Are monogamy-only laws unconstitutional?
Philosopher Francis Beckwith has posted a short, but incisive, comment on patheos.com concerning the legal implications of the ‘reasoning’ undergirding the Obama administration’s refusal to continue to defend DOMA.
This is the core of his argument:
…there are sexual minorities, the polyamorous, whose sexual orientation requires more than one partner. But if sexual orientation requires heightened scrutiny and polyamory is a sexual orientation, then the number limitation requires heightened scrutiny as well. So, if the entirety of sec. 3 violates the 5th amendment and thus does not withstand heightened scrutiny, it would seem to be as unconstitutional to limit marriage to two as it would be to limit it to opposite genders.
Same-sex ‘marriage’ advocates insist that undermining the social structure (the nuclear family) that is the indispensable foundation of civilization would be the last thing that they would ever want to do – much less would they even consider demolishing the legal standards and procedures that are vital to the self governance of a free people, just to get what they want. But now we see one more example of how using the force of law to compel everyone to exalt same-sex unions as if they were actually equal to genuine marriage will indeed ultimately lead to the destruction of the family and that, in the process of accomplishing the goal of marriage so-called ‘equality’, the legal “windbreak” that protects us all will be annihilated as well.
Once before, in another post, I quoted from the play/movie A Man for All Seasons. Those words of warning bear repeating:
What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? …when the last law was down, and the Devil turned ’round on you, where would you hide…the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast…and if you cut them down…do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then?
Often on this blog, people have enumerated the multitude of violations committed against homosexuals for, well, all of history actually. So I have a couple questions for those of you who think stopping at absolutely nothing to make same-sex so-called ‘marriage’ the law of the land will have no effect other than the ‘liberation’ of homosexuals:
What if you succeed in your quest to “Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?” (We who are resisting your agenda being “the Devil” as far as you apparently are concerned…) Tell me, is there any subset of humanity who you believe would be more susceptible to persecution than homosexuals? What would you do if “…when the last law was down…the Devil turned ’round on you?” Where would you hide then?
Before the legal Fata Morgana of same-sex ‘marriage’ could be enforced nationwide, first virtually all of the laws that define our freedoms and protect us from persecution by one another would have to be circumvented, overturned, repealed, replaced, or in some way rendered meaningless.
What people who have ever enjoyed freedom for any significant interval of history have then been willing to suffer the loss of their liberty for long? If the advocates of same-sex ‘marriage’ succeed in their objective then, sooner or later, there will be a backlash the likes of which none of us would probably even want to think about – and those who mowed down the law to force their sense of ‘morality’ on the rest of us will have sown the seeds of their own destruction…
Loading ...
More pathetic drivel. Seriously, is there that much money to be made in hurting gay couples and their children to make all this worthwhile?
No, the constitution doesn’t protect “groups” at least not yet. So trios or more who wish to marry don’t have much of a leg to stand on constitutionally. Gay people? Well, yeah, there are lots of laws and ordinances across the land, including federal hate crimes legislation, that define sexual orientation as an identity, like race and religion. Groups of 3 or more? Not so much.
I hope these silly rants represent a dying cause. They are amusing, but sad in the context of all the children being raised outside of wedlock because some folks think their hates and fears are important enough to hurt children with.
[…there are sexual minorities, the polyamorous, whose sexual orientation requires more than one partner. But if sexual orientation requires heightened scrutiny and polyamory is a sexual orientation, then the number limitation requires heightened scrutiny as well. So, if the entirety of sec. 3 violates the 5th amendment and thus does not withstand heightened scrutiny, it would seem to be as unconstitutional to limit marriage to two as it would be to limit it to opposite genders.]
Except polyamory is not a sexual orientation. You might be able to make this argument about bisexuality which is a sexual orientation, however you would then have to make a further argument bisexuals deserve different standards applied, except that they already have that scrutiny in their gay partnerships and don’t need it in their staight ones. I’m pretty sure that the court won’t have much trouble sorting that one out.
What will legalize polygamous relationships, not marriages but relationships is freedom of religion not marriage equality.
[What people who have ever enjoyed freedom for any significant interval of history have then been willing to suffer the loss of their liberty for long? If the advocates of same-sex ‘marriage’ succeed in their objective then, sooner or later, there will be a backlash the likes of which none of us would probably even want to think about – and those who mowed down the law to force their sense of ‘morality’ on the rest of us will have sown the seeds of their own destruction…]
So with what will you lead the mob leland. Have you picked out a pitchfork or decided that that is just too 1250. A bag of feathers perhaps and a bucket of pitch or is that to 1895. I hear you can get a good deal on a semiautomatic or is that too modern. I know a how about a petard? I hear they hoist beautifully.
You can quote Moore – I’ll stick with Asimov by way of Johnson.
“Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.” “Foundation”
I just read about the elderly woman in Connecticut, 81 years old, who has to pay the government $350,000 in taxes because the government won’t recognize her marriage to her woman spouse and so she has to pay taxes that other married couples don’t have to pay.
That shows how hate-filled Xtians are. They’ll hurt anybody, even the elderly. I’m sure Mr. Christ is really pleased with America’s hate-filled religious fakes. Can you imagine doing this to a grieving elderly woman? Unconscionable.
@Mont D. Law
So you choose to just ignore the part that says “…the likes of which none of us would probably even want to think about…? Of course you do. It makes it easier for you to give yourself permission to hate us that way.
It won’t be us Christians who are coming at you if it ever comes to that, Mont. We’ll be the ones standing between you and the mob…
Great post. Good points. SSM is a case of “Be careful what you ask for–you might get it.”
@Sean
There is plenty of room for improvement in tax laws, without creating new categories of “marriage”.
[“…the likes of which none of us would probably even want to think about…?]
But you’re thinking about it leland – in loving detail. You made the threat. The mob is your fantasy. People will agree with you or they will pay – one way or another. Even if your side looses the battle in the courts or at the ballot box the other side will be destroyed violently.
[It won’t be us Christians who are coming at you if it ever comes to that, Mont. We’ll be the ones standing between you and the mob…]
Like they stand between the abortion providers and the mob that uses violence to intimidate them and the women trying to obtain legal medical treatment. Pardon me if we don’t rely on that.
@Leland
“It won’t be us Christians who are coming at you if it ever comes to that, Mont. We’ll be the ones standing between you and the mob…”
Please, of COURSE it will be “christians” like you, Leland. Or, you will stand off to the side, oblivious (as always) to the sufferings of people you feel are beneath you (much like the Priest in the Good Samaritan story).
@Mont D. Law Who are YOU to determine that polyamory isn’t an orientation? A person can’t be oriented to love more than one person at a time – because you said so?! Ads for violence being the last refuge of the incompetent, well that explains all the liberals attacking Tea Party members and those who are against the protests in Madison.
@Sean It is always about “hate” isn’t it? Marginalize the argument by calling it hate and you don’t have to deal with it. Well truth sounds like hate to those who hate the truth. Mr. Christ is saddened by America’s – and the world’s – descent into the sanctioning of perversion. The elderly woman knew from the beginning that her “marriage” wasn’t recognized so she should have made other arrangements.
Sean worries about the rare case of an 81-year-old “widow” with an inheritance windfall so massive that the tax is over a third of a million despite the repeated cuts made to inheritance taxes. The individuals in this case, with such substantial sums at their disposal, had ample opportunity to protect their considerable wealth trough trusts and chose not to avail themselves of that opportunity.
Contrast this with a Muslim wife in the U.S., who may be a second wife (the first wife perhaps living in another country, perhaps not), whose meager inheritance rights may be ignored or challenged and who might not wish to call attention to her situation trough a trust because polygamy (bigamy) is illegal, actually banned, and punishable by jail terms. (When was the last time a gay couple faced such draconian punishment? When did Sean ever show one iota of care about laws hurting those families and their children?)
These Islamic marriages can claim a strong basis in history, tradition, religion, love, fidelity, endurance, and in the production of natural offspring, indeed on every basis except the Western legal tradition and the right of the majority to define marriage. The homosexual lobby denies the moral authority of the Western legal tradition on the basis that slavery and other evils were once part of that tradition and denies the right of the majority to define marriage. Once the principles that love should conquer all, that a marriage is whatever the participants want it to be (Sean’s definition), and that no majority can legally deny a “right” claimed by a minority (repeated endlessly), there will be no consistent legal basis to continue to punish such marriages or to deny them full and equal legal status to traditional Western marriages. Sean doesn’t seem to care about hurting Islamic couples or their children. Sean seems to forget that religious “groups” have recognized rights (because he is typically hostile to religion) and such groups are and can be protected by hate crime laws. The strange and atomistic notion that only individuals have rights has no historical legal basis.
There are well over a billion Muslims in the world, though the exact figure is hard to determine. This is vastly more than the number of homosexuals in the world. Muslim populations are growing faster than the world population. The number of Muslims in America is hard to determine (not surprising given the bias and bigotry they often face), but a reasonable estimate is in excess of two million, with those numbers rapidly growing. Far from being a dying cause, this issue will soon be upon us, and not as a hypothetical one.
I agree with the core of Beckwith’s argument as stated above.
Specifically, I agree with “…it would seem to be as unconstitutional to limit marriage to two as it would be to limit it to opposite genders.”
I am not alone in my agreement. In 2009 the American Constitution Society held a roundtable discussion regarding “marriage equality.” It included lawyers from many of the legal entities currently advocating for society to recognize gay partnerships as marriages.
It was stated that many of the arguments being used to argue for same-sex “marriage” would apply for society allowing polygamy.
After this statement one of the lawyers was asked why they were not fighting for polygamy as well and the reply was they (meaning polygamists) are not currently paying us to do so…. If memory serves me correctly something was said about the poly-lobby not being as strong as the gay-lobby.
If society allows gender requirements to be stricken from what qualifies as marriage, essentially accomodating the proclivity of some to form same-sex partnerships, then society will have no just cause to deny those who have the proclivity to form poly-relationships.
I am sure those who self-identify as polyamorous feel they deserve to be treated as the equal of their self-identified, monogamous leaning, homosexual brothers and sisters.
If society allows gay partnerships to usurp the title and rights of marriage, then the polyamorous will most definitely ask, “How can society be so “hateful” and “discriminatory” that it would redefine marriage to recognize and accomodate the “love” that “nature” gave homosexuals and deny the “love” that “nature” gave the polyamorous?
[Who are YOU to determine that polyamory isn’t an orientation?]
Sexual orientation has a very well defined meaning Glen.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_orientation
The fact you don’t agree with it makes no more difference then me agreeing.
[A person can’t be oriented to love more than one person at a time – because you said so?!]
Everyone can love more than one person @ a time Glen. That is why it is not an orientation.
Uh… Mont, the mob was your fantasy: @Mont D. Law
My concern comes from what history has taught us we can always expect to happen in any society immediately after the institutions of family and marriage fall apart.
Our own Dr J, in her excellent article, The Origins of the Red State–Blue State Divide, quoted something foreboding about that from Professor Carle C. Zimmerman’s seminal work, (I have added the emphasis):
That “counterrevolution” often (in fact, usually) occurs in a violent context, as it turns out, whether on a national or civilization wide scale. After family and marriage had disintegrated “…into contractual and non-institutional forms…” in Greece, the Romans were able to walk over Greek civilization with relative ease. When Roman family structure atomized, Roman civilization was overwhelmed in turn by barbarian peoples. When marriage was abolished after the French Revolution, the people rebelled, and counterrevolution was only averted (for the moment) when marriage laws were reinstated. The same thing happened during the Bolshevik Revolution.
What we have to worry about, Mont, is the fact that when family and marriage degenerates “…into contractual and non-institutional forms…” on a civilization wide scale (and now, for the first time in history, family and marriage are disintegrating on a global scale) that civilization is always displaced by a society structured on what Carle Zimmerman described as the Trustee Family model, what we would call a clan or tribal form of society – such as the tribal cultures one finds in Afghanistan and much of the undeveloped parts of the Muslim world, for example. (And if you think us Christian so-called ‘fundamentalists’ are intolerant…)
Roman society was organized on the Trustee Family pattern when they conquered Greece… the Germanic tribes were Trustee Family societies when they overran the Roman world and founded Western Civilization as we see it today… What sort of cultural paradigm do you think will follow us once you have succeeded in demolishing family and marriage as institutions in our society, Mont? Perhaps Fatimah has an inkling…
Fatimah, we all know that the overwhelming majority of Muslims are not of the Taliban’s ilk. But I hope you won’t take offense if I point out for Mont and friends that a significant minority are, as well as that – so far, anyway – the most radical Muslims are the ones who tend to prevail once Islam gains a certain threshold of political influence in a society. But first, you’ve already made a couple of salient points that I’d like to bring to people’s attention (as before, I’ve added the emphasis):
Also, there are these statistics from the Pew Research Center’s 2007 Survey of Muslim Americans:
8% thought that suicide bombing is often or sometimes justifiable
5% had a favorable view of al Qaeda
61% thought homosexuality should be discouraged
59% thought government should do more about morality
One out of every twenty American Muslims has a favorable view of al Qaeda, Mont. (What was al Qaeda’s policy on homosexuality, again? Who were you counting on to stand between you and “the mob”?)
But hey, maybe it won’t be Radical Islam. Who knows for sure? Maybe moderate Muslims will finally assert themselves over the radicals. Or maybe we can hold off the assault on marriage occurring in our culture and restore the integrity of the family as an institution before any counterrevolution (violent or otherwise) ever even occurs – at least for the foreseeable future. That’s what Ruth Institute is determined to do, people…
The most any watchman can do is stand on the wall and raise a warning when he sees calamity approaching. He cannot force those he warns to take action, or pay any attention to him at all, for that matter.
I’m attempting to do what is in my power to do, my friends…
@Fatimah
Fatimah,
While I pointed out in my response to Mont’s comment that you had made some “salient points”, it was not for the sake of endorsing your apparent view that polygamy would be, at worst, a benign influence on society. In fact, I view polygamy as only somewhat less threatening to the general welfare than same-sex ‘marriage’. (Which is probably only the greater threat because same-sex so-called ‘marriage’ would indeed drive the last nail in marriage’s coffin…)
Even though child brides and forced marriages do not – in theory, anyway – need to be conventions among polygamists, in reality, throughout the world such practices have always been associated with polygamy.
One of the practical outcomes of polygamy that doesn’t always occur to some, but that is a serious and obvious problem among American polygamists, is the alienation from society of significant numbers of males that occurs in polygamous cultures. Mormon sects that still practice polygamy are a case in point. In those communities, as in all polygamous societies, there are a severe excess of males. (If a few men get a lot of wives, there are a lot less women available for the other men…) Competition for brides is such that the men in positions of power in those societies have a vicious habit of finding pretexts for ostracizing other males from the community, quite often when those other males are young teenagers, no less.
Dr J herself has often warned of the alienation of males from the family that is already taking place largely as a result of government policies concerning welfare, family, and sex. Legalizing polygamy could only serve to accelerate a trend that has already wreaked havoc on many communities in America.
Ah, still trying to smear same-sex marriage with contrived fears of polygamy, eh? Will wonders never cease. See the thing is, polygamy PRECEDED same-sex marriage, and has already been dealt with. It’s illegal. There’s no constitutional case supporting polygamy. Wanting to do something is not the same as being something. Polygamists can’t be an orientation, because they exist only if marriage exists. Not so with gays and lesbians.
@Sean
Perhaps you are right.
The best way to deal with same-gender “marriage” may be to make it illegal.
@Ruth
“The best way to deal with same-gender “marriage” may be to make it illegal.”
You must justify making SSM illegal WITHOUT using your religious zealot approach, Ruth. And, without your mistaken “christian” belief, there is absolutely NO reason to ban same sex marriage.
(begin sarcasm)
Sean, do you mean to say that you are against polygamy? Why do you hate polygamists so much? Don’t you know that the same arguments which are used against polygamy were also used against interracial marriage?
(end sarcasm)
If these questions sound ridiculous and offensive to you, then please understand that they sound just as ridiculous and offensive to us when used in the context of same-sex “marriage” rather than polygamy, and for the same reasons.
Yes, that’s true, because we humans have free will, meaning that we do not have to be slaves to our sexual desires, nor do we have to be defined by them. A married man who is attracted to multiple women does not have to define himself by those attractions and declare himself a polygamist. Even if such a man cheats on his wife with another woman in a moment of weakness, that does not make him a polygamist.
Likewise, a homosexually-oriented man does not have to be defined by his sexual and romantic attractions if he doesn’t want to be. He is an adult, with free will, and can make his own decisions whether to act on those attractions or not. And even if he decides not to act on those attractions, and then later acts on them in a moment of weakness, this does not change the definition of who he is, any more than a man who cheats on his wife in a moment of weakness suddenly should be defined as a polygamist.
@Sean A polyandrist exists without polygamy and so does a polygynist. Being outlawed doesn’t make it right, does it – after all, same-sex marriage has been illegal until recently. So let’s legalize polygamy for those who are oriented to multiple spouses. The constitutional case for polygamy is just as strong as for SSM – you have to redefine the word.
@Leland
Remember, Rome fell AFTER it became a Christian nation.
@Paul H
LOL, I love the strawman argument of polygamy that is brought up when SSM is discussed.
OSM = two individuals. SSM = two individuals. Polygamy = 3 or more individuals.
If you want to discuss polygamy, fine, but it is completely unrelated to SSM.
The constitutional case for polygamy is not at all strong: “groups of three or more” are not protected in any way, shape or form. Sexual orientation is an organic, involuntary circumstance, for both straight people and for gay people. Sexual longing is a part of a person’s identity. A desire to marry multiple persons at once can’t possibly be a part of a person’s identity, because it only exists if marriage exists.
If there are people who define themselves by their simultaneous attraction to multiple persons, to the exclusion of only one person, I’d like to hear more about them. Is there a website I could go to? I’ve never heard of someone whose love life depends on having multiple relationships at once. I find it hard to believe that such a person can actually two or more other people who feel the same way, and create a “trio” or whatever. But if such persons exist, they should claim their right to equal treatment under the law, and push for polygamy.
Paul H, there is no reason on God’s green earth for gay people to hide their longings and affections. It’s not enough that some religious people don’t like gay people, or don’t consider them as equals. Our constitution anticipates these kinds of bigots, and protects minorities via the 14th Amendment.
Just as Judaism and Islam flourish in a country populated mostly by (supposedly) Christian people, non-straight sexual orientations may also flourish. That you don’t personally approve means you get to avoid same-sex marriage when and where it’s legal. Marry someone of the opposite sex, if that’s what your personal belief system or religion says to do. Others need not follow your inner monologue on the subject, though.
“@Sean
Perhaps you are right.
The best way to deal with same-gender “marriage” may be to make it illegal.”
Maybe we should outlaw different-gender “marriage”. After all, it’s straight people who have made a mockery of marriage, with sky-high divorce rates, out of wedlock babies by the millions, incompetent child-rearing, etc. Gay couples haven’t caused any of these problems, which makes them all the more deserving of legal protections for their relationships.
@Sean
Yes, polygamy is illegal in America. But is that illegality constitutional? Is polygamy less natural and less deserving of constitutional protection than sodomy? Does polygamy exist even when illegal? Yes, it does. Does it affect Sean’s marriage in any way if it is made legal? Does it? Why does Sean not care about legal protections for polygamous wives and their children? Does he care about anyone not of his own tribe? Is he (dare I use the words?) hateful and bigoted? Does he harbor stereotypes? Does he believe groups should have any constitutional rights under the 14th amendment? Is not religion part of a person’s identity? Isn’t is supposedly protected by the American constitution? Why should one or two people have rights, but three people have none? What about rights two by two? A and B are married and have rights. What if A (the same A) and C want to be married and have rights, too. Does he really believe that a marriage should be whatever the participants want it to be? For what constitutional reason should families with more than one wife be forced to hide while gays parade?
American jurisprudence is easy to understand. Those who pay enough lawyers enough money get to assert as “rights” whatever they want including things that previously were illegal as once affirmed by the Supreme Court within living memory (such as sodomy) and getting to redefine any institution to their liking (such as marriage) and granting special status for anything (such as “orientation” but not religion or religious freedom) under the guise of “equality.” That is why the wealthy “widow” is a poster child for the homosexuals. If you are rich enough and can buy enough lawyers, you can get anything you want. Precedent means nothing to the homosexuals when it is against them. It now means everything when it is for them. That is what Sean means by it “has already been dealt with.” Cynical, no?
To me, this sounds suspiciously equivalent to “the constitutional case for same-sex ‘marriage’ is not at all strong: ‘pairs of the same sex’ are not protected in any way, shape, or form.”
I agree that a person’s sexual preferences should not be part of that person’s identity; I just don’t see why that should be true for would-be polygamists, but not true for homosexually-oriented persons.
As for the claim that polygamy can exist only if marriage exists, yes this is true. But it is also true that same-sex “marriage” can exist only if marriage exists. I don’t see the difference.
I don’t doubt that you are sincere here, and I don’t think there is anything wrong with what you have said. But of course many people fifty years or so ago might have said something very similar to this, only they would have said it about people defining themselves by their attraction to members of the same sex.
Polygamy is a series of marriages. The SSM idea lacks justification for limiting eligibility of previously SSM’d people. SSMers argue that SSM is not a sexual type of relationship at law. Sexual monogamy is irrelevant to eligibility to SSM. Limiting eligibility based on a non requirement is unjust according SSMers and their own argument in favor of their view of lawmaking. So SSMers do not justify limiting SSM to one SSM at a time nor do they justify a line drawn against group SSM. They do not justify because their argumentation can noy justify limits on eligibility.
@Sean
“Maybe we should outlaw different-gender “marriage”. After all, it’s straight people who have made a mockery of marriage, with sky-high divorce rates, out of wedlock babies by the millions, incompetent child-rearing, etc.”
Instead of making marriage, as instituted by God, against the law, let’s outlaw easy divorce, adultery, fornication, and abortion, rather than making a further mockery of marriage.
The legitimate need of children to be raised by their own mother and father in a loving environment must be held up as the gold standard for society.
“As for the claim that polygamy can exist only if marriage exists, yes this is true. But it is also true that same-sex “marriage” can exist only if marriage exists. I don’t see the difference.”
Let me explain it (for the third time!): polygamy is a function of marriage. Unless and until sometime can identify a sexual attraction for multiple partners simultaneously, then polygamy is nothing more than a marital arrangement; it is not the logical outcome of a relationship. Straight couples form, and want to get married, in order to solidify their relationships; gay couples form, and want to get married, in order to solidify their relationships. Groups form, and want to solidify their relationships?? Really? Well, if this is a reflection of a naturally-occurring biological urge, then by all means, let’s legalize polygamy.
I’m perfectly happy for polygamy to be legal. I know you think it’s the smear that will take same-sex marriage down but I think you’re wrong.
“Instead of making marriage, as instituted by God, against the law, let’s outlaw easy divorce, adultery, fornication, and abortion, rather than making a further mockery of marriage. The legitimate need of children to be raised by their own mother and father in a loving environment must be held up as the gold standard for society.”
Why not just outlaw divorce? Why do you straight people need a loophole for marriage? If you want to outlaw only “easy” divorce, then let’s legalize “hard” same-sex marriage: make it hard, but possible, for gay couples to wed.
You can hold up whatever parenting standard you want but the fact is, straight people aren’t held to that standard and so neither should gay people be. Besides, outlawing same-sex marriage just makes the children of gay couples forced to be raised outside of wedlock, which is a horrible thing to do to a kid.
“Likewise, a homosexually-oriented man does not have to be defined by his sexual and romantic attractions if he doesn’t want to be. He is an adult, with free will, and can make his own decisions whether to act on those attractions or not.”
Whether he acts on them or not, he is still a homosexual, with romantic feelings for other men. Since there’s nothing wrong with homosexual feelings or practices, why pretend that gay men or lesbian woman should refrain from exercising their normal sexual longings? We don’t ask straight people to do that, do we?
“Yes, polygamy is illegal in America. But is that illegality constitutional?”
Yes, it is. Unless and until someone can make a convincing case that there is an identity that is defined by simultaneously being romantically involved with more than one person, illegal polygamy is perfectly constitutional.
Although I reject the slippery slope argument that legal same-sex marriage will lead to polygamy, on legal and logical grounds, and because I see such argumentation for what it is, a smear campaign, I am perfectly happy to see polygamy legalized. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg, and would likely be so uncommon as to be nearly undetectable.
Society gains nothing by banning same-sex marriage. It loses a lot though: diminishing gay citizens, harming children, dishonoring our Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection of all citizens, promoting animosity of gays and lesbians (sometimes leading to violence, even suicide), etc.
I can’t imagine disliking a group so much that I would hurt children in order to punish that group. There’s just something sick about this whole anti-gay campaign that’s inscrutable.
I disagree. A so-called “homosexual” man is first and foremost a PERSON, just like any other person. He happens to be attracted to members of the same sex; I happen to be attracted to members of the opposite sex. But we are both persons, with all the dignity and rights that that entails. I disagree with labelling people based on their sexual preferences, as if their sexual preference is central to their identity.
Yes, we do. For those of us who follow traditional morality, we ask “straight people” (to use your term) to abstain completely from “exercising their normal sexual longings” prior to marriage (which means for their entire lives if they never marry), and to abstain from doing so with anyone other than their spouse after marriage.
Even most people who do not follow traditional morality recognize at least some limits on “exercising their normal sexual longings” — such as not cheating on one’s spouse, or not sleeping with your best friend’s girlfriend, to name a couple of examples.
And my point was not what people should or should not choose. Rather my point was that people who experience same-sex attractions are capable of choosing not to act on those attractions, and can choose not to be defined by them. In other words, none of us have to be defined by our sexual attractions if we choose not to be.
@Sean
Why is “identity” and “romance” which are never mentioned in the American constitution, protected, while religion, which is explicitly mentioned and protected, somehow not protected? And is not religion part of a person’s identity? Are you so hostile to religion as to deny that? Is this not anti-religious bigotry?
Why, when the number of Muslims in the world vastly outnumbers the number of homosexuals, and while their numbers in America and Europe rapidly increasing, do you think the numbers would in the future be nearly undetectable? Is it because you would put them in some sort of closet? Is it not more likely that homosexuals, who cannot reproduce if left to only their own kind, who would become in the future far fewer in number?
Isn’t your cavalier attitude towards Muslims diminishing Islam and Islamic citizens, harming their real children (the children of their own families—in Islam adoption is more like fostering, the child still belongs to its extended family, not a homosexual family arbitrarily assigned by the American courts), dishonoring the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection of all citizens including Muslim ones, promoting animosity towards Muslims (sometimes leading to violence and discrimination). Suicide is prohibited by the Qur’an (4:29).
Isn’t there just something sick about this whole anti-Islam campaign that’s inscrutable?
I just wanted to add to this.
Our moral identity is defined by the choices we make regarding our carnal impulses, and not by the carnal impulses we experience.
A married man might feel an unwelcome attraction to a woman other than his wife, for example, and turn his thoughts away. Another man, however, might welcome the attraction and seek to develop it.
The first man’s identity is centered on moral principle, but the second man’s identity is centered on gratification of his spontaneous physical desires, and so he is a carnal man.
Spontaneous carnal desires can be viewed as a “normal,” “natural,” “orientation.” But that does not mean our identity must be based upon them.
And that, I think is the mistake homosexuals are making. By identifying themselves with the spontaneous physical desires they feel, they are taking a carnal indentity.
The same thing occurs when they teach youth who feel same sex attractions to identify themselves by those attractions. We should want youth to develop a moral identity that will exercise self control over their carnal desires, an identity that will benefit them for life, not a carnal indentity that is controlled by those desires which will trouble them for life.
@Sean
“I can’t imagine disliking a group so much that I would hurt children in order to punish that group.”
This is a core fallacy of yours.
1) “I can’t imagine” but that’s all it is – your imagination.
2) “disliking a group” we are not seeing people as a group, but as individuals.
3) “hurt children” – advocating for a loving mother and father for every child is pursuing the best interests of children. Every child needs to know that there are people, however vilified, in our society who care about their right to a loving mother and father.
4) “punish that group” back to the group (see 2)
Amen to Ruth. What hurts children is to deny them the right to both a mother and a father. Sometimes it happens, but the state should not be in the business of forcing the creation of half orphans to satisfy Sean’s political agenda. What will be next, quotas for placing a certain percentage of children in need of a mother and a father into gay homes so they can have two fathers, but be denied a mother? What punishes children is to deny them the opportunity to have both a mother and a father if that opportunity is at all available.
Sean you are confused when you say: “Unless and until sometime can identify a sexual attraction for multiple partners simultaneously, then polygamy is nothing more than a marital arrangement; it is not the logical outcome of a relationship.”
You’d deny that people can experience sexual attraction for multiple partners simultaneously? Okay go with that and the rest of us will discuss reality.
No matter, you have already conceded that in your view SSM would not be a sexual type of relationshp at law. Your reaction to my pointing this out might be that some SSMs might be sexual and some might not be sexual; but that elides the point that SSM is a type of relationship you’d have entrenched in the law. As a type of relationship, in the law, you have conceded it is not sexual — even if this or that instance of SSM would be sexual for particular persons.
Polygamy is a series of concurrent husband-wife relationships so, sure, it is a marital arrangement. It is the logical outcome of people wanting a series of marriages concurrently.
SSM is supposedly nothing more than a consensual arrangement that lacks either a husband or a wife. It is not a marital arrangement, but you want society to treat it as such anyway. Okay, go with that.
You have not explained how the SSM idea would justify limiting the one-sexed scenario based on 1) the limit of 2, and 2) sexual attraction. Thus you are making an arbitrary distinction and acting arbitrarily like that, according to SSM argumentation, is unjust.
And since the topic here is the constitutionality of the line against polygamy, you still have yet to explain the constitutional principles that would allow the marriage law to draw a line against polygamy but not against SSM. If you can bring those principles to the fore, you might be on firmer ground.
Polygamous people exist. They form loving consensual relationship that they want to solidify as a series of legitimate marriages. And polygamy has a much stronger anthropological and historical lbasis for government recognition than does the SSM idea. SSM is not a subset of marriage whereas polygamy is.
Of course, you shrug and say: “I’m perfectly happy for polygamy to be legal.”
Okay, go with that.
Sean said a falsehood he desires to be true:
“You can hold up whatever parenting standard you want but the fact is, straight people aren’t held to that standard and so neither should gay people be.”
The marital presumption of paternity is not restricted by identity politics. It is not restricted by a gay criterion nor by a straight criterion. Its sexual basis applies to the conjugal union of man and woman.
Most children living in same-sex households got there when one parent migrated from a two-sexed relationship (usually husband-wife duos) to a one-sexed type of relationship. The marital presumption of paternity provides a standard that is vigorously enforced regardless of your gay emphasis.
Sean put forth a stupid idea:
“Unless and until someone can make a convincing case that there is an identity that is defined by simultaneously being romantically involved with more than one person, illegal polygamy is perfectly constitutional.”
Romance is not a legal requirement for SSM, as proposed even by yourself. So the romance part is irrelevant to your comment.
As for identity, well, okay, gay identity is your emphasis and so you think that identity politics determines the constitutionality of laws. That is obviously the entire basis for your pro-SSM viewpoint. You have made yourself the unashamed racist analogue on the marriage issue.
Polygamous families exist; their series of concurrent marriages are not recognized as lawful. They form polygamous communites; there is a wider and more dispersed polygamous community across the country and around the world. There is a polygamous identity around which these people orientate their entire lives. How is that so very different, in principle, from the much talked about gay community that SSMers introduce in their court arguments? Not very.
@Paul
“I disagree with labelling people based on their sexual preferences, as if their sexual preference is central to their identity.”
Then why are you doing it, with regards to marriage? Why let straight couples get married, but not gay couples? And I suspect most people strongly identify with their sexuality. Try telling a straight guy that you think he’s gay. See how he reacts.
“For those of us who follow traditional morality, we ask “straight people” (to use your term) to abstain completely from “exercising their normal sexual longings” prior to marriage”
But we don’t force them legally to do so. Yet you want to legally prevent gay couples from getting married. Very big difference!
@Fatimah
Your many questions are silly and specious. Muslims are free to practice their religion in the US. They are NOT free to impose their religious beliefs on others. No one is trying to inhibit the practice of Islam, except maybe the Christians.
“advocating for a loving mother and father for every child is pursuing the best interests of children.”
But that’s not what prohibiting same-sex marriage does. Rather, it condemns the children being raised by same-sex couples to a childhood of insecurity, raised by a couple unable to solidify their relationship in law.
If you really had the interests of children at heart, you’d be a strong supporter of same-sex marriage, knowing that there are so many children raised by same-sex couples.
“What hurts children is to deny them the right to both a mother and a father.”
Then outlaw single parenting and same-sex parenting. Both are legal in all 50 states. I know it sounds warm and fuzzy to say children need a mommy and a daddy (a favorite platitude of Maggie Gallagher) but you’re not doing anything to achieve that result. You’re just hurting the kids of same-sex couples, who are told their parents’ relationship isn’t worthy of social and legal recognition, causing said children to potentially question their self-worth.
Again, hurting kids isn’t the answer, even if the Bible or whatever says it’s ok. We live in modern, not ancient, times.
“You’d deny that people can experience sexual attraction for multiple partners simultaneously?”
No, Einstein, I said there aren’t people who can ONLY achieve sexual satisfaction with multiple partners simultaneously, and/or form romantic attachments with ONLY two people at once. The phenomenon is completely undocumented and unasserted. Point me to the studies, man.
“No matter, you have already conceded that in your view SSM would not be a sexual type of relationshp at law.”
I wasn’t I who conceded that, it was the current law. No one need have sex in order to get or stay married. Lack of marital congress can be grounds for divorce but it doesn’t require a divorce. Some couples are quite content in their sexless marriages. Do you want them to get divorced?
“you still have yet to explain the constitutional principles that would allow the marriage law to draw a line against polygamy but not against SSM”
I already have. Go back a reread if it didn’t sink in the first time.
“Polygamous people exist”
Then they are free to assert their right to marry.
“The marital presumption of paternity provides a standard that is vigorously enforced regardless of your gay emphasis.”
Like all other aspects of opposite-sex marriage, this is completely unaffected when same-sex couples marry.
I am talking about how individuals are labelled; you are talking about how relationships between couples are labelled.
But to answer your second question anyway: Because one is marriage, and the other is not. Because one type of relationship (marriage) has been shown over centuries and millenia to be the backbone of a strong and healthy society, and one has not.
“Telling a straight guy that you think he’s gay” would be labelling that person based on a supposed sexual preference. And as I already said, I disagree with labelling people based on their sexual preference.
You’re comparing apples and oranges. I don’t think it is morally right for people with same-sex attractions to act on those attractions, but I am not in favor of outlawing them acting on those attractions.
You would be closer to having a valid point here if I had said that I am in favor of forcing people with same-sex attractions to live lives of complete celibacy, while not favoring similar laws for unmarried people who are attracted to the opposite sex. But in fact I am not in favor of such laws for anyone, regardless which sex they are attracted to.
All of that is a separate question from whether a union of two men or of two women can or should be recognized as a marriage.
Also, to go even further, I am not in favor of making it illegal for two men or two women to go to a church, or to any other non-government venue, and to have a “wedding” ceremony, and to call themselves married. I am only against the government putting an official stamp of approval on such a relationship and saying that that relationship must be publicly recognized as a marriage.
@Sean
“prohibiting same-sex marriage does…condemns the children being raised by same-sex couples to a childhood of insecurity”
Please use your considerable powers of imagination to think about the insecurity caused by having two parents of the same gender, while other children get to have both a mother and a father.
Sean had said: “Unless and until sometime can identify a sexual attraction for multiple partners simultaneously, then polygamy is nothing more than a marital arrangement; it is not the logical outcome of a relationship.”
I asked: “You’d deny that people can experience sexual attraction for multiple partners simultaneously?”
That question accurately represents what Sean had said earlier. So, of course, Sean changes to something far removed.
Sean now says: “I said there aren’t people who can ONLY achieve sexual satisfaction with multiple partners simultaneously, and/or form romantic attachments with ONLY two people at once. The phenomenon is completely undocumented and unasserted.”
Neither sexual satisfaction nor romance is a legal requirement for those who’d SSM anyplace where it SSM has been imposed.
And that is documented.
So why would you emphasize sexual satisfaction and romance when discussing SSM in comparison with polygamy?
Because your gay emphasis is a form of bigotry in this context.
Sean said that, in his view, under current marriage law marriage is not a sexual type of relationship because:
“No one need have sex in order to get or stay married. [1] Lack of marital congress can be grounds for divorce but it doesn’t require a divorce. [2] Some couples are quite content in their sexless marriages. [3]”
Add up 1 to 3 and you still do not show that marriage is not a sexual type of relationship, at law. Indeed, your point 2 disproves your assertion.
Meanwhile there is a sexual basis for consummation, annulment, adultery-divorce, and the marital presumption of paternity. These are legal requirements of marriage law. Just because the law is reasonable, while your terms of argumentation are convoluted and unreasonable, does not transform marriage into a nonsexual type of relationship at law.
However, you clearly believe otherwise and so you expect that SSM, at law, would not be a sexual type of relationship. And so your gay emphasis is now deep-sixed. You are proving to the readership that your gaycentric rhetoric, and the argumentation you have used, is arbitrary. Unjustified even by your own stated view of matters.
Sean has said a falsehood:
“You can hold up whatever parenting standard you want but the fact is, straight people aren’t held to that standard and so neither should gay people be.”
I pointed out that the marital presumption of paternity is a standard that applies across the board. I noted that it applies to those formerly married moms and dads who’d move to same-sex sexual relationships. Their parental status is protected. Their children are protected via this standard.
Sean now switches to the following:
“Like all other aspects of opposite-sex marriage, this is completely unaffected when same-sex couples marry.”
Well, since this parenting standard fits the husband-wife duo but not the one-sexed scenario, you are now admitting that it is the SSM idea and its argumentation that depends on a double-standard.
However, you demand that the one-sexed scenario be treated as identical to the husband-wife relationship. In other words, you demand the reverse as well: that the husband-wife union be treated as if it lacked either a husband or a wife. And that demand cannot justify the marital presumption of paternity.
So either you openly favor a double-standard for parenting or you demand that the common standard be abolished from marriage law.
Which do you mean, Sean?
By the way, Sean, you have argued that parenting and SSM are seperate matters. SSM would not include the default that those who’d SSM have consented to co-parenting children together. That consent to co-parent would have to be optional always. There would not be an SSM equivalent of the marital presumption of paternity.
If you say otherwise, that there would be a presumption of co-parenting, well, that would directly contradict your claim that parenting and SSM are seperate matters. But it still would not provide you with a sexual basis for SSM nor for co-parenting. Yet you keep emphasizing same-sex sexual attraction and romance and the like — when you discuss parenting and when you discuss SSM.
Under current marriage law, the husband and wife consent to the marital presumption of paternity; however, this is rebutable one-case-at-a-time. If the married couple decided to use third party procreation, well, consent is not automatic; if the wife uses some other man’s sperm, the husband’s agreement is necessary or he can immediately deny paternity based on that to which he did consent when he married her; likewise, the wife’s agreement is needed for an adoption by her husband.
But if SSM comes with a default that the participants have consented to co-parent — based on third party procreaetion or adoption — and if SSM and marriage are to become identical, then, all unions of husband and wife would be changed on this key point.
On the other hand, since there is no sexual basis for consent to co-parent under the SSM idea, the sexua basis for the marital presumption of paternity would be a big point of difference that would have to be abolished if SSM and marriage are to become identical.
Either your argumentation is frought with insincere assertions, or, your argumentation is taken at face value and implemented; either way, you are wrong to claim that merging SSM with marriage would have no impact on marriage.
Sean,
And since the topic here is the constitutionality of the line against polygamy, you still have yet to explain the constitutional principles that would allow the marriage law to draw a line against polygamy but not against SSM. If you can bring those principles to the fore, you might be on firmer ground.
If you think that you did discuss those principles, then, please point to the comment(s) in which that happened.
Polygamy is a series of man-woman marriages. SSM is not a man-woman marriage. So, perhaps you can deal with the one-sexed scenario in a principled way: state the principled basis for SSM that does not also provide the basis for polygamous-like SSM or for group SSM. Stick with the one-sexed scenarios only. That way your explanation can be seen in the direct context of the ‘two-person’ SSM you have in mind.
In other words, you made an assertion about the constitutionality of SSM versus polygamy. But you have yet to articulate the principled basis for differentiating the SSM — as a two-person thing — from a series of SSM and from a group SSM. You can assume that your gay emphasis is highly relevant, if you wish, but please don’t contradict your own terms of argumentation regarding your insistance that the lack of legal requirements is decisive.
If you have not discussed this points, then, don’t pretend you have already dealt with these things.
Apparently, Sean, you have not discussed these points in your remarks here. Where then?
Nowhere.