tests be performed as part of the marriage license process.

And there's no reason to believe that allowing gay people to marry--and many of those couples will have children--will disonnect marriage from children to the point that anti-discrimination laws would be triggered. That's just overwrought and intellectually dishonest.

There's no point. It's [civil marriage] utterly meaningless, a tangle of laws to make divorce attorneys rich. Get rid of it.
Posted by: Erin Manning | May 18, 2008 11:09 PM

It is even messier when people with children who are not married separate. That really makes lawyers rich.

Steve

Yes, Erin, because people should have to give up their homes, and move to another state, so they can get the same thing that any hetero couple can get by wandering in somewhere. And of course, my wife and I, who've been together 13 years, but have no children, have a marriage without any legal meaning or value to you. And my previous wife of 13 years, with whom I have a wonderful son, our marriage was of course valid, since we spawned.

Woman have fought for generations to be more than man-owned, church-operated breeding machines. Apparently, you consider that to be their loftiest qualification. Any union short of that carries no import.

And the idea of a five-year mandatory counseling period before divorce could occur demonstrates so massive a lack of psychological understanding as to just be sad.

Your phone is ringing. Pick it up. The Medieval Period is calling, and wants its world view back.

@Erin Manning:
"Frankly, the statistics so far seem to say that even in these "meaningless marriage" days few gay couples are rushing to the altar"

So what you are saying in all these messages is:

1. Gays getting married has massive social consequences.It will change society in fundamental ways, none of which are appealing to you.
2. But very few gays are actually getting married.
3. The sky is falling! Run to the hills!

OK, the logic in there is a little opaque to me but if it makes sense to you, fine.

"In other words, we're not far off from Tom and Steve being able to have biological offspring identical to that of a heterosexual couple.

Thoughts?"

Posted by: TheProfessor | May 19, 2008 5:13 AM

I have never veered from the accurate observation that "Anything Goes," is the actual religion of The Left (That is, everything goes except Christianity). That being noted, we have the carriers of evil called by the neologisms: Liberal, Progressive, Humanist, Free Thinker, Atheist. It also goes hand in hand with horror being the result when "Anything Goes" is the moral compass of a society. Now we have the horror of human behavior coupled with science fiction horror becoming a real life event. If you don't believe that Satan and demonic evil is real, then just talk to a Liberal, Progressive, Humanist, Free Thinker, Atheist. They have proven the reality of evil, and of course it is called good. But then again, it looks as if the Leftist side of mankind is even worse than Satan.

Erin, JPL,

I do not believe the federal tax code recognizes any gay marriages -- even those performed in MA.

"...a same-sex spouse under Massachusetts law or a same-sex domestic partner under any other state law cannot qualify as a spouse under any federal laws."

The Professor

...how will this technological advancement change that?

Personally I think we need to look at much stronger regulations / disincentives for reproductive technologies. One way we could do this immediately: Make sperm or egg donors liable for child support.

Really, by what logic do we immunize sperm donors from financial responsibility for their progeny who may become dependent upon public benefits?

Daniel writes "BTW, if you believe civil marriage is meaningless, would you be willing to have a church wedding but bypass the marriage certificate and legal rights? "

Sure, If it can to that. My wife and I were married in the rites of the Roman Catholic Church following much preparation. I would not fear or accept any accusation of promiscuity or labeling of "bastard" or "illigitimate" for children if there were no marriage license from the state.

We could do without the the benefits if we had to. Especially if everyone else also had to. On a day to day basis it does not mean all that much.

HIPAA rules would require the Goodguyex not be given information about his wife if she were hospitalized, assuming that they knew he was not legally (sanctioned by the state) married. His wife's family would have to obtain info or his children and then pass it on to him. While that may be unlikely (with instant computer access and the need for hospitals to protect against suits it may happen in the future) it could be an issue for estate taxes and others listed byKkaren above.

Steve

Erin
Arguing that the government wants people to marry to "encourage stable relationships" in the absence of the whole "Hey, we just created a child together! Now what?" problem is laughable, Daniel.

No, thinking it's laughable is actually pretty laughable. Stable couples are much better for society. They're less likely to end up homeless or on welfare, they're more like to do charity work, they're a lot less likely to move so more likely to have a connection to the community and try to make it prosper.

You conservatives rant and rave about 'single parents', and a lot of it is nonsense, but some of it is true...their situation isn't as stable as two-parent households. So I find it somewhat odd that you're now asserting that two-adult households without children aren't more stable than one-adult households. (And I say this as a single person, incidentally.)

Couples can pick up each other's 'slack' that lets them avoid problems that singles don't. If one spouse has a problem of some sort, the other can work twice as hard and in the end, they're back to normal, whereas if a single person has a problem, often that will cascade into a series of badness.

In this world of people moving around and non-extended families, having just one other that is family, one other person they can count on, is incredibly helpful. And by that person being helpful, it means society doesn't have to be helpful.

When this couple lives together within the framework of law, so much the better. We no longer have to make random decisions if they 'count' or are 'allowed' to do something. They are, or they aren't, it's very easy, it's a piece of paper.

Likewise, it is in society's best interest that when long-term live-together couples split up, they split up within the framework of divorce law. Divorce law may seem horrible, but it's much much better than the alternative of 'anything goes'.

And, has been pointed out, it's much better for children to grow up within such a family than without. Yes, gay couples don't have very many accidental children, but, at this point in time, neither do a lot of straight couples. I have no idea why you just argued that society has no vested interest in couples getting married that plan a child, just the ones that have them accidentally, but that seems utterly wrong to me.

Great post, Stephanie. If you have a moment, please contact me at chrismaca (at) yahoo (dot) com. I have something further to discuss with you, if possible.

Erin Manning writes: "Civil marriage is meaningless, as it currently stands."

My marriage is certainly not meaningless to me or my spouse... or to my family, or to my community. We've been bound together in sickness and in health, for better or for worse far longer than the average religious marriage.

And we're not in it for the tax breaks. Meaningless, huh? Go figure.

Franklin writes "Steve gives an example of how the legal construction "marriage" is embedded in our economic lives."

Yeah, and I bet George and Martha Washington did not have a marriage license from the state of Virginia.

I suppose it is the social dependencies and interdependencies that have changed so much.

I am now in a situation where I would not need any of that, thank God, But should it really be necessary to be called "married" or even "in a union" to get what you need in terms of all this stuff about inheritance, medical records, etc? Maybe some of this embedding should be debedded.

"We need to get used to operating as a persecuted minority, and quit playing games."

Given this has been the social conservative MO for 25 years, it's not like it will be anything new. Social conservatives adopted the victim mentality they decry in others long ago. That's why they waged the culture war.

Goodguyex, that's a safe bet, because the "state of Virginia" didn't exist when George and Martha got married. ;-)

The colonies were governed by English statute and common law... which, if you think about it, was a prime motivation for their "taxation without representation" protests.

Maybe some of this embedding should be debedded.

It's long past time for that, IMO.

Just for the record, while I think the state has a real interest in having people "married" since it makes it easier for society to function and promotes stability, my preference would be that the state be limited to granting only civil unions for everyone, with all the legal rights currently available. I think "marriages" should be performed in churches with the individual church deciding upon the criteria for marriage. If I were in charge and marrying people I would require pre-marital counseling, but that is just me.

Steve

My opinion on all this is really quite simple. By your admission it is going to happen. Instead of fighting what is a social movement. Accept the fact that will happen. Then discuss how it can happen in a more sane way instead of hysterically pointing out that Rome and Greek societies fell because of "atomising" the family units.

While I believe that I now have gained a better understanding of this issue. I must conclude that you having stated that it is most likely will happen. It would seem to me that most "social" conservatives are begining to realize that this fight is over. Now are just waiting for an end to come.

My personal thought is that all the gloom and doom talk is only fueling the rush to affirm that same sex couples will gain the right to marry in civil ceremony.

So continue to fight against this social fight for equality. Cry gloom and doom. Shout how all this is going to end western civilization. The less sane and more reactionary you will appear. Just as segregationist do today.

Again my opinion.

Let's hear the secular rationale for banning plural marriage.

I'm not sure there is one. If the people involved are consenting adults, which they weren't in the FLDS case, I see no problem.

The problem with your comparison with slavery is that you're ignoring the consent of the slave themselves, not just the slave owner or non-slave owner.

We now are living in a period of the weakest type of marital bond, and therefore the weakest kind of family.

What metric defines a "strong" family? If you're going to say that we have "weak" families now, you'll have to say how you're measuring it. A secular argument is moot if you can't find statistics to back yourself up.

Wouldn't such a child have two Y chromosomes?

No. Because men are XY, 50% of gametes derived from male cells will have an X chromosome and no Y.

Random assortment would mean 25% XX zygotes (female), 50% XY (male), and 25% YY (don't develop). So, a 2:1 boys/girls outcome.

Considering all the cellular housekeeping chores that are carried exclusively by the X chromosomes at the moment, would such a child be viable? There are a variety of naturally occurring chromosomal anomalies, like XXY syndrome and XXYY syndrome. Some are symptomless, others can be quite debilitating. But what would the consequences of a "YY syndrome" be?

YY is inviable in all mammals studied. The X chromosome may not have that many genes relative to the autosomes, but missing a few hundred is a lot. You can see the effect of the lesser dose of genes on the X in XO individuals, aka Turner Syndrome.

A lot of features of Turner Syndrome strike me as more extreme forms of the traits by which northern Europeans differ from the global human mean- more webbing between the fingers, stubby and short/stocky limb and general body features, face size small relative to head size. And illness tendencies to obesity and diabetes, heart disease, autoimmune disorders, moles, autistic-like social and verbal limitation, and hypothyroidism.

It's always wryly amusing to contemplate American white supremacists in that light.

Well, Steve, HIPPA is currently being used to deny wives the automatic access to their husband's medical info that used to be given, and vice versa, so I don't see how being married *helps* people get anything.

Quite frankly, being married today guarantees you almost nothing. If you don't have a will, powers of attorney for health care, etc. for your legal spouse you may find yourself being barred from access to them or to their information, depending on the state where you live. As I mentioned earlier, if my husband and I are given a check as a gift, and we want to deposit it in our joint bank account, we both have to endorse it--otherwise the bank will refuse to deposit it. And unless I have my own access, PIN number, etc. I'm not legally entitled to withdraw money from the so-called "joint" account.

When I worked in retail years ago the store I worked for would get irate women all the time at customer service, "What do you mean I can't use my husband's credit card to pay for this? It's a joint account--my card has the same number on it, only I put his in my wallet by mistake!" The answer was the same--sorry. The credit card company cares nothing about your marital status--you must use the card with your name and your signature to make purchases--and anybody can set up a joint credit account; you don't have to be married to get one.

When my husband and I got cable Internet, he set up the account because it was more convenient for him to do so than for me to take several then-toddlers into the office. They tied the account to his personal info; so when I would call to get service on the many occasions when we'd lose the connection some of the more officious reps would say, "I'm sorry; the person who set up the account is the only one authorized to request service." It didn't matter that I was the legal wife of that person--as far as they were concerned, I didn't have my husband's permission to request service. (We have DSL now, btw; cable tv/internet is the prime example in my mind of how not to serve the public, but I digress.)

When we've purchased each of the two homes we've owned so far, and refinanced this one, I made sure to have a family member watch the girls (again, they were quite young at the time) so I could sit in the office of the title company and sign each and every one of the papers put in front of us. Guess what? If you don't either do that or give your spouse power of attorney to sign for you, and if you don't have a specific will in your favor, you will *not* automatically be able to continue living in the house should your spouse die; in a community property state you may have the assumption of ownership without that signature on the paperwork, but in other places you may not.

The point is that the notion that just being the legal spouse of someone gives you all these automatic, safeguarded rights is sadly mistaken. Most lawyers would advise their married clients to make all of their intentions clear in various legal documents, from health care and end-of-life directives to wills to trust funds for any children and so on. Any lawyer who said, "Oh, you don't need any of that! You're *married*!" would be seriously derelict in his duty. The civil marriage license counts for almost nothing today, and will be worthless the day after tomorrow.

The many comments on this board by those who are inimical to a religion-based framework for marriage really miss the point and detract from our discussion. This site is intended to be a forum for religious believers. If same-sex civil marriage and plural civil marriage are inevitable, so be it. As a community of believers, the larger question is how do we protect against such encroachments on our practice of marriage. These encroachments may be legal (sanctions against religious bodies that don't conform to new marriage definitions) or extra-legal (being marginalized and mocked). Whatever, we should be discussing such matters on this forum and not wasting our time arguing with those who wish us ill.

"Quite frankly, being married today guarantees you almost nothing."

Most lawyers would advise their married clients to make all of their intentions clear in various legal documents, from health care and end-of-life directives to wills to trust funds for any children and so on. Any lawyer who said, "Oh, you don't need any of that! You're *married*!" would be seriously derelict in his duty. The civil marriage license counts for almost nothing today, and will be worthless the day after tomorrow.

Absolutely and utterly absurd, as people have pointed out over and over and over again. Is there any straw left in the entire state of Texas, because apparently tons were used to create all these strawmen arguments.

Sure, it's easier to have all those documents. But the law is created to deal with situations where none of those processes has taken place. Showing a marriage license or proof of marriage is going to make all of those processes happen should no forms exist.

If you die without a will, your spouse gets the money on proof of a marriage certificate. If you need to make a medical decision for a critically ill person, a married spouse who presents some sort of ID is going to be able to make a decision even if there is no advanced directive. If you want to file a joint tax return, claim a spouse as a dependent, obtain social security benefits, continue to make legal decisions for your child after the death of the other parent, all of that can occur with just a marriage certificate.

I know you've given up on civil marriage, Erin, but some people who live in the real world haven't and would never think of giving up all those legal rights and privileges you believe are meaningless.

Response to Franklin Evans:

Please re-read my latest posting. You and others can re-define civil marriage to your heart's content. What I am calling for is a discussion on this forum as to how the faith-based community can protect its conception of marriage within a religious framework as something quite apart from civil marriage. Various comments that you have posted ("The flip side of your question is: when religion loses the last vestige of control over and participation in civil marriage as a legal entity, what value will a religious ceremony have to society-at-large?") prove you to be uncongenial to that discussion.

Catholic to the Core, I use your full name to address you because there is no obviously polite way to shorten it. You are welcome to call me Franklin.

My "flipside" question was asked in the spirit and context of Erin's challenge. The key term there is "to society-at-large", this being an objective way (I'm hoping) to imply that not everyone in the US is Christian (and not all Christians seem to agree on some of the key issues).

It's an honest and sincere question. In this context, the same question could be asked of baptism, it having no secular impact at all, but also having (from my POV) an importance to those sects who practice it on a par with sacramental marriage.

If you assume hostility, you will eventually find it, but not with or in me.

You are welcome to such discussions, and Rod may even be persuaded to start one or more discussion threads on those topics, but I respectfully point out that you are missing the point of this blog: it is Rod's blog, and he has control over the topics presented on it.

You can, without cost, register as a member of Beliefnet. This will empower you to 1) find existing discussions on those topics in which to participate, 2) establish your own blog and start them yourself, and 3) find and make connections with what I would expect is quite a few people of like mind.

"But I don't see why gay couples should receive tax breaks originally intended for those who are raising the next generation. I don't see what public interest is served by giving gay couples huge new social security entitlements, or massive exemptions from the inheritance tax, etc."

I would agree if marriage WERE about raising the next generation. But as it stands, it is not. infertile people can marry, heterosexuals who dont want children can marry, so there goes the "marriage is for raising children" argument.

So based on all this, Why should gays support straight marriages with their tax money? Many gay couples raise children successfully in loving, caring homes, children born of, and rejected by hetersexual couples. These gay couples pick up the pieces left by irresponsible heterosexuals who abandon/neglect their kids.

to all anti gay-marriage heterosexuals - think on this. also think if ur partner is taken ill in hospital, you have visitation rights that can't be denied. if you die, you know your partner and family's security is helped by the legal status of your relationship. You family isnt going to loose its home - they will have the right to live there. Whatever you bequeath to your family, you know its going to be that way - no other person can challenge it legally. you know your family will still be secure, should the worst happen. Gay families dont get that. If one is hospitalised, the other doesnt have the right ot visit automatically - its up to the hospital, and the other person's family. If a gay person dies, his or her family home is put at immediate risk, and no will left by the deceased partner has the un-challengable legal status that a married person's will has. If you support anti-gay laws and anit-gay marriage ammendments, you support putting people's lives and well-being in jeopardy. There is no moral justification for that whatsoever.

So in short, Yeah not all gay couples have children in their care, but neither do hetersexual couples, yet heterosexuals still get all these protections when they marry, offspring or not... Unless marriage laws are restricted nationwide to only childbearing couples, there is no moral justification to deny full marriage rights to homosexual couples too.

Such simplistic, empty bromides for 'arguments'...

"Don't believe in slavery? Don't buy one."

Slavery causes harm. Same-sex marriage does not.

"Some issues are so morally consequential as to affect the moral ecology of an entire society. Along those lines, do the polygamous marriages at the FLDS compound in west Texas hurt your own marriage?"

No, they don't.

"It would be impossible to establish a direct correlation there"

And yet you waste an entire thread trying to. Strange that!

?Why don't we allow polygamous (plural) marriage? Would it keep people who wanted to live in monogamous marriages, gay or straight, from doing so? Of course it wouldn't."

And yet you continue to 'try' to make that 'argument'.

"So why not polygamy?"

Because polygamous marriages are inherently inequitable and they therefor cause harm.

"Let's hear the secular rationale for banning plural marriage."

Again?

"The fact is, we don't allow polygamy primarily because it deeply violates our tradition."

Nonsense! We don't allow them because of the harm they cause. (And yes, I purposely did not address the 'abortion' off-shoot becaue it is not what is at issue here.)

Chris Mills,

"I agree that homosexual marriage does set a precedent for polyamarous marriage, and if the law is applied fairly then indeed, poly marriages should be legal."

I disagree. Applying laws fairly means one spouse, just as heterosexuals are 'allowed'.

"However, wives should be allowed to have multiple husbands, not just the other way around. That would solve the problem of excess males in polyamarous societies."

But id doesn't solve the problem of the inherent inequality in havingmore than one spouse - of either gender.

"Our perspective on marriage is a Roman perspective, not a Biblical perspective."

Tha's gonna be some news to the fundagelicals.

"I'm not really sure how I think of this, but my conscience tells me that gay marriage is a fair and just thing."

Agreed.

Trouble is, the 'right' (including Mr. Dreher) assigns our (gay) marriages to the "decline and fall" of civilization category, meaning that 'they' believe 'their' "marriages" are ipso facto better than gay marriages, hence the term 'betterosexual'. I reject the notion that I, as a gay man, am somehow "lesser" than my str8 brothers and sisters.

Rick said,

"Gays don't beget children."

Nor do many heterosexuals, my youngest sister, for example. (Hint: it isn't a requirement of marriage, not even for you betterosexuals.)

"But I don't see why gay couples should receive tax breaks originally intended for those who are raising the next generation."

For the exact same reason society gives them to non-procreative heterosexuals.

"I don't see what public interest is served by giving gay couples huge new social security entitlements, or massive exemptions from the inheritance tax, etc."

And do you likewise see no "public interest" in giving non-procreative heterosexuals those exact same social security entitlements???

The 'arguments' of the 'right' are simply not valid. At least none of the ones given here. So easy to demolish because they are not based on facts or truth (nevermind equality, or liberty or justice).

I agree that living as isolated individuals is not healthy for most people, and society seems to thrive with networks of individuals in families, within which children are supported in their growth and socialisation. But I see nothing in crunchy con's argument that would differentiate between the (straight) marriage of my sister who is childless,a devoted aunt to numerous younger family members and close to her siblings, and the (gay) marriage of my son who is childless,a devoted uncle to numerous younger family members and close to his siblings.

I agree that living as isolated individuals is not healthy for most people, and society seems to thrive with networks of individuals in families, within which children are supported in their growth and socialisation. But I see nothing in crunchy con's argument that would differentiate between the (straight) marriage of my sister who is childless,a devoted aunt to numerous younger family members and close to her siblings, and the (gay) marriage of my son who is childless,a devoted uncle to numerous younger family members and close to his siblings.

Zach,

"Hmm. I'm torn over this issue. On the one hand, religiously, I know that gay marriage is wrong and immoral."

Hmmm. I'm not torn over the issue because my marriage took place under the auspices of my Church. I think what you really meant to type, Zach, is that your religion says it's wrong and immoral. Trouble with that in a land that "promises" freedom of religion is that many religions do not think it either "wrong' or "immoral". So one would have to ask, why should your religious tenets trump mine?

?On the other hand, my libertarian side says that it's inherently wrong to deny secular rights (tax law, inheritances, insurance policies) to homosexual couples."

And the California decision was based on treating all citizens equally before the law. If that is "libertarian", so be it. America used to pride itself on having liberty (and justice) for all.

"Maybe civil unions are the answer."

Nope. That ain't "the answer". Marriage is. It's called equal treatment before the law.

"And I'd like to see some evidence supporting this ridiculous claim that homosexual marriage would lead to the collapse of heterosexual marriage. "

so would I, Zach. So would I. But we've been asking for it for a long time now and have seen neither hide nor hair of it. Just alarmist rants.

Robin Thomas typed,

"I don't understand why civil unions are not good enough."

Then you haven't been paying attention, so let me help you out. There are som 1,726 rights, benefits and obligations that come with marriage that "civil unions" (whatever they are - seems they very from State to State) don't have. We can still be denied our right to inherit our spouses estates. We can still be denied hospital an dmorgue visiting rights. Heck, in Michigan, we can't even have our spouses insured though company benefits, despite the fact that both the companies and their insurance providers allow it, and many unions have them in their contracts.

There, does that help?

"So, the people who believe that homosexuality is wrong...don't matter."

What was the percentage of Americans who 'thought' slavery was a good thing? Who then, in a democracy, will protect minorities from the tyranny of the 'majority'?

"I still think that when it goes before the Supreme Court, gay marriage will be denied. "

And I think you are wrong. Something about "equal protections". Something about the "full faith and credit clause". Something about "liberty and justice for all". Something about "the pursuit of happiness". Same arguments that were made in California.

Nope. That ain't "the answer". Marriage is. It's called equal treatment before the law.

Marriage is a right?

You have the right to vote. You have the right to freedom of speech. The right to assemble is yours, as is the right to bear arms. The list goes on.

But marriage isn't a "right". Neither is driving. Requirements have to be met and a license has to be issued, for both of them. A requirement for the driver's license is that I can see the road -- common sense dictates that, the government agrees. A requirement for marriage is one man, one woman -- another idea that common sense dictates, and the government agrees with (activist judges aside).

Bob,

"Marriage is a right?"

Accorind to the UN, and according to Loving v. Veirginia, yes, it is.

However, some will never see it that way, so how about approaching it from the liberty standpoint? Why should people not have the freedom to marry the person they (mutually) choose? What business is that of the State? (Or of Erin?)

America used to pride itself on being the "land of the free". Whatever happened to the right to life, liberty and - oh yes, we seem to all have forgotten, the right to the pursuit of happiness? What of these 'rights'/'freedoms'?

"Requirements have to be met and a license has to be issued ... A requirement for marriage is one man, one woman -- another idea that common sense dictates, and the government agrees with (activist judges aside)."

So many falsehoods, where to begin? This "requirement" does not apply in many jurisdictions. It is set by men (legislatures) and as such is subject to change. The California State Assembly voted twice to overturn such a "requirement" since it mad not "common sense". As for your "activist (Bush, 2000) judges", they did not invent a 'right', they extended one to all citizens because it is UN-Constitutional to treat people differently before the law.

Get it yet?

"You're taking for granted that married people are somehow entitled to these privileges. Why? What's so special about signing a contract that, in essence, says, "For the time being I agree to live with you and share stuff." What's the big deal?"

Dismissive, reductionist drivel as usual. Those words have noting in common with the marriage vows I took.

"My point, of course, is that absent a religious framework there's no logical reason at all to have marriage. It's pointless."

Perhaps to you, Erin. Certainly not to me. You conveniently 'forget' that many gay couples are choosing to marry within their own faith traditions, as I did.

Continuing to try to compare marriage (and reducing marriage) to "college roommates shacking up" or "marrying a plant" adds nothing to your argument. It just makes you look petty (not to mention histrionic and unbelievable).

Lord karth,

"Homosexual "marriage" cannot be called "marriage" because it does not--"cannot" would be a more accurate word---involve procreation."

So, you're in favour of requiring not only the ability & intent to procreate, but also requiring actual procreation to validate 2 ("and ONLY two" - note to Rod, these are not my all caps; they're a quote from Lord Karth) persons' marriage?

Good luck with that.

"The "why" of marriage is simple enough: group survival."

Hint: people can and do have children outside of marriage. The "group" will survive just fine without my makin' another unwanted baby.

"I've never quite been able to fathom the American obsession with "equality" that apparently drives all this ridiculous talk of "rights"."

So little regard for your founding, ahem, fathers? For the Constitution? The Bill of Rights? Hardly "ridiculous".

rr,

"My comment was just a brief one to correct your laughable false assertion that liberals (and I'm not talking about politicians, but about the radical left that emerged from the 1960s and 1970s sexual revolution) are interested in protecting marriage."

Funny, but all of my liberal friends were in the forefront in the struggle for equal marriage. We definitely do want to protect marriage, but all people's marriages, not just those of some heterosexuals (you remember, the reproductive ones').

mdavid,

"Legal "marriage" simply doesn't mean anything anymore unless it's in a traditional church and the two people take their vows in a traditional manner."

Why, in a land that 'promises' freedom of religion, should only marriages that take place in only "traditional church[es]" be recognized? And who would that leave out? So many Churches split because of some theological disagreeement or other. Would only the "traditional" faith's marriages count? Let's see, the Baptists had a split. Would the marriages of the 'new' (i.e. non-"traditional" - would they be the Southern Baptists?) Church be invalid? What about the Universalist/Unitarians? Totally non-"traditional" (plus, of course they're one of the several faiths that do perform same-sex marriages). And would the "traditional Church" label not exclude all Christian religions since, I believe, they came after Judaism. (And before you answer, don't let's forget that both the Reformed and Conservative branches embrace same-sex marriage.)

I was married in my Church - "traditional" (for me, I've been a member for 30 years) and our vows were likewise "traditional" (certainly my mother-in-law approved - she's from a United Church background, but I doubt even they are "traditional" enough for you).

Tell us, just who's "traditions" get to count? And who would get to decide which Churches qualify for the "traditional" label? You? Not on my watch.

Erin,

"Why should the government bother to get involved in relationships that are not only inherently but intrinsically infertile?"

I could send you the names and contact information for more than a dozen of my non-procreative heterosexual friends and relatives. Maybe you should be asking them. But don't be surprised if you get told to mind your own business.

"Where there can *never* be 'surprise' children who are the biological children of both parents in the relationship, and who might end up being wards of the state if the parents aren't prepared to accept the responsibility?"

Maybe it's just me, but you've used that tack before and it still doesn't make any sense. How are non-existent children ("there can *never* be 'surprise' children", after all) going to end up as wards of the state?

"Gay relationships and heterosexual ones are inherently and intrinsically unequal because of this simple biological reality."

And yet the State favours the non-procreative heterosexuals. That's UN-Constitutional discrimination because it doesn't treat all citizens equally.

"For a gay couple to "have" children they have to be raising children who have at least one parent outside the relationship; they can never, ever raise children who are their, *as a couple,* own biological offspring."

Again we ask, "So?"

No, Erin, not "whose children"; what children? I don't have any, nor do my non-procreative heterosexual friends and relatives. They are non-existant, sorta like logic in your posts ;{O) And does not the law currently "force" one heterosexual "spouse" to leave all of his estate to the other heterosexual "spouse"? A little logic, please.

"No, once we approve gay marriage we have once and for all declared as a society that children are not even remotely connected to marriage, that "marriage," whatever else it is, is not a procreative relationship."

You've said it before and you'll say it again, but fewer and fewer people believe you since they can read our posts too, where we refute your contention by saying that marriage is not only about procreation, and that for many heterosexuals, procreative actually does not describe their relationship. There is no legal requirement for it to be, either - for either homo- or heterosexuals.

"The law will never give heterosexual married people a right that homosexual "married" people aren't entitled to. The law can't do that--it must treat all "married" people the same way."

Again, no need for the smarmy quote marks, but you are correct. Not sure why you don't want all citizens to be treated equally.

"So, essentially, gay marriage abolishes automatic biological fatherhood ..."

Erin, you can't blame us if your message is not being well-received. Hyperbolic, false imaginings don't carry much credence.

Catholic to the core,

"This site is intended to be a forum for religious believers."

Where does it say that? I musta missed it.

"If same-sex civil marriage and plural civil marriage are inevitable, so be it."

Who said plural marriage is "inevitable"? As for same-sex civil marriage (not that they have anything to do with "plural civil marriage"), you used the wrong tense. They already exist. Have for close to 5 years now in Massachusetts. And hey, what about same-sex religious marriaages? They exist too, by the scores.

"As a community of believers, the larger question is how do we protect against such encroachments on our practice of marriage."

An unwarranted fear, at best, for same-sex marriage simply does not "encroach" in any way on your practice of marriage, therefore there's nothing to "protect" it from.

"These encroachments may be legal (sanctions against religious bodies that don't conform to new marriage definitions)"

Has not happened in the over 7 years they've been legal in Canada, nor in Massachusetts. Catholic priests are equally free to refuse to marry divorced people and gay people. So I'm not sure why you fear this.

"or extra-legal (being marginalized and mocked)."

Welcome to my world.

"Whatever, we should be discussing such matters on this forum and not wasting our time arguing with those who wish us ill."

I wish you no ill. I do wish that you and I be treated equally before the law.

"What I am calling for is a discussion on this forum as to how the faith-based community can protect its conception of marriage within a religious framework as something quite apart from civil marriage."

Except that "the faith-based community" does not speak with one mind on this topic. You already know the list - the United Church, The Universalist/Unitarians, the Quakers (!), the Metropolitan Community Churches, both the Reformed and the Conservative branches of Judaism are among the many in the faith-based community that embrace same-sex marriage. And they disagree that marriage is under 'attack" (ironically by those who wish to participate in it) and therefor not in need of "protecting". Those faiths would like a voice in the discussion and it will be at odds with your voice.

Various comments that you have posted prove you to be equally uncongenial to that discussion.

Gay Marriages will NEVER - I repeat, NEVER! - "hurt" heterosexual marriages! Get OVER yourselves! Their have been tons, tons, tons, tons, and TONS of PROBLEMS in heterosexual marriages for CENTURIES! God knows THIS! You can't lie, GOD DOES KNOW THIS. Duh.

I am sick of mealy-mouth heterosexuals blaming the gay-lesbian community for THEIR problems! Problems are ALWAYS created by the heterosexuals themselves. NO GAY/LESBIAN PERSON HAD ANY INPUT IN HETEROS RUINING THEIR OWN MARRIAGES! Everyone creates their OWN problems. Unfortunately, MANY heteros will never take ACTUAL responsibility for THEIR OWN MISTAKES. Heterosexual marriages have undergone: adultry, drugs, DIVORCE, abortions, child abuse (verbal and physical), spousal abuse (verbal and physical), family killings, etc. for CENTURIES now. Again, none of these problems created by gays/lesbians. Again, L-M-A-O!

And heterosexuals who NEVER go to church, NEVER practice treating others with love and peace, and NEVER stay "faithful" in all ways to their spouse; ALWAYS say this CRAP that gay marriages are responsible for their OWN faults. Dear Lord, help these people deal with reality. Amen.

"What does this have to do with gay marriage? Redefining marriage to include same-sex partners within its definition radically changes the institution, reinforcing the idea that it has no transcendental meaning, but can be changed at will. But as Zimmerman's work strongly implies, we shouldn't be the least surprised by gay marriage. It is the natural result of historical processes most of us accept without question"

This betrays your entire misunderstanding of same-gender marriage. The entire reason gay couples want to marry is so they CAN share in the transcendent meaning. They appreicate its power in a person's life and the way it can improve the individuals that comprise the couple. Perhpas they may even give the institution greater power because they have a clearer sense of its value and importance.

If this is part of a progression, trying to old on with our bleeding finger tips to a fading past is futile. Is it not better to, as with paddling through rapids, move forward quickly so we can steer rather than be slammed and possible swamped?

I agree with Steve. The word Marriage should be removed from civil codes and the State should only recognize civil unions based on Liberty.

If a religion wants to also have a religious Marrige ceremny that is fine. Jews tend to have both a Ketubah (marriage contract) and a Get (divorce) in addition to civil marriage and civil divorce. Jews do not ask the State to enfoce their religious marriages or religious divorces, and right wing Fundies should also stop asking the State to enforce their unconstitutional notions of marriage.

I agree that marrige is a spiritual and social institution, but, let's face it, the law is a different institution altogether. We live in a spiritually and socially pluralistic nation. Period. Pluralism and heterogenous culture define us as a nation historicly. Even though we have always had trouble with it being this way, it is this way nonetheless.

There are only two ways we can cope with this kind of pluralism. Either recognize varying types of families and marriage, or get the government out of the marriage and family altogether.

I personally believe that the government has no business in marriage AT ALL. It should not be documented, censused, give tax advantages or disadvantages, condoned or condemmed legally.

This way, each religion or spiritual practice is still free to practice it as a sacrament in their own way. And guess what? Some DO hold gay marriage as a sacrement equal to het marriage. But our government can tell a church they can't hold that sacred? How presumptious! Could you immagine it if the government could tell varying Christian groups how to practice communion?

As for Zimmermen, he's not the only person out there who has studied marriage and family and a great many historians and anthropologist have arguments that are just as compelling in favor of the "atomistic" families. This, is of course the danger of quoting from "experts". We are the ones who pick the experts, and we tend to pick ones that agree with us.

I was raised in a so-called atomistic family and have a strong sense of morality and compassion. I have my doubts that my family is contributing to the collapse of the world as we know it.

As for Rome and Greece, they fell because they were cocky, imperialistic, self-indlugent, spread too thin militarily, had large economic gaps between the wealthy and enslaved, fell under the influence of dictators, and a host of complex reasons. But in short, because they became less and less democratic over time and more and more imperial.

Now that I have a little nuclear family of my own, I don't feel the least threatened by gay marraige.

It is summed up as it only can be. Same-gender marriage is not a Christian institution. As long as the truth of the Homosexual (GLBT)community versus the Christian community is not ignored, no Christian should care what pagans (and tax collectors) do to themselves. The First Amendment gives exclusive civl rights to Christians to be free from the attacks that the Gay community is going to be bringing to bear on it. The ENDA Bill is not going to be the first open warfare waged on Christians by Gays and Lesbians. The lines are being formed for the coming war against The Church. Nothing more nothing less. Read the New Testament. The Apostles and disciples saw this coming and wrote extensively about it. And now it is here.

Rev Spitz, you are insane.

Insane in the literal, medical sense.

If I believed in demons, I'd have to say you are posessed by the devil.

But no. You are as insane as Osama and Sirhan Sirhan and Manson.

Please get some help before you hurt somebody.

I think Jennifer has it exactly right. I really believe that equal protection under the laws is essential to democracy. To that end, I believe that all opposite-gender marriages should be dissolved by law in those states that have voted to ban same-gender marriages. I do not believe that the government should restrain any man and woman from loving and being faithful to each other. But to give male-female couples special privileges under the law just because of some dusty old Christian tradition, no. It is the rankest kind of discrimination, and future generations will regard it as barbaric.

Mr. Dreher, thanks for your long and challenging post. Of course you're correct that in this age indvidualism and atomism, too many people can only conceive of opposition to gay marriage as irrational.

But you write that opposition to gay marriage is morally analogous in its reasoning to opposition to slavery, to abortion, and (for pro-choicers) to legal barriers to abortion. But in each of these supposed analogues someone is harmed, or is at least considered harmed (I'm pro-life): slaves, fetuses, pregnant women. The obvious rebuttal to "it you don't like abortion, don't have one" is that passive acceptance of evil is not a moral option.

You write in regards to polygamy that most people don't even have to think about it but recognize intuitively that it's wrong. I would say instead that most people instinctively feel it's wrong because it's not what they're used to; give them years to think about it -- just as many have been thinking about gay marriage for years -- and they'd either oppose it on grounds that it perpetrates sexist oppression or, rejecting that argument, would come to the conclusion that their opposition had been based in bigotry.

You write that toleration of polygamy would, over time, deligitimize the idea that monogamy is normative, and I agree. Men and women who now marry monogamously might in such a society marry polygamously. But heterosexual men and women won't marry homosexually even if gay marriage is someday seen as a normative equivalent to heterosexual marriage. This leaves bisexuals. Do we heterosexuals, for the sake of bisexuals, deny a third group, gays, the benefits of an institution we ourselves enjoy? That seems wrong for several obvious reasons I won't go into.

You write that "redefining marriage to include same-sex partners within its definition radically changes the institution, reinforcing the idea that it has no transcendental meaning, but can be changed at will." But to people who see homosexual behavior as either morally equal to heterosexuality, period, or morally equal in people who experience no heterosexual desires and thus can't form true heterosexual unions, does that redefinition rule out transcendental meaning (by which I assume you mean the existence of a universal as in "universals") or does it redefine marriage in light of a deeper and wider understanding of that universal? Isn't the latter just the opposite of the nihilsm Zimmerman thinks he sees?

The opposition to gay marriage is not just religious but its how we see ourselves in the past. People are afraid of the future. If gay marriage exists we will see two guys or two girls parlaying their physical attraction for each other in front of our eyes, at the mall, in the street, macking by the liquor store. I think people don't really want to see it, however if the government says its OK to be gay & married, how do I explain this to my child. Though I am a religious man, I fail at being a true Christian becuase I believe a woman has a choice to have her baby or not. Its a matter of life or death not about love. However, no one can tell me my religious upbringing is antiquidated or not relavent. Gay and Lesbian people have an agenda and its not about love, it's about money and power.