Yeah, I know that people who defend the bride+groom requirement in marriage licensing sometimes send in letters that are less than stellar. Time and time again, though, I see this letters like this one from Dang Dinh of Fullerton, California, submitted to the Orange County Register:
That's not my argument. My argument is that bride+groom couples are objectively, demonstrably different, and can provide government documents attesting to this, than a brideless couple or a groomless couple, and that it is Constitutional to treat different kinds of voluntary associations differently.
Marriage is about more than procreation; therefore, gay couples should not be denied the right to marry because of biology [“Supreme Court will review Prop. 8,” Front Page, Dec. 10].Cars are about more than driving; therefore, someone who won't drive should not be denied the right to a driver's license.
It is inaccurate to perceive marriage merely as an institution for child-raising purposes.Correct. It is intrinsically about uniting the two sexes by joining a bride and groom. It is the ability and tendency of such unions to naturally produce new citizens that gives the state an interest it does not have with other kinds of voluntary associations.
Many married couples in society today do not have children of their own, often by choice.Irrelevant.
They marry because marriage symbolizes a long-term commitment to one another, not a pledge to reproduce for the state or for humanity as a whole.Irrelevant. People can commit to each other without a state license.
In any case, gay couples may adopt children in countries where they are permitted to do so, revealing society’s view at large that homosexual couples can readily act as capable parents and provide loving home environments.No couples missing one of the sexes provides a child with both a mother and a father. All children will grow up to deal with both men and women, and having a parent of each of the two sexes is beneficial for preparing them for this. and thus is the preferable relationships for raising children. If homosexual couples have to be treated equally to inclusive, married couples, then adoption agencies will be unable to function according to this ideal.
Furthermore, the advance of medical science has also enabled same-sex couples to have children of their own through surrogate mothers and sperm donors.Bad idea. It's also a bad idea when unmarried heterosexual people do that.
It can no longer be said that homosexual couples should not be granted the right to marriage because, either, they cannot have children or that they cannot raise children adequately. Both claims are false.
That's not my argument. My argument is that bride+groom couples are objectively, demonstrably different, and can provide government documents attesting to this, than a brideless couple or a groomless couple, and that it is Constitutional to treat different kinds of voluntary associations differently.
your statements are numbered. my responses follow . . .
ReplyDelete1) someone who will not drive should not be denied a driver's license? correct. having a license is not a mandate that one must drive.
2)It is the ability and tendency of such unions to naturally produce new citizens that gives the state an interest...
ONLY if the production of new citizens was the only interest of the state. In fact, the upbringing of new citizens is, whether or not they are the progeny of the couple in question, is ALSO a state interest.
3) No couples missing one of the sexes provides a child with both a mother and a father.
But they can provide a child with two parents, which YOU have accepted as being better than zero parents.
4) All children will grow up to deal with both men and women, and having a parent of each of the two sexes is beneficial for preparing them for this.
Might be. Is that opinion or research? (citation needed) Still, many children grow up with a single parent, and emerge prepared to deal with both men and women! And what of children raised by same-sex couples ... do you know any? I do. And they manage fine with both genders.
5) My argument is that bride+groom couples are objectively, demonstrably different ...
But you fail to establish, beyond your personal opinion, the significance of this difference. People of African descent have a different skin pigment than people of European descent ... and so what? An observable, documented difference isn't automatically a justification for different treatment. Come on, man!
1) At least some states deny driver's licenses to people who refuse to take the driving portion of the test.
Delete2) This is enough to justify having a license reserved for this kind of association.
3) Doesn't matter. It is not inclusive.
4) So which is not important for a child to have? A mother, or a father?
5) The difference is obvious. Don't play stupid.
1) changing your analogy, are you?
Delete2) what some studies show ... and no studies refute ... is that same-sex couples are every bit as able and successful at bringing up children as opposite-sex couples. if the state is sincere in its wish for household stability, as this benefits the children raised in those households, it would realize it lacks the justification to exclude same-sex couples from this legal recognition.
3) SEE 2 ABOVE
4) So, you have no citation to supply. I'll take your OP as a statement of your opinion then.
5) I won't guess what you mean by "bride+groom couples are objectively, demonstrably different". Perhaps you mean anatomically different? And perhaps you mean that there is something essential to marriage that requires the parties to possess this anatomical difference?
This reminds me of the amicus brief filed by 13 Attorneys General in the Prop 8 appeal. They maintain:
ReplyDeleteMarriage is About Children – more specifically, its about creating stable households in which children can be successfully raised.
Therefore, marriage should be for opposite-sex couples who:
may have the possibility of conceiving a child at any point in the future
* yes, even those who might only be able to conceive with medical assistance, including donors and surrogates.
* yes, even for those well beyond their child bearing years
* yes, even for women who have had a hysterectomy
* yes, even for men with permanent erectile dysfunction
But, of course, not for same-sex couples. Even those who:
*are already raising children from previous relationship(s)
*would be able to conceive with the exact same kind of medical assistance provided to opposite-sex couples, including donors and surrogates
Because its about procreation, am i right?