[Please note: This was published before marriage neutering was imposed nationwide by the Supreme Court.]
I have noticed that in responding to items about marriage neutering (“same-sex marriage”, “gay marriage”) on news/commentary websites, blogs, and columns, there is a lot of repetition of the same talking points. That is why I have compiled this. Feel free to repost this in its entirely (or an entire, unabridged section (I, II, or III) as long as you link back to this post on The Playful Walrus – use it in comment areas and in e-mail, if you find it helpful. Print it out and hand it to your neighbors, friends, family members, coworkers - as long as you include the URL.
Handy Dandy Marriage Neutering Plea Repellant
We are not obligated to change our laws just because someone has asked us to(1). We are not obligated to issue marriage licenses to brideless or groomless couples. If "equality" such as "equal access" compels us to issue marriage licenses to any two people, then it also compels us to issue marriage licenses to siblings, people who are already married to others, roommates, and platonic strangers(2). Business or crime partners may find marriage licenses convenient, for example. (No, I'm not equating incest to homosexuality, but neither should a brideless or groomless couple be equated to marriage. All of these couplings are different kinds of relationships.)
The burden of proof is on those who want to change something that has served society well throughout history to show why the change is necessary. Please note that one need not be religious, nor believe there is anything wrong with homosexual behavior, to oppose marriage neutering. One can even support marriage neutering, but reject the notion that it is a court's authority to impose marriage neutering on state licensing.
I. Neutering state marriage licensing should be up to the people of a state.
A. The people retain all power not granted to a branch of government. Courts are not obligated to intervene on constitutional grounds unless an actual right is being violated by a law.
B. No right is being violated under bride-groom marriage licensing.
1. True rights do not obligate others without their consent(3). There is a right to free speech, for example, because each of us has been born with the ability to communicate. But that doesn’t mean anyone has to listen to me, nor does Clear Channel have to provide me with billboard space free of charge.
2. State licenses are granted by the people of a state per their consent.
3. Therefore, voluntary associations without a bride or a groom do not have a right to a state-issued marriage license without a vote of (or on behalf) of the people to neuter marriage licensing. Under the principle of equal access/protection, state or federal law may prohibit discrimination against individuals on the basis of certain traits, such as race, sex, and sexual orientation, so that a driver's license can't be denied to someone with darker skin if that person meets the same criteria as a person with lighter skin. However, bride-groom marriage licenses are available to all individuals, regardless of race, sex, or sexual orientation. It is not unconstitutional for the state to treat different kinds of voluntary associations differently, as evidenced by numerous laws and regulations; monosexual couples are inherently a different kind of association than a couple uniting both sexes, because men and women are different (hence "male" and "female" designations on birth certificates)(4),(5).
If men and women were not different, then the phrase "sexual orientation" would cease to have meaning, so it is impossible for anyone to argue that that there is no difference between men and women, and therefore same-sex and both-sex couplings, without removing their original argument. In other words, a homosexual man knows there is a difference – which is why he doesn't want to be married to a woman and instead wants to be "married" to a man.
That a homosexual man or woman does not want to obtain a marriage license under bride-groom marriage licensing does not mean that the licensing access is not equally provided or is flawed, nor does it necessitate change, any more than how we issue driver's licenses need be changed to accommodate a lifelong bicyclist, nor should public transit buses have their wheels removed to accommodate those prone to motion sickness. Since when does a segment of the population NOT wanting to use something other people are using obligate a universal change in that thing? Don't want to marry someone of the opposite sex? You don't have to. Marriage is optional.
There is no natural right to a state-issued license – not a business license, not a professional license, not a driver's license. State-issued licenses are issued on behalf of the people, because the people have chosen to issue them. States even have restrictions on gun licenses, even though we have the Second Amendment.
C. Loving vs. Virginia, the case knocking down bans on "interracial" marriage, does not compel neutering of state marriage licensing, any more than a court ruling that a baseball team was wrongfully denied entry into a baseball league based on the "racial" composition of the team would compel that baseball league to also admit a chess team, debate team, or drama club into the league. Those clubs do different things than baseball clubs.
1. Nowhere does the decision say that a brideless or groomless couple is entitled to a state marriage license.
2. "Interracial" marriages were recognized as marriage throughout history and around the world, and in every major religion. Some religious denominations and some states and localities (note – never all) thought them wrong or banned them, but this was not a denial that they were marriage.
3. Bans at the time prevented freedom of association, as couples could be prevented by force of law from cohabitation; in contrast, brideless or groomless couples have freedom of association under current law(6).
4. "Race" is incidental to marriage, while sex (gender) is inherent to it. Bans on "interracial" marriage prevented societal integration, while marriage neutering would codify gender apartheid. In the past, progressive activists have sued to ensure that both sexes participate in voluntary associations, and a males were disallowed from forming gender-exclusive associations(7).
D. If the state has direct voting, it should up to a direct vote. Otherwise, it should be up to the legislature/governor, which should not do it if the people of the state are against it(8).
E. It should not be up to a court, and a court should especially not rule to neuter state marriage licensing if the people of the state have voted to preserve or restore bride-groom marriage licensing(9).
F. The law doesn't deal with feelings or love. It deals with facts, like whether someone is male or female.
II. Voters should not vote to neuter state marriage licensing, or should vote to restore licensing to uniting the sexes if their state licensing was neutered by a court or legislature(10).
A. Without a bride or a groom, it isn't marriage(11). Calling a same-sex pairing "marriage" is a recent phenomenon that rides the coattails of thousands of years of universal marriage history in which, despite different customs and restrictions, the core lasting common element remained - marriage always united the sexes(12).
B. The state does not have an interest in promoting, nor a moral obligation to promote – homosexual behavior. Unlike heterosexual behavior, homosexual behavior does nothing to contribute to the larger society or perpetuate society(13).
C. It sets a bad precedent in creating new rights that infringe upon existing rights and allowing the court or legislature to redefine the English language. Since all of our laws, including our Constitution, use English, if a court or legislature can change the definition of the words, the Constitution becomes meaningless. Our federal and state constitutions were written with the understanding that marriage unites the sexes.
D. Even if we assume that no harm can be demonstrated to come from marriage neutering, that still doesn’t make it okay to force the unwilling populace to give something (marriage licenses) to someone else (couples excluding one of the two sexes) without the consent of the populace.
E. "Marriage Equality" is a an impossibly elusive goal(14).
III. I can't in good conscience vote to neuter marriage licensing, or otherwise support it. Rather, I am compelled to support bride-groom marriage licensing.
A. I can't support making it the official state policy that is that there is no difference between a couple that unites the sexes and one that excludes one of the sexes(15).
1. Such a policy would reduce the credibility of law, just as if the law stated that the sun rises in the west.
2. It would indicate that children are not the primary concern of the state involvement in marriage, and remove an incentive for children to be born and raised within wedlock. After all, if marriage isn't about children, why bother to get married to raise them?
3. How could adoption and foster agencies give preference to placing a child in a home with both a mother and a father so that they could have an in-home role model from each sex?
4. Since laws apply to all, changing marriage licensing law does have an effect on me and my marriage. Do not ask "How does this hurt your marriage?" unless you are willing to support me forging your signature (how does that hurt your other signatures?) or are willing to allow a law that permits spousal abuse unless both parties have waived that permission (again, how would that hurt you?)
5. Public education will be compelled to present brideless or groomless couples as no different than a couple uniting the sexes, and punish those who disagree or fail to emphasize groomless and brideless coupling as often as bride-groom coupling is depicted or discussed(16).
B. The main reason for the state to even be involved in voluntary personal relationships is because someone else can be brought into the situation without their own consent: children.
1. Since it takes both a man and a woman to naturally produce children, that is where the state's interest is greatest. No same-sex pairings have ever produced children by themselves. The state has an interest in licensing and promoting bride-groom pairings that it does not have with other voluntary relationships. Yes, I’m well aware that not all man-woman pairings can or intend to produce children, but they are the only kind that can – and whether they want to or intend to are private matters, while your sex is on your birth certificate.
2. Neutering marriage licensing invites undue intrusion of the state into personal relationships. Should friendships be licensed? What makes them less worthy of recognition?
C. The state did not create marriage, but rather it recognized it. Marriage made society, not the other way around. By neutering marriage, the state is harming its very foundation.
D. The Constitution does not prohibit me from voting according to my convictions, even if they are religiously-based(17).
E. If you claim you are sexually attracted to someone of the same sex, and can’t be fulfilled unless you are able to get a state marriage license with that person, then I claim that I am sexually attracted to marriage uniting the sexes, can't be fulfilled without supporting bride-groom marriage licensing, and enjoy politically supporting and promoting traditional marriage. If homosexuality advocates are correct in saying that someone's sexual orientation must be expressed, protected, and even publicly celebrated and supported, and that criticizing someone's sexual orientation amounts to a mental disorder (homophobia) and bigotry, then I am compelled to support traditional marriage and I am immune from criticism for doing so. Thus, anyone who criticizes me is a bigot, a closeted marriage supporter, or a phobic in need of therapy(18),(19).
Now, before you respond to me (and keep in mind that the comments of bigots, matrimoniphobes, and closet cases are automatically to be dismissed, based on the rules of the game as set by homosexuality advocates), please see below.
1. If you have some issue that you perceive to be a problem (such as the person you are in love with can't gain legal immigration status by getting a marriage license with you), there are other ways of addressing these issues without neutering marriage – just like the are other ways of dealing with household problems than tearing down the house.
2. I've already dealt with many common arguments used by marriage neutering advocates:
Divorce Does Not Justify Neutering Marriage
"We Are Your Family and Neighbors"
"Our Right Was Taken Away"
"Shall We Vote On Your Marriage Now?"
"Love is Love"
It Doesn't Matter That People Don't Know What Civil Unions
Are
Other arguments addressed HERE, HERE, and HERE.
Notes:
(1)Legislating For Feelings
(2)Bride-Groom Marriage Licensing Does Not Violate Equal Protection
http://playfulwalrus.blogspot.com/2013/03/equal-protection.html
(3)Rights Are Not Hand-Outs, and Hand-Outs Are Not Rights
http://playfulwalrus.blogspot.com/2013/03/rights-are-not-hand-outs-and-hand-outs.html
(4)The Paradox of Marriage Neutering and Gender Distinctions
http://playfulwalrus.blogspot.com/2013/03/paradox-now-marriage-neutering-and.html
(5)The Domestic Partnership Law Proves Our Point
http://playfulwalrus.blogspot.com/2013/04/california-domestic-partnership-law.html
(6)It Is Not a "Ban on Gay Marriage"
http://playfulwalrus.blogspot.com/2013/03/its-not-ban-on-gay-marriage.html
(7)The Race Card and Neutering Marriage
http://playfulwalrus.blogspot.com/2013/03/the-race-card-and-neutering-marriage.html
(8)No Means No
http://playfulwalrus.blogspot.com/2013/03/no-means-no.html
(9)Imaginary Rights
http://playfulwalrus.blogspot.com/2013/04/imaginary-rights.html
(10)The Right to Vote
http://playfulwalrus.blogspot.com/2013/04/the-right-to-vote.html
(11)It Takes a Bride and a Groom
http://playfulwalrus.blogspot.com/2012/10/it-takes-bride-and-groom-to-make.html
(12)More on the Definition of Marriage
(13)Why Marriage Matters
(14)"Marriage Equality" is a False Promise
http://playfulwalrus.blogspot.com/2013/03/is-it-possible-to-truly-achieve.html
(15)Neutering Marriage Devalues and Discourages Marriage
(16)"Schools Aren't Required to Teach Marriage"
(17)The Constitution Doesn't Prohibit Voting According Religious Beliefs
http://playfulwalrus.blogspot.com/2013/04/does-constitution-prohibit-voting.html
(18)Defending Your Support of Marriage Amendments
http://playfulwalrus.blogspot.com/2013/04/defending-your-support-of-marriage.html
(19)Affirming Marriage Is Not Hateful
http://playfulwalrus.blogspot.com/2013/04/affirming-marriage-is-not-hateful.html
I have noticed that in responding to items about marriage neutering (“same-sex marriage”, “gay marriage”) on news/commentary websites, blogs, and columns, there is a lot of repetition of the same talking points. That is why I have compiled this. Feel free to repost this in its entirely (or an entire, unabridged section (I, II, or III) as long as you link back to this post on The Playful Walrus – use it in comment areas and in e-mail, if you find it helpful. Print it out and hand it to your neighbors, friends, family members, coworkers - as long as you include the URL.
Handy Dandy Marriage Neutering Plea Repellant
We are not obligated to change our laws just because someone has asked us to(1). We are not obligated to issue marriage licenses to brideless or groomless couples. If "equality" such as "equal access" compels us to issue marriage licenses to any two people, then it also compels us to issue marriage licenses to siblings, people who are already married to others, roommates, and platonic strangers(2). Business or crime partners may find marriage licenses convenient, for example. (No, I'm not equating incest to homosexuality, but neither should a brideless or groomless couple be equated to marriage. All of these couplings are different kinds of relationships.)
The burden of proof is on those who want to change something that has served society well throughout history to show why the change is necessary. Please note that one need not be religious, nor believe there is anything wrong with homosexual behavior, to oppose marriage neutering. One can even support marriage neutering, but reject the notion that it is a court's authority to impose marriage neutering on state licensing.
I. Neutering state marriage licensing should be up to the people of a state.
A. The people retain all power not granted to a branch of government. Courts are not obligated to intervene on constitutional grounds unless an actual right is being violated by a law.
B. No right is being violated under bride-groom marriage licensing.
1. True rights do not obligate others without their consent(3). There is a right to free speech, for example, because each of us has been born with the ability to communicate. But that doesn’t mean anyone has to listen to me, nor does Clear Channel have to provide me with billboard space free of charge.
2. State licenses are granted by the people of a state per their consent.
3. Therefore, voluntary associations without a bride or a groom do not have a right to a state-issued marriage license without a vote of (or on behalf) of the people to neuter marriage licensing. Under the principle of equal access/protection, state or federal law may prohibit discrimination against individuals on the basis of certain traits, such as race, sex, and sexual orientation, so that a driver's license can't be denied to someone with darker skin if that person meets the same criteria as a person with lighter skin. However, bride-groom marriage licenses are available to all individuals, regardless of race, sex, or sexual orientation. It is not unconstitutional for the state to treat different kinds of voluntary associations differently, as evidenced by numerous laws and regulations; monosexual couples are inherently a different kind of association than a couple uniting both sexes, because men and women are different (hence "male" and "female" designations on birth certificates)(4),(5).
If men and women were not different, then the phrase "sexual orientation" would cease to have meaning, so it is impossible for anyone to argue that that there is no difference between men and women, and therefore same-sex and both-sex couplings, without removing their original argument. In other words, a homosexual man knows there is a difference – which is why he doesn't want to be married to a woman and instead wants to be "married" to a man.
That a homosexual man or woman does not want to obtain a marriage license under bride-groom marriage licensing does not mean that the licensing access is not equally provided or is flawed, nor does it necessitate change, any more than how we issue driver's licenses need be changed to accommodate a lifelong bicyclist, nor should public transit buses have their wheels removed to accommodate those prone to motion sickness. Since when does a segment of the population NOT wanting to use something other people are using obligate a universal change in that thing? Don't want to marry someone of the opposite sex? You don't have to. Marriage is optional.
There is no natural right to a state-issued license – not a business license, not a professional license, not a driver's license. State-issued licenses are issued on behalf of the people, because the people have chosen to issue them. States even have restrictions on gun licenses, even though we have the Second Amendment.
C. Loving vs. Virginia, the case knocking down bans on "interracial" marriage, does not compel neutering of state marriage licensing, any more than a court ruling that a baseball team was wrongfully denied entry into a baseball league based on the "racial" composition of the team would compel that baseball league to also admit a chess team, debate team, or drama club into the league. Those clubs do different things than baseball clubs.
1. Nowhere does the decision say that a brideless or groomless couple is entitled to a state marriage license.
2. "Interracial" marriages were recognized as marriage throughout history and around the world, and in every major religion. Some religious denominations and some states and localities (note – never all) thought them wrong or banned them, but this was not a denial that they were marriage.
3. Bans at the time prevented freedom of association, as couples could be prevented by force of law from cohabitation; in contrast, brideless or groomless couples have freedom of association under current law(6).
4. "Race" is incidental to marriage, while sex (gender) is inherent to it. Bans on "interracial" marriage prevented societal integration, while marriage neutering would codify gender apartheid. In the past, progressive activists have sued to ensure that both sexes participate in voluntary associations, and a males were disallowed from forming gender-exclusive associations(7).
D. If the state has direct voting, it should up to a direct vote. Otherwise, it should be up to the legislature/governor, which should not do it if the people of the state are against it(8).
E. It should not be up to a court, and a court should especially not rule to neuter state marriage licensing if the people of the state have voted to preserve or restore bride-groom marriage licensing(9).
F. The law doesn't deal with feelings or love. It deals with facts, like whether someone is male or female.
II. Voters should not vote to neuter state marriage licensing, or should vote to restore licensing to uniting the sexes if their state licensing was neutered by a court or legislature(10).
A. Without a bride or a groom, it isn't marriage(11). Calling a same-sex pairing "marriage" is a recent phenomenon that rides the coattails of thousands of years of universal marriage history in which, despite different customs and restrictions, the core lasting common element remained - marriage always united the sexes(12).
B. The state does not have an interest in promoting, nor a moral obligation to promote – homosexual behavior. Unlike heterosexual behavior, homosexual behavior does nothing to contribute to the larger society or perpetuate society(13).
C. It sets a bad precedent in creating new rights that infringe upon existing rights and allowing the court or legislature to redefine the English language. Since all of our laws, including our Constitution, use English, if a court or legislature can change the definition of the words, the Constitution becomes meaningless. Our federal and state constitutions were written with the understanding that marriage unites the sexes.
D. Even if we assume that no harm can be demonstrated to come from marriage neutering, that still doesn’t make it okay to force the unwilling populace to give something (marriage licenses) to someone else (couples excluding one of the two sexes) without the consent of the populace.
E. "Marriage Equality" is a an impossibly elusive goal(14).
III. I can't in good conscience vote to neuter marriage licensing, or otherwise support it. Rather, I am compelled to support bride-groom marriage licensing.
A. I can't support making it the official state policy that is that there is no difference between a couple that unites the sexes and one that excludes one of the sexes(15).
1. Such a policy would reduce the credibility of law, just as if the law stated that the sun rises in the west.
2. It would indicate that children are not the primary concern of the state involvement in marriage, and remove an incentive for children to be born and raised within wedlock. After all, if marriage isn't about children, why bother to get married to raise them?
3. How could adoption and foster agencies give preference to placing a child in a home with both a mother and a father so that they could have an in-home role model from each sex?
4. Since laws apply to all, changing marriage licensing law does have an effect on me and my marriage. Do not ask "How does this hurt your marriage?" unless you are willing to support me forging your signature (how does that hurt your other signatures?) or are willing to allow a law that permits spousal abuse unless both parties have waived that permission (again, how would that hurt you?)
5. Public education will be compelled to present brideless or groomless couples as no different than a couple uniting the sexes, and punish those who disagree or fail to emphasize groomless and brideless coupling as often as bride-groom coupling is depicted or discussed(16).
B. The main reason for the state to even be involved in voluntary personal relationships is because someone else can be brought into the situation without their own consent: children.
1. Since it takes both a man and a woman to naturally produce children, that is where the state's interest is greatest. No same-sex pairings have ever produced children by themselves. The state has an interest in licensing and promoting bride-groom pairings that it does not have with other voluntary relationships. Yes, I’m well aware that not all man-woman pairings can or intend to produce children, but they are the only kind that can – and whether they want to or intend to are private matters, while your sex is on your birth certificate.
2. Neutering marriage licensing invites undue intrusion of the state into personal relationships. Should friendships be licensed? What makes them less worthy of recognition?
C. The state did not create marriage, but rather it recognized it. Marriage made society, not the other way around. By neutering marriage, the state is harming its very foundation.
D. The Constitution does not prohibit me from voting according to my convictions, even if they are religiously-based(17).
E. If you claim you are sexually attracted to someone of the same sex, and can’t be fulfilled unless you are able to get a state marriage license with that person, then I claim that I am sexually attracted to marriage uniting the sexes, can't be fulfilled without supporting bride-groom marriage licensing, and enjoy politically supporting and promoting traditional marriage. If homosexuality advocates are correct in saying that someone's sexual orientation must be expressed, protected, and even publicly celebrated and supported, and that criticizing someone's sexual orientation amounts to a mental disorder (homophobia) and bigotry, then I am compelled to support traditional marriage and I am immune from criticism for doing so. Thus, anyone who criticizes me is a bigot, a closeted marriage supporter, or a phobic in need of therapy(18),(19).
Now, before you respond to me (and keep in mind that the comments of bigots, matrimoniphobes, and closet cases are automatically to be dismissed, based on the rules of the game as set by homosexuality advocates), please see below.
1. If you have some issue that you perceive to be a problem (such as the person you are in love with can't gain legal immigration status by getting a marriage license with you), there are other ways of addressing these issues without neutering marriage – just like the are other ways of dealing with household problems than tearing down the house.
2. I've already dealt with many common arguments used by marriage neutering advocates:
Divorce Does Not Justify Neutering Marriage
"We Are Your Family and Neighbors"
"Our Right Was Taken Away"
"Shall We Vote On Your Marriage Now?"
"Love is Love"
It Doesn't Matter That People Don't Know What Civil Unions
Are
Other arguments addressed HERE, HERE, and HERE.
Notes:
(1)Legislating For Feelings
(2)Bride-Groom Marriage Licensing Does Not Violate Equal Protection
http://playfulwalrus.blogspot.com/2013/03/equal-protection.html
(3)Rights Are Not Hand-Outs, and Hand-Outs Are Not Rights
http://playfulwalrus.blogspot.com/2013/03/rights-are-not-hand-outs-and-hand-outs.html
(4)The Paradox of Marriage Neutering and Gender Distinctions
http://playfulwalrus.blogspot.com/2013/03/paradox-now-marriage-neutering-and.html
(5)The Domestic Partnership Law Proves Our Point
http://playfulwalrus.blogspot.com/2013/04/california-domestic-partnership-law.html
(6)It Is Not a "Ban on Gay Marriage"
http://playfulwalrus.blogspot.com/2013/03/its-not-ban-on-gay-marriage.html
(7)The Race Card and Neutering Marriage
http://playfulwalrus.blogspot.com/2013/03/the-race-card-and-neutering-marriage.html
(8)No Means No
http://playfulwalrus.blogspot.com/2013/03/no-means-no.html
(9)Imaginary Rights
http://playfulwalrus.blogspot.com/2013/04/imaginary-rights.html
(10)The Right to Vote
http://playfulwalrus.blogspot.com/2013/04/the-right-to-vote.html
(11)It Takes a Bride and a Groom
http://playfulwalrus.blogspot.com/2012/10/it-takes-bride-and-groom-to-make.html
(12)More on the Definition of Marriage
(13)Why Marriage Matters
(14)"Marriage Equality" is a False Promise
http://playfulwalrus.blogspot.com/2013/03/is-it-possible-to-truly-achieve.html
(15)Neutering Marriage Devalues and Discourages Marriage
(16)"Schools Aren't Required to Teach Marriage"
(17)The Constitution Doesn't Prohibit Voting According Religious Beliefs
http://playfulwalrus.blogspot.com/2013/04/does-constitution-prohibit-voting.html
(18)Defending Your Support of Marriage Amendments
http://playfulwalrus.blogspot.com/2013/04/defending-your-support-of-marriage.html
(19)Affirming Marriage Is Not Hateful
http://playfulwalrus.blogspot.com/2013/04/affirming-marriage-is-not-hateful.html
"...there is a lot of repetition of the same talking points."
ReplyDeleteWell yeah. We usually call them "facts".
"Since when does a segment of the population NOT wanting to use something other people are using obligate a universal change in that thing?"
Since the "universal change" in question is letting that segment of the population use it, I'd say the fact that said segment DOES want it is rather obvious. And if not? Then the entire things is irrelevant, yes?
The only difference between gay and straight people is whether we're gay or straight. All other differences are between individuals and can be between any two persons, whether both gay, both straight, or one of each.
As a whole, we all want the same things. And saying that some people can't have them? Because... we said so. Or worse, because our religion said so, which is in direct violation of the Freedom of Religion.
That's unconscionable, and can not be allowed in the United States of America, a nation based on the supposedly self-evident truth that all are created equal--and should be treated as such.
Every person, regardless of their orientation, has the same same access to state-issued marriage licenses.
DeleteIt IS equal opportunity ... everyone desiring to marry a consenting adult member of the opposite Sex has the same opportunity. Wally did an awesome job of explaining why trying to morph marriage to fit any other combination is the same as trying to compare apples to oranges!
DeleteIt's just a fact of life.
Evill's gay emphasis is obvious. But there is no legal requirement for gay identity for those who'd SSM -- not anyplace where SSM has been imposed. And no such requirement is proposed.
ReplyDeleteThe gay subset of the population that is the target of Evill's emphasis, well, according to SSMers the members of that gay identity group reject the union of husband and wife. They do not wish to partake of marriage.
Rather they might be vaguely interested in a gay version of non-marriage. Even at that, more than 90% of the adult homosexual population does not participate in same-sex householding (a census term that assumes homosexual relationshp). Same-sex householding is a far more inclusive category than domestic partnership, civil union, or SSM. Yet participation rates are very, very ,very low. The target group is not really so interested in what the SSM campaign is selling.
So not interested in partaking of the union of husband and wife; and not interested in partaking of SSM.
What was Evill's overall point, again?