Now that the door is open, in marches…
One consequence that is sure to follow from marriage redefinition is that courts will be yet more empowered to assign parental rights and responsibilities.
How wonderful that would be!
If we just allow biology to determine parental rights, what a disaster! In disputed cases, we would send wet, messy biological samples to labs! There, those samples will be analyzed by scientists. Scientists who probably never took a humanities course in their lives! How can we let people who don’t know the first thing about postmodern critical theory make decisions like that? How would social justice be served?
And that’s not just in same sex cases, either.
Andrew Stuttaford discusses an article in which this frightening idea is aired:
Sadly, this article (“Who’s the Daddy?” by Melanie McDonagh) lurks behind the London Spectator‘s paywall. That’s a shame, because in its own quite astoundingly malevolent way, it’s not without interest. The author’s complaint? That DNA tests now allow men to know whether they are truly the fathers of the children that they are being asked to provide for. I would have thought that this was a good thing. Ms. McDonagh does not.
DNA tests are an anti-feminist appliance of science, a change in the balance of power between the sexes that we’ve hardly come to terms with. And that holds true even though many women have the economic potential to provide for their children themselves…Uncertainty allows mothers to select for their children the father who would be best for them. The point is that paternity was ambiguous and it was effectively up to the mother to name her child’s father, or not… Many men have, of course, ended up raising children who were not genetically their own, but really, does it matter…in making paternity conditional on a test rather than the say-so of the mother, it has removed from women a powerful instrument of choice.
Words fail me.
Words don’t fail me quite as much.
Let’s take a look at what this idea could do to marriage: Some married men get cuckolded. Few if any of those cuckolded men are tremendously interested in spending two decades raising and/or paying for another man’s child. A woman, on the other hand, may realize that the husband she cuckolded has the deeper pockets than the child’s true father. The slutty wife might just decide to stick her unfortunate husband with the bill for her indiscretion. Were paternity testing banned, there would often be nothing to contradict the presumption of paternity that the man married to the mother is the father. The husband, in that situation, would be stuck with a huge financial liability.
So, if the author of this execrable article gets her way, marriage would mean that a man is granting the courts the authority to stick him with two decades of child support, that increases the cost of marriage for men in terms of risk. Seeing as how marriage has not been endowed with any new benefits to men in this scheme, the cost to benefit ration has declined. Marriage has become a worse option for men. Marriage rates go down. Social chaos soon follows as the essential social services typically provided by fathers (services that only fathers can generally perform) are not accomplished. Once again, feminism attempts to stick it to society.
Woe unto us if we ever allow courts to get this kind of power over our lives.
Loading ...
Mightn’t it do more to strengthen marriage, however, if paternity were established ONLY through marriage? That is, if a woman could not rely on DNA to force a man who did not choose to marry her to support her child — and, thereby, her — anyway?
Alexander,
I highly doubt it. I think the incentives work exactly the other way.
Enh. Really Ari, you seem too smart to get caught up in this sort of paranoia.
“Were paternity testing banned, there would often be nothing to contradict the presumption of paternity”
I thought the whole “presumption of paternity” thing was one reason marriage had to be limited to opposite-sex couples? Now you’re saying that DNA testing has removed this feature of marriage? Hmmm, one more reason for same-sex marriage!
Nerdygirl:
Paranoia?? The authoress made her intentions perfectly clear. I just noted two things: 1) That intellectually speaking, the door was already open to this idea. After all, why bother with biology if courts are perfectly capable of assigning parenthood. and 2) What would the probable results be if we implement these stupid ideas.
Paranoia means seeing the unseen. Finding hidden conspiracies and the like. Nothing hidden here.
Sean,
There’s a difference between a rebuttable presumption and an irrebuttable presumption. In this context, the rebuttable presumption works. The irrebutable presumption is a disaster. The authoress wants to make the presumption of paternity irrebuttable.
Well, just like so many arguments against same-sex marriage, the presumption of paternity is one more “well, there are exceptions!” argument that provides little cover for the whole “we have to outlaw same-sex marriage because…..” campaign. Whether it’s the presumption of paternity or procreation, too many exceptions make the argument unconvincing.
Sean,
A presumption MEANS that there are exceptions. That’s the very definition of the word. It means that, unless we have a reason to think otherwise, we will make a given conclusion.
Think of the presumption of innocence in criminal trials. It’s a rebuttable presumption. If the state provides enough evidence, the defendant is convicted. Think of what would happen if you were to rephrase your objection to extend to criminal trials.
So, just like criminal trials, we have a presumption in this case. The presumption can be rebutted by clear and convincing facts. Just like a presumption of innocence.
What are you talking about? I am neither for nor against the presumption of paternity. The point I’m making it, what does it have to do with same-sex marriage? Society can handle childbirth issues in straight marriages however it wants. This doesn’t change when same-sex couples get married. This is one of those issues where OSMers mislead weak-minded individuals into thinking that is something is about one thing, that means it can’t be about something else. This is false thinking, to be charitable.
“One consequence that is sure to follow from marriage redefinition is that courts will be yet more empowered to assign parental rights and responsibilities.”
More fear-mongering! Does it ever get old for you guys? Courts are already more entrenched in family decisions. You know why? Rampant straight people divorce! The institution that is so important to encourage “responsible procreation” isn’t working! Even religion can’t stop the tidal wave of divorce: Christians are forbidden to divorce, yet do it anyway!
You know what? If you want the courts to stay out of family matters, DON’T GET DIVORCED!!!
The good news is, when same-sex marriage is legal, fewer mixed orientation marriages get formed, with the result that fewer divorces occur.
Marriage is a great vehicle for ensuring that people partner with someone they really want to be with, not with someone society thinks they should be with!
Now, Sean. Let’s think about this. When a member of a same sex couple has a child, we can know for certain that one member of that couple is not really the parent of that child. In that case, the couple usually wants to have the court assign parental rights to a known non-parent. That increases the power of the courts. Other bad ideas have done so in the past including the execrable no fault divorce.
I doubt you really want real marriage handled one way and phoney baloney marriage handled a different way. You people keep lobbying for your phoney baloney marriage so same sex couples can be treated exactly the same. That’s all you hear in these debates. “Equality” this and “same” that. You can’t really expect me to take your point seriously if you go on and on about equality on one hand and then say that normal families can be treated one way and phoney baloney families should be treated another.
Ari, it’s really disrespectful to refer to it as “phoney baloney marriage”. For same-sex couples who get married, whether it’s recognized by the state or not, it’s very real for them.
“When a member of a same sex couple has a child, we can know for certain that one member of that couple is not really the parent of that child.”
We can? What you meant was, we can assume that one member of the couple is not the biological parent of the child.
“I doubt you really want real marriage handled one way and phoney baloney marriage handled a different way.”
I don’t’ know what “phoney baloney marriage” is. I’ll need a definition. If a couple is married, they’re married.
I think you are bigoted prick who thinks that gays couples are second-class citizens, and their children deserve to be second-class citizens.
“You people keep lobbying for your phoney baloney marriage so same sex couples can be treated exactly the same. That’s all you hear in these debates.”
I know that you’re frustrated at losing the marriage equality battle but either come to terms with it, or come up with genuine reasons why same-sex marriage would be socially harmful. It shouldn’t be that hard to do, if you have a sound point of view.
How funny. For all the times I’ve presented “Presumption of Paternity” as a benefit to marriage that has no relevance for same-sex couples (and thus shows that marriage’s purpose is different than CU’s, DP’s, etc… ) I thought they never read that.
I know they haven’t even acknowledged such a thing until now. How funny it is that they ignore something that shows them they are wrong?
Even funnier that they ignore it only long enough to formulate some strawman with it, to help them feel better about it.
Oh brother. Whatever role you think presumption of paternity plays in straight marriage, it is not, in any way, compromised when same-sex couples marry. Just like when other couples get married, like elderly couples or infertile couples. If it helps, think of it like a clause in your car insurance rider that says, if you have an accident, you have to pay for towing yourself. If you never have an accident, who pays for towing isn’t a concern. It’s only a concern if you have an accident.
If a couple has a child, the all-important “presumption of paternity” kicks in: the father has to take responsibility for the child whether it’s actually his or not. In fact, I can see P of P being eliminated, what with DNA testing an all, and a desire of men not to have to take care of children they didn’t father.
“a benefit to marriage that has no relevance for same-sex couples”
A benefit? The obligation to take care of a child that isn’t yours is a benefit?? And once again, but worth repeating, how does this little “benefit” of marriage cause an exclusion for same-sex marriage? Has P of P been eliminated in Massachusetts, Iowa, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Vermont and the District of Columbia? Because I heard this awful rumor that same-sex marriage was legal in those places, although I couldn’t tell if that meant opposite-sex marriage had been outlawed or not.
They should probably just outlaw straight marriage. If straight people can’t take care of the children they create without being forced to do so by marriage, then maybe they aren’t good enough to get married!
Mark,
thank you for the correction. Perhaps you would prefer something like “pseudomarriage”? That does have a better ring to it, doesn’t it?
Ari: “Perhaps you would prefer something like “pseudomarriage”? That does have a better ring to it, doesn’t it?”
No, I prefer to use the correct word: marriage.
Mark,
Then how do you distinguish it from real marriage?
Maybe you’d be more satisfied with “Ersatz Marriage”?
Remember, Mark. I have a thesaurus. And I’m not afraid to use it.
Ari, same sex marriage is real marriage. Regardless if some want to dismiss it or diminish it.
I don’t think this blog is intended to make people laugh, and yet sometimes I just can’t help myself.
Betsy, can you explain your response?
Betsy, how can you not laugh at the inane position of saying same-sex couples can’t marry because they can’t have kids? Or because “traditional” marriage is this thing or that thing? It’s weird but people get weird on particular topics.
“I have a thesaurus. And I’m not afraid to use it.”
That was funny.
I should just keep my fingers shut from now on.
Mark and Sean,
You really ought to know better than to get into an argument online with somebody who’s funnier than you are.
Betsy: Thanks for clarifying. I thought you meant it good naturally.
Ari, I am not in an argument but a discussion. Surely you can tell the difference?
Funny “ha ha” or funny, “weird” Ari?
Sean,
Both.
Mark: An argument is a discussion involving differing points of view. So, unless you’re prepared to say you agree with me, we’re in an argument.
I don’t mind arguing with weird people online, Ari, if it’s an important issue. The more it gets talked about, the more comfortable people are with it, especially when they read the hilarious talking points some people use!
Ari. The lady is crazy. And you are blaming the wrong ideology. True feminism isn’t about sticking it to anyone. The idea is we’re all equal and moves like lying about the paternity of a child is about as bad as one cant get. (That said, who even does this? How messed up of a person does one have to be to pawn this off as a good idea?)
If I’m correct, even with all the fun exceptions via adoption and IVF (and random outliers), biology does still trump in the courts. So, I’m not even sure what your problem is.
nerdygirl,
1) One of my big interests in life is to examine ideas and find out where they came from and where they could lead. Who, I ask, are the intellectual parents of this idea. I find it fascinating. I think the idea of courts determining parenthood opens some pretty nasty doors. Whether we, as a society, walk through those doors is another matter. It’s enough to note that the door is open.
2) In Louanne Brizendene’s book “The Female Brain” (it was a short book) has this to say: “Yet another blow to the myth of female fidelity is the dirty little secret in human genetic studies– up to 10 percent of teh supposed fathers researchers have tested are not genetically related to the children these men feel they fathered.”
I think that answers your question “Who even does this?” quite definitively, now, doesn’t it.
Incidentally, I have cuckhold-proof hands. I have genetically dominant clinodactylity. (Both my pinkies are bent). All my kids have this trait. So, I’m not writing this out of fear of having been cuckholded myself.
Ari: “Mark: An argument is a discussion involving differing points of view. So, unless you’re prepared to say you agree with me, we’re in an argument.”
I prefer the word discussion as it has less of an adversarial sound to it. But, as it appears you prefer to be more adversarial, we can call it an argument.
Ari: “I think the idea of courts determining parenthood opens some pretty nasty doors.”
And, who exactly or how, should parenthood be determined?
“I have genetically dominant clinodactylity. (Both my pinkies are bent). All my kids have this trait. So, I’m not writing this out of fear of having been cuckholded myself.”
So you have your own genetic test to prove parenthood. Glad you don’t have to worry.
Mark,
1) Parenthood should be determined by biology, with some inevitable if rare exceptions.
2) You don’t know what clinodactylity is? I knew you weren’t a doctor. But see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinodactyly
Ari: “Parenthood should be determined by biology”
But, as in this case, is the mother the one who donated the egg or the one who carried the baby for 9 months? Which biology do you expect to determine the baby.
“You don’t know what clinodactylity is? ”
And, wrong again, not only am I a physician but have a masters in human genetics so I am well aware of the meaning of clinodactyly. Strange that you should ask me, though. Perhaps you are not as good at reading comprehension as you claim. You indicated that you have not been “cuckholded” because your children have the same condition as you do. That is what I meant by your own genetic test. So, your comments seem a bit out of touch.
Mark,
You sounded skeptical and sarcastic.
Ari: “You sounded skeptical and sarcastic.”
About what?
But, I would like to know which biology should determine parenthood.
@Sean
If a couple has a child, the all-important “presumption of paternity” kicks in:
Speaking of hilarious. That was very funny, considering what “presumption of paternity” means…
Well, OnLawn, I understand your point of about how irresponsible straight couples are when it comes to sex and reproduction. Sure, they have unprotected sex and if a kid is created, maybe we’ll take care of it, maybe not. I understand that society has to figure out a way to get straight people to take care of their kids, since they so often don’t. It would be even better if society could get straight people to be good parents, but that’s another topic.
But just because straight people are irresponsible in their sexual habits, and need some incentive to behave, doesn’t mean that gay people should be denied the same rights and privileges of marriage. These rights and privileges are just as useful to gay couples as they are to straight couples.
Just pause and note, that was rather churlish interpretation, perhaps Sean’s animus is becoming less and less veiled.
The point is, when a same-sex couple is irresponsible, they hurt themselves. When a procreative relationship is irresponsible, they hurt one or more children. This isn’t a game of choice where the values are equal on both sides.
So I guess you’re ok with same-sex marriage so long as the couple doesn’t have children?
So., point number two isn’t definitive. Up to 10 percent doesn’t mean 10 percent. And then I’d also have to comment that it doesn’t delve at all into whether this was intentional on the part of the female or an accident. Both are bad obviously, but only one is pre-meditated.
On the bright side, there’s enough cuckold fetishists out there that there’s no excuse for women who don’t/can’t be monogamous. On the down-side, few jerks are self aware enough to try and find better outlets for being jerks.
The sexual basis for the presumption of paternity is the same for marital consummation, annulment, and adultery. And it is this basis that justifies the boundaries around marriage — i.e. the criteria for eligiblity and ineligiblity.
The presumption is rebuttable; the criteria begin with the same sexual basis with which the presumption originates and makes sense.
This is at the core of marriage and helps to make normative big things like sexual monogamy and societal regard for the birthright of each person to know and to be know by the mom-dad duo who created her. Like responsible procreation, the presumption of paternity kicks-in with marital status — before the man and woman engage in conjugal relations and NOT only if a child is born of their union. The sexual basis for consummation illustrates this.
The influence of marriage’s core meaning has an overflow effect; in our society, for example, we extend the presumption (and its sexual basis) to unwed man-woman scenarios. Again, it is a rebuttable presumption with the same criteria.
The marital presumption of paternity is very reliable — it is challenged formally only relatively rarely and even at that it is accurate in most — 85% or better — of the cases even after the social institution of marriage has taken a battering for decades; the unwed presumption is much less reliable, 70% or so, which is sadly in keeping with what is known about the lesser stability of nonmarital childbearing.
On the other hand this highly reliable sexual basis for the presumption of paternity does not fit the one-sexed scenario whether that scenario is sexualized or not. No man is presumed to be capable of impregnating another man; no woman is presumed capable of being impregnated by another woman. We can safely presume — with an even higher rate of confidence — that 100% of one-sexed scenarios have no sexual basis for presumption of paternity. Paternity does not fit the all-female scenario, obviously, but it does not fit the all-male scenario either, because this is a sex- based presumption — one reflecting the opposite-sexed nature of human procreation. What works for the marriage idea does not, cannot, work for the SSM idea.
The scenario that lacks the other sex is a nonstarter in this regard, because there is nothing to rebut — i.e. no presumption of paternity based on whatever an all-male or an all-female scenario might do sexually. Some other presumption might be concocgted but it could not be based on same-sex sexual behavior, attraction, or romance.
We can know with 100% certainty that no person was born of a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, but all are born of a man and a woman. That is even more reliable than the marital presumption of paternity, in practice and in theory.
nerdygirl, why is intention an important factor for you on this?
“Like responsible procreation, the presumption of paternity kicks-in with marital status — before the man and woman engage in conjugal relations and NOT only if a child is born of their union. The sexual basis for consummation illustrates this.”
What’s great is that nothing about straight marriage is remotely affected when same-sex marriage is legal.
“We can know with 100% certainty that no person was born of a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, but all are born of a man and a woman. That is even more reliable than the marital presumption of paternity, in practice and in theory.”
What’s great is that nothing about straight marriage is remotely affected when same-sex marriage is legal.
Which is why we have CU’s, DP’s, RB’s and private contracts as types of same-sex marriage. Because they are legal. There is no “when it is legal”, that time is now.
Which is why we have CU’s, DP’s, RB’s and private contracts as types of same-sex marriage. Because they are legal. There is no “when it is legal”, that time is now.
—
That is if you don’t want marriage to be neutered at all, which it sounds like you are interested in? Or do you want marriage to be neutered anyway, even though CU’s and DP’s and other forms of same-sex marriage are already legal?
“Which is why we have CU’s, DP’s, RB’s and private contracts as types of same-sex marriage. Because they are legal. There is no “when it is legal”, that time is now.”
Same-sex marriage is legal, too, in some jurisdictions. More to come soon, too. See, the thing with civil unions and domestic partnerships is they create something I like to call a “separate but equal” accommodation: that means they are the same as something else, but intended solely for a different group. Usually when this happens, it’s because one group doesn’t want to mix with another group, and keep that other group in a diminished status socially.
So while it’s good that you recognize how important it is for same-sex couples to have their relationships legally secured just like opposite-sex couples, the way you want to do it violates US law. Marriage works just fine for both groups!
“Or do you want marriage to be neutered anyway, even though CU’s and DP’s and other forms of same-sex marriage are already legal?”
I want marriage to neutered anyway, for the legal reasons cited above: there is no rational public interest in creating one set of laws for straight peoples’ relationships, and another set of laws for gay peoples’ relationships.
Charim, well there’s a rather big difference between INTENTIONALLY getting pregnant with another mans child and lying about it to your spouse, and say having a one night stand/being raped, etc. where pregnancy was not planned and assuming it was your spouse. Isn’t that obvious? I mean INTENTIONALLY doing something like this would be a practically criminal/sociopathic personality defect. It’s miles apart from a drunken one night stand or rape that results in an unplanned child.
Can we stop using “neutering” in marriage discussions? I mean, marriage isn’t a DOG. -_- It’s also starting to sound like some people here have castration anxiety.
The choice to form a one-sex-short arrangement is a liberty exercised, not a right denied. It is a choice for nonmarriage but nonmarriage is generally legal because it is either tolerated or even protected. Only the outlawed arrangements are out of bounds. The rest of nonmarriage is lawful even though society may discriminate between nonmarriage and marriage.
The SSM idea is bad for society because it would require that all unions of husbands and wives be treated as if they lacked either husbands or wives. The marital presumption of paternity’s sexual basis would thus be sidelined because no one-sexed union can fit the sexual basis for presuming that a husband impregnated his wife during their marriage.
The hockers of gay identity politics provide the racialist analogue since they, like the racialists of the past, would diminish the provision for responsible procreation (even stand against it directly) and bring selective-sex segregation under the auspices of the social institution that has always integrated man and woman. The racialists did it via a racialist filter to promote the supremacy of white identity politics; the SSMers demand it via a gaycentric filter to promote the supremacy of gay identity politics.
That adversely impacts society as it is a profound misuse of a foundational social institution of civil society.
Thanks for your explanation, nerdygirl.
I don’t think that it is obvious that intentions make such a big difference when it comes to the presumption that the husband impregnated his wife and that the children of the marriage are the children of both the husband and the wife.
(If rape came to mind, okay, but I don’t think that was remotely part of the context of the discussion.)
Regarding the part about lying to a spouse, well, that is why most places require that a wife receives the express agreement of her husband should she seek to become impregnated via a fertility clinic’s “donor” sperm supply. The marital presumption of paternity applies so the husband’s agreement would forego his challenge to paternity on a sexual basis. It is a zig-zag around the rebutable criteria for the presumption’s sexual basis. The purpose is to shield the participants — the husband, the wife, the clinic, the “donor” — while foregoing the birthright of children.
I disagree with that zig-zag.
The one-night stand? If she became pregnant shortly after, it would be responsible of her to intentionally not be ignorant of who is the child’s father. Shielding herself from the knowledge, depsite the one-night stand, might be intended to also shield the child and protect the husband, but that shows how the marital presumption of paternity is well-designed to accomodate human nature. The presumption protects the social institution, the husband and wife, and the children even if it sometimes creates a legal fiction.
The alternative would be for husbands to take the default position, or for society to take that default position on behalf of everyone, that each wife who becomes pregnat has been unfaithful and thus each marital pregnancy would require DNA testing of some sort. This would drag the government into each and every marriage — into the most intimate aspects routinely — based on an inefficient and unsavory anti-marriage presumption.
Intentions do make a difference.
When you mentioned planned children, well, plan or no plan a child has a birthright as well as right to birth. But if the intentions (or plans) of the mother and father trump that, then, the marital presumption of paternity cannot remain a vigorously enforced provision in our legal system for much longer. And that would be tragic.
“same-sex marriage is legal in places that recognize them with CU’s, DP’s, RB’s and private contracts”
Or, to be accurate and honest, same-sex marriage is legal in places that recognize same-sex marriage! Civil Unions and other marriage substitutes aren’t marriage but rather “separate but equal” accommodations, designed to prevent gay people from gaining access to marriae.
“Yes, and CU’s (etc…) should be open to any-cohabiting arrangement.”
As should marriage. Unless a couple is too young, too closely related and too already married.
“So I guess no same-sex marriage can work under Sean’s understanding of the constitution.”
In reality, where I like to spend my time, the US Constitution guarantees its citizens equal protection under the laws. That means that you can’t give rights and privileges to one group, but not another group, without a rational public purpose for doing so.
“often the gay marriages will try to demean womanhood”
This one is even weirder than your other stuff. How is “womanhood” demeaned when two adults get married? Is it the two lesbians demeaning womanhood or the two gay guys? And how is same-sex parenting related to same-sex marriage? You seem to confuse the two rather frequently.
“Which is why there is CU’s, DP’s, RB’s and private contracts. So we can have forms of marriage that work best for each relationship type. It works fine for all relationship types!”
But why have multiple forms when one form works for all?! Marriage works great for both straight and gay couples, and since the law doesn’t like “separate but equal” accommodations, what’s left to consider?
“he’s happy to do the harm to marriage even though he doesn’t need to”
What harm is done to marriage when same-sex couples get married? I would think divorce does harm to marriage, that is, someone destroying a marriage. But I don’t really see how any couple actually getting married harms marriage. It doesn’t really make sense, unless, I guess, you’re one of those Straight Supremacists.
“the SSMers demand it via a gaycentric filter to promote the supremacy of gay identity politics.”
Actually opposite-sex only marriage is a Straight Supremacy goal. So if there’s any “identity politics” going on, it is on the part of the Straight Supremacists.
Sean is just confused by the fact that CU’s, DP’s, RB’s are forms of same-sex marriage. His contention about equality is something else to deal with, mostly it is his poor understanding of what equality is that creates that confusion for him. But for now same-sex marriage is legal where CU’s, DP’s, RB’s and private contracts freely recognize them.
Is this evidence of Sean’s animus towards closely related people that they are exceptions to the rule athat any cohabiting arrangement should have access to CU’s, DP’s etc…?
Exactly why marriage is between a man and a woman, it integrates both into one group! It also has the rational public purpose of promoting responsible procreation. From Justice Parillo’s concurrance in the New Jersey trial Lewis v Harris…
It also promotes marriage equality — the equal recognition of the rights and responsibilities of the man, woman, and child they potentially have together.
The answer to those questions, not-so-oddly-enough are in the full quote… noted specifically with tags for ease of cross reference.
Lesbians demean the men in similar ways, treating their identity as something to purchase to complete their mistaken view of reality.
This isn’t unlike slavery when you think about it, there one group segregated from the others and ignored the reality of their human rights and treated their identity as a race as something they could purchase for their own services.
Multiple forms of marriage because no one form will truly recognize the needs of every relationship. This isn’t like an oversized stretchy ‘one-size fits all’ shirt that fits everyone
IIRC, wasn’t the one-size-fits-all view of government discredited with the fall of communism in the early ’90s?
And yes, different types of marriage do work great for procreative relationships, and simply commited cohabiting relationships respectively. But the same type doesn’t work well for all of those relationships.
What harm does Sean want to be done to marriage that causes him to support it being neutered? Answered.
The world isn’t your mirror Sean, just because you see the world through the eyes of enforcing your own image of supremacy on others, doesn’t mean they are doing it to you.
“Sean is just confused by the fact that CU’s, DP’s, RB’s are forms of same-sex marriage.”
Really? Let’s ask Sean…….he says he’s not confused, and that civil unions are not marriage but rather surrogates designed to keep gay couples away from marriage. In that regard, they are unconstitutional, and will eventually be eliminated in favor of marriage equality. Yea!
OnLawn doesn’t know very much about the law, but she does know that it’s really important not to let gay couples get married. She doesn’t know why she feels this way, but she feels strongly about it, so she must be right to feel this way!
“Is this evidence of Sean’s animus towards closely related people?”
No, it reflects Sean’s acceptance of social disapproval of closely related people getting married, since this disapproval doesn’t violate anyone’s constitutional rights. Sean is closely related to some people and he really likes them. No animus at all!
“It also has the rational public purpose of promoting responsible procreation.”
And is in no way compromised when same-sex couples get married!
“The simple fact is that the very existence of marriage does “privilege procreative heterosexual intercourse.””
Yep, and the Straight Supremacists love it! But the problem is, there’s no social benefit to privileging straight sex and not privileging gay sex. Oops.
“Procreative heterosexual intercourse”
Ah, but not all heterosexual intercourse is procreative! That’s the rub that gets the Straight Supremacists stuck in the mud. Unless and until society roots out the non-procreators, and just lets all straight couples get married, marriage is nothing more than an institution for straight people to feel superior about their sexual orientation, to the detriment of tax-paying, law-abiding gay people. Oops, the law sure doesn’t like that!
“Marriage’s vital purpose is not to mandate procreation but to control or ameliorate its consequences”
Yep, as noted, if you can’t procreate…..
“Lesbians demean the men in similar ways, treating their identity as something to purchase to complete their mistaken view of reality.”
Please, PLEASE make a YouTube video where you say crazy stuff like this, ok? It would really help speed along social acceptance of legal same-sex marriage!
“Multiple forms of marriage because no one form will truly recognize the needs of every relationship.”
One form appears to be working quite well in Massachusetts, Iowa, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Vermont and DC, as well as a number of foreign countries! Hey, if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it!
“This isn’t like an oversized stretchy ‘one-size fits all’ shirt that fits everyone”
Evidently it is.
“The world isn’t your mirror Sean, just because you see the world through the eyes of enforcing your own image of supremacy on others, doesn’t mean they are doing it to you.”
You’ve mistaken me for a Straight Supremacist. I am not. I am a married straight man but I have no egotistical need to feel that I am better than gay people for something I have no control over: my sexual orientation. I don’t need to “take credit” for an involuntary circumstance.
Sean: “Really? Let’s ask Sean…….he says he’s not confused, and that civil unions are not marriage but rather surrogates designed to keep gay couples away from marriage. In that regard, they are unconstitutional, and will eventually be eliminated in favor of marriage equality. Yea!”
Wonderful! And I couldn’t agree more – with their lack of equal rights, CU’s and DP’s are not same-sex marriage, as anyone can see.
1) Funny that Sean asks the person who is confused [Sean], whether or not he is confused. It would be funnier if it weren’t such well used comedy gag 😀
2) CU’s, DP’s, RB’s and many private contracts are forms of same-sex marriage. They are two people living together in a committed relationship, how is that not a form of same-sex marriage? Sean mysteriously omits that explaination.
3) In this sentence, Sean just argued that same-sex marriage [e.g. CU’s etc…] is meant to keep them from being married. Well, its their choice. Do they want marriage equality — the equal recognition of the rights and responsibilities of the man, woman and child they potentially have together — or do they want same-sex marriage [e.g. CU’s etc…]. I say give them both options, let them choose. Both will be recognized (as opposed to some on this forum that are confused as thinking that same-sex marriage is illegal where CU’s, etc… exist).
4) If keeping people away from marriage is unconstitutional, then we should worry about institutions like the GLBT which actively harass people who do get married with sites like “ex-gay watch” and try to promote their failure. But, actually, the constitution guarantees freedom of speech, they can promote that gays can’t get married, and harrass those that do to a certain degree.
5) I’m all for marriage equality — the equal recognition of the man, woman, and child they potentially have together! Who isn’t for that?
Actually, I support many types of same-sex marriage, CU’s, DP’s, RB’s and many private contracts. Sean is simply wrong.
Well, there you go, it is possible to deny groups of people marriage licenses, and still have no animus towards them, and it can be constitutional.
We don’t need to neuter marriage by removing its reference to equality — one man and one woman.
Which is why we have CU’s, DP’s, RB’s and private contracts, so it is in no way comprimised, and still same-sex couples get “married”!
Hence, CU’s etc… which will recognize their mutual commitment and trust. And marriage which recognizes their commitment to responsible procreation even beyond their own adult needs
1) Sexual intercourse is how children are born naturally. Same-sex relations, even with medical assistence do not produce children.
2) Procreation is a relationship. Individually, without anyone else, no one can procreate.
3) Not all straight couples do, or can get married.
4) Just because Seans motivations are based on pride, doesn’t mean that those opposed to him are also. This isn’t a game where both sides are the same as noted by Justice Parrillo in Lewis v Harris,
Yep, if you are of a relationship type that can’t procreate …
I don’t have to, sites like WhosDaughter, and essays like “My Daddy’s name is Donor” already treat this subject. And while it may increase the acceptance of CU’s DP’s etc (which I personally think should be expanded to all non-homosexual same-sex couples also) … it has a much more central purpose in protecting the rights of children and the people they create children with.
Funny, it was watching the problems formed in those states that has actually increased the number of people against such a one-size-fits-all program. I wonder what they see that Sean doesn’t, if Sean thinks it is going perfectly well …
Sure, wear one to your next formal occasion and see how well it fits
Thanks for letting us know that Sean, yet you are the only person here who has openly shown hatred for another group of people. You said you wish Christianity would “die silently”.
But more to the point, Sean sees animus because Sean is acting out of animus. Just as we try to see Sean as someone making rational points and discussing things from his heart, just like we are. However, Sean has explicitely stated otherwise in his own motivations, which has made me question my original presumptions about him.
In seperate news, yesterday was the anniversary of Krystal Nacht.
Hey, as I said to Sean seperate but equal is not equal. Seperating into all-male, all-female, relationships is not equality, its segregation. You’ll have that problem with every form of same-sex marriage, but that doesn’t make it no longer a form of same-sex marriage.
On Lawn: “Seperating (sic) into all-male, all-female, relationships is not equality, its segregation. ”
Really one of the stupidest responses yet!
“You’ll have that problem with every form of same-sex marriage, but that doesn’t make it no longer a form of same-sex marriage.”
Wow, I guess this might be the stupidest sentence! (mainly because it doesn’t make any sense).
But back to the first statement. On Lawn uses an inflammatory term to describe same-sex marriage to evoke an emotional response. If an all-male or all female relationship is segregation than so is an all white or all black one. But, if these are all segregation, it’s because they have the FREEDOM to make a choice that suits them best, not that there are forced into a relationship that is not good for them.
“Funny that Sean asks the person who is confused [Sean], whether or not he is confused”
Funnier that OnLawn keeps resorting to the third person!
“CU’s, DP’s, RB’s and many private contracts are forms of same-sex marriage. They are two people living together in a committed relationship, how is that not a form of same-sex marriage? Sean mysteriously omits that explanation.”
Except that they’re not marriage. They are subordinate institutions, designed to keep gay couples away from marriage. Some states have already junked them, such as Vermont and Connecticut, and some states just went straight to marriage equality, like Iowa and Massachusetts. OnLawn mysteriously clings to NOM talking points, despite contrary evidence.
“give them both options, let them choose”
Actually an even better idea is to just use the existing marriage rules and extend them to same-sex couples! Marriage is already in place, and you won’t create “separate but equal” accommodations.
“If keeping people away from marriage is unconstitutional”
Keeping marriage away from people isn’t unconstitutional: there’s no constitutional right to marriage. But if the state is going to give marriage licenses to some couples, but not others, it has to have a rational public purpose for doing so. That’s the hard-working 14th Amendment busily protecting minority groups from mob rule!
“I’m all for marriage equality — the equal recognition of the man, woman, and child they potentially have together! Who isn’t for that?”
Equal recognition from whom? Each other? Other citizens? You? Marriage equality actually means “granting marriage licenses to all citizens, regardless of gender or sexual orientation.”
“I support many types of same-sex marriage, CU’s, DP’s, RB’s and many private contracts.”
That’s a great first step: realizing that same-sex relationships deserve legal recognition and protection. But marriage substitutes don’t appear to be capable of withstanding court scrutiny, specifically “separate but equal” prohibitions. Shoot. Well, I guess the only thing left, as some states are doing, is to just skip the substitutes, and go for the real thing!
“it is possible to deny groups of people marriage licenses, and still have no animus towards them, and it can be constitutional.”
Absolutely! Just so no one’s constitutional rights get trampled! Then it becomes unconstitutional, of course. And just make sure you don’t have witnesses expressing their disdain for the group you want to deprive of rights! Even the US Supreme Court doesn’t like that!
“We don’t need to neuter marriage by removing its reference to equality — one man and one woman.”
Good news! We aren’t! Straight people will still be allowed to marry, as many times as they wish! Just like now!
“which will recognize their mutual commitment and trust. And marriage which recognizes their commitment to responsible procreation even beyond their own adult needs”
What’s great is that marriage is so powerful, that it can let both straight couples AND gay couples use it, with no ill effects! Straight couples can still commit to taking care of their children (you would think they would do this anyway, but whatever!) as gay couples get their relationships legally recognized.
Still no answer as to why straight sex needs to be privileged, while gay sex can’t or shouldn’t be. Hmm.
“Sexual intercourse is how children are born naturally. Same-sex relations, even with medical assistence do not produce children.”
Actually, children are born not from sex but from childbirth. And childbirth doesn’t happen if there’s no child to be birthed!
“Procreation is a relationship”
No redefinition of words allowed! Procreation is reproduction, where a new life is formed and birthed. Just ask anybody whose one-night-stand “relationship” resulted in pregnancy.
“Just because Seans motivations are based on pride”
I thought you opposed guessing what someone’s motivations were? Sean isn’t motivated by pride but by legal logic, a sense of fair play, what’s best for children, and a general dislike of being told what to do by religious freaks, who seem unusually attached to this issue.
“Marriage’s vital purpose is not to mandate procreation but to control or ameliorate its consequences – the so-called “private welfare” purpose. To maintain otherwise is to ignore procreation’s centrality to marriage.”
And this important purpose is in no way compromised when same-sex couples marry! Maybe this is one of those judges that should get fired for not doing his job right!
“Yep, if you are of a relationship type that can’t procreate”
Exactly. If you can’t or won’t procreate, you don’t need to get married. At least that appears to be OnLawn’s assessment of marriage. I think it’s unkind to the many childless couples in America, who believe that their marriages are valuable, even though they don’t have children.
“… it has a much more central purpose in protecting the rights of children and the people they create children with.”
Really? I guess they aren’t very effective, because same-sex couples are free to raise children in all 50 states. If you really want to protect children, why not let all these same-sex couples raising children get married?! It would make those kids a lot more secure, being raised by a couple who are legally bound together in a relationship protected by law!
“it was watching the problems formed in those states that has actually increased the number of people against such a one-size-fits-all program. I wonder what they see that Sean doesn’t, if Sean thinks it is going perfectly well …”
See this is where examples would be really useful. What problems have the marriage equality states suffered? Lower divorce rates? More secure children? Sore loser religionists?
“yet you are the only person here who has openly shown hatred for another group of people. You said you wish Christianity would “die silently”.”
I wasn’t aware that Christianity was a person! I thought it was a religion, one particularly abused and misconstrued in the US.
“Sean sees animus because Sean is acting out of animus.”
That’s true: I hate it when people violate the US Constitution, or state constitutions, because of selfish, hateful or religious reasons.
“discussing things from his heart, just like we are”
And that’s your problem. Use your brain, too, not just your heart. I am.
Mark, what objective criteria do you use when you identify “an all white” type of relationship?
I ask because if you depend on the sort of criteria used by the anti-miscegenation system then you aren’t really the voice of progress here. More a regressive voice.
But if the color of skin is your criterion, then, exluding people of all the other complexions, in the type of relationship, would be segregative based on shades of skin color. You do realize that there are far more variations of skin color that the number two, right? And that human procreation demonstrates that skin color is not an objective criterion for dividing humankind into subspecies.
This means that to integrate all skin colors into one type of relationship would be analgous to uniting the two sexes into one type of relationship. Marriage does this by making normative the unithy of the sexes and the unity of fatherhood and motherhood. Skin color has never provided a barrier to this even if identity politics did in the past under a socio-political construct: white supremacy.
The SSM idea’s gay emphasis is the racialist analogue. And so your “all-white” and “all- black” subldivisions of relationship types is well-noted.
Nothing to reply to, point stands.
Still nothing to reply to.
1) When it is instiutionalized as is in “same-sex marriage”, yes.
2) Yes, we have freedom of association, and we should celebrate it with a program like CU’s or DP’s that recognize mutual trust.
3) Which is why marriage is voluntary, and equal (one man and one woman).
1) Yes, through CP’s, DP’s etc…
2) You will everytime you make “same-sex marriages” which create seperate but allegedly “equal” segregated all-male and all-female arrangements.
1) I’ll disagree, especially after the Loving, Zobloki, and other decisions which have recognized such a right — the right to combine with the other gender to propogate and procreate in a socially responsibly committed way.
2) Yes! Responsible procreation, as noted in all of those judicial decisions.
3) Yes, especially when they are a mob of 7 judges who’s power has gone to their heads, and they start misconstruing their constitution for their own personal politics.
Everyone is a man or a woman, so marriage equality — the equal recognition fo the man, woman, and child they potentially have together — works for everyone.
1) Well, you can’t help the fact that all-male and all-female is “seperate but equal” but it isn’t even equal.
2) Yes, Marriage equality now! The equal recognition fo the rights and responsibilities of the man, woman and children the potentially have together!
And let CU’s DP’s etc.. recognize same-sex marriages as well as all other cohabiting situations which aren’t covered with marriage.
“it is possible to deny groups of people marriage licenses, and still have no animus towards them, and it can be constitutional.”
Absolutely! Just so no one’s constitutional rights get trampled! Then it becomes unconstitutional, of course. And just make sure you don’t have witnesses expressing their disdain for the group you want to deprive of rights! Even the US Supreme Court doesn’t like that!
“We don’t need to neuter marriage by removing its reference to equality — one man and one woman.”
Good news! We aren’t! Straight people will still be allowed to marry, as many times as they wish! Just like now!
“which will recognize their mutual commitment and trust. And marriage which recognizes their commitment to responsible procreation even beyond their own adult needs”
What’s great is that marriage is so powerful, that it can let both straight couples AND gay couples use it, with no ill effects! Straight couples can still commit to taking care of their children (you would think they would do this anyway, but whatever!) as gay couples get their relationships legally recognized.
Still no answer as to why straight sex needs to be privileged, while gay sex can’t or shouldn’t be. Hmm.
“Sexual intercourse is how children are born naturally. Same-sex relations, even with medical assistence do not produce children.”
Actually, children are born not from sex but from childbirth. And childbirth doesn’t happen if there’s no child to be birthed!
“Procreation is a relationship”
No redefinition of words allowed! Procreation is reproduction, where a new life is formed and birthed. Just ask anybody whose one-night-stand “relationship” resulted in pregnancy.
“Just because Seans motivations are based on pride”
I thought you opposed guessing what someone’s motivations were? Sean isn’t motivated by pride but by legal logic, a sense of fair play, what’s best for children, and a general dislike of being told what to do by religious freaks, who seem unusually attached to this issue.
“Marriage’s vital purpose is not to mandate procreation but to control or ameliorate its consequences – the so-called “private welfare” purpose. To maintain otherwise is to ignore procreation’s centrality to marriage.”
And this important purpose is in no way compromised when same-sex couples marry! Maybe this is one of those judges that should get fired for not doing his job right!
“Yep, if you are of a relationship type that can’t procreate”
Exactly. If you can’t or won’t procreate, you don’t need to get married. At least that appears to be OnLawn’s assessment of marriage. I think it’s unkind to the many childless couples in America, who believe that their marriages are valuable, even though they don’t have children.
“… it has a much more central purpose in protecting the rights of children and the people they create children with.”
Really? I guess they aren’t very effective, because same-sex couples are free to raise children in all 50 states. If you really want to protect children, why not let all these same-sex couples raising children get married?! It would make those kids a lot more secure, being raised by a couple who are legally bound together in a relationship protected by law!
“it was watching the problems formed in those states that has actually increased the number of people against such a one-size-fits-all program. I wonder what they see that Sean doesn’t, if Sean thinks it is going perfectly well …”
See this is where examples would be really useful. What problems have the marriage equality states suffered? Lower divorce rates? More secure children? Sore loser religionists?
“yet you are the only person here who has openly shown hatred for another group of people. You said you wish Christianity would “die silently”.”
I wasn’t aware that Christianity was a person! I thought it was a religion, one particularly abused and misconstrued in the US.
“Sean sees animus because Sean is acting out of animus.”
That’s true: I hate it when people violate the US Constitution, or state constitutions, because of selfish, hateful or religious reasons.
“discussing things from his heart, just like we are”
And that’s your problem. Use your brain, too, not just your heart. I am.
On Lawn: “1) When it is instiutionalized (sic) as is in “same-sex marriage”, yes.”
LOL, and On Lawn makes up yet another “fact” to support his bigotry.
“Which is why marriage is voluntary, and equal (one man and one woman)”
LOL, the idiocy continues. On Lawn continues to blind his eyes to reality and instead decides to live in his make believe world. Until marriage is equal for all, it is equal for no one.
But, keep holding on to your lies that CU’, DP’s are equal to marriage. You fail to see any reality or truth ignoring the inequalities not to mention the enormous cost difference. But, On Lawn merely wants to punish people who are different.
Point stands.
Without any ration-based resistance, it seems the point stands here too.
This comment shows reasoning was a complete no-show in Mark’s reply. He is encouraged to try again, but cautioned that juvinile baiting, accusations, and insults don’t make for rational debate. And their presense can indicate trying to cover up an inability to make a rational point.
My points may have indeed been irrational, and if so I’m welcome to hear how and why. Insults are just childish, however.
““same-sex marriages” which create seperate but allegedly “equal” segregated all-male and all-female arrangements.”
Same-sex marriages don’t create a “separate but equal” accommodation. You should read up on the concept of “separate but equal” accommodations in a reputable legal resource.
“Responsible procreation, as noted in all of those judicial decisions.”
A marvelous concept, in no way compromised when same-sex couples marry. Yea!
“especially when they are a mob of 7 judges who’s power has gone to their heads,”
Who are you talking about? Certainly not the Iowa judges who ruled that Iowa’s equal protection clause required that all Iowans be treated equally, even gay Iowans.
“they start misconstruing their constitution for their own personal politics.”
You must have mind-reading capabilities! Congratulations. Because there’s no evidence they imposed their personal values in any way in their ruling.
Ok, what am I thinking right now?!?!
“Everyone is a man or a woman, so marriage equality — the equal recognition fo the man, woman, and child they potentially have together — works for everyone.”
Where’s your source, other than your own imagination, that marriage equality gives men and women equality? I’d like to read more about this interesting concept.
On Lawn: “My points may have indeed been irrational, and if so I’m welcome to hear how and why. Insults are just childish, however.”
Well, actually, not so, On Lawn. Your points are irrational and when numerous people point them out, you simply ignore or discredit them.
But, I’ll go back to the current thread:
Mark: “If an all-male or all female relationship is segregation than so is an all white or all black one[1]. But, if these are all segregation, it’s because they have the FREEDOM to make a choice that suits them best[2], not that there are forced into a relationship that is not good for them[3]. ”
On Lawn:
“1) When it is instiutionalized (sic) as is in “same-sex marriage”, yes.”
So, On Lawn’s “rational” argument is that the only segregation is institutionalized same-sex marriage. But On Lawn never explains why this is, he just plays his games
“2) Yes, we have freedom of association, and we should celebrate it with a program like CU’s or DP’s that recognize mutual trust.”
But, as On Lawn has been shown countless times (and ignores countless times) CU’s and DP’s are not equal to same-sex marriage. If On Lawn truly believe in freedom of association, he would support SSM.
“3) Which is why marriage is voluntary, and equal (one man and one woman).”
Which actually makes marriage restrictive and would force gays and lesbians into a relationship that is not suited to them. So, marriage is not “equal” as On Lawn claims.
Each one-sexed arrangement lacks the other sex; it is not sex-integrative but, by design and by choice, it is sex-exclusive — segregative.
SSMers want to group different types of relationships under the same name and status. That is not integrative because it would deny the essentials of each type. The marriage type of relationship unites man and woman; the all-female sexual type of relationship unites women and excludes men; the all-male sexual type of relationship unites men and excludes women. The latter are sex-segregative while the first is sex-integrative.
Schools might be racially integrative; or racially segregative. Group them together as schools but don’t confuse the integrative with the segregative.
Racialist divides are social constructs. The unity of man and woman arises from the two-sexed nature of humankind, the opposite-sexed nature of human procreaton, and the complementary or both-sexed nature of human community. Racialist disunity arises from a false division of the one human race into subspecies. The unity of man and woman disproves such racialist divisions.
Now, SSMers might see the world via the gay-straight dichotomy. That’s unfortunate when applied to marriage which is the social institution that integrates the sexes regardless of identity politics — racialist or gaycentric.
If SSMers mean to suggest that marriage law must integrate based on gayness and straightness, then, they must imagine that integration is a worthy goal; but somehow it is unworthy as a goal when it comes to sex integration. How to reconcile that contradiction?
Clearly the SSMers abandon the racialist analogue when it suites them: marriage is blind to sexual orientation and to identity politics, however, SSMers insist on pressing both into the marriage law. But they hide behind vague terms like ‘same-sex’ which denotes a category that is far larger than their favored gay subset. Same-sex lacks the other sex of humankind so sex-segregation is at the root of this rhetorical disguise. Meanwhle, the SSM idea is promoted with an obvious and unashamed emphasis on gay identity; so identity politics is also being pressed into the marriage law should the SSM idea become entrenched and the marriage idea be sidelined.
The SSM idea is promoted with the political notion of purity of gay identity. And with the denial of a distinction between same-sex attraction and gay identity. Yet this is tucked into the larger same-sex category. Marriage is not merely opposite-sexed; it means far more than that. The SSM idea means less than the marriage idea; it adds only the pressing of gay identity politics into societal regard of marriage. And, unfortunately, it also sells sex-segregation as the equivalent — morally, legally, functionally — of sex-integrative relationship types.
Yes, this is at the root of the rhetoric that disparages the unity of fatherhood and motherhood and thus seeks to equate the sex-segregative parental scenario with the sex-integrative scenario that the social institution of marriage makes normative. They ask, where’s the difference? But they assert that there can be no tolerated difference. Yet this flies in the face of the very basis for the gay emphasis.
Afterall, if sex difference was intolerable, then, there would be no such thing as a preference for one’s same sex. Yet this preference is announced as existing and thus the predominant reason to promote the sex-segregative types of relationships as worthy of the special status of marriage, a social institution that integrates the sexes and whose sexual basis is not ambiguous nor sex-neutral.
“Each one-sexed arrangement lacks the other sex; it is not sex-integrative but, by design and by choice, it is sex-exclusive — segregative.”
Trying to employ the rhetoric of civil rights doesn’t create a substantive argument. Straight people aren’t honoring civil rights when they form a couple but rather, their libidos. Arguing honestly on this issue is not exactly a strong point, is it?
“SSMers want to group different types of relationships under the same name and status.”
Well, OSMers do it! For example, they group procreative and non-procreative couples under the same label, saying the very thing that defines marriage, procreation, somehow applies to both groups. Weird.
“The marriage type of relationship unites man and woman; the all-female sexual type of relationship unites women and excludes men; the all-male sexual type of relationship unites men and excludes women. The latter are sex-segregative while the first is sex-integrative.”
Nice to know, but no reason to create separate institutions for gay couples and straight couples.
“Now, SSMers might see the world via the gay-straight dichotomy.”
Well, OSMers might see the world via the gay-straight dichotomy, too!
“marriage is blind to sexual orientation and to identity politics, however”
False, marriage so far has been available only to straight people, emphasizing the Straight Supremacy Campaign.
“Marriage is not merely opposite-sexed; it means far more than that”
Such as? To get married, you have to be opposite-sex, not closely related and old enough. Oh and not already married. It’s not a very exclusive club, except, evidently, when gay couples want to join!
You forgot:
Two in number
Unmarried
Living
Human
Now we need to get back to making it much more difficult for one party to dissolve a marriage contract.
Two is a given, I mentioned unmarried and alive and human, well, if the day comes that we need to specify that one must be alive and human, we’ve got real problems, not fake ones like stopping gay people from getting married!
Ruth: “Now we need to get back to making it much more difficult for one party to dissolve a marriage contract.”
Yes, because keeping two unhappy people together for all time is what marriage is really all about.
Well, you then argue with Sean who claims they do. Well, okay, you argue with me on that too, but since you have better access to Sean try figuring out with him first and get back to me when you know better.
Which is exactly why there are CU’s, DP’s, RB’s and other types of same-sex marriage. Which, apparently now according to Sean are not segregated seperate but equal. (They are, but that is only because all-male and all-female nature about them, but that is a different story)
Good for them! However, their ruling against marriage’s expectation of one man and one woman was egregious attack on equality, and misconstrued the Iowa constitution beyond recognition.
Even Sean here cannot quote the constitution to such effect, and when pressed relies on un-sayable and unquotable dogma relayed to him by his high-school teachers.
Funny, reading “revenge” into people is mind reading. The fact that they misconstrued the constitution is obvious in that even the most plain reading of it doesn’t produce what the Iowa judges claimed it said.
Because that is what marriage equality is — the equal recognition of the rights and responsibilities of the man, woman and child they potentially have together. It is obvious on the face of it
Much more the latter than the former
1) It isn’t government segregation until it is institutionalized or publically supported. As was quoted in the Goodridge decision, actually, that said the government can’t stamp out prejudice but it shouldn’t give it effect either.
2) They aren’t equally recognized is all Mark has shown. Neither are any other type of same-sex marriage.
3) Marriage doesn’t force anything — it is a voluntary program.
On Lawn: “It isn’t government segregation until it is institutionalized or publically (sic) supported. ”
On Lawn, I realize you have very little to hang your hateful, bigoted heart on, but, to incorrectly use the meaning of the word segregation in a pathetic attempt to support your denial of peoples civil rights just confuses the discussion.
OnLawn continues to not make sense:
“then argue with Sean who claims they do.”
Nope, Sean has repeatedly says that no kind of marriage creates a “separate but equal” accommodation. It’s a specific legal theory that doesn’t apply. Again, perhaps Wikipedia has a passage that might help illuminate the concept for you. Or maybe your local library has a pop-up book.
“Which is exactly why there are CU’s, DP’s, RB’s and other types of same-sex marriage.”
Actually I just stated that opposite-sex marriage and same-sex marriage can co-exist. I didn’t advance a reason for creating a “separate but equal” parallel structure for a marriage substitute.
“their ruling against marriage’s expectation of one man and one woman was egregious attack on equality, and misconstrued the Iowa constitution beyond recognition.”
Oh, have you read the Iowa constitution or the Varnum decision? If not, allow me to copy a section or two from them:
From Varnum:
“More importantly, the Iowa legislature has recently declared as the public policy of this state that sexual orientation is not relevant to a person’s ability to contribute to a number of societal institutions other than civil marriage. See Iowa Code § 216.6 (employment); id. § 216.7 (public
accommodations); id. § 216.8 (housing); id. § 216.9 (education); id. § 216.10 (credit practices).”
And,
“The legislature has further indicated the irrelevancy of sexual orientation by mandating sex education in the state’s public schools be free of biases relating to sexual orientation, Iowa Code § 279.50, and by securing personal freedom from violence and intimidation due to sexual orientation, id. § 729A.1. Likewise, numerous state administrative regulations indicate sexual orientation is not relevant to a person’s ability to contribute to society.”
Clearly the people of Iowa are against discrimination aimed at gays and lesbians! Why would they want to permit discrimination against gays and lesbians for the purpose of marriage?
And from the Iowa state constitution:
“Laws uniform. SEC. 6. All laws of a general nature shall have a uniform operation; the general assembly shall not grant to any citizen, or class of citizens, privileges or immunities, which, upon the same terms shall not equally belong to all citizens.”
Whether or not you agree with the Iowa court’s decision, they clearly are on solid ground in issuing it. But revenge is sweet, isn’t it?
“Funny, reading “revenge” into people is mind reading.”
Well you tell me: you appear to be able to read the minds of Iowa’s judges, who you claim were advancing their social beliefs. An act of revenge is one where retribution is sought against a perceived slight or injustice. It achieves no purpose other than to punish the perceived transgressor. That describes what the people of Iowa did to their judges, at NOM’s urging.
“Because that is what marriage equality is”
Ah, the always convincing, if rather juvenile, “because I said so!” argument.
Sean, your entire viewpoint is one big “because I said so!” — but it hardly ranks as a bonafide argument for the SSM idea. It stands really as an argument against the marriage idea. In this conflict your sayso does not justify itself.
On Lawn’s description of marriage, on the other hand, is supported by the anthropological and historical records — across cultures, across time and geography, and across religious and irreligious contexts.
Your sayso does not stackup very well against the full weight of the social institution of marriage which On Lawn has described in his own words without straying from the millenia of evidence across human civilizations.
With nothing I’d consider a credible counter argument raised from Mark, my point stands.
See Mark, the days are gone that you can kick and scream against being wrong. When you are wrong no amount of false accusations is going to save your point.
“Sean, your entire viewpoint is one big “because I said so!” — but it hardly ranks as a bonafide argument for the SSM idea.”
Not at all. My viewpoint is based on:
1. The constitution says so: there is a guarantee of equal protection for all citizens.
2. The children say so: the children of same-sex couples want their parents to be able to marry, just like their friends’ parents get to.
3. Society says so: most Americans are against violence toward gays and lesbians, and gay teens taking their own lives from despair created by homophobia
Sean’s really just the messenger here. It’s not really about what he wants, although he does fully support obeying the nation’s constitution and giving kids their best shot in life, and is strongly against violence directed at anyone, including gays and lesbians.
“On Lawn’s description of marriage, on the other hand, is supported by the anthropological and historical records — across cultures,”
So is slavery and women as property.
“Your sayso does not stackup very well against the full weight of the social institution of marriage”
I think if you could bring yourself to worry less about the messenger, and more about the message, you might be able to understand why same-sex marriage must be legalized as soon as possible.
I can’t help that Sean is still wrong about it. I suspect he’ll say it many more times, and each will also be wrong. That is the nature of facts, they don’t change by incantation and repetition of beliefs.
Exactly why CU’s, DP’s, RB’s, etc… are here so they can co-exist 😀
Which is why the very same “people of Iowa” voted out the Judges who overstepped their bounds, because it doesn’t discriminate against sexual orientation to expect equal gender representation (one man and one woman) in marriage.
Yes, it seems “the people of Iowa” their solid ground, had a solid response to their ruling! And now they are grounded from doing it again.
Yep, they found them errant, abusing their power, and retained the right the constitution gave them to get rid of them.
Yes, Sean does use the “because I said so” argument alot. I am also entertained when he uses the my high school teacher would so prove you are wrong right now or the even more delightful my pop-up book would soooo prove you wrong right now!
On Lawn: “When you are wrong no amount of false accusations is going to save your point.”
And yet On Lawn continues his diatribe in the face of his fallacies. If you can, On Lawn, define the term “segregation”.
“I can’t help that Sean is still wrong about it.”
No he’s not. He’s right: marriage of any kind does not create a “separate but equal” accommodation.
Knowing OnLawn, I suspect she’ll say it many more times, and each will also be wrong. That is the nature of facts; they don’t change by incantation and repetition of beliefs. Now, if she could find some authoritative source (no, not those voices inside her head!) that states that same-sex marriage creates a legal “separate but equal” accommodation, then maybe Sean will have to reconsider.
“Exactly why CU’s, DP’s, RB’s, etc… are here so they can co-exist ”
Oh, wait, that’s right: marriage substitutes DO create “separate but equal” accommodations, frowned on by our nation’s cherished legal system. Shoot.
“Which is why the very same “people of Iowa” voted out the Judges who overstepped their bounds, because it doesn’t discriminate against sexual orientation to expect equal gender representation (one man and one woman) in marriage.”
The judges overstepped their bounds? What does that mean? Did they issue a decision you didn’t like, or something? Well, it seems to me, like it or not, ruling on the constitutionality of laws is their job, and I don’t see in the job description that their rulings must be tailored to please the people of the jurisdiction in which they preside.
There are some interesting facets to the Iowa situation where three judges lost their jobs.
1. The decision was not only unanimous; it affirmed a lower court judge’s ruling. That means that no fewer than EIGHT judges analyzing Iowa’s marriage statute found it did not comport with Iowa’s constitutional guarantee of equal protection!
2. Since I’ve actually read the Varnum decision, I know why the court reached the conclusion it did. Like it or not, their decision is entirely reasonable, and is the same conclusion reached by courts in other states.
3. Former US Supreme Court Justice, Sandra Day O’Connor, upon hearing of NOM’s nefarious attempts to interfere in Iowa state politics, visited the states to support the work of the three judges up for retention.
4. The most prominent supporter of ousting the judges wasn’t a judicial watchdog group or the Iowa Bar or any other group qualified to monitor judicial wrong-doing but rather a religious-affiliated group opposed to same-sex marriage! I wonder, are they really qualified to determine if judges behave properly or not in the execution of their duties, or maybe, just maybe, they wanted to exact revenge for a decision that didn’t get them what they wanted: prohibited same-sex marriage!
“Yes, it seems “the people of Iowa” their solid ground, had a solid response to their ruling!”
Given the above information, it kind of looks like they aren’t on solid ground. Revenge, anyone?
“they found them errant, abusing their power, and retained the right the constitution gave them to get rid of them.”
1. What abuse of power? Describe it. Was it procedural? Substantive? If they had ruled that it is constitutional to discriminate against gays and lesbians, would they still have lost their jobs?
2. There is no constitutional right to fire judges in Iowa. It is a statutory right, and after this disaster, will probably be repealed.
“I am also entertained when he uses the my high school teacher would so prove you are wrong right now or the even more delightful my pop-up book would soooo prove you wrong right now!”
Have you been drinking?
Again, when you are wrong, Mark, no amount of false accusations are going to save your point.
And it is up to you to tell me why an all-male and all-female marriage is not an example of segregation, when an all-white and all-black school is (even where integrated schools exist).
You haven’t, because it is clear they both represent segregation, separate but not really equal.
Sure, same-sex marriage “separates” men and women into all-male and all-female marriages, and separates both from integrated marriages of one man and one woman, but claims they are all equally the same institution “marriage”.
That is exactly like segregated schools which separate blacks and whites into all-white and all-black schools, and segregates them from integrated schools, but claims they are all equally the same institution “education”.
See, the more Sean claims that is wrong, the more he fights against equality as established by the civil rights movement.
I can’t help that any same-sex marriage institution creates “seperate but [not] equal” segregation of men and women as marriage.
Judges are expected to judge by the law, and reconcile the law to a clear understanding whenever possible. They are expected to interpret the constitution as it is actually written, and the law as it is written. When they don’t they overstep their bounds and are removed.
On Lawn: ‘Again, when you are wrong, Mark, no amount of false accusations are going to save your point.”
Ah, little Sue Echo. Please, On Lawn, if you are going to attempt to insult me, at LEAST come up with something new.
“And it is up to you to tell me why an all-male and all-female marriage is not an example of segregation, when an all-white and all-black school is (even where integrated schools exist).”
I guess my parents are a segregated couple too because they are both white.
“Sure, same-sex marriage “separates” men and women into all-male and all-female marriages, and separates both from integrated marriages of one man and one woman, but claims they are all equally the same institution “marriage”.”
Ok, then let’s also outlaw single-race marriage, in order to create “integrated” mixed-race marriage.
“That is exactly like segregated schools which separate blacks and whites into all-white and all-black schools”
Obviously, to the sane, it’s nothing like segregated schools. Segregated schools were designed to keep black kids away from white kids. Same-sex marriages aren’t about keeping any person or group apart, but rather, bringing two people together. How on earth do you bring two people together and call it segregation? Of course, we know that makes no sense.
“See, the more Sean claims that is wrong, the more he fights against equality as established by the civil rights movement.”
Sean strongly believes in equal rights. It’s one of the reasons he believes so strongly in granting equal access to marriage for same-sex couples and their children.
“I can’t help that any same-sex marriage institution creates “seperate but [not] equal” segregation of men and women as marriage.”
Good news! Same-sex marriage doesn’t create a separate but equal problem. I checked the Prop 8 defense team’s brief and even as nutty as their claims were, even they didn’t try to advance a “separate but equal” problem for same-sex marriage. Perhaps you’d like to follow their lead.
“Judges are expected to judge by the law, and reconcile the law to a clear understanding whenever possible. They are expected to interpret the constitution as it is actually written, and the law as it is written.”
Exactly. And that’s what ALL SEVEN judges in Iowa did, as did the lower court judge. They read Iowa’s constitution, read case law on equal protection, listened to the state’s defense of its marriage statute, and found that Iowa’s requirement for equal protection for all citizens meant that Iowa couldn’t exclude some citizens lacking a rational reason to do so.
“Doesn’t change the fact that the majority of citizens who looked at the same constitution and the same laws, found they were wrong — all wrong.”
Um, ok. Because the people always know more than trained, experienced judges, people who most likely have not read Iowa’s constitution and case law regarding equal protection. It makes me think of the old saw about the man who defends himself in court: he has a fool for a client.
“Those other states found a reconciliation, why couldn’t any of those judges in Iowa?”
Your “reconciliation” theory is charming, but Iowa judges have to use Iowa’s constitution and case law, not those of other states. They are not bound by decisions in other states, although they did lift a paragraph from the Connecticut court’s marriage discrimination decision.
“Exactly, the state was educated by many people at the time to help them make the most informed decision they could. And they made their choice, and I celebrate it as an informed choice.”
I think an informed choice would be one where the people of Iowa read their state’s constitution, read equal protection case law, and used some common sense, rather than their taste for revenge.
“did any legal or judicial watchdog group support ousting the judges?”
No. And that should tell you something.
Mark, where is the “insult” in that statment?
If you are going to accuse me of insulting you, you need to at least find a quote where I actually do
All I did in that quote was show you are wrong, and your continued chants to the contrary just show you as being even more invested in the falsehood.
Are you going to say they aren’t? On what grounds? And if you wish to outlaw segregation though, how do you propose to make marriage include every race when there are dozens (at least), but only two genders?
Oh? And even then since there are dozens (at least) races, how would you create a marriage that doesn’t exclude any particular race?
And if you required races to be integrated in marriage, how would you preserve any distinction?
I don’t think you’ve thought this through.
Actually, I know you haven’t. You’ve grabbed the closest think on your intellectual shelf without realizing it doesn’t solve anything.
I’m not sure you have access to any sane people to ask so I took the liberty of doing so. I’ve asked the sane (me being an obvious member of it), and they don’t think you know what you are talking about
Segregated schools were created to preserve the political identity of white supremacists.
Segregated marriages were created to preserve the political identity of homosexuals.
I can’t help that is how CU’s, DP’s, etc were written.
And just to be fair lets note how meaningless your distinction is. You said, “Same-sex marriages aren’t about keeping any person or group apart, but rather, bringing two people together”. Well, same-sex marriages do keep men and women apart in all-male and all-female marriages. So your statement is its own contradiction. But beyond that, segregated schools can be said as just wanting to bring teachers and students together, just as “same-sex marriage” brings two people together.
Sean strongly believes in homosexuality, but that isn’t equality. It is sex-segregation.
His views of equality become as convoluted as I just noted above as they attempt to pretend that is equality.
Defending Prop 8 only requires noting the equality of marriage — one man and one woman. I would advise them to do the same thing they did.
However, same-sex marriage does create a separate but equal problem, all-male and all-female relationships are separate and not equal, and both are not equal to the real choice of equality and integration — one man and one woman.
Exactly what all seven didn’t, do, which is why three of them were ousted.
In this case, they clearly did know better. How could seven judges pretend they were wiser in their limited experience than the combined experience of millions of people?
The judges had the time to make their case, to educate the populace, so did the other side. And the more persuasive, more rational, and more solidly constitutional arguments won.
Keep undermining your own opinion there. How is Iowa’s equal protection clause different than California, Maryland, New York, or Oregon? Go ahead Sean, you tell us the difference that the Iowa judges could not surmount.
I haven’t seen any difference, so all I can conclude is that they simply ignored the obvious reconciliation that all of those other states found. And that millions of people judged their actions to be out of bounds corroborates that.
Is there any action they could have taken to remove the judges that you would not take as “revenge”?
No? Not the ADF? Not the Thomas Moore society? Are you sure?
“I don’t think you’ve thought this through.”
This from someone who insists that same-sex marriage creates a “separate but equal” problem LOL.
“You’ve grabbed the closest think on your intellectual shelf without realizing it doesn’t solve anything.”
You’re the one who claims that two people with the same genitalia (no matter how different they might be in other ways) aren’t integrating humanity. At least I have an intellectual shelf!
“I’ve asked the sane (me being an obvious member of it), and they don’t think you know what you are talking about”
My only interaction with you is online and I’ve seen much evidence that you are not playing with a full deck. Sorry.
“Segregated marriages were created to preserve the political identity of homosexuals.”
Homosexuals have an identity whether they are married or not. But hey, I’ll play: opposite-sex marriages are designed to create the political identity and perceived superiority of straight people.
“Well, same-sex marriages do keep men and women apart in all-male and all-female marriages.”
Well, opposite-sex marriages do keep two men apart or two women apart. Your move.
“Sean strongly believes in homosexuality”
Sean strongly believes in equal rights for homosexuals. But hey, if you can come up with a rational reason to prohibit gay couples from getting married, I invite you to make your pitch to the courts, and, more and more, the people.
“Defending Prop 8 only requires noting the equality of marriage”
So why didn’t they make that pitch: that “equality of marriage” prohibits same-sex couples from marrying.
“However, same-sex marriage does create a separate but equal problem, all-male and all-female relationships are separate and not equal, and both are not equal to the real choice of equality and integration — one man and one woman.”
I’m sure this plays real well over at the Alliance Defense Fund blog or someplace but it’s a legal non-starter. That’s why it has not been used once in any lawsuits to support marriage discrimination.
“Exactly what all seven didn’t, do, which is why three of them were ousted.”
Three of them were ousted because an outside hate group, NOM of New Jersey, spent enough money and convinced enough people that if judges issue a ruling you don’t like, you can fire them.
“The judges had the time to make their case, to educate the populace, so did the other side. And the more persuasive, more rational, and more solidly constitutional arguments won.”
In terms of the decision rendered (have you ever read it????), yes, the more solidly constitutional arguments won. The judges specifically chose not to politicize their retention, and didn’t “educate the populace.” Iowa is now a lesser place because of what NOM did there.
“How is Iowa’s equal protection clause different than California, Maryland, New York, or Oregon? Go ahead Sean, you tell us the difference that the Iowa judges could not surmount.”
Perhaps a better question is how is it like the one in Connecticut, Vermont, Missouri, Hawaii and New Jersey?
Have you read the Varnum decision yet? It will help you understand what equal protection is, and other stuff.
“I haven’t seen any difference, so all I can conclude is that they simply ignored the obvious reconciliation that all of those other states found. And that millions of people judged their actions to be out of bounds corroborates that.”
Are you a lawyer? Why are you qualified to judge Iowa’s constitution and its equal protection case law? Have you even read the Varnum decision?
“Is there any action they could have taken to remove the judges that you would not take as “revenge”?”
Absolutely! Immoral behavior while serving on the bench, documented inappropriate behavior with staff, witnesses or others, possibly the recommendation of other judges, etc. Firing judges for doing their jobs makes no sense at all and could cause some negative unintended consequences. Among the many bad things that NOM has done, convincing people that it’s ok to fire judges if they make a ruling you don’t like is among its worst offenses. I’m so glad they’re getting listing as a hate group by SPLC. It’s about time. They are a nightmare.
“No? Not the ADF? Not the Thomas Moore society? Are you sure?”
These are religious-affiliated groups who oppose same-sex marriage, like NOM. They’re not legal watchdogs. Please.
Heh, the ADF and the Thomas Moore society are far more than legal watchdogs even though they also perform that function quite admirably. Even their critics respect that much.
Any religion-based organization is suspect when it wanders away from articulating its faith beliefs. Imposing religious beliefs on the rest of us is a constitutional “no no” and morally reprehensible. If you can’t attract followers with reasons why they should follow your faith, that doesn’t mean you can force non-believers using the nation’s legal system!
A shelf is probably the best word for it 😀
An identity is probably the most charitable way to put it in that circumstance
What that identity is you seem to not say. Does it have anything to do with segregating against another gender — just because they are of the other gender?
That could be the same thing (yes I’m chuckling as I write this) but as a commenter named Sean noted: “But it isn’t. And frankly, common sense isn’t: why have two things that do the same thing? It’s redundant and unnecessary.”
The question I want to know is, what prevents marriage from being equal and expecting a man and woman each time?
And they didn’t like the ruling because it clearly overstepped the bounds and wrote something beyond what the constitution says. Hence, Fired! And about time, writing with authority beyond what is granted in constitutional language is a problem that has been going on for some time.
Well, they certainly politicized their offices. And if Iowa is a “lesser place”, it is because of the education the Judges didn’t do.
However, as you noted, Sandra Day O’Conner and many others came in to educate the populace even if the Judges didn’t. At the end of the day, their arguments didn’t mollify the people who stood up to protect their constitution from being further misinterpreted by those judges.
Evade, and avoid. Don’t you have anything better to counter that argument with? Come on, seriously. If a reconciliation is available (as it was California, Maryland, New York, etc…) then their job was to use it. Was their equality clauses so diffferent that such a reconciliation wasn’t available?
No, is the answer Sean is avoiding there. And he’s avoiding it because he knows what that means to his argument 😀
Yep, it is what the current generation defines it as. And the current generation is speaking and ousting the Judges for misinterpreting their definition as well as the constitution.
Yes, I am qualified to judge those instances, and I’ve read the Varnum decision. So did many of the people who voted them out.
The question is, why didn’t their decision come to the same reconciliation the other states did? If they are more qualified to answer, why didn’t they?
Why are you not answering, Sean?
Well, the question didn’t try to re-write the story behind what the Judges did. I’m asking what action the people could have taken to remove the judges that you would not take as “revenge”?
Because no matter what action they do, ousting them would be getting rid of them for something they did the people disagreed with. Its all just revenge in the overly broad and simple terms you prescribe, or is it?