[Please note: This was published before marriage neutering was imposed nationwide by the Supreme Court.]
These questions and statements are addressed below.
Isn't same-sex marriage inevitable? Don't most Americans now support same-sex marriage? Isn't this just like bans on interracial marriage? Isn't this a civil rights issue? Isn't this harmful discrimination against a class of people? Isn’t marriage a fundamental right? We can't have "separate but equal." Don't gays need same-sex marriage for hospital visits, insurance, tax, inheritance, and Social Security? Why not just let them have it? Why does it matter? Aren’t there more important things to deal with? Aren’t you just trying to impose your religion or morality on others? There are no non-religious arguments against same-sex marriage, and given separation of church and state, aren't religious arguments disqualified? Isn’t this really all about hating gays? My sister and her partner have been together for years and they love each other and have children; shouldn't they be able to marry? You can't prove any harm has been done as a result of same-sex marriage. How does this hurt anyone else's marriage? Churches won't have to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies. If marriage is about children, we do we let infertile people or people too old to have children marry? How can anyone talk about protecting the sanctity of marriage when there is a 50% divorce rate, so much adultery, and joke weddings like Britney Spears had in Las Vegas? States that are against same-sex marriage have a higher divorce rate. Why not get government out of marriage entirely? Why should I care about defending marriage?
Isn't same-sex marriage inevitable? Don't most Americans now support same-sex marriage?
No, nationwide, government licensed "gay marriage" or "same-sex marriage" is not inevitable. Claiming that it is inevitable is a tactic that marriage neutering advocates are using to dishearten those who recognize that marriage unites a bride and a groom. It is only inevitable if those who believe it is important to defend marriage from neutering give up. Resistance is not futile.
It is important to take polls with a grain of salt for any number of reasons. Polls in California showed Proposition 8, which amended the state constitution to restore the bride+groom requirement to state marriage licensing, losing, but it was voted in by 52.5% during a heavy vote for the Democrat Presidential candidate, now-President Obama. A supporter of marriage neutering has subsequently admitted that even more voters actually supported Proposition 8, but were confused by the ballot language or some campaign materials.
It is not surprising that polls show younger generations supporting the neutering of marriage. Younger generations understand less about the reality of the differences between the sexes, marriage, and parenting. Academia and the media, including the news media (as we have demonstrated time and again at The Opine Editorials), have been biased towards marriage neutering, as admitted even by those who support neutering marriage. With more life experience as they themselves marry and have children, more people in the younger generations will see the importance of both men and women in marriage as they mature.
The most likely way marriage would be neutered nationwide is through a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) finding a "right" that has been previously undiscovered by the court. On the other hand, the court could rule that states are allowed to maintain bride+groom requirements in marriage licensing.
If the second ruling happens, state by state, marriage could be neutered through lower court decisions or through legislation (either by elected legislators or by direct vote of the people for the states where that takes place). However, the majority of states have, in recent years, passed laws or constitutional amendments reaffirming the always-has-been bride+groom foundational core of their marriage laws. Only ONE state has neutered marriage through a vote of the people that was intiated by the people rather than initiated through court action or legislators. Two other states had votes that were NOT initiated by the people and those votes sided with neutering licensing. All three states did this in November 2012. The evidence is that most people do not support the neutering of marriage; even more so when they understand the possible consequences and that civil unions, domestic partnerships, or a reciprocal beneficiaries system are options.
Most of the fifty states have the bride+groom requirement as part of their constitution, and some more have it as part of their law (but not as part of the constitution), and only nine states (and Washington, D.C.) currently issue "marriage" licenses to brideless or groomless couples.
Consult this Wikipedia page.
Isn't this just like bans on interracial marriage? Isn't this a civil rights issue? Isn't this harmful discrimination against a class of people? Isn’t marriage a fundamental right? We can't have "separate but equal."
This is actually a very different matter than bans on interracial marriage. See here and here.
If there is a "fundamental right" to marriage in law, it is to the union of one bride and one groom with certain restrictions, as made obvious by laws against polygamy, which is a form of marriage that has been practiced and recognized throughout history and is still practiced, and restrictions some states have preventing first cousins from marrying, though such marriages have also been practiced throughout history and are currently common in some cultures.
There is a right to a limited freedom of association, but not to a state-issued license. There hasn't been a single decision or action by SCOTUS recognizing a brideless or groomless union as marriage, or letting a ruling stand that did.
Not one of the Founding Fathers who wrote and adopted our Constitution, not a single great historical religious leader, not one of the great historical moral or civil rights leaders ever indicated that there was a right to have a brideless or groomless pairing recognized by law as marriage – not Frederick Douglass, not Susan B. Anthony, not Gandhi, not Martin Luther King, Jr. – none. Not a single President of the United States up until Obama announced a change in his mind had ever said a marriage exists without a bride or without a groom. Those who understand that marriage unites the sexes are in good company.
Having a bride+groom requirement in state marriage licensing is not a "ban on gay marriage".
There is no right to a state issued license, and as such, states are allowed to restrict marriage licenses to a couple consisting of an unmarried man and an unmarried woman who aren't close relatives and are able to consent. Such a combination is of the most benefit to society and children (which are the state's interest in being involved in the first place), ideally uniting both biologically and kinship-diverse parents of a child in mutual, cooperative obligation to that child, providing that child with both a male and a female role model and bonding relationships; and so I believe there is an obligation for states to have restrictions that promote this combination as distinct and ideal. As such, even though polygamy and incestuous marriages have been recognized in the past, they should not be now. If they don't have a right to be recognized with a state license, then certainly brideless or groomless pairings, which haven't historically been recognized as marriage and are a kind of pairing that never naturally produces children, certainly don't have the right to be licensed by the state.
Every unmarried person is, and should be, free to get a marriage license with a consenting, eligible person of the opposite sex. If someone does not want to exercise this freedom, they still have equal access to it.
It is constitutional, moral, common, and necessary to treat different kinds of voluntary associations differently; there is no obligation to treat a brideless or groomless couple, which is inherently different from a bride+groom union, the same as a bride+groom union.
For more, see…
The Race Card and Neutering Marriage
Is it Possible to Truly Achieve "Marriage Equality"?
The Opine Editorials on Identity Politics
Don't gays need same-sex marriage for hospital visits, insurance, tax, inheritance, and Social Security?
No. Neutering marriage is not the only way to accomplish these things. All of those issues can be handled through other ways, ranging from federal legislation to employer policy changes. Legal agreements, a reciprocal beneficiaries system, civil unions, or domestic partnerships are just some of the ways these issues can be handled.
Why not just let them have it? Why does it matter? Aren't there more important things to deal with?
Public policy about marriage, parenting, and family has an effect on all of us. State marriage licenses are issued on your behalf. They are not a private matter. Same-sex couples are free to have ceremonies, share names, share homes, share beds, share a life, etc. But they should not be able to force the rest of us to neuter marriage licensing.
Marriage defenders did not pick this fight. If it doesn't matter, why are the marriage neutering advocates trying so hard? The entire matter could end tomorrow if marriage neutering advocates stopped pressing for neutered marriage.
It isn't just that someone who objects to homosexual behavior will be forced to endorse it. We will all, whether we have a moral objection to homosexual behavior or not, be forced to treat brideless and groomless pairings and marriage identically. The marriage neutering advocates don't want us to even have a word that notes there is a difference. It would be official government policy that there is not. Public schools (and many other schools, if not all) would be prevented from teaching that marriage is different from this pseudomarriage, and homosexuality advocates would be unrestrained in pushing their worldview in the schools as official curriculum. Parents would have no ability to opt their child out. Adoption agencies would not be able to give preference to placing children with a home that is inclusive of both sexes. No government agency, nothing associated with a government program or funding, would be allowed to make a distinction, unless of course it was to somehow provide a targeted advantage to same-sex couples. Soon after, no business, private employer, or private property owner would be allowed to make any distinction.
Aren't you just trying to impose your religion or morality on others? There are no non-religious arguments against same-sex marriage, and given separation of church and state, aren’t religious arguments disqualified?
There are non-religious arguments against neutering marriage:
1) Men and women are different. Even most of the people who try to deny this demonstrate that they understand this to be true. After all, if men and women were not different, all, or at least three, of the terms in "LGBT" would have no meaning.
2) The pairing of a man and a woman is different than the pairing of two men or two women. It is the only kind of pairing that is able to naturally produce new citizens (who, unlike the adults, do not consent to the relationship), even if not all do. This alone is enough to give the state more interest in the pairing of a man and a woman.
3) Men and women are different in personal relationships. If that difference matters enough to someone in picking a lover, how can it not matter when it comes to the parent-child relationship?
4) State licensing of bride+groom pairings provides children with a role model, guardian, and bonding partner from each of the two sexes that comprise all of society, legally bound to each other as well as the children; generally, this is good for children.
5) It is constitutional, moral, common, and necessary to treat different kinds of relationships differently.
6) One need not believe homosexual behavior, relationships, or people to be harmful, sinful, or inferior to accept any or all of #1-5.
All law discriminates and imposes someone's morality.
There is no moral or Constitutional reason that prohibits a voter from ever voting in a way that is consistent with their religious beliefs.
Conversely, it is the argument of marriage neutering proponents that is internally inconsistent. Marriage neutering advocates must minimize the differences between the sexes while also maintaining that the differences provide insurmountable obstacles to them forming a heterosexual relationship. They argue that men and women are not really different at all, then argue that they are so different they can’t possibly be happy marrying someone of the opposite sex. This is a paradox that ultimately undermines their argument.
Isn't this really all about hating gays?
No. There are many reasons why someone may support retaining the bride+groom requirement in state marriage licensing. One need not hate homosexual people, nor disapprove of homosexual behavior to support the bride+groom requirement.
See "Hurting Homosexual People" for more.
My sister and her partner have been together for years and they love each other and have children; shouldn't they be able to marry?
The law can't determine whether or not every person marrying loves the other. The law deals with objective, documented facts, such as the sexes of the individuals. Most marriages throughout history have not been based on the bride and groom's romantic love for each other.
No monogamous same-sex couple has children together naturally. This means that every single one of those children ended up in such homes by the willful choice of the same-sex couple who created that situation, aware of the laws. Perhaps there is a case that someone can cite somewhere where one of the women was impregnated through rape and decided to carry the baby to term and raise the child, but this would be a very rare exception and should not obligate the changing of our laws.
That your sister decided to create this situation does not obligate the rest of us to change anything.
This is one of those arguments that polygamous or polyamorous people could also use to demand a marriage license that covers three or more individuals.
See "We Are Your Family and Neighbors" for more.
You can't prove any harm has been done as a result of same-sex marriage. How does this hurt anyone else's marriage? Churches won't have to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies.
The burden is not on those who want the status quo to prove change would bring harm. Convincing the rest of us that the benefits will outweigh the harm is the burden that belongs to those who want to neuter marriage.
It is very difficult to establish a causal relationship in matters of sociology that will be accepted by those who disagree with a statement, such as "neutering marriage will hurt". What would qualify as harm? The impact of marriage and family policies is most likely to be generational. We have yet to have a generation raised in an overall culture where marriage is neutered.
We do know that counterfeits inherently devalue the authentic.
Here are some of the other ways the push to neuter marriage has caused harm:
1. The worth of marriage has been denied. One of the arguments made by supporters of marriage neutering, despite it being contradictory to some of the other tactics, is "Marriage really isn't a big deal. It is a joke anyway."
2. Motherhood and fatherhood have been devalued with claims that neither one is important and that nothing is lacking without the involvement of motherhood or fatherhood.
3. Masculinity and femininity have been devalued much the same way.
4. The importance of children has been denied. "Marriage isn't about children." The interest of the state in marriage has primarily been because marriage is the only kind of association that can naturally create and raise the next generation with one parent and primary role model from each of the two sexes that comprise all of society in a cooperative legal, social, and usually biological union. But marriage neutering advocates put the focus on the minority of marriages that do not involve children and the claim is made that marriage isn’t about children, but rather about the sexual desires of adults.
5. Public servants have been derelict in their duty. Governors and state Attorney Generals such as California's Schwarzenegger and Brown have chosen not to defend the state constitution as amended. What other amendments will be ignored in the future? President Obama has chosen not to defend DOMA. What laws will be ignored or not defended in the future without a final court action?
6. Separation of powers has been denied. In some states, the majority vote has been subverted by judicial activism. No, there is no Constitutional right to a state-issued license that supersedes a vote of the majority on whose behalf the licenses are issued as long as all individuals have equal access, which they do, even if not all want to exercise that access.
7. Federalism is invoked arbitrarily as one state's (Massachusetts) laws are presented as mandating a change of federal policy, but another state's (California) constitution regarding the very same state licensing is presented as subject to invalidation based on a federal court.
8. Religions forming a backbone of American culture, including giving rise to institutions of higher learning, hospitals, charities, and so forth, have been attacked and mocked.
9. Public morality has further been attacked.
10. Universally established core societal foundations are now subject to change based on the whiniest political lobby on behalf of a behavioral minority.
11. Marriage has been reduced to a means to an end with the claim that marriage licenses are needed for the sake of things like hospital visitations.
Someone who wants to neuter marriage may not see any of those as harms, but it is foolish to think that these harms won't have a larger impact beyond the issue of marriage neutering, or to think precedents established to neuter marriage won't be used by "the other side" when it is in power.
See "What is the Harm of Neutering Marriage?" for more.
Marriage neutering advocates have already demonstrated how they will treat churches that do not recognize brideless or groomless pairings as marriage. This is not a matter of "live and let live". If we don't defend marriage, the more radical elements of the marriage neutering advocacy movement will move beyond neutering marriage and intrude not just into our voting booths, but our schools, our churches, and our homes.
If marriage is about children, we do we let infertile people or people too old to have children marry?
Most marriages will involve children. The state's greatest interest in marriage is children. What other personal relationships does the state get involved with? The state doesn't license First Communions, bar mitzvahs, or any other personal events. Whether someone is physically able (fertile, sterile, or whatever) to have children or plans to have children are private matters, since we have a "right to privacy" and a "right to freedom of reproductive choice" and medical privacy in the USA. However, someone's sex is on their government issued birth certificate; that is not a private matter, nor are state-issued licenses. And the pairing of a man and a woman is the only kind of pairing that can naturally reproduce (and can provide a child with both a mother and a father to provide for, nurture, and protect them and bond with them and be role models as men and women). The state does not have the same interest in the pairing of two men or two women, which will never ever produce new citizens naturally, nor can such pairings provide children with role models of both basic elements of society, nor are they inclusive in bringing members of the two different sexes - the two basic elements of society - together.
How can anyone talk about protecting the sanctity of marriage when there is a 50% divorce rate, so much adultery, and joke weddings like Britney Spears had in Las Vegas? States that are against same-sex marriage have a higher divorce rate.
While divorce, adultery, and sham marriages dismay many "marriage defenders", none of those things justify neutering marriage, any more than cutting an orange in half, letting it rot, or using it as a weapon makes an orange rubber ball an orange. That some people make poor use of something does not obligate us to change the definition of that thing so that more people will be interested in using it. That some people sell "lemon" cars does not mean that a furniture store is a car dealership. No matter how bad any given Major League Baseball team is, a chess club does not have a right to be included in MLB as a baseball team.
The divorce rate isn't 50%, though it is too high. When neither the bride nor the groom has been married before and neither have children when they marry, odds are that the marriage will last until death, and even better that it will last at least until the children are grown. The odds get even better if the couple did not live together before marriage, a fact that supports traditional morality.
Assuming that states supporting the continued bride+groom requirement in state marriage licensing do have a higher divorce rate, it is possible that such a statistic is a sign that the people take marriage so seriously that they are unwilling to tolerate adultery, while in other places, it can be common for people to stay married even if one or both of them is obviously having a sexual relationship with others.
It would be wonderful to reduce the rates of divorce, adultery, and sham marriages. Neutering marriage won’t help; it will likely hurt.
See "Divorce Does Not Justify Marriage Neutering" for more.
Why not get government out of marriage entirely?
If this is what you want, neutering marriage will make it a lot less likely to happen soon, as neutered marriage will be a powerful tool used by highly organized and effective activist groups, and they won't want to give up that power.
Why should I care about defending marriage?
You can find volumes of information right here on this blog.
Do you believe that there is a difference between men and women? Do you believe that the pairing of a man and a woman is different than the pairing of two men or two women? Do you believe that, all other things being equal, adoption agencies should be able to give preference to placing children with a married man and woman, giving the child both a mother and a father, over placing that child with two men or two women? Do you believe that public schools should be able teach children that there is a difference between homosexual sodomy and heterosexual intercourse, and a difference between a brideless or groomless relationship and a marriage? Do you personally believe that marriage unites a bride and a groom? Do you believe it is best for children and society that children are raised by a married mother and father?
If answer any of those "yes", you have reason to care about defending marriage.
While I believe in the freedom of association, do not disparage the unmarried, and do not think sex outside of marriage should be criminalized, I do note the staggering amount of social science that correlates raising children within marriage (mother and father) to positive indicators. Children, including homosexual children, are best off being raised within marriage. The more children that are raised within marriage instead of outside of marriage, the less crime, dependency on government, substance abuse, domestic violence, and mental illness. What kind of society is more likely to produce lasting, happy marriages and raise children inside those marriages instead of outside? Is it the kind of society that values both mothers and fathers and husbands and wives, respects marriage as an enduring institution that helped create society, and puts the needs of children first? Or is it the kind of society that says neither fathers nor mothers, husbands nor wives, are important, marriage is nothing more than what current fashion says it is, and puts the desires of adults ahead of the needs of children?
For more, please see my Handy Dandy Marriage Neutering Plea Repellant.
These questions and statements are addressed below.
Isn't same-sex marriage inevitable? Don't most Americans now support same-sex marriage? Isn't this just like bans on interracial marriage? Isn't this a civil rights issue? Isn't this harmful discrimination against a class of people? Isn’t marriage a fundamental right? We can't have "separate but equal." Don't gays need same-sex marriage for hospital visits, insurance, tax, inheritance, and Social Security? Why not just let them have it? Why does it matter? Aren’t there more important things to deal with? Aren’t you just trying to impose your religion or morality on others? There are no non-religious arguments against same-sex marriage, and given separation of church and state, aren't religious arguments disqualified? Isn’t this really all about hating gays? My sister and her partner have been together for years and they love each other and have children; shouldn't they be able to marry? You can't prove any harm has been done as a result of same-sex marriage. How does this hurt anyone else's marriage? Churches won't have to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies. If marriage is about children, we do we let infertile people or people too old to have children marry? How can anyone talk about protecting the sanctity of marriage when there is a 50% divorce rate, so much adultery, and joke weddings like Britney Spears had in Las Vegas? States that are against same-sex marriage have a higher divorce rate. Why not get government out of marriage entirely? Why should I care about defending marriage?
Isn't same-sex marriage inevitable? Don't most Americans now support same-sex marriage?
No, nationwide, government licensed "gay marriage" or "same-sex marriage" is not inevitable. Claiming that it is inevitable is a tactic that marriage neutering advocates are using to dishearten those who recognize that marriage unites a bride and a groom. It is only inevitable if those who believe it is important to defend marriage from neutering give up. Resistance is not futile.
It is important to take polls with a grain of salt for any number of reasons. Polls in California showed Proposition 8, which amended the state constitution to restore the bride+groom requirement to state marriage licensing, losing, but it was voted in by 52.5% during a heavy vote for the Democrat Presidential candidate, now-President Obama. A supporter of marriage neutering has subsequently admitted that even more voters actually supported Proposition 8, but were confused by the ballot language or some campaign materials.
It is not surprising that polls show younger generations supporting the neutering of marriage. Younger generations understand less about the reality of the differences between the sexes, marriage, and parenting. Academia and the media, including the news media (as we have demonstrated time and again at The Opine Editorials), have been biased towards marriage neutering, as admitted even by those who support neutering marriage. With more life experience as they themselves marry and have children, more people in the younger generations will see the importance of both men and women in marriage as they mature.
The most likely way marriage would be neutered nationwide is through a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) finding a "right" that has been previously undiscovered by the court. On the other hand, the court could rule that states are allowed to maintain bride+groom requirements in marriage licensing.
If the second ruling happens, state by state, marriage could be neutered through lower court decisions or through legislation (either by elected legislators or by direct vote of the people for the states where that takes place). However, the majority of states have, in recent years, passed laws or constitutional amendments reaffirming the always-has-been bride+groom foundational core of their marriage laws. Only ONE state has neutered marriage through a vote of the people that was intiated by the people rather than initiated through court action or legislators. Two other states had votes that were NOT initiated by the people and those votes sided with neutering licensing. All three states did this in November 2012. The evidence is that most people do not support the neutering of marriage; even more so when they understand the possible consequences and that civil unions, domestic partnerships, or a reciprocal beneficiaries system are options.
Most of the fifty states have the bride+groom requirement as part of their constitution, and some more have it as part of their law (but not as part of the constitution), and only nine states (and Washington, D.C.) currently issue "marriage" licenses to brideless or groomless couples.
Consult this Wikipedia page.
Isn't this just like bans on interracial marriage? Isn't this a civil rights issue? Isn't this harmful discrimination against a class of people? Isn’t marriage a fundamental right? We can't have "separate but equal."
This is actually a very different matter than bans on interracial marriage. See here and here.
If there is a "fundamental right" to marriage in law, it is to the union of one bride and one groom with certain restrictions, as made obvious by laws against polygamy, which is a form of marriage that has been practiced and recognized throughout history and is still practiced, and restrictions some states have preventing first cousins from marrying, though such marriages have also been practiced throughout history and are currently common in some cultures.
There is a right to a limited freedom of association, but not to a state-issued license. There hasn't been a single decision or action by SCOTUS recognizing a brideless or groomless union as marriage, or letting a ruling stand that did.
Not one of the Founding Fathers who wrote and adopted our Constitution, not a single great historical religious leader, not one of the great historical moral or civil rights leaders ever indicated that there was a right to have a brideless or groomless pairing recognized by law as marriage – not Frederick Douglass, not Susan B. Anthony, not Gandhi, not Martin Luther King, Jr. – none. Not a single President of the United States up until Obama announced a change in his mind had ever said a marriage exists without a bride or without a groom. Those who understand that marriage unites the sexes are in good company.
Having a bride+groom requirement in state marriage licensing is not a "ban on gay marriage".
There is no right to a state issued license, and as such, states are allowed to restrict marriage licenses to a couple consisting of an unmarried man and an unmarried woman who aren't close relatives and are able to consent. Such a combination is of the most benefit to society and children (which are the state's interest in being involved in the first place), ideally uniting both biologically and kinship-diverse parents of a child in mutual, cooperative obligation to that child, providing that child with both a male and a female role model and bonding relationships; and so I believe there is an obligation for states to have restrictions that promote this combination as distinct and ideal. As such, even though polygamy and incestuous marriages have been recognized in the past, they should not be now. If they don't have a right to be recognized with a state license, then certainly brideless or groomless pairings, which haven't historically been recognized as marriage and are a kind of pairing that never naturally produces children, certainly don't have the right to be licensed by the state.
Every unmarried person is, and should be, free to get a marriage license with a consenting, eligible person of the opposite sex. If someone does not want to exercise this freedom, they still have equal access to it.
It is constitutional, moral, common, and necessary to treat different kinds of voluntary associations differently; there is no obligation to treat a brideless or groomless couple, which is inherently different from a bride+groom union, the same as a bride+groom union.
For more, see…
The Race Card and Neutering Marriage
Is it Possible to Truly Achieve "Marriage Equality"?
The Opine Editorials on Identity Politics
Don't gays need same-sex marriage for hospital visits, insurance, tax, inheritance, and Social Security?
No. Neutering marriage is not the only way to accomplish these things. All of those issues can be handled through other ways, ranging from federal legislation to employer policy changes. Legal agreements, a reciprocal beneficiaries system, civil unions, or domestic partnerships are just some of the ways these issues can be handled.
Why not just let them have it? Why does it matter? Aren't there more important things to deal with?
Public policy about marriage, parenting, and family has an effect on all of us. State marriage licenses are issued on your behalf. They are not a private matter. Same-sex couples are free to have ceremonies, share names, share homes, share beds, share a life, etc. But they should not be able to force the rest of us to neuter marriage licensing.
Marriage defenders did not pick this fight. If it doesn't matter, why are the marriage neutering advocates trying so hard? The entire matter could end tomorrow if marriage neutering advocates stopped pressing for neutered marriage.
It isn't just that someone who objects to homosexual behavior will be forced to endorse it. We will all, whether we have a moral objection to homosexual behavior or not, be forced to treat brideless and groomless pairings and marriage identically. The marriage neutering advocates don't want us to even have a word that notes there is a difference. It would be official government policy that there is not. Public schools (and many other schools, if not all) would be prevented from teaching that marriage is different from this pseudomarriage, and homosexuality advocates would be unrestrained in pushing their worldview in the schools as official curriculum. Parents would have no ability to opt their child out. Adoption agencies would not be able to give preference to placing children with a home that is inclusive of both sexes. No government agency, nothing associated with a government program or funding, would be allowed to make a distinction, unless of course it was to somehow provide a targeted advantage to same-sex couples. Soon after, no business, private employer, or private property owner would be allowed to make any distinction.
Aren't you just trying to impose your religion or morality on others? There are no non-religious arguments against same-sex marriage, and given separation of church and state, aren’t religious arguments disqualified?
There are non-religious arguments against neutering marriage:
1) Men and women are different. Even most of the people who try to deny this demonstrate that they understand this to be true. After all, if men and women were not different, all, or at least three, of the terms in "LGBT" would have no meaning.
2) The pairing of a man and a woman is different than the pairing of two men or two women. It is the only kind of pairing that is able to naturally produce new citizens (who, unlike the adults, do not consent to the relationship), even if not all do. This alone is enough to give the state more interest in the pairing of a man and a woman.
3) Men and women are different in personal relationships. If that difference matters enough to someone in picking a lover, how can it not matter when it comes to the parent-child relationship?
4) State licensing of bride+groom pairings provides children with a role model, guardian, and bonding partner from each of the two sexes that comprise all of society, legally bound to each other as well as the children; generally, this is good for children.
5) It is constitutional, moral, common, and necessary to treat different kinds of relationships differently.
6) One need not believe homosexual behavior, relationships, or people to be harmful, sinful, or inferior to accept any or all of #1-5.
All law discriminates and imposes someone's morality.
There is no moral or Constitutional reason that prohibits a voter from ever voting in a way that is consistent with their religious beliefs.
Conversely, it is the argument of marriage neutering proponents that is internally inconsistent. Marriage neutering advocates must minimize the differences between the sexes while also maintaining that the differences provide insurmountable obstacles to them forming a heterosexual relationship. They argue that men and women are not really different at all, then argue that they are so different they can’t possibly be happy marrying someone of the opposite sex. This is a paradox that ultimately undermines their argument.
Isn't this really all about hating gays?
No. There are many reasons why someone may support retaining the bride+groom requirement in state marriage licensing. One need not hate homosexual people, nor disapprove of homosexual behavior to support the bride+groom requirement.
See "Hurting Homosexual People" for more.
My sister and her partner have been together for years and they love each other and have children; shouldn't they be able to marry?
The law can't determine whether or not every person marrying loves the other. The law deals with objective, documented facts, such as the sexes of the individuals. Most marriages throughout history have not been based on the bride and groom's romantic love for each other.
No monogamous same-sex couple has children together naturally. This means that every single one of those children ended up in such homes by the willful choice of the same-sex couple who created that situation, aware of the laws. Perhaps there is a case that someone can cite somewhere where one of the women was impregnated through rape and decided to carry the baby to term and raise the child, but this would be a very rare exception and should not obligate the changing of our laws.
That your sister decided to create this situation does not obligate the rest of us to change anything.
This is one of those arguments that polygamous or polyamorous people could also use to demand a marriage license that covers three or more individuals.
See "We Are Your Family and Neighbors" for more.
You can't prove any harm has been done as a result of same-sex marriage. How does this hurt anyone else's marriage? Churches won't have to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies.
The burden is not on those who want the status quo to prove change would bring harm. Convincing the rest of us that the benefits will outweigh the harm is the burden that belongs to those who want to neuter marriage.
It is very difficult to establish a causal relationship in matters of sociology that will be accepted by those who disagree with a statement, such as "neutering marriage will hurt". What would qualify as harm? The impact of marriage and family policies is most likely to be generational. We have yet to have a generation raised in an overall culture where marriage is neutered.
We do know that counterfeits inherently devalue the authentic.
Here are some of the other ways the push to neuter marriage has caused harm:
1. The worth of marriage has been denied. One of the arguments made by supporters of marriage neutering, despite it being contradictory to some of the other tactics, is "Marriage really isn't a big deal. It is a joke anyway."
2. Motherhood and fatherhood have been devalued with claims that neither one is important and that nothing is lacking without the involvement of motherhood or fatherhood.
3. Masculinity and femininity have been devalued much the same way.
4. The importance of children has been denied. "Marriage isn't about children." The interest of the state in marriage has primarily been because marriage is the only kind of association that can naturally create and raise the next generation with one parent and primary role model from each of the two sexes that comprise all of society in a cooperative legal, social, and usually biological union. But marriage neutering advocates put the focus on the minority of marriages that do not involve children and the claim is made that marriage isn’t about children, but rather about the sexual desires of adults.
5. Public servants have been derelict in their duty. Governors and state Attorney Generals such as California's Schwarzenegger and Brown have chosen not to defend the state constitution as amended. What other amendments will be ignored in the future? President Obama has chosen not to defend DOMA. What laws will be ignored or not defended in the future without a final court action?
6. Separation of powers has been denied. In some states, the majority vote has been subverted by judicial activism. No, there is no Constitutional right to a state-issued license that supersedes a vote of the majority on whose behalf the licenses are issued as long as all individuals have equal access, which they do, even if not all want to exercise that access.
7. Federalism is invoked arbitrarily as one state's (Massachusetts) laws are presented as mandating a change of federal policy, but another state's (California) constitution regarding the very same state licensing is presented as subject to invalidation based on a federal court.
8. Religions forming a backbone of American culture, including giving rise to institutions of higher learning, hospitals, charities, and so forth, have been attacked and mocked.
9. Public morality has further been attacked.
10. Universally established core societal foundations are now subject to change based on the whiniest political lobby on behalf of a behavioral minority.
11. Marriage has been reduced to a means to an end with the claim that marriage licenses are needed for the sake of things like hospital visitations.
Someone who wants to neuter marriage may not see any of those as harms, but it is foolish to think that these harms won't have a larger impact beyond the issue of marriage neutering, or to think precedents established to neuter marriage won't be used by "the other side" when it is in power.
See "What is the Harm of Neutering Marriage?" for more.
Marriage neutering advocates have already demonstrated how they will treat churches that do not recognize brideless or groomless pairings as marriage. This is not a matter of "live and let live". If we don't defend marriage, the more radical elements of the marriage neutering advocacy movement will move beyond neutering marriage and intrude not just into our voting booths, but our schools, our churches, and our homes.
If marriage is about children, we do we let infertile people or people too old to have children marry?
Most marriages will involve children. The state's greatest interest in marriage is children. What other personal relationships does the state get involved with? The state doesn't license First Communions, bar mitzvahs, or any other personal events. Whether someone is physically able (fertile, sterile, or whatever) to have children or plans to have children are private matters, since we have a "right to privacy" and a "right to freedom of reproductive choice" and medical privacy in the USA. However, someone's sex is on their government issued birth certificate; that is not a private matter, nor are state-issued licenses. And the pairing of a man and a woman is the only kind of pairing that can naturally reproduce (and can provide a child with both a mother and a father to provide for, nurture, and protect them and bond with them and be role models as men and women). The state does not have the same interest in the pairing of two men or two women, which will never ever produce new citizens naturally, nor can such pairings provide children with role models of both basic elements of society, nor are they inclusive in bringing members of the two different sexes - the two basic elements of society - together.
How can anyone talk about protecting the sanctity of marriage when there is a 50% divorce rate, so much adultery, and joke weddings like Britney Spears had in Las Vegas? States that are against same-sex marriage have a higher divorce rate.
While divorce, adultery, and sham marriages dismay many "marriage defenders", none of those things justify neutering marriage, any more than cutting an orange in half, letting it rot, or using it as a weapon makes an orange rubber ball an orange. That some people make poor use of something does not obligate us to change the definition of that thing so that more people will be interested in using it. That some people sell "lemon" cars does not mean that a furniture store is a car dealership. No matter how bad any given Major League Baseball team is, a chess club does not have a right to be included in MLB as a baseball team.
The divorce rate isn't 50%, though it is too high. When neither the bride nor the groom has been married before and neither have children when they marry, odds are that the marriage will last until death, and even better that it will last at least until the children are grown. The odds get even better if the couple did not live together before marriage, a fact that supports traditional morality.
Assuming that states supporting the continued bride+groom requirement in state marriage licensing do have a higher divorce rate, it is possible that such a statistic is a sign that the people take marriage so seriously that they are unwilling to tolerate adultery, while in other places, it can be common for people to stay married even if one or both of them is obviously having a sexual relationship with others.
It would be wonderful to reduce the rates of divorce, adultery, and sham marriages. Neutering marriage won’t help; it will likely hurt.
See "Divorce Does Not Justify Marriage Neutering" for more.
Why not get government out of marriage entirely?
If this is what you want, neutering marriage will make it a lot less likely to happen soon, as neutered marriage will be a powerful tool used by highly organized and effective activist groups, and they won't want to give up that power.
Why should I care about defending marriage?
You can find volumes of information right here on this blog.
Do you believe that there is a difference between men and women? Do you believe that the pairing of a man and a woman is different than the pairing of two men or two women? Do you believe that, all other things being equal, adoption agencies should be able to give preference to placing children with a married man and woman, giving the child both a mother and a father, over placing that child with two men or two women? Do you believe that public schools should be able teach children that there is a difference between homosexual sodomy and heterosexual intercourse, and a difference between a brideless or groomless relationship and a marriage? Do you personally believe that marriage unites a bride and a groom? Do you believe it is best for children and society that children are raised by a married mother and father?
If answer any of those "yes", you have reason to care about defending marriage.
While I believe in the freedom of association, do not disparage the unmarried, and do not think sex outside of marriage should be criminalized, I do note the staggering amount of social science that correlates raising children within marriage (mother and father) to positive indicators. Children, including homosexual children, are best off being raised within marriage. The more children that are raised within marriage instead of outside of marriage, the less crime, dependency on government, substance abuse, domestic violence, and mental illness. What kind of society is more likely to produce lasting, happy marriages and raise children inside those marriages instead of outside? Is it the kind of society that values both mothers and fathers and husbands and wives, respects marriage as an enduring institution that helped create society, and puts the needs of children first? Or is it the kind of society that says neither fathers nor mothers, husbands nor wives, are important, marriage is nothing more than what current fashion says it is, and puts the desires of adults ahead of the needs of children?
For more, please see my Handy Dandy Marriage Neutering Plea Repellant.
Mr. Walrus presents the the premise that it is OK to treat different kinds of things differently. And Mr. Walrus goes even further, claiming that it is "necessary to treat different kinds of voluntary associations differently". Not optional, necessary.
ReplyDeleteThis is a simplistic and frankly dangerous trope that amounts to nothing more than a rationalization for discrimination.
Not every observable difference is relevant, folks. Nor is every observable difference automatically a reasoned justification for different treatment under the law.
A Catholic marriage is different from an interfaith marriage, for example - is it necessary to treat them differently? Likewise religious marriages differ from civil marriage, in which faith perhaps plays no part - do those marriages warrant different treatment under the law? Mr. Walrus' premise - that it is "necessary to treat different kinds of voluntary associations differently" - would say so.
It is not automatically or universally OK to call for unequal treatment based on some observed or conceived differences. One must show the relevance of those differences, and show that those differences are more important than the similarities between the two things being considered.
And in the case of same-sex couples who's marry, Mr. Walrus invariably returns to their inability to conceive as the key reason they're not suitable marriage candidates. But opposite-sex couples who cannot conceive on their own are in a similar situation re:procreation as same-sex couples.
It is never constitutional for the state to deny its citizens equal protection under the law. And its time for the anti crowd to retire this trope, as it provides an all too convenient shortcut to those who would lazily eschew any thoughtful reflection on what the differences and similarities are, and how those differences might be relevant or irrelevant to the topic at hand.
Didn't say it was necessary to always treat all different kinds of associations differently. In this case, it is necessary. Being inclusive of both sexes that comprise all of society is different enough to warrant different treatment. In addition, such kinds of associations have naturally produced billions of world citizens for thousands of years. The two other kinds: ZERO.
DeleteEqual protection IS provided. If you're going to argue that all kinds of pairings have to be treated equally, then you have to give business partnerships the same "rights" as marriages.
Mr Walrus did not write that it MAY be permissible, or MIGHT be necessary in some circumstances. He wrote, and I quote, "It is constitutional, moral, common, and necessary to treat different kinds of voluntary associations differently".
DeleteI'm pleased that he's now willing to cite the differences he sees between same-sex and opposite-sex couples that justify the different treatment he calls "necessary". Let's examine the three points he makes in his reply.
1) Mr. Walrus writes: "Being inclusive of both sexes that comprise all of society is different enough to warrant different treatment."
What Mr Walrus is essentially saying here is that the law should only recognize the marriages that include both sexes because they are the only ones that include both sexes. He offers a kind of restatement of his position, not a reason to accept it.
Unless he's trying to tell us that male+female couples somehow represent "all of society" (as he puts it). But in point of fact, society is comprised of other legally and socially accepted pairings. The composition of society already includes some proportion of same-sex couples. As such, same-sex couples are as present in society as opposite-sex couples. If one must be a component of society in order to marry, same-sex couples certainly meet that qualification.
2. Mr Walrus writes: "In addition, such kinds of associations have naturally produced billions of world citizens for thousands of years. The two other kinds: ZERO."
DeleteHere the author delineates another difference between opposite-sex and same-sex couples, and suggests that this difference ought to disqualify same-sex couples from marriage. But here's the problem: those who'd marry are not required to "naturally produce ... world citizens". They're not even required to be CAPABLE of "naturally producing" any new citizens.
Here's a short list of folks who marry without any capacity to reproduce; the elderly who are beyond child bearing age, death row inmates who are denied ANY contact with others, people on their death beds, the permanently infertile (i.e., a woman post-hysterectomy), Shakers (a celibate religious sect. Let me be clear: I am NOT suggesting that such marriages be disallowed.
Marriage is already quite accepting of opposite-sex couples who can't or won't produce children on their own. Of course such opposite-sex couples may be raising children of their own from previous relationships, or children that they're able to conceive with medical assistance, or children who come into their household as part of foster care or adoption. And all the same can be said of same-sex couples, who possess a virtually identical capacity in all these regards.
In this regard, we have same-sex and opposite-sex couples who are substantially similar re: their capacity to produce and/or raise the next generation. But some of the individuals in these couples are denied the legal status and protections that are afforded to other similarly situated individuals. This is NOT equal protection.
3. Finally, Mr. Walrus adds: "If you're going to argue that all kinds of pairings have to be treated equally, then you have to give business partnerships the same "rights" as marriages.
DeleteI'm not going to argue that all kinds of pairing be treated equally. I'm arguing that those associations that are the same (by all relevant measures) ought to be treated the same. And just as it is today, differences that don't matter ought not to be leveraged as justification for unequal treatment.
If Mr. Walrus is going to argue that being the combination of male+female is the litmus test for marriage, does that mean he's compelled to give business partnerships that include male+female the same "rights" as marriage? Of course not. Because, regardless of the genders of those involved, business partnership and marriage are two different kinds of relationships. And those differences that have nothing to do with gender are the basis for treating them differently.
And an afterthought ... consider what happens if we take Mr. Walrus' two important qualifiers for marriage at face value. He talks about:
Delete1) being inclusive of both sexes
2) producing offspring
Polygamous unions meet both of these criteria. And they have a greater potential for producing offspring than singular marriage. By Mr. Walrus' stated standard, polygamous unions appear to have the superior claim on marital status. Why would Mr. Walrus argue from a position that favors polygamy?
"What Mr Walrus is essentially saying here is that the law should only recognize the marriages that include both sexes because they are the only ones that include both sexes."
DeleteWrong. You spend an awful lot of time on me, and you're going to fixate on me, you have to at least understand what I write. Otherwise, you shouldn't bother to respond.
The pairing of a man and woman is different enough from the pairing of two men or two women that it warrants the bride+groom union being treated differently. You know this is true, unless you deny basic facts of life.
Society is made up entirely of males and females. All of humanity is either male or female, regardless of skin color, geography, etc. The bride+groom union includes a representative of both.
You try a clever trick by switching from individuals to coupling. There is a difference when it comes to the law.
"Here the author delineates another difference between opposite-sex and same-sex couples, and suggests that this difference ought to disqualify same-sex couples from marriage."
They should already be disqualified from being called marriage because they are not sex-inclusive.
You misrepresent the positions repeatedly. The position is not that ALL married couples WILL or MUST naturally produce new citizens. It is that the pairing of a man and woman is the only KIND that can. We KNOW that no sex-exclusive pairings will. Saying this difference isn't important is one of the detrimental effect of marriage neutering.
"I'm not going to argue that all kinds of pairing be treated equally."
What is your basis for discrimination? How do you distinguish what is marriage and what isn't marriage? Do not say "the law" because that is precisely what we're arguing.
Regarding polygamy: ONE male and ONE male is enough to meet the criteria for marriage.
If you do not 1) Answer the questions I actually ask you and 2) Stop misrepresenting my positions,I will not waste my time or anyone else's and I will ban your comments. You're either playing at being stupid or you are deliberately playing games.
Mr Walrus asks: "What is your basis for discrimination? How do you distinguish what is marriage and what isn't marriage?"
DeleteI've already addressed this. I wrote: "regardless of the genders of those involved, business partnership and marriage are two different kinds of relationships." I'll elaborate.
Business partnerships that include one man and one woman exist. But society doesn't get confused and mistake them for marriages. Individuals and institutions do not treat those pairings as marriages. The fact that we do not treat any pairing of man+woman as marriage tells us that there is something else - something other than being man+woman - that differentiates the two types of relationships. Something else that is present in marriage but absent from business partnerships.
And what is that something else, present in marriage but absent in all the other kinds of interpersonal relationships? I think we find a great description in the words of Professor Fred Parrella and Gerald Coleman, S.S., President of St. Patrick's Seminary. They say: "Marriage is an unconditional, life-long commitment between two persons who promise to share all of life and love, home and hearth, body and soul; marriage necessarily involves both the fullest of communication, the deepest of understanding, and the strongest of personal loyalty and trust between two people.
...
through one another, each partner confronts the ultimate meaning of his/her life precisely by sharing life unconditionally with another person
...
Marriage is exclusive in so far as everyone else is excluded from the innermost circle of intimacy, both sexual and personal, shared between the two partners—no one else has access to the inner heart and mind, as well as the body, of the partner in exactly the same way. For this same reason, marriage is also inclusive because all of one's life—one's finances, career, leisure time, friendships, relationship to family friends, even one's other so-called soul-mates—must be understood from the stand-point of, and in light of, the marriage commitment. Put differently, the whole of one's life, history, successes, failures, hopes and dreams, joys and sorrows, are included in the relationship between two people."
"The fact that we do not treat any pairing of man+woman as marriage tells us that there is something else - something other than being man+woman - that differentiates the two types of relationships."
DeleteThat is in addition to the basis of man+woman.
The law does not say marriage is unconditional and the law allows divorce, in most places no real reason or evidence is needed, nor the approval of both spouses, for the divorce to be granted.
Without further invasion privacy, the state can easily verify the 1) sexes of the applicants, 2) their ages, and 3) if either is currently married in the state. That is what the state cares about when someone is applying for marriage. Not their claimed sexual orientation, not their claimed religion, not their beliefs about divorce.
The law may not stipulate all of the characteristics of marriage as pre-conditions for legal recognition of the relationship. That does not change what the marital relationship is. Remember, you're the fellow who first pointed out that we ought not point out what the law requires to justify our definition of what marriage is - especially considering that the topic at hand is what the law should or should not require in order to recognize the marital relationship that exists between two people.
DeleteThe reality of divorce does not mean that marriage is, by its nature, a temporary arrangement. We don't promise to take our someone as our spouse for a little while, or even for a predetermined finite period. Marriage is a lifelong commitment, and that's why we refer to marriages that end prematurely as failed marriages.
And as to marriage being unconditional, I think we're all familiar with the traditional vows to take our spouse for better or for worse, in sickness and in health, in good times and in bad. Those vows may also include, explicitly, a promise of unconditional love.
That's how folks who marry describe their commitment to one another, whether or not the state stipulates it as a legal requirement.
You're not defeating my points. The existence of divorce does indicate that society doesn't see marriage as irrevocably permanent.
DeleteA few things about your quibbling over whether or not marriage is "irrevocably permanent", and your insistence that the existence of divorce deflates the definition of marriage I offered.
Delete1) Consider the marathon, a long-distance foot race with an official distance of 26 miles and 385 yards. Folks who enter a marathon are expected to run that distance, and they expect that of themselves. But no entrant is required to run that distance, and any entant is free to stop whenever they wish. But does that change what a marathon is? No. We accept that some who attempt the 26+ miles won't complete it, while still holding that 26+ miles is part of the essential nature of a marathon.
The same holds true of marriage in the face of divorce. We accept that some who attempt to live out this lifelong commitment will not succeed, but that doesn't change our definition of what marriage is.
2) Even if we accede to your claim that marriage is not an unconditional lifelong commitment between two persons, what does that have to do with the question of eligibility of same-sex couples for marriage? What follows from your complaint here? Are you suggesting that, because marriage is NOT permanent, it must be reserved for oposite-sex couples? walk us through that one . . .