Is Your News Source Lying To You?

Whether is it supposed to be an objective news article or report, or whether is commentary or analysis, if the person you are reading, listening to, or watching is discussing the public debate and court arguments about neutering marriage, the federal Defense of Marriage Act, or California's Proposition 8 says any of the following, they are are most likely lying to you, whether out of appallingly unprofessional ignorance or dishonest advocacy:

"ban on gay marriage"
"ban on gay unions"
"illegal" in reference to homosexual relationships
"equal rights" or "civil rights" in regards to homosexual people
"The only arguments against gay/same-sex marriage are religious."
"The only arguments defending Proposition 8 or DOMA are religious."
"Their argument is that marriage is only about having children/reproduction/procreation."

Again, if you hear/read any of those, or their equivalents, the person is lying to you.

Here's the truth:

The California Marriage Amendment, voted in as Proposition 8, and similar legislation in other states, did not ban any marriages, unions, ceremonies, or relationships. It did not make any of those things illegal.

As it was before Proposition 8 or any of those other laws passed, a homosexual person has equal - the exact same - rights and access as a heterosexual person.

There are nonreligious arguments defending the Constitutionality, practicality, and importance of the bride+groom requirement in state marriage licensing.

The argument is not that marriage is only about having children. Read this very slowly if you have to: The argument is that since man+woman pairing is the only kind of pairing that can naturally (and "accidentally") create new citizens who do not consent to the situation in which they are placed, that kind of voluntary association is distinguishable from man+man pairing or woman+woman pairing and the state has more interest in man+woman pairings.

Whether someone wants to have children or not, plans to have children or not, has all of their reproductive system functioning or not are all private matters. However, because of science (don't be anti-science!) and thousands of years of experience the state knows a man+man or woman+woman union will never naturally or accidentally produce children, so they can be ruled out of this level of interest. One may ask, as Justice Kagan did, about a couple of 55-year-olds, but 1) the law doesn't know when any given couple will become jointly infertile, and 2) they are still the same kind of pairing that is reproductive. Checking a birth certificate or other official government documents to see if the sex-integration requirement (bride+groom) is met is simple and non-intrusive. Asking about plans/desires to have children or personal infertility is unnecessary and a violation of privacy.

We have repeatedly demonstrated the bias of certain news media personnel and organizations in these matters. I give my feedback to them. You should, too.

Previously:

Neutered Marriage Means Marriage Can't Be About Children

Neutering Marriage: Where We Are and What It Means

Manipulation & Misreporting of Polls to Advocate Marriage Neutering

Marriage Neutering and Newspeak

It's Not a "Ban on Gay Marriage"

Two comprehensive offerings:
Reviewing the Basics
Handy Dandy Marriage Neutering Plea Repellant

Bad Arguments For Neutering Marriage Licensing

I’m against changing marriage licensing so that legal marriage will no longer mean uniting the sexes. Some people claim to be in favor of “gay marriage”, but this is a misnomer. I'm in favor of gay marriage - my own marriage is quite gay, thank you. Changing the legal definition of marriage means forcing everyone to apply the title "marriage" to, and treat as marriage, sex-segregated or sex-exclusive or same-sex or single-sex or brideless and groomless unions. There would be no requirements that the participants actually be gay.

Originally inspired by a blog posting by Greg Koukl, I wanted to bring you some bad arguments for changing marriage licensing to license couples missing one of the sexes. Koukl has a more in-depth piece here

Keep in mind – marriage licenses are issued by the state, on behalf of the citizens of that state.

Here's a survey of some arguments we have heard from marriage neutering advocates as to why the Supreme Court of the United States should neuter state marriage licensing nationwide.

Schools Aren't Required to Teach Marriage

That was the response given by the "No on Prop 8" side in their ads, trying to counter the "Yes on Prop 8" ads saying that same-sex "marriage" will be taught in public schools. (Proposition 8, of course, WAS passed and thus amended the California constitution.)

If you wanted a case study in bad argumentation, "schools aren’t required to teach about marriage" would be a good one.

I originally had considered this more in light of polls that predicted Prop 8 would be defeated, and wondering how we can hold the marriage neutering and homosexuality advocates to their word should Prop 8 fail.  After all, they said over and over again that they won't interfere with churches and freedom of religion (but well after Prop 8 was voted up, they did attack churches, including the Crystal Cathedral) and that they won't push marriage neutering ideology in the schools.

Oops – no they didn’t.  They’ve said "schools aren’t required to teach marriage".  That’s a far different thing than "schools won’t be teaching same-sex marriage".

Now, none of their ads could be used in a court cases as binding promises, so they could misdirect, use weasel words, and lie up and down, because when it comes down to it, none of it would matter – in court – after the election, nor would it matter after SCOTUS rules. With Prop 8, the California Marriage Amendment in place, and other laws like it on other states, it will be easier for parents to shield their children from marriage neutering propaganda. Without it, it will be much more difficult, if not impossible.  However – we can still socially shame the marriage neutering side by exposing them as liars, and that might help in some future battles. Although, they seem to have no shame.

The most honest response the "No" side (the marriage neutering side) could have given to the "Yes" side's playing of the "school" card is: "Of course same-sex marriage will be taught in schools – why shouldn’t it be? We think that is a good thing."

But the "No" side knew that too many voters would be persuaded to the "Yes" side if they made that admission. So they were misleading people, knowing that all they needed was the "No" vote (or an activist court) and they wouldn't have to bother with as many costly court fights, and wouldn't be held to their word in a legal sense. The fact that they are liars and deceivers will have no legal consequences for them.

Let's consider how ridiculous it is to say "Schools aren’t required to teach marriage."

Let’s assume that the statement is factually true to the letter of the law. There’s no requirement that I put gasoline or any fuel into my automobile. There is no requirement that I earn income. There is probably no requirement that our schools teach that George Washington was the first President under this Constitution. But if I want to drive my automobile anywhere, I need fuel.  If I want to pay my bills, I need to earn income. If we're going to teach history, it would absurd not to teach about George Washington.

The sentence could also be considered incomplete. "Schools aren’t required to teach marriage…unless they teach sex education."  Ninety-six percent of the schools in California did in 2008.

How could schools not teach marriage?  Marriage is the basic building block of society.  There are going to be mentions of marriage in civics, political science, history, economics, home economics, health, social studies, sociology, psychology, biology, literature, comparative religion, art – and who knows what else.  Should the example of marriage not be used in any word problems in mathematics, in learning languages, in grammar instruction? Are the personal lives of teachers and school staff never going to be discussed – as in a teacher mentioning his wife?

Well, maybe the mention of marriage will be removed as much as possible. Notice that the "No" side didn’t use the words "gay" or "homosexual" or "same-sex" in their statement that "Schools aren’t required to teach marriage." So they weren’t saying that "Schools aren’t required to teach same-sex marriage." Because if marriage is discussed in a public (state) school, of course the marriage neutering activists are going to make sure that it is discussed according to official state policy – which, with the state marriage licensing neutered, is that there is no difference between natural marriage and neutered marriage.

The only way to get around that is to not discuss marriage at all.  They could offer to do just that – essentially ban the word "marriage" from the classroom. For some of the Left, that might be exactly what they want anyway. After all, doesn’t promoting or esteeming marriage hurt the feelings of those who choose not to marry, or have been unable to find a willing spouse?  And so, "Schools aren’t required to teach marriage" seems to me to possibly be a veiled offer to "compromise", like when someone is counterfeiting your branded merchandise and they offer to "compromise" with you.

We do want marriage taught in our schools – natural, historic, bride+groom marriage. Why?  Because strong marriage correlates to a strong society. The more children raised within marriage, the better off society is.

Finally, I’ll focus on the word "required".  Since when have the homosexuality advocates – or just about anyone on the Left - ever waited for permission, let alone a requirement? They go ahead and do everything they can to indoctrinate anyone else – including children – unless they are somehow barred from doing so. They think it is better to beg (often insincerely) forgiveness than ask permission. Actually, they think it is better to accuse you of being a bigot than beg forgiveness.

That is one reason why we argued in favor of Prop 8. It The California Marriage Amendment, like laws in other states, gives parents more of a possibility of barring the indoctrinators from lecturing their child, at least when it comes to marriage.

Since I first wrote these thoughts on the day that Proposition 8 was voted up and the California constitution amended, the Leftist California lawmakers adopted a requirement that school textbooks highlight the "contributions" of "LGBT" persons. Apparently, if someone invented something, it makes a difference whether he was attracted to women or men. I'm certain that one of those "contributions" will be the drive to neuter marriage. So, Judge Walker, who it appears to me and many others, acted unethically to attack the California constitution, would be featured positively for his work in neutering marriage. This legislation alone proves how dishonest the marriage neutering advocates were and still are.

It Takes a Bride and Groom to Make a Marriage

Throughout history, from culture to culture, around the world, marriage has always been about uniting the two sexes. The state did not create marriage; marriage helped create the state and the state simply has recognized and licensed marriage. The idea that there could be a marriage without a bride or without a groom is a very recent concept that tries to do away with marriage, first by replacing it with a counterfeit. It has been around a little over a decade as a legal concept, first appearing in the Netherlands. None of the great human or civil rights leaders in history ever spoke about a "right" to "marry" someone of the same sex. It's a made-up right, unlike the rights written of in the the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence and elsewhere by the men who wrote and adopted those documents, which were seen as bestowed upon us by our Creator.

So marriage uniting a bride and groom is the default position. The marriage neutering advocates get all excited when someone announces their support for neutering marriage, but what we're not hearing are the 6,000,000,000 or so people in the world who understand marriage unites a bride and groom. Almost all of them DON'T send out a press release, tweet, or hold a press conference announcing their support for preserving the bride+groom requirement in marriage law. The marriage neutering advocates trumpet the news when those in power of a US state or a country abandon sense and capitulates to the whiny, petulant, narcissistic activists. But that still leaves the heavy majority of US states strongly in favor of keeping marriage laws reserved for marriage, and over 180 countries where people understand that there's no such thing as "same-sex marriage".

With that in mind, let's look at some of the statements made by marriage neutering advocates. 

A Few Helpful Illustrations About Marriage

It is Constitutional to treat different actions and different kinds of associations differently. State marriage licenses that require the participation of both a bride (woman) and a groom (man) are inclusive and are equally accessible to individuals regardless of their sex or sexual orientation, and thus are not unconstitutional. Remember that adult relationships with unrelated people are voluntary, and that someone not wanting a license under the required conditions is still offered access to them.

The uniting of a man and woman is the only kind or type of relationship that will naturally create the next generation of citizens, even if not all do. Those new citizens are subjected to this reltionship whether they like it or not. The state has more interest in protecting children than consenting adults. The state simply does not have the same interest in a relationship that 1) does not include both sexes that comprise all of society and 2) will never naturally or as efficiently create the next generation of citizens.

Here's another illustration that might help:

Marriage neutering advocates don't want there to be a word that describes the bride+groom relationship. Requiring both a man and a woman participate is marriage equality. Here's a simple way to explain the concept to someone:

Finally, while one need not disapprove of homosexual behavior or demonstrate that parenting by a homosexual couple harms children in order to effectively defend the bride+groom requirement in marriage licensing, I found this interesting:

The Regnerus study supports gender-inclusive parenting.

Why Marriage Matters

What is the purpose of licensing marriage?

Some Gays and Lesbians Oppose Neutering of Marriage

...especially by judicial fiat.

I can only imagine the vitriol that must be spewed towards Doug Mainwaring, a self-identified gay man and co-founder of the National Capital Tea Party Patriots. Despite what some Leftists say, there is not even the slightest conflict between being a TEA or Tea Party member and being a homosexual person, as the Tea Party movement is focused on fiscal policy. He probably still gets attacks from ignorant people for that, but I'm sure he's getting attacked for his opinion pieces, like one that was printed in the Washington Post, "Why I Oppose Gay Marriage".

Manipulation & Misreporting of Polls to Advocate Marriage Neutering

All the cool people want it! All the young people want it! The majority of Americans want it! The momentum is unstoppable! It's inevitable!

How many times have you heard that in the debate about the neutering (abolishing) of state marriage licenses? Eager to advance the replacement of marriage with a a counterfeit, in-the-tank reporters and Leftist advocacy groups have touted polling that, according to them, shows a strong majority of Americans on their side of the issue.

However, if it was really true, they'd simply neuter marriage nationwide through direct popular votes on the state level, at least in states that have direct voting, and through state legislature in the other states and Congress nationally. For all of their bluster, there has only ever been ONE state (Maine) that has initiated the neutering of their licenses through a direct vote of the people, and that was done in the November 2012 election. For the other eight states and Washington, D.C., the process was initiated by judicial activism or radical action by the state legislature. This whole thing was initiated through judicial activism. Unfortunately, some people do throw up their hands and bow down before such activism, or before the radical agenda of their state legislature. 41 of the 50 states do NOT have neutered licensing, and most of them have recently, strongly, affirmed marriage as a bride+groom union, many by popular vote.

In the last few weeks, there have been reports of various polls claiming that clear a majority of Americans support the neutering marriage and polls touted by marriage neutering advocates claiming that 49% of Americans support marriage neutering. I wasn't a math major at the university, but 49% is not a majority (unless marriage neutering advocates have been allowed to redefine the word "majority" like they have "marriage" in some places).

The truth?

You're being lied to by marriage neutering advocates. Headlines about these polls are almost always highly misleading and the articles themselves may be misleading. When it comes to polling, the wording of the questions, the order of the questions, and who was polled, among other factors, can make a difference. At The Opine Editorials, we documented this repeatedly in our updates about poll dancing.

Even homofascist marriage neutering advocate blog Dog My Joe, by its own postings, admits this. A recent update there quoted Tony Perkins criticizing the Washington Post:

Which is Not Needed? Mothers or Fathers?

Those "tolerant" and "it's all about love" marriage neutering advocates are attacking this 11 year-old girl for her excellent comments before a legislative committee in Minnesota. Notice there is nothing hateful about her comments, nothing disapproving of homosexual people or homosexual behavior. Some of these vulgar and libelous attackers accuse her parents of using her to promote their own agenda. I wonder if these same critics made the same comments about children who have made comments before legislators about being raised by gay or lesbians couples?

SSM Advocate Admits Prop 8 Voters Not Haters

And he admited the voters were actually more in favor of Prop 8 than the vote indicated. David Fleischer had a commentary in the Los Angeles Times analyzing the vote for California’s Proposition 8, with the hope of eventually repealing the California Marriage Amendment. He mades some surprising admissions. Fleischer headed the LGBT mentoring project, which is now part of the Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian Center's new leadership program Learn Act Build.

Immediately after Proposition 8 passed, many who supported [neutering] marriage tried to make sense of the results.

Here's the sense: Most people, even if they retain no disapproval of homosexual behavior, understand that marriage unites the sexes, and that the state has an interest in marriage that it doesn't have with other kinds of voluntary personal relationships. Also, they don't like the judiciary usurping their authority.

A set of assumptions gained wide acceptance. Some are correct. Most, however, are just plain wrong. And it's crucial that we know what happened in the last election before launching another attempt to legalize marriage for all.

For all? Really? Even for a bisexual who is in love with two people at the same time?

Lesbians Report That Lesbians Make Good Mothers

Alice Park reported on a study that claims children do better with lesbian mothers than heterosexual parents, whether or not the mother has a partner. Now, before any men try to get out of their fatherhood obligations by bringing this to the attention of family court judges, let's take a closer look at what is really being claimed here. After all, it can't just be a celibate straight woman raising the child by herself. No, according to this, it is important that the woman be attracted to other women. That a child's mother is attracted to other women makes the kid do better in math. Right. Now golf, I could believe.

That is the question researchers explored in the first study ever to track children raised by lesbian parents, from birth to adolescence.

I'm not sure what the wording of this means. Does this mean the kids were raised from birth to adolescence by lesbians, or that they were only tracked through adolescence? From the rest of the article, it appears to mean both. I suppose I should know from the comma.

Although previous studies have indicated that children with same-sex parents show no significant differences compared with children in heterosexual homes when it comes to social development and adjustment, many of those investigations involved children who were born to women in heterosexual marriages, who later divorced and came out as lesbians.

One important detail is what exactly is meant by social development and adjustment, and how that is determined.

For their new study, published on Monday in the journal Pediatrics, researchers Nanette Gartrell, a professor of psychiatry at the University of California at San Francisco (and a law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles), and Henry Bos, a behavioral scientist at the University of Amsterdam, focused on what they call planned lesbian families - households in which the mothers identified themselves as lesbian at the time of artificial insemination.

So it appears none of these children were "surprises" or conceived via rape, or otherwise "crisis pregnancies". This is very important. Perhaps the real message is that waiting to have children until you believe you are ready to be a parent makes things better for the child? A child born to a partnered lesbian impregnated through third party reproduction is going to have two women who consider that child their child, unlike how it often can be when a man has been cuckolded and is bitter or comes into a situation where a woman is raising a child from a past lover.

The authors found that children raised by lesbian mothers - whether the mother was partnered or single - scored very similarly to children raised by heterosexual parents on measures of development and social behavior.

There are so many factors consider for both the homosexual and heterosexual parents – divorce, strife in the relationships, individual flaws, etc.

These findings were expected, the authors said; however, they were surprised to discover that children in lesbian homes scored higher than kids in straight families on some psychological measures of self-esteem and confidence, did better academically and were less likely to have behavioral problems, such as rule-breaking and aggression.

Self-esteem and confidence aren't necessarily good things – especially when they are unwarranted. Rule-breaking can be a good thing when the rule is unjust. Aggression is not necessarily a bad thing. For example, if a bully is about to beat up a smaller child, perhaps citing that smaller child’s mother being a lesbian, then aggressive intervention on the part of a witness can be a good thing even if the school has a rule against intervening.

In addition, children in same-sex-parent families whose mothers ended up separating did as well as children in lesbian families in which the moms stayed together.

Does anyone really believe this? It means that same-sex divorce has no effect on children. Really, rather than getting this study widely publicized, if I had come up with these results, I would realize that the study is flawed. But due to politics, and the funding already spent by homosexuality advocates on the study, the study gets wide publicity.

The data that Gartrell and Bos analyzed came from the U.S. National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study (NLLFS), begun in 1986. The authors included 154 women in 84 families who underwent artificial insemination to start a family; the parents agreed to answer questions about their children's social skills, academic performance and behavior at five follow-up times over the 17-year study period. Children in the families were interviewed by researchers at age 10 and were then asked at age 17 to complete an online questionnaire, which included queries about the teens' activities, social lives, feelings of anxiety or depression, and behavior.

Where to start?
1. That's an extremely small sample.
2. What about when these kids get older, especially when they consider starting their own family?
3. Are the misandry levels in these children higher than the general population?
4. Is it possible that the researchers doing the interviews were biased?
5. Is it possible that the self-reporting could have been defensive?

Not surprisingly, the researchers found that 41% of children reported having endured some teasing, ostracism or discrimination related to their being raised by same-sex parents.

Unfortunately, some children bully other children for anything they perceive as different. Bullying for whatever reasons is not good, even more so when it is something over which the child has no control.

But Gartrell and Bos could find no differences on psychological adjustment tests between the children and those in a group of matched controls.

This could mean that everyone is getting bullied at pretty much the same rate, regardless of the sexual identity of parents.

I do think is entirely possible that a child raised by two stable women (or one woman) would be better off than one raised by a woman who has a series of bad boys parading through her bedroom and past the breakfast table, possibly taking a detour through the child's room between. But what about situations where a mother and grandmother are raising the children, or a mother and aunt?

Apples need to be compared to apples. Of course a child is likely to be better off raised by a generally good, financially stable woman who planned the pregnancy over an abusive mother and abusive father who are in and out of police custody and spend their money on their substance abuse habits rather than food for the kid, and got pregnant as a natural result of sex without actually intending to become parents. But what about all other things being equal?

The study does not past the smell test. Homosexual people KNOW there is a difference between men and women in interpersonal relationships - that is why they indentify as homosexual and not neutrally bisexual. Parenting is an interpersonal relationship. Therefore, there has to be a difference between mothering and fathering. All children, gay or straight, will grow up to deal with both men and women. As such, they benefit from having a parent of each sex parenting them and modeling cooperative interaction between the sexes.

Use common sense. Does the fact that a woman is attracted to a woman matter? What matters is the behavior towards and in front of the children. Of course a lesbian can be a good mother. What she can't be, though, nor can another woman, is a father.

Because the research is ongoing, Gartrell hopes to test some of these theories with additional studies. She is also hoping to collect more data on gay-father households; gay fatherhood is less common than lesbian motherhood because of the high costs of surrogacy or adoption that gay couples face in order to start a family.

But I thought they were just like bride+groom couples? If they are, some of those couples should be able to make babies without third parties.

Would the same publication publish a study that was funded and released by Focus on the Family in which evangelical Christian parents raised children according to the principles of Focus on the Family, and the study said that such children are better off?

Why Just Two?

Many marriage neutering advocates tell us, even though they insist that marriage isn't about children, that all that matters is that a child has two parents in the home.


Where do they get this number?

Neutered Marriage Means Marriage Can’t Be About Children

Some marriage neutering advocates openly or quietly support changing marriage laws (and other laws) to accommodate polygamy and consensual incest. Then there are marriage neutering advocates who scoff when marriage defenders, clumsily or skillfully, ask why public policy regarding marriage should be changed so radically to remove the all-through-history-universal bride+groom core, but not changed to accomodate polygamous and incestuous marriages, which have been historically recognized as valid marriages. Marriage neutering advocates who claim their arguments should not be applied to give polygamists or incestuous couples their "right to marry" often claim polygamy and incest are harmful to children.

This is a curious objection, because that argument rests on the claim that marriage is tied to heterosexual intercourse, childbearing, and childrearing. Yet, what about same-sex incest and polygamy (which also eliminates the "harmful to women" objection)? And haven't the marriage neutering advocates been arguing that marriage should not be associated with heterosexual intercourse, nor the ability or desire to bear children?

No two men together can ever naturally produce a child. So if two men with no ability to produce children nor any desire to raise children can form a marriage, marriage, as an institution, can't be about children - children are merely incidental to marriage, just like whether the couple rents or owns their residence.

Nor can we say that marriage must mean that we can expect any given sex act to be part of marriage.

Doesn't this mean we can't grant marriage licenses to brideless or groomless couples while legitimately denying those licenses to polygamous or incestuous unions on the grounds of harm to children or the illegality of incestuous sex, because there is no connection between marriage and sex or children?

So, marriage neutering advocates: either tell us what non-arbitrary, consistent argument is there that demands same-sex pairings must be issued state marriage licenses that does not also apply to polygamous or incestuous relationships, or stop scoffing when this is invoked in the defense of existing marriage laws.

Can I please have my own Google Bomb Website now? Please? Have someone who preaches against bullying go ahead and hypocritically bully me that way like they did that other guy.

While we're at it, since marriage is not about children in their perspective, can any marriage neutering advocate explain why a man who has impregnated a woman should have any obligation to propose marriage or actually get married/speed up the wedding date? Also, please explain why any married couple with minor children together should take that into consideration when deciding whether or not to divorce. I'm not talking about law here, but rather peer pressure, morality, etc. (The sad thing is, too many people already don't believe pregnancy should have any effect on whether/when there is a marriage, or whether/when to divorce.)

Marriage Neutering and Newspeak

Marriage neutering advocates, especially those embedded in the MSM, have been very clever at their manipulation of the news and debate when it comes to their well-organized, well-funded, calculated effort to neuter marriage licensing nationwide and replace marriage with a counterfeit, further tearing down the strength of the family and devaluing both masculinity and femininity. Hedonists want this because they don't like anything that implies sexual morality. For the Leftists, this is a good thing because they think it will bring about more equality in outcomes and make people generally more dependent on the government. To Leftists, that some people have better families than others is unfairness that must be corrected by public policy. People relying on family first, ahead of government, might mean having to deal with people who know your moral shortcomings and your counterproductive habits, and that can be a real buzzkill.

They know they can't win using logic and sound reasoning, so they appeal to emotion and employ cultural subversion. They know the fact that men and women are different is inescapable, despite the long attempts by Leftist gender confusion advocates to assert otherwise. Even infants know men and women are different. Even the marriage neutering advocates at "Dancing With the Stars" always pair men with women, even going so far as to pair Chaz Bono with a woman because Chaz claims to be man now (though the emperor has no Y chromosome). Any person who has struggled with their sexual orientation and has identified themselves as "gay" or "lesbian" is demonstrating that there are important differences between men and women. Anyone who claims to have undergone a gender reassignment is making a claim that there is such a difference between men and women, that counseling, hormone treatments and surgeries are needed for them to change from one to the other.

Since men and women are different, the uniting of a bride and groom is objectively, demonstrably, and documentably different than the pairing two men or two women. This is why it is Constitutional (and important) to treat marriage differently from other kinds of voluntary associations, including what a minority of states and a few countries have falsely called "marriage" in their licensing.

In an effort to circumvent what should be self-evident truths to most people, marriage neutering advocates have misused language.

Let's clear up some terms.

Prejudice:

Not All Freedoms are Rights

We often hear politicians and activists talking about "rights", as in a right to health insurance, or "We should not take away a couple's right to marry" or there should be a "right" to just about anything.  I have said before that true rights do not obligate others without their consent. God (that's Nature, to you pagans, philosophical naturalists, etc.) has given us many rights. The government does not give us rights. It is supposed to protect our rights from those who would infringe upon them by force or fraud. The Constitution does not give us our rights. It lists some of our rights, but it also says that we retain all rights and powers not specifically given over to the government in the Constitution.

There can be a difference between a right and a freedom.  Not everything that we have the freedom to do is a right. For example, we can run through an open field because it is open. We can have that freedom.  But if that field is owned by someone else, we do not have a right to run through it. If that owner decides to fence off the property, our freedom to run across it is gone, but we have not lost any right. I have the freedom to order a pizza from Domino's. But if they decide not to sell pizzas anymore, I can't say that they've taken away my right. What would be a violation of my rights would be if the federal government told me I could not freely exchange something I had for a pizza being offered freely for trade by Domino's.

So the next time you see someone claiming that their "right" will be taken away, think about whether what they are talking about is really a right or if it has been a freedom they've enjoyed.

Earth is Round, Children Need a Mother and Father

Here's something I posted early on in my contributions to The Opine Editorials...

Dr. Amy Tuteur, a Harvard and Boston University-educated obstetrician-gynecologist, wrote a piece on Salon.com entitled "Are Fathers Optional?" Since she answers in the negative, affirming the importance of fathers, there have been some very passionate responses that you can click through to see. It seems like it should be self-evident that both mother and fathers are necessary for children, and thus, raising the next generation in the best social conditions possible. Sadly, because this is not affirming of some of the desires and choices of some adults (especially some unilateralists, feminists, male hedonists, and some homosexual people) it is treated as a controversial idea.

Judging by their behavior, American women appear to think that fathers are optional. According to the recently published birth statistics (Births: Final Data for 2006), the proportion of births to unmarried women has reached 38.5%, the highest rate ever recorded.

That's an average. Some groups often portrayed as disadvantaged have a much higher rate, unfortunately, which helps perpetuate disadvantages in those populations.

Women are actively conceiving and bearing children in the knowledge that their fathers will almost certainly not be living with them throughout childhood. Simply put, women are behaving as if fathers are optional. Nothing could be further from the truth. Having an active, involved, resident father is the birth right of every child. It is not the birth right of every mother to have children simply because she wants them.

I urge you to click through and read the whole piece. It isn't very long. The M.D. does participate in the comments thread, responding to objections and challenges – most of which are typical. Some examples of some of her replies to the critics:

Actually I believe that women should we stigmatized if they want to have children without marriage, because it is a self indulgent, selfish choice... Hetero is normative. That doesn't mean the gay is unacceptable, but let's not get ridiculous... I can understand why a woman would want a child, but I cannot understand a woman putting what she wants ahead of what a child needs... We can debate the research findings and they are important, but my argument is primarily a moral argument. All children have a mother and father, but in the case of gay couples the biological parent substitutes someone he or she likes better. That may be nice for the biological parent, but it is not fair to the child... I realize that placing children's needs above parents' wants is not politically correct. That's because, in our society, children are treated like accessories, not like actual human beings... Sorry, the fact that some people are horrible parents does not give you the moral right to be a mediocre parent, or, indeed, anything except the best parent that you can be... If the mother and father cannot commit to being permanently resident in that child's life, they shouldn't have a child.

And that's just a small sampling. I wonder if she'd like to join this blog? ;-) H/T: Glenn Sacks

Pseudogamy

Anthony Esolen at Mere Comments has posted a blog entry on "Pseudogamy".

Our problem is pseudogamy, false marriage, and it assumes many forms. Same-sex pseudogamy is but the latest and most flagrantly absurd, but it is not the first. We find the most fundamental form, from which other corruptions rise up like diseases, when a man and woman go through the ceremony and utter the traditional words "as long as you both shall live," while harboring the mental reservation, "as long, that is, as I am happy," or "as long as the marriage 'works,'" whatever that is supposed to mean.

Click through to read the whole thing. It is mostly about divorce and harboring reservations when marrying. I disagree with him where he knocks pre-nups as either the bride, the groom, or both planning for divorce, and thus negating the spiritual aspect of the marriage. As long as divorce, especially no-fault divorce, is a legal reality (and I don't expect it this will change prior to the return of Christ), the laws and courts already amount to a de facto pre-nup. Why should a bride and groom let strangers decide for them when they can decide as a couple while on good terms?

Pseudogamy 102:

Man and woman unite in marriage to bring into being a new generation; and even when they cannot do so, because of age or some physical defect, they may well wish to do so, or they stand for others as exemplars of the act that naturally brings forth children.

From Pseudogamy 103:

To play at marriage before marriage causes one to play at play-marriage after marriage; the sharp distinction is lost ("It's only a piece of paper!" laugh those who fear the marriage certificate), and both the unmarried and the married states are thereby corrupted.

I do not doubt that there is a connection between other forms of psuedogamy (among other things) and the push to neuter marriage. We would not be at this point unless without much previous error. Error begets error, unfortunately. Some of my own past actions have contributed to this mess. However, I admit that those things were wrong to do. I do advise others not to do them. I don't make excuses, or demand approval and affirmation for those or any legal entitlements because I did them. I am not trying to get any media portrayal or school or church to say those actions weren't wrong. I don't pretend that those actions were no different than being married.

From Pseudogamy 104:

Masculinity and femininity are like languages, each with a certain noticeable character, with delimiting features that are ineradicable from that character. As with a language, you never know what a culture will "say" with its men or women, or what any particular man or woman will "say" with the physical and mental makeup, not to mention the cultural expectations based upon those, which he or she is provided with. There is, literally, an infinite number of possible things to say; but there is also an infinite number of things that will not be said or that cannot conceivably be said.

From Pseudogamy 105:

You cannot, in a vow, reserve the right to change your mind, because a vow is precisely the sort of tossing of choice away that makes changing your mind irrelevant. When I spoke the words to my wife, that I would remain faithful to her, for richer or for poorer, in sickness and in health, as long as we both should live, I made a sacred vow. Did I know what that would entail? Of course not; hence the vow. We don't know whether we will be deliriously happy with the person we marry, or whether our lot will be trouble and suffering, or some all-too-human tragicomedy.

From Pseudogamy 106:

A culture of divorce, I'm suggesting, produces a lot of divorces, true, but mainly by producing a lot of people whom only a fool would trust. It makes everyone worse, because it attacks at the root the principal means by which the common person can do something godlike in its freedom and nobility: to cast one's lot forever with another human being, loving not by seeking one's own pleasure, but instead seeing that the greatest delight is only to be found in that freedom-tossing and therefore liberating love. It produces a culture of people who cannot be trusted with money, or with paper profits from supposed future investors, because they cannot even be trusted with rings; they are as good as their word when keeping their word profits them, or when breaking their word would cause them too much trouble. But make the price right, in money or in pleasure or in those vanities called "my dreams," and they can be bought out.

From Pseudogamy 107:

It is that we have come to consider permanence of any sort to be an affront to our beings, to our sovereign "choice". Which means that "culture," such as it is, is demoted to a smorgasbord to meet Mike's taste in Bach and Marty's taste in jazz, with nothing really to unite everyone in acts of general love or worship or celebration. Divorce, as I've written in an old article for Crisis magazine, is the sacrament for this new anti-state of affairs.

Marriage is more than "just a piece of paper", and there are very real differences between men and women. That many people have forgotten those truths or haven't learned them to begin with creates many problems for today's society.

Pseudogamy 108:

It occurs to me that the pseudogamy of the male homosexual is essentially related to the need to put on an act, an act that the man not burdened with same-sex attraction can hardly understand.

Most Efficient Video Defending Marriage

If you or someone you know wonders what the big deal is about neutering marriage (what some people call gay marriage or same-sex marriage) and why marriage should be defended from attempts to neuter it, you won't find a more efficient video than this one. The one thing I would have done differently is used a better example than drug laws.


Also, see my Reviewing the Basics entry at The Opine Editorials.

I'm not sure why embedded videos disappear from this blog. It's not like Blogger and YouTube are incompatible.

We Are Your Family and Neighbors

Two of the statements we often hear from marriage neutering activists and homosexuality advocates in general are some variations of... 1) "We're your family, your neighbors, your friends, your coworkers, your teachers, your firefighters, your police officers, and your doctors." and 2) "We have contributed to providing products and services that you have used." While such statements might make the ignorant more aware that they have encountered homosexual people in the ordinary course of their lives, whether they know it or not, such statements are not good arguments for homosexual behavior or the necessity of neutering marriage licensing.

The first statement is a curious appeal to popularity - as if the popularity of something makes it good or true or necessitates action. I say "curious" because even the most strident homosexuality advocates know that people who identify as homosexuals, or consistently feel strong homosexual feelings are in the minority. So heterosexuality is more popular. Just because I have a family member or friend or professional associate who wants something doesn't mean I am obligated to give to them. While appealing to my concern for them as a fellow human being, the activist for change really is asking me to set aside my own convictions and feelings and to give up my vote to their cause. They are claiming to rest their happiness on my actions. If someone is relying on a marriage license to make them happy, they will be sorely disappointed, as many people have discovered.

Our government is there to protect the conditions that allow us to pursue happiness in an orderly society, not make us happy.

Regarding statement number 2: Since I, and most other people who recognize that marriage licensing should not be neutered, especially by courts, have never expressed a desire that homosexual people disappear, then I can only conclude that we are being asked to believe that because we make an exchange with someone for a good or service they provide, they believe we are obligated to offer moral, social, and political support for everything they do or want. But if that is the case, then why doesn't it work the other way around?

It matters not to me if a famous person is history or someone making great contributions to society today was or is a homosexual person. Homosexual behavior had little to no part in their societal contribution. What have they contributed to society that they couldn't if they have been completely celibate? Or engaged only in heterosexual behavior? As much as it rankles some people to hear, homosexual behavior, while it may be enjoyable for the individuals participating, contributes nothing positive to general society, but some forms of it are especially susceptible to spreading disease. Meanwhile, heterosexual behavior is how all of us got here – even test tube babies wouldn't be here if their ancestors hadn't engaged in heterosexual behavior. 

Which brings me to another reason those arguments aren't compelling. The same statements could be made of any number of other groups of people with a common cause or trait, including Bible-believers, marriage defenders, and people who value judicial restraint. I dare say, to the "gay" or "lesbian" who is reading this and believes their relationship with their partner should be licensed as marriage by the state – that there are people in your life you enjoy, love, respect, or count on in some way who believe that your relationship should not be licensed as marriage by the state, or even be called marriage on a social level. They may even think homosexual behavior is wrong. You may have no idea they feel this way – they are "in the closet", so to speak, at least around you. And if this is the case, it could be because you have demonstrated intolerance, and have loudly championed using the force of the courts to overturn their votes. If they have been civil enough to carry on their relationships with you, perhaps you should be civil enough not to cut them off if you discover they don’t agree with you. 

(This is a modified version of something I originally posted at The Opine Editorials)

I Will Gladly Stay Out of Your Bedroom

I'm convinced that sex is for marriage and that sex or sex-like activity with someone other than one's spouse is harmful and wrong. However, I would not use the force of law to prevent consenting adults from doing whatever they want in private. Conversely, I do not think anyone should use the force of law to get me to pay for care necessitated by those activities. STDs? Injuries? Unplanned pregnancies? You consented, you can deal with it.

Many people who disapprove of homosexual behavior also defend marriage, and some marriage neutering advocates apparently have this is mind when they demand that we stay out of their bedrooms. In doing so, they are confusing the issues.

One need not disapprove of homosexual behavior to see the importance of resisting the neutering of state marriage licensing.

Maintaining marriage does not interfere in anyone's bedroom. Adults of any sexual orientation are legally free to engage in cohabitation, casual sex, and other sexual and general social interactions and voluntary arrangements.

A more relevant challenge is posed with something like this:

Who cares if a couple of guys want to marry each other?

Nothing is stopping consenting adults from sharing a home, bed, and life together; having showers and parties; entering into contracts (in some places, domestic partnerships); having a ceremony with consenting clergy, wearing dresses or tuxes, holding flowers, making vows, exchanging rings, stomping a glass; having a reception with gifts, a cake, bouquet-tossing, garter-tossing, and dancing through the night; taking a honeymoon vacation; changing names; calling themselves married; requesting that others consider them married; and celebrating anniversaries.

This had been going on before any state neutered marriage, it is all legally permitted, and there is no serious movement to pass legislation to change this.

It is when someone requests a marriage license (or a domestic partnership or civil union) from the government, which operates on behalf of the governed, that is when it becomes my business and the business of any citizen. State licensing is a public issue.

This isn't about what two people get to call their relationship - it is about forcing the rest of us to affirm brideless or groomless pairings as marriage, and preventing us from distinguishing between marriage and the pairing of two men or two women. The state is YOU and ME. It isn't as though, when the state issues a marriage license, it is "someone else".

We have seen the shift in activism go from "stay out of our lives" to "you must participate in our lives in the manner in which we demand." Well, I will gladly stay out of your bedroom. Please keep your hands off of my ballot.

(This is modified from a posting originally made at The Opine Editorials.)

Hasn't Marriage Always Been Changing?

This question or the idea behind it has been used by some to say that calling brideless or groomless pairing “marriage” would just be another change in something that has changed throughout history.

While there have been various restrictions on marriage (and the dissolution of marriages) through the centuries and around the world, and various ways people found a spouse, one of the only constants has been that marriage unites the two sexes. This has been true even in societies that did not consider homosexuality to be immoral or rare. Uniting the sexes is what makes marriage marriage. Mutual physical attraction or romantic love does not distinguish marriage from nonmarital relationships. Those things are not even required to obtain a marriage license, and if they had been what makes marriage marriage, than most marriages throughout history would not have been marriages from the start, such as many arranged marriages.

That something has undergone some changes over time does not require us to support any change that someone proposes.

A brideless or groomless pairing is simply not marriage. It is something else – something lacking the essence of marriage. It is no more marriage than a man is "gay" if he is, and has always been, attracted to women and not men, and never engages in homosexual behavior.

Why Marriage is Different

The marriage debate has proven to be different than the general fight for “gay rights”, and this causing a lot of people to go bonkers, and exposing homofascist tendencies in some of them.

Why? Perhaps the answers can be found in recent history.

The "gay rights" movement has had astounding success. Homosexual behavior used to be illegal and was prosecuted. There were raids on places where homosexual people congregated. Homosexuality was classified as a disorder by the APA. Entertainers (and many others) hid homosexual behavior for fear of career loss. Kids were warned to beware of homosexuals, with such warnings equating them with pedophiles. Many people didn’t even know the word "homosexual".

Things have changed.

Is it Possible to Truly Achieve "Marriage Equality"?

Much of existing family law is predicated on marriage being something that involves both a husband and a wife, as it has been throughout history. If we are truly to have "marriage equality" so that the voluntary association of two men or two women must be treated, under law, exactly the same as natural marriage, I'm curious as to how this would work in the following areas:

Adoption – Same-sex couples would have just as much standing to adopt as a bride-groom couple, correct? Some people who devalue either masculinity or femininity, fatherhood or motherhood, and devalue sex-integration don't see this is a problem, but I think most people do, even if they support neutering state marriage licensing. This reality has meant that Catholic adoption agencies, in order to be true to their convictions, have had to cease operations in states with neutered licensing.

Paternity Assumption – In a bride-groom couple, for the protection of the child (and to keep the state from being on the hook for child support), the groom is considered the legal father by default of any child born to the bride. Would the non-carrying lesbian be considered the default parent of a child her partner carries, whether or not she agreed to the pregnancy, and regardless of how that pregnancy was accomplished? If not, then neither should a groom. Would a lesbian woman be held accountable if it turns out that her partner is secretly bisexual and turns up pregnant?

Child Custody - Women are often given preference over men in child custody matters, even when the man begs for custody. How would this work when it comes to same-sex couples who are being divorced? Would fathers being divorced from mothers gain more from this? Would the biological parent, if any, be favored? If not, what implications would that have when it comes to traditional stepfathers and stepmothers?

Child Support – Would the spouse who is not biologically related to the children still be forced to pay child support? It happens with bride-groom couples, but couldn't someone argue that they've never engaged in reproductive behavior and thus shouldn't be saddled with child support? If so, how could that argument be accepted while treating a groom being divorced from a bride equally (or will courts be forced to admit that homosexual sodomy and heterosexual coitus are not equivalent - and invade our bedrooms)? If there are two men, and one turns out to be bisexual or donates sperm, resulting in a pregnancy, is the other man's income to be included in figuring child support as happens when a bride and groom marry? (Yes, sperm donors have been held liable for child support.)

Abortion Rights - One woman gets pregnant, there is a split, the other woman - who has paid for the reproductive medical treatments, perhaps donated the eggs, and wants the children - sues to block abortion. Currently, a wife can get an abortion even if her husband objects. Will "gay rights" trump abortion rights? Oh, I can see the dilemma now! I suspect abortion rights will win that battle, especially if feminists realize that men could also use any precedent set.

Community Property was based on the idea that a marriage was creating a cooperative microcosm of society with a division of labor, more likely than not to raise children biologically related to both spouses, thereby perpetuating society. In order to treat all couples equally, would the concept of community property be diminished?

Alimony – Largely based on community property and division of labor, the concept has lost some importance with the equal access of women to the workplace. Again, would the concept of alimony be weakend? Surely, a man should not have to pay alimony because he married a woman while another man avoids paying it because he married another man? That wouldn't be equal.

Marriage Statistics - Would government agencies be allowed to collect, compile, and release statistics that distinguish between natural and neutered marriage? If not, marriage statistics could show marriage as being less favorable than they have in the past in terms of longevity (of the participants as well as the marriage), fidelity, domestic violence, poverty, mental health, positive effect on children, etc.

What has changed in Massachusetts and states that have subsequently neutered their licenses, and is the law still catching up? I don't see how we can neuter marriage licensing nationwide without it changing marriage for all, even those bride-groom couples who have been married for decades.

Remember – true equality works both ways. If highly noisy, persistent, and effective activist groups accomplish their goal of neutering marriage nationwide, what happens if they need to direct their energies to something new, especially if they discover things about state-licensed marriage that are not friendly to their subculture? I think we could kiss goodbye any hope of moving away from no-fault divorce. It would not surprise me if the "equality" groups were to subsequently demand taxpayer funding on-demand for all third-party reproduction. After all, many bride-groom couples can conceive for free. Shouldn't we correct this "inequality"?

I do not believe that the voluntary association of a man and a woman is the same kind of voluntary association as two women or two men, and I do not see a moral or legal obligation for the state to treat all three as the same. I see a state interest in licensing and encouraging natural marriage that is not met in either of the other two kinds of unions. It is obvious to me that what keeps same-sex "marriage" and natural marriage from being equal has less to do with state licensing requirement and more to do with the nature of the sexes and the differences between them.

The rights of children must be protected, as they do not consent to the circumstances of their birth, or the relationships their parents have. Whether marriage neutering gains or loses ground, we still have third-party reproduction, and something else should be put in place to protect the right of a child to both her mother and her father. Of course there will be instances in which, for the child's protection, access to one or both of her parents would have to be restricted or terminated, and redirected to an adoptive mother or father. But third-party reproduction has already deprived, by design, children of a mother or a father, and neutering marriage can only reinforce that.

Finally, is it really equality if there are still people who are prevented from marrying the other adults they love due to the circumstances of their birth or their sexual orientation? There are polyamorists who swear they are just as much polyamorist as they are gay, and cousins, who certainly didn't choose the circustances of their birth, who are not allowed to marry in many states. If marriage is based on the desires/feelings of the adults rather than the kind of union that can be procreative, what is the basis for limiting marriage licensing to just two particpants, or denying marriage licenses on the basis of consanguinity? Or, is marriage really based on the amount of hounding done by a lobby group?

(This is a modified version of a posting I originally published at The Opine Editorials.)

Why the Christian Focus on Homosexuality?

Royal Oaker, commenting on a post about the MSM lies about the PCUSA, wrote:

I don't see why Christians reserve so much hatred for gay people. You never see signs "God hates Divorced Persons!" or "God hates Adulterers!" like you see the perennial "God hates Phags!" There are rarely ever any articles written about how bad adulterers are, or divorced people, or women who have sex before marriage. Why are gay people always the victims of christian rage?

Join Me on Facebook and Twitter

If you like to read my blog entries but wish I would update more often, friend me on Facebook and follow me on Twitter, where I update more frequently.

What's With the Hate Over Moral Convictions?

It seems like a day doesn't go by that I don't see someone, whether in the MSM or one of my Facebook contacts, lashing out at pastors like Joel Osteen... with whom I have my own issues) or the Pope (I'm not a Roman Catholic myself), or someone running for President.

They are lashing out specifically because, given the Biblical teachings that sex is for marriage and that marriage unites a bride and a groom, these pastors and religious leaders and believers, when asked by people like Oprah about homosexual behavior, note that homosexual behavior, like all sex or sex-like behavior that isn't between spouses (spouses meaning bride with groom), is a sin. These people are being asked for what they believe, and they are being honest in their responses.
 
These pastors and religious leaders and believers are not advocating violence. They are stating what is found in the Bible and church tradition. If their conviction that sex outside of marriage is wrong is "hate speech" that somehow is a threat to you, how isn't your apparent conviction that their stating their convictions is wrong a threat to them?

None of these people are saying everyone has to find someone of the opposite sex and marry them. They aren't saying you don't feel what you feel.

So please... if you are such a person who hates or is angry at or disgusted by these pastors and religious leaders because they believe what they do about human sexuality (that 1. it is for marriage and 2. marriage unites a bride and groom), please, please, please enlighten me and anyone else like me:

1. Are there any moral restrictions when it comes to sex? If so, please explain what those restrictions are.

2. How did you discover or determine or learn what those morals are?

3. Why should Osteen, the Pope, me, or anyone else replace the morals we are convinced are right with the morals you hold?

I'd really like to know. You know, in case Oprah or some pageant judge with a bogus copycat name asks me.

Simply spewing hate at me or anyone else is not an argument. So don't even try it.

Keep in mind that if everyone were to adhere to the morals I list above, along with the principle that children have a natural right to a mother and  a father (so no using donations or reproductive technologies to intentionally bring children into a home without a mother or without a father) we would...

1. Have no children born out of wedlock (except in the rare cases of when a pregnant woman is widowed). Illegitimacy is correlated to many negative indicators.

2. Slash the rate of STD infections to almost nothing. Can we agree that STDs are bad?

3. Hack into small bits (there's a deliberate choice of words) the number of children slaughtered in the womb, or with their bodies out in the open but their head still in the canal. Come on, even you "pro-choicers" usually say that abortion isn't good in most cases.

4. Significantly reduce the heartache, depression, embarrassment, shame, and other negative feelings that come after someone has been fornicating with someone and the relationship ends.

5. Make it less likely that people who aren't compatible with or loving or respectful towards each other will drag their relationship on, possibly into marriage, only to split. Or do you think it is a good thing for people to stay with someone who makes them miserable just because they're having sex?

6. Continue the human race, with most children having had a parent of each of the two sexes to bond with, observe, and learn from, which is good considering every one of those children will have to interact with both men and women.

So... whatever alternate set of morals you offer should be at least as good in terms of results.