No Means No

Are we obligated to enshrine something into law simply because a minority has asked us to?

The answer, of course, is no.  Even if that group thinks it is their right, that does not obligate us to do anything and should not obligate a court to rule in their favor. Any group can get organized and ask for something, and then claim that their group is being treated unfairly if they don't get what they want. Any group can claim that something is a right, but it doesn't make it so.

When someone asks for a change in how a state issues licenses, such as marriage licenses, they are asking us (the people of the state) for something. We have the freedom to say "no".

People have a right to form voluntary associations - or not - and to offer their consent - or not.  So, if two women want to share a life together, they are free to do so, and if they can convince someone else to perform a ceremony for them, they can have one or they can even do one themselves. However, just as one woman can't force another woman to live with her, no group can force someone else - such as the people of a state - to consent to change marriage licensing.

Judges are representatives of the people. However, if the people, through their direct vote, have made their nonconsent clear, judges should not counter that.

There simply is no right to a state-issued license, and equal access to that license is already provided.

No means no. No court should force your belief – the belief that you should get a marriage license from us even though you are without a groom or without a bride - on the rest of us.

It’s Not a Ban on Gay Marriage

Marriage amendments, such as the California Marriage Amendment, voted in as Proposition 8, and "defense of marriage" laws are often referred to in news articles, commentaries, and other media as "bans on gay marriage."

I frequently point out that this phraseology is inaccurate and misleading – and I don't like it when it is used by "marriage defenders" or the marriage neutering crowd.

I maintain that "same-sex marriage" is an oxymoron akin to "dry liquid".

Even granting that a man could marry a man, or a woman could marry a woman, the use of the phrase "ban on gay marriage" is still sloppy.

First, notice that there is a difference between "gay" and "same-sex". I don't know of anyone who is asking that the sexual orientation of the individuals obtaining a marriage license together be noted anywhere in the paperwork. It has never been part of the process. Consequently, a man of any sexual orientation and a woman of any sexual orientation have always been able to obtain a marriage license together, provided neither one was currently married to someone else, and provided they were not close relatives and were of age. A gay man could marry a lesbian or a straight woman. Likewise, a straight man could marry a lesbian. All of these combinations have happened more than once.

When and where neutered marriage licensing occurs, there is nothing preventing two straight men from obtaining such a license together, nor two straight women – provided they meet all of the requirements (marital status, age, non-relation). Thus the phrase "same sex" is more accurate than "gay".

The word "ban" is also wrong. Our marriage laws are no more a "ban" on same-sex marriage than they are a "ban" on polygamy.

Same-sex (and presumably homosexual) couples were having "marriage" ceremonies for years before any state our country neutered their marriage laws. They have exchanged rings, have had a minister officiate, have lived together, have referred to each other with spousal designations, have changed names, have held receptions and gone on "honeymoon" vacations, so on and so forth. Employers and other organizations could recognize them as married if they so chose. Neither California's Marriage Amendment, nor any other similar law prohibits any of this. Thus, it is not a ban.

Incestuous marriages have been recognized in the past, though now they are actually banned as people are prosecuted in most places for sexual activity among consenting adults who are closely related. People go to jail for this activity – forget about being a denied a state-issued marriage license.

Some – not all - states in the USA had actual bans on "interracial" marriage in the past that were struck down by a SCOTUS decision. Marriage neutering activists frequently compare this to the situation with neutered marriage licensing, but the comparison is flimsy.

With the adoption of the California Marriage Amendment or any other such law in other states, no couples were forced to split up or forced to stop living together. Not a single legal entitlement was lost, as the federal government has never recognized a same-sex coupling as marriage, and California still treats domestic partners as spouses. Contrary to a shameful television ad, no Mormon missionaries forced their way into the homes of sex-same couples to destroy or take their property.

Affirming traditional marriage licensing is not a "gay marriage ban". Such language is used by media outlets who abandon objectivity and engage in advocacy and manipulation.

Divorce Does Not Justify Marriage Neutering

People arguing for the neutering of marriage cite the high divorce rate as a reason why a brideless or groomless couple should be able to get state marriage licenses for their voluntary association, or perhaps why we, the people, don't have moral authority to set marriage licensing requirements. After all, if it is God's will that marriage last for life and we as a society aren't following God’s will in that respect*, how can we invoke God's will when it comes to insisting that marriage uniting the sexes?  They argue that if we want to protect marriage, we should ban divorce, or they claim they're going to push for such a ban themselves.

If you want to circulate a petition to place an initiative on the ballot that bans divorce, go ahead.  Nobody is stopping you. You can vote for it, too. Be my guest. If you donate money to back it, I won't boycott your business.

One need not be religious nor believe in God nor believe that divorce is a bad to believe that authority over licensing requirements belongs with the people instead of the courts, or that state marriage licensing should be reserved for voluntary associations consisting of a bride and a groom. But in entertaining this appeal to the Bible or religious tradition, I still don't see that immorality in one thing precludes making a moral judgment at all. (If you fell down some stairs this morning, you should still try to avoid crashing your car into a wall.) If the political authority doesn't belong with the people, it belongs with nobody, as all authority of our branches of government is assigned to them by the consent of the people.  The answer is not to promote more immorality or fundamentally alter the nature of marriage. It is also disingenuous to invoke Scripture or religious tradition against those who hold such things dear with one hand and dismiss it with the other.

Yes, divorce is a bad thing. Even if it gets someone away from a sociopath - and people should get away from sociopaths - it is bad in the sense that there never should have been a marriage in the first place, and the divorce is part of the larger mistake. Marriage, ideally, should be for life. But that there is divorce has no bearing on whether or not state marriage licensing should be neutered.  It is an entirely different issue. I can cut an orange in half. I can destroy it. It can be eaten away by fruit fly maggots.  There can be a wax likeness of an orange fraudulently passed off as a legitimate orange. None of that makes an orange rubber ball an orange, even though it is round and orange in color. We even revoke the state-issued driver's licenses of some drivers because they have been horrible drivers, but that doesn't obligate us to issue driver's licenses to bus riders, bicyclists, pedestrians, or anyone who can apply for a state identification card, even though driver's licenses are considered more desirable.

Really, it is silly to say that because there is divorce, we should neuter marriage. It simply does not follow.  A state-licensed marriage is essentially a kind of partnership. Partnerships are dissolved all of the time.

The high divorce rate can be cited as evidence for a devaluation of marriage in our culture. But how would neutering marriage help that? To me, it seems, it would be kicking marriage while it is down.  Some may argue that "heterosexual couples haven't been doing such a great job with marriage, so why not let same-sex couples have a shot at it?" That may sound appealing to some at first, but it also does not make any sense, as bride-groom couples will still be able to get state licenses, and it is akin to saying "orange growers have been doing a lousy job, so let's throw rubber balls into the crate with the oranges."

Yes, the divorce rate is too high, and those who want to protect marriage should take steps to change that. There are ways of addressing that, but neutering marriage isn't one of them. That there are a lot of divorces in no way means we should forfeit our votes to judges or activists.


*From a religious standpoint, (which, we are constantly reminded, the state can't consider), any church that takes the Bible seriously should not be performing marriage ceremonies or recognizing the marriage of anyone who divorced a previous spouse without Biblical grounds.  (Biblical grounds boil down to abandonment – actual geographical or sexual abandonment or other forms, such as abuse of others or self or adultery.  If someone divorces you without just cause, that is abandonment.)

I do agree that divorce is detrimental to marriage.  To this end, I could see it as reasonable if a state decided it was going to change its laws so as to stop issuing marriage licenses to couples in which at least one of the individuals had previously filed for and received a divorce, say, two or more times.  Note - that means being the divorce initiator, not the spouse presented with the papers.  I could especially see it as a reasonable restriction if the state also allowed some other form of civil licensing for such couples.  Ultimately, however, no number of divorces changes the basic nature of marriage, or the state's interest in licensing it.

The Heart of the Marriage Neutering Issue

David Whiting of the Orange County Register wrote a piece on neutering marriage and that prompted some letters from readers which the paper was willing to print.

Russ Neal of Huntington Beach:

Legalizing same-sex marriage means that people objecting to this transgression will be compelled to treat it as legitimate.

This is at the heart of the issue. 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. State marriage licenses are issued on our behalf. 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.

If California's constitutional amendment (Proposition 8) was allowed to stand, and California's domestic partnership and other laws were kept in place, same-sex couples would retain their treatment as spouses by the state government and everyone else, including businesses, could treat them as spouses. They're free to draw up legal paperwork, have ceremonies, change names, exchange rings, live together, share a life, and call themselves married. But the rest of us would not be forced to ignore the inherent difference between marriage and pseudomarriage.

The False Compromise

What if you were a California voter who had an earned degree from the University of California Los Angeles – a state institution – and someone else who did not attend the university nor did the coursework insisted that spending his time sunning himself on the beach was just as valid use of his time, and demanded he also be awarded the same degree from UCLA?

What if you, as a voter, said "no" to this idea twice? Would you consider it a good compromise if your degree was rescinded so that you and the beach bum would be treated "equally"? My guess is no.

The False Compromise is getting government out of marriage licensing entirely (or so they say), either by dropping the word "marriage" or not recognizing personal unions at all. Michael A. Lindenberger of Time Magazine took a look at that. First he mentions Jewish and Catholic rituals that do not get licensing from the state. But these rituals do not involve the sharing or transfer of property, nor do these rituals naturally tend to result in bringing children into the world, or subjecting them to an unrelated adult as head of their home. Those and other reasons are why marriage is different.

And for non-believers or those for whom the word marriage is less important, the civil union license issued by the state would be all they needed to unlock the benefits reserved in most states, and in federal law, for "married" couples.

This is coming from the assumption that any two people who claim to be a couple should have those benefits. Why are those benefits issued in the first place? There is a reasoning behind it. Domestic partnerships in California were not created for the benefit of the state – more to satisfy the demands of same-sex couples, many of whom ended up not satisfied by something that treated them as married. And thus, the people of the state thought they were helping people who turned around and used that help against them, using the partnerships law as Trojan Horse to neuter state marriage licensing.

Both sets of lawyers agreed that the idea would resolve the equal protection issue.

Sure – if you stop government issuing of any sort of licensing, then everyone has equal non-access.
Why try to pretend marriage is nothing more than a domestic partnership or civil union? Let's really go for "equality" and only have the state issue a Roommate License, and nothing more. After all, some platonic roommates depend very much on each other. And why should platonic roommates not be treated equally to lovers?

Take the state out of the marriage business, and then both kinds of couples - straight and gay - would be treated the same.

Why should three different kinds of voluntary associations be treated the same? Simply because someone wants them to be? If that someone is the people of the state, then that would be legal. But why should we do that?

And as Justice Chin considers whether he can craft a compromise with his fellow justices that would both uphold Prop 8 - and therefore the right of the people to amend the state constitution - and assert the right of gay people to be treated equally, he may find that the folks who cling hardest to the word "marriage" are the gay couples themselves. After all, what was the most sweeping part of the May 2008 decision Ming and his colleagues issued granting [brideless or groomless couples neutered state marriage licenses]? It was the idea that the word "marriage" itself is so strong that denying it to [same-sex] couples violates the most sacred rights enshrined in the state constitution, the right for all people to be treated with dignity and fairness.

This is a leap. What about single people or trios, or like I said, roommates? Are they not being treated with dignity and fairness because the state doesn't issue them marriage licenses? What about friends who aren't even roommates?

How can anyone who argues that state-licensed marriage is an unalienable right ever say it would be okay not to let anyone have access to that "right"? The False Compromise smacks of what some marriage defenders have said all along – this whole thing is more about tearing down the traditional family, including the esteeming of marriage – than it is about the rights of homosexual people.

There are reasons we, as a state, license marriage. Doing so is of benefit to the state. The kind of relationships that form marriage perpetuate society. We are under no obligation to treat different kinds of voluntary associations the same, no matter how much an activist group wants it that way. We should not forget that our soft-hearted acceptance of domestic partnerships has been met with scorn and a trouncing of our will.

Our Right Was Taken Away

This is another bad argument for marriage neutering.

In California, since the state Supreme Court ordered the neutering of state marriage licensing against the demonstrated will of the governed, and then refused to stay their decision until after an impending vote on a relevant constitutional amendment, same-sex couples were able to obtain state marriage licenses for several months. When the California Marriage Amendment was passed by voters, they were no longer able to obtain those licenses. So we have heard arguments that "our rights have been taken away" and that it isn't fair because "we used to have this right, but now we don't".

I like to make distinctions between actual natural rights and what is legal, allowed, or conducted under the auspices of the government. Not all freedoms are rights. Not all services a government offers are rights. The government performs services by the consent of the governed, and when the governed no longer consent, or correct a false consent made on their behalf, the service ceases.

Just because the government was passing out neutered marriage licenses doesn't mean it was a good thing or that there was an actual right to such things. State licensing is conducted on behalf of the people of a state. In California, we have partial direct democracy, in which we the people have retained some legislative abilities instead of allowing the elected legislatures to have all legislative power. Through our direct democratic process, we voted in 2000 via Proposition 22 to reaffirm marriage licensing as bride-groom only. The court decided there was a "right" for same-sex couples to obtain state-issued marriage licenses, but they overstepped their authority. Since when has a "right" applied to two people, but no more? Generally, two people have parental rights, but someone can even lose their "parental rights" by court order. How can there be a right to a state-issued license when it involves the consent of someone else? You may have a right to ask someone else for something, but that person has a right to say "no". Otherwise, it is a forcible intrusion on that person. In physical activity, we call that assault or rape.

While the Constitution of the United State of America does not enumerate all of the rights retained by the people, it does list such rights as freedom of speech and the right to bear arms. Yet, those rights to do nor force someone else to give us the use of a billboard, nor does it allow someone to yell "fire" in a crowded theater with immunity from prosecution. Gun owners can tell you plenty about how they were able to purchase and own and use certain arms in the past – but they are no longer allowed to do so legally. So even rights clearly enumerated in the Constitution have limits commonly recognized by courts.

This is not a strong argument for striking down the California Marriage Amendment (Proposition 8). It is akin to appealing to a court to issue you a diploma from the University of California (pick any one you like... Los Angeles, Berkeley, Davis) even though you've had no interest in attending classes at the university or performing course work. Instead, you have been very happy to study on your own terms with a professor in a warehouse. He refers to himself as a UC professor, but isn't. But unlike when you tried visiting a UC campus, you feel more comfortable in this warehouse, and you absolutely love your professor. And you believe you are learning. The court goes ahead and orders that you be given a UC diploma, and that others be able to obtain UC diplomas the same way. After all, those diplomas help in matters such as obtaining jobs with benefits and other things you want and enjoy.

Meanwhile, the people of California and vote in an amendment to the state constitution that restores traditional diploma-issuing when it comes to UC diplomas. If you want a UC diploma, you must meet the requirements. You don't have to go to a UC, but if you don't, you don't get a UC diploma.
You could argue that a "right" has been taken away from you. And you’d be wrong.

Neither the California Supreme Court nor the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals create or grant rights. No government does. A government can only recognize and protect rights, or by its actions, infringe upon rights. There is no right to a state-issued license. The people should retain ultimate authority in setting the licensing requirements.

Jerry Brown Signed the First DOMA

I'm reposting this entry I made early on in my contributions to The Opine Editorials.

The San Francisco Chronicle's political writer, Carla Marinucci, had an article discussing the fact that current California Governor General Jerry Brown, while Governor the first go-round, signed into law a bill codifying the legal definition of marriage as being a bride-groom pairing. There are lots of quotes defending Brown for his "progress" on the issue as he fights to remove California’s Marriage Amendment and prepares to run for Governor again. I found a quote in the article that stood out to me.

Veteran journalist Marty Nolan, who covered Brown for the Boston Globe in the 1970s and 1980s, said the defense represents Brown's longtime political mantra. "He's got a six-word answer - 'that was then, this is now,' " Nolan laughed. "It's an all-purpose shield."

This is an example of why we are supposed to be a nation of laws, not men, and we have a constitution and a representative republic. Opinions and votes can change over time, even if the truth and right and wrong do not. But we should not be held hostage to the whims of a single person. "That was then, this is now" is not a justification for a past or current action or policy, no more than saying "It's the twenty-first century." Yes, and the sky is blue. So? Was Brown wrong then? Is he wrong now? Why? Has a "right" to a state-licensed marriage for brideless or groomless couples emerged since the 1970s, or has it always existed and just not been recognized by flawed politicians? If the politicians were wrong then, what makes anyone so sure they are right now?

Neutering Marriage: Where We Are and What It Means

The Supreme Court of the United States of America heard arguments regarding two laws. It is possible that in June, they could issue a ruling that would invent a new federal right to get a state "marriage" license without a bride or without a groom, often called "gay marriage" or "same-sex marriage".

Less than fifteen years ago, no government in the world had neutered licensing to replace marriage. No President of the United States ever indicated a belief that a marriage exists without a bride or without a groom. President Bill Clinton, Democrat, had signed the federal Defense of Marriage Act into law, which had the support of many Democrats in Congress. Not a single great civil rights leader in history had ever called for a "right" to a marriage license without a bride or without a groom – not Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., not Susan B. Anthony, not Gandhi, nobody. None of the people who wrote and voted for the Constitution or the Amendments was ever on record as saying marriage was anything other than the uniting of a bride and groom. Running for President in 2008, Obama claimed to believe that marriage is between a man and woman, and he did not say that there was right to a state marriage license without a bride our groom. (He has partially changed his public position since then.) In Loving v. Virginia, which overturned scattered state bans in "interracial" marriage (which actually prevented freedom of association while Proposition 8 protected freedom of association), SCOTUS did not find that a brideless or groomless union was a marriage. In Lawrence v. Texas, which overturned laws against private homosexual sodomy, SCOTUS did not find that brideless or groomless union is a marriage. There are longstanding federal and state restrictions on marriage, including against polygamy and marriages between first cousins, both of which have a long worldwide history. (Some say that same-sex "marriage" should never be compared to polygamy or incest, and I agree – after all, the latter two have been historically and widely accepted as actual marriages.)

When SCOTUS heard the cases, only nine states and Washington, D.C. had neutered their licensing, something that was largely started by judicial activism with only one of those states doing it through a direct vote of the people that was initiated by the people rather than a judge or state legislature.

Most of the remaining states have constitutional amendments or state laws, many of them directly approved by voters, maintaining the bride+groom requirement in their licensing.

Yet here we are, facing the possibility that nine judges could force the neutering of state marriage licenses on all 50 states, even those where the people have recently voted to reaffirm the bride+groom requirement.

How did we get here?

I didn't follow the case involving the federal DOMA as closely as I did the case involving the California Marriage Amendment, which was adopted by voters through Proposition 8.

There was already a California law, signed by Governor Jerry Brown decades ago during an earlier term as Governor, stating the bride+groom requirement. In 2000, Californian voters directly passed Proposition 22, reaffirming this. California lawmakers passed law(s) creating state domestic partnerships in which same-sex couples (these partnerships were denied – discrimination! - to both-sexes couples unless at least one of them was a seasoned citizen of a certain age) would be treated by state and local governments exactly the same as if they were a married couple. Striking down Prop 8 did not give same-sex couples any additional "rights".

Then the Leftist marriage neutering advocates, including people who were sworn to uphold and enforce the law, decided to thumb their nose at the law by "marrying" brideless and groomless couples and then suing for recognition as marriage. That wound its way through the state courts.

Meanwhile, the voters of California decided to strengthen the bride+groom requirement by placing on the ballot a measure what would make it part of the state constitution. As that was heading for the ballot, the California Supreme Court ordered the neutering of the state's marriage licenses. Later that year (2008), California voters voted for Obama AND they adopted Proposition 8 to restore the bride+groom requirement, placing it in the state constitution.. For many months, long-term (and short term, for that matter) same-sex couples could have obtained "marriage" licenses, and thousands did. Snoozers were losers.

Of course, the California Marriage Amendment was challenged in court by marriage neutering advocates, and so it went to the California Supreme Court, then into the federal courts.

You can read all about this at these links to The Opine Editorials, where we covered it as it was happening:

On the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on Proposition 8

On the Proposition 8 Trial

On the California Marriage Amendment

On Judge Walker - the federal judge who heard the federal trial over Proposition 8/California Marriage Amendment but did not disclose he stood to immediately and personally benefit from the results.)

(Click on the tags at The Opine Editorials and here on this blog for more on these subjects.)

It is possible SCOTUS may leave this matter up to the individual states, or may order states with "same as marriage" domestic partnerships, like California, to neuter their marriage licensing. There could be some other rulings other than a sweeping one.

If SCOTUS instead invents a "right" for brideless or groomless pairings to get a state marriage license regardless the state law, that will establish these can-of-worm precedents (because remember, we’re not talking about personal freedom, private behavior, and freedom of association, but rather demanding a state-issued license):

1) Minorities that are only distinguishable by their voluntary behavior or unverifiable claims about themselves will be specially-protected classes. Some might ask how this is different from protecting religious groups, but freedom of religion is specifically listed in the Constitution. Those who are in the minority in their sex-like practices will now be specially protected classes. What if someone finds it advantageous in a lawsuit to claim they are gay, even though there is no evidence they are actually homosexual? We certainly can't ask for proof, can we?

2) There will be a right to state-issued licenses and those licenses have to be recognized in all states. That should get very interesting when it comes to restrictions placed on the Second Amendment right to bear arms, or driver's licenses for people who refuse to actually take the driving test due to personal characteristics present since birth.

3) The equal protection principle applies not only to individuals, but to pairings (or groups) not similarly situated. If I had a business partnership, I'd sue for the same protections afforded to marriages (for example, not being compelled to testify against each other in court) and nonprofits.

4) Certain different behaviors must be treated by government as though they were the same. (Yes, a woman socially and sexually uniting with a man is behavior demonstrably different than a woman joining with a woman.)

5) Courts/governments have the authority to forcefully redefine organic institutions established long before the existince of those courts/governments.


Here's a basic argument against neutering marriage that is not religion-based.
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. Since all that is needed to enforce this requirement for a STATE-ISSUED license is a pair of STATE-ISSUED birth certificates, it can be done objectively and with impartiality to sexual orientation and without violating anyone's privacy.

6) One need not believe homosexual behavior, relationships, or people to be harmful, sinful, or inferior to accept any or all of #1-5. Indeed, there are people who identify as LBGT who agree with this argument.


Although marriage neutering advocates equate their campaign to civil rights for African-Americans, the comparison is insulting. Homosexual people certainly can't be described as a powerless minority akin to how African-Americans were 50-60 years ago, given how many already serve in elected and appointed positions at all levels of government, how they are treated throughout academia, their overrepresentation and positive portrayals in media, their socioeconomic status, widespread support by business including major corporations, so on and so forth. Unlike African-Americans, homosexual people were not taken from their homeland by force, systematically enslaved and denied status as human beings, systematically segregated by force of law, tortured and lynched by the thousands in festive events attended in broad daylight by entire towns (including children), denied their right to vote, etc.

Even so, heterosexuals would have just as much access to licensing a same-sex union as "marriage" as homosexual people, so how can it be about helping a suspect class?

Marriage neutering advocates are claiming they have unstoppable, growing momentum, and a clear majority of popular support with inevitable victory among voters. How can that be if they are a powerless minority subject to widespread, systematic animus? Which is it? Californians broadly supported homosexual people having the same rights as everyone else and pet legislative causes, but at the same time, voted to affirm the bride+groom requirement.

Clearly, we are talking about treating different voluntary behaviors differently. This is not the same thing as simply being able to look at someone and know they are female, or black, or an Orthodox Jew. We are told over and over again that we can't know whether someone is heterosexual or homosexual just be looking at them.

Many people who support retaining the bride+groom requirement in state marriage licensing have no animus for homosexual people or homosexual behavior. Some of them identify as LGBT themselves.

Other people who one claimed a gay or lesbian identity now live as heterosexual or claim to be heterosexual. I’ve never seen an African-American become a white guy. This is apples and oranges.

If SCOTUS does invent that new right, it will not be the end of what the fascists behind the marriage neutering movement will do. It will just be the beginning. Nobody will be allowed to hold up marriage as a bride+groom institution, such as in educational lesson plans. Other limitations on marriage licensing will be attacked, and marriage may no longer be recognized at all by government. Churches and synagogues who believe that marriage unites a bride and groom will be attacked. We’ve already seen indications of this before. Individuals will not be immune, either.

Will SCOTUS uphold the rights of California's voters? Or will it set dangerous new precedents? Do the people have a government, or are we all property of the government?

The Race Card and Neutering Marriage

Marriage neutering advocates frequently cite prohibitions in the past against "interracial"* marriage as why African-Americans, judges, an all who care about civil rights should support the neutering of marriage laws and the replacement of marriage with a counterfeit. The claim goes that because African-Americans in some parts of the country in the past could not marry white people, they should identify with the inability for brideless pair of a groomless pair to get a "marriage" license, and they should fight for marriage neutering.

When one takes a closer look at the situation, though, if African-Americans, as a group, have something with which to identify in this case, it is actually the denial of their voting rights. More African-Americans were denied their voting rights than were ever prevented from marrying a white person.

For example, if the pollsters are to be believed, African-Americans, as a classification, strongly supported California's Prop 22 and subsequent Prop 8, which was adopted as a state constitutional amendment. And yet their votes were cast aside by courts based on a made-up "right" and based on a demand to treat different kinds of voluntary associations as though they are the same. In other words, they were denied their voting rights in favor of imaginary rights demanded by an even smaller minority.

"Interracial" marriage has been readily recognized to be marriage by every major religion (though not all sects) all throughout history around the world. Some places in this country banned it (a true ban, as I explain below... not simply "refusing to license"). Notice that the people who passed those laws did not also set up laws to ban same-sex couples from getting married – because such a thing had never been recognized in the first place. Indeed, in the case that shot down bans on interracial marriage – Loving v. Virginia, no mention is made of same-sex couples. Same-sex "marriage" is a modern invention modeled after marriage - which was not created by the state but merely recognized by the state - but missing the key element in marriage that is of the most interest to society. This modern invention is designed for the appropriation of government benefits (already provided to domestic partners in California and other places) and public affirmation (which should be up to the public).

If marriage is about forming a microcosm of society for the sake of perpetuating it – uniting both sexes that comprise all of society, giving children both a mother and a father legally bound to each other and to them, then "interracial" marriage is the same kind of voluntary association as any other marriage. However, two men or two women, of any race, are not. Skin color is incidental to marriage, while sex is inherent to it.  Thus, the comparison to same-sex "marriage" doesn’t hold up. "Interracial" marriage is how we got new citizens like Tiger Woods. Who has ever been conceived by sodomy between two men?

Today, people are able to live their lives together without a marriage license, while in the past, property owners and employers could refuse to deal with people who were "shacking up" and cohabitation could be prosecuted. Thus, a ban on interracial marriage was a form of segregation and a denial of the freedom of association. It was truly a ban. Now, people are free to cohabitate without social or legal repercussions, and keeping the bride+groom requirement in state marriage licensing and federal law will not keep them from doing so.

Having had wrong laws regarding marriage licensing in the past does not mean that all laws regarding marriage licensing are wrong. Most people calling for marriage neutering are in favor of some form of discrimination themselves when it comes to issuing marriage licenses. Everyone involved wants some form of discrimination, such as restrictions on the number of spouses, how closely related the spouses can be, and the minimum age to to marry.

Must a brideless or groomless sex-segregating couple be treated the same as a couple integrating and uniting  both of the sexes? Why, when so many laws treat different kinds of voluntarily associations differently?

In addition to rejecting the attempt to confuse the issue with a legitimate civil rights fight from the past, the African-American community should speak up in defense of their voting rights, and judges should recognize that marriage licenses are issued on behalf of the people of a state, and the people have the power to require that marriage be integrationist rather than segregationist.

*I maintain that we are all one race – human, and this “interracial” is an artificial term in this case, in my opinion.
(I originally posted this in a slightly different form as "The Race Card and Prop 8" on my previous blog.)

Neutering Marriage Devalues and Discourages Marriage

 ...and that is bad for children and therefore bad for society.



Some marriages are arranged. Most in our country aren't. Some are about love, some are about lust, some are about money. Some are about class. Marriage is about many things, but from a societal interest, it is – and always has been - about forming a microcosm of society for the purpose of perpetuating it. It is about joining the two sexes and providing any offspring with both a mother and a father – and that has been the universal core of marriage throughout all of human history.

In other words, licensed marriage on its most basic and level is about children.

But when laws are passed (or, in California and some other states, a court decision is issued) neutering marriage licensing, so that two men or two women can legally be designated as “married”, this is a statement that marriage, as an institution, can't be about children – because it takes both a woman and a man to make a child. Some marriages may be about children, but marriage in and of itself can't be about children - if there is a right for any two people to have a licensed marriage. Court rulings neutering marriage make the statement that licensed marriage is about feelings, or benefits, or hospital access, or any number of things that have been cited by marriage neutering activists - all of which can be addressed without a marriage license.

If marriage can't be about children, a disconnect is created in the public consciousness between marriage and raising children. Even libertarian atheist Tom Leykis, who insists that there is no benefit for a man to get married - that men can get everything they want without marriage - states that marriage benefits children. Do we really want official public policy that makes it clear that marriage is not about children?

Although we are already experiencing a significant level of illegitimacy (thanks to a disconnect between sex and marriage), divorce (thanks to a disconnect between commitment and marriage), blended families rife with jealousy, insecurity, and confusion, and a disconnect between coitus and reproduction (thanks to IVF), we still have a society that expresses that it is ideal to raise children within a marriage that created or adopted them and associates marriage with children. Except in gay circles, when someone says "We got married," one of the first questions people ask is "When do you plan on having children?" Paternity is, in many places, assigned to husbands by default when their wife births a child, even if she could have conceived the child by another man. Ex-husbands often pay child support for children that where there before he ever met their mother. Child support is expected from an ex-spouse even if the other ex-spouse is financially capable of providing for the child without assistance. Even many people who cohabitate and procreate out of wedlock get married, in large part, “for the sake of their children.”

Why?  Because children do best with a both a mother and a father, even more so if they are married to each other, and it takes both a male and a female to create children. Whether by design or as a consequence of evolution, children do best in having both that male and female parental authority as a model and with whom to bond. That child will, throughout her life, interact with both males and females. Even if you believe that our existence and the way we reproduce are sheer meaningless accidents, that socialization is important to perpetuating society in the best conditions.

Most, if not all, of the people who deny this appear to be motivated not by what is best for children or society, but what is wanted by some homosexuality advocates, fornicators, and divorced people politically and socially. Someone who wants a child but doesn't have a spouse (of the opposite sex) will try to justify their actions, and those who think a marriage license will bring their relationship and themselves whatever (approval, benefits, etc.) they are seeking will likewise deny the importance of having both a mother and father (1).

If marriage is about children, then it ought to be restricted to the kind of unions that can produce children (2). If it isn't about children, then it should be about whatever else benefits society.  Marriage neutering advocates say that purpose is creating stability in "sexual" relationships.  But that is in conflict with their own insistence that sexual behavior between two consenting adults is a private matter in which the state should not be involved.

If we are going to continue down this path of neutered marriage licensing, we should expect higher illegitimacy rates and perhaps increased divorce rates and/or lower marital rates (3), because there will be less of an association between child-rearing and marriage. If marriage is not about children, then a husband should feel no guilt in leaving the mother of his child if he feels she has neglected her vows. If our statistical analyses do not make the distinction between bride-groom marriages and other unions, then we can also expect a statistical increase in "marital" domestic violence, substance abuse, infidelity, and physical and mental health issues, as these are acknowledged issues of increased frequency in the "homosexual community". That would be something else that would make licensed marriage less attractive, along with the presence of or desire for children being less of an incentive.

If we are going to continue down this path where marriage isn't about children, then we should at least be consistent and not assign default paternity to husbands, or require child support if the custodial parent earns enough to provide for a child, or require stepparents (almost always fathers) to provide child support in the event of a divorce. This can probably have applications to inheritance laws, too.

I agree that the government should not be policing the bedroom. I can understand why we have no-fault divorce laws. But the government does have an interest in licensing bride-groom marriage that it doesn't have with same-sex couples. Citizens are better off if they have been raised within a lasting marriage with both a father and a mother, and less likely to commit crime or be dependent on welfare. We must not yield this beneficial construct to be sacrificed on the altar of homosexual esteem for those who seem to neurotically need the endorsement of their relationships by others. We must not allow marriage to be devalued by denying the core universal thread that has made marriage what it is.

Marriage may be about love, but it is primarily about children, and giving them a mother and a father.

(1) Neutered marriage licensing under the guise that same-sex couples have a “right” to marry will make it impossible for adoption agencies, social workers, fertility clinics, laws, and courts to give any preference to bride+groom couples over same-sex couples in placing children (or academia or others from presenting bride+groom couples as the norm or ideal). The advocates of this “equality” cite flawed studies to support their claim that there is no difference to children if they are raised by two men, two women, or a man and a woman, as long as it is two "parents". There are two ways to demonstrate that this must be false: A) If “two parents”, regardless of sex, are better than one, then point out that surely three parents would be preferable to two, and four preferable to three, and so forth, and ask if preference should be given to the largest group parenting arrangement over “couple parenting”, and; B) The homosexual person knows there is a difference between men and women - and therefore mothers and fathers - when it comes to personal relationships. Otherwise, the homosexual personal could just as easily be attracted to someone of the opposite sex.

(2) Yes, not all bride+groom couples choose to or can create children, but they are the only kind that can without the aid of a third party, while no same-sex couples have ever been able to create children alone. Regardless, bride+groom couples still form a microcosm of society by uniting the sexes, and we do not check fertility status of marriage license applicants as that would be a violation of privacy.  Indeed, sexual orientation is not a criterion either.

(3) The countries that have neutered their marriage licensing tend to be countries where marriages don't last as long, fewer people bother to marry, and children are more likely to be born out of wedlock. Although correlation does not prove causation, it is clear that the culture of these societies don't esteem marriage or raising children within marriage as much as ours - should we be striving to be more like them when it comes to marriage licensing? Results from marriage neutering are likely to be generational, and since no country had neutered their licensing as of 15 years ago, we have yet to fully experience the social effects.

Professor Lund Calls Out Bogus Claims About Studies

I previously noted that there are some bogus reports on unreliable studies claiming that couples missing one of the sexes make even better parents than, you know, the kind of couple Nature or Nature's God made reproductive.

Professor Nelson Lund had a can't-miss piece in the Wall Street Journal about this. I suppose he can expect a severed unicorn's head in his bed? Or maybe lots of glitter? Maybe that savage bully fellow (hmmm.. what's his name...) could do a Google bomb on "Lund"? Oh, if the West Wing was still on, they could totally make up a character that is obviously Lund, then have the character say something Lund never said, then have the President totally knock that stawman down! But Law & Order: SVU is still on. They can make the character a pedophile or murderer. You know, all of the real honest and sensible ways of debating public policy.

The claimed right to same-sex marriage is not in the Constitution or in the court's precedents, so the court must decide whether to impose a new law making marriage into a new and different institution.

Yes. Neutering marriage replaces marriage with something else. When you take water bottles in your water bottle factory and fill some with water molecules and some only with hydrogen and some only with oxygen, you can no longer say you are selling water and be honest about it.

A significant number of organizations representing social and behavioral scientists have filed briefs promising the court that there is nothing to worry about. These assurances have no scientific foundation. Same-sex marriage is brand new, and child rearing by same-sex couples remains rare. Even if both phenomena were far more common, large amounts of data collected over decades would be required before any responsible researcher could make meaningful scientific estimates of the long-term effects of redefining marriage.

If the MNAs get their way. by the time the evidence is in, it will be too late to do anything about it.

Social-science advocacy organizations, however, have promoted the myth that a lack of evidence, so far, of bad effects implies the nonexistence of such effects. This myth is based on conjecture or faith, not science.

Science says the pairing of male and female is different from other pairings. Why is the Left suddenly anti-science?

The prominent National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study, for instance, relied on a sample recruited entirely at lesbian events, in women's bookstores and through lesbian newspapers. Other studies relied on samples as small as 18 or 33 or 44 cases. The effect of parenting by male homosexual couples remains in the realm of anecdotes. Most research has relied on reports by parents about their children's well-being while the children were still under the care of those parents. Even a social scientist should be able to recognize that parents' evaluations of their own success as parents might be a little skewed.

No, only a bigot wouldn't take a Leftist homosexual person's opinion as absolutely factual!

There has been only one study using a large randomized sample, objective measures of well-being, and reports of grown children rather than their parents. This research, by Mark Regnerus, a sociologist at the University of Texas Austin, found that children raised in a household where a parent was involved in a same-sex romantic relationship were at a significant disadvantage with respect to a number of indicators of well being—such as depression, educational attainment and criminal behavior—compared with children of intact biological families.

One might expect this work at least to raise a caution flag, but it has been vociferously attacked on methodological grounds by the same organizations that tout the value of politically congenial research that suffers from more severe methodological shortcomings. This is what one expects from activists, not scientists.

Even science must take a dive for the sake of Leftism's drive for esteeming homosexual behaviors. Go read the whole thing.

Deftly Defending DOMA

The fate of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, signed into law by Democrat President Bill Clinton with the backing of both Democrats and Republicans before any state had neutered marriage licensing, is currently in the hands of the Supreme Court of the United States.

Some conservatives reject the Constitutionality of DOMA based on federalism, which some of the Left have cited as well, inconsistent with most of their positions. I support federalism, too, but as we'll see below that doesn't mean DOMA is unconstitutional. I have wondered ever since DOMA has been an issue if, because some states mess things up, everyone else should be forced go along, especially given that there are many examples of states issuing other licenses and other legal designations that other states don't have to accept. A neutered license is no longer a "marriage" license, it is a "two people who are not legally married to others, of age, and not too closely related" license, and as such, should states be forced to recognize them?

I don't know of any legal analysts who expect such a move, nor do I think any notable briefs submitted to SCOTUS call for it, but although I recognize that certain powers are reserved to the state, I do think it is possible a credible case could be made that the right of a child to a mother and father could justify federal involvement in restoring bride+groom requirements to state marriage licenses.

For now, though, let's see what some others have said about why DOMA does pass the Constitutional test.

Yes, Neutering Marriage Affects All

The Aquila Report has something written by John Barber, "Ten Reasons Why SSM Affects Your Marriage".

4. Same-sex marriage will absorb your marriage into a new view of reality
The basic argument for same-sex marriage states that there is no fundamental difference between the rights of gays/lesbians and heterosexuals to marry. Supporting the legal claim of “gender equality” is a view of human sexuality that erodes natural, gender-specific, differences between men and woman. The result is a “unisexual” view of personhood which, rather than affirm diversity, blurs it beyond recognition. The unisexual view of personhood is part of global move toward a hermaphroditic understanding of reality... Ironically, diversity, the very thing secularism claims to champion, is what it destroys. Unity (two people becoming one) and diversity (a husband and a wife) are held in perfect balance in traditional marriage.

This is something many people refuse to admit when discussing this with those who oppose the neutering of marriage. They present it as all about a particular couple they know, if not themselves. However, laws apply to all, and what our laws says inevitably sends a message about our values and priorities. All laws express someone's morality. If the law says that brideless and groomless coupling is an equal action to marriage, then marriage can't, as an institution, be about the needs of children and the gender inclusion or sex integration can't be valuable, because it is indistinguishable from gender exclusion or sex segregation. (You might think this will clear the way again for male-only clubs to exist, but a judge who thinks along the lines of a marriage neutering advocate would rule that a woman is a male if she says she is, and thus must be admitted, or that since there is no difference between men and women, women can't be excluded.)

7.  Same-sex marriage defeats the purpose of the state’s interest in benefiting your marriage
A reason the federal government bestows numerous benefits on families with children, including child tax credits, is due to their social significance. The intent and design of heterosexual marriage is to provide the normal and stable conditions for the birth and upbringing of children. Homosexual marriage is not aimed at providing such conditions. Its chief purpose is the personal gratification of two individuals whose relationship is inherently barren. A major agenda item of gay activists is to secure a range of federal, state, and local benefits, hitherto enjoyed by traditional marriages. Should that goal be met fully, courts would only serve to empty traditional marriage of its significant social meaning, other than the respect of personal preferences. Should that ensue, would the federal government (especially one burdened economically) still see the necessity to continue to extend tax breaks to married heterosexual couples with children? Child tax credits could be offered to gay/lesbian couples who adopt. But the government could also choose to “level the playing field” by maintaining deductions for dependents whether they are children or spouses.

The ultimate goal of Leftists is to remove marriage from the law. That's why "get the government out of marriage" is a false compromise. Some Leftists, including homosexual Leftists, admit their goal is to remove marriage from the law. The see unfairness in married people and/or adults with minor children getting any advantage, reward, or assistance over unmarried people or childless adults. Many libertarians agree. Many conservatives, however, note that in order to conserve society, we need new citizens, preferably raised in stable, loving homes that provide them a role model and parents of each of the two sexes with whom they will have to interact with as adults.

9.  The redistribution of marriage rights modifies your marriage as a natural entity afforded legal recognition
Marriage is a naturally occurring relationship. A purpose of U.S. law is to create a flourishing context for the family to govern itself. Put differently, the state does not create marriage but is to create complimentary environments in which martial life is legally recognized and protected. Redefining marriage by legal fiat changes this point of reference. It shifts the legal posture of the state from recognizing a preexisting institution to creating the institution after its own image and likeness. The state would become the originator of your marriage. Case in point, the Hawaii Supreme Court called marriage “a state conferred legal partnership status.” Baehr v. Lewin, 852 P.2d 44, 58 (Haw. 1993).

Do our rights come from Nature's God or do they come from the bench?

You can also see what we wrote about harms at The Opine Editorials.

Defending Marriage From Neutering is Not Hateful

Discussions with marriage neutering advocates continued on Twitter. Here's where I wrote about this before. This all started because I tweeted a link to a column by Matt Barber pointing out that the State of Washington was attacking a florist because she didn't want to be associated with a groomless "wedding".

Paul continued with bumper sticker slogans, tautologies, name-calling and displays a lack of reading comprehension. He still hasn't explained why we should neuter marriage.

Pauls_View ‏@pauls_view

@PlayfulWalrus There is no reason allowing gays to marry will have ANY effect on straight marriage.

Neutering marriage dilutes it. Counterfeiting devalues the authentic. Marriage laws are part of public policy and apply to all. Neutering marriage changes the very meaning of marriage, and sends a clear message that, from a societal perspective, marriage is about the whims of two adults, not what is of most concern to society, and not about orgnizating and perpetuating society. Why does the the state care if two people love each other, or have the hots for each other?

Public policy about marriage, parenting, and family has an effect on all of us. State marriage licenses are issued on behalf of the people of a state. 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.

Gays are couples now without = rights

Individuals have rights. On what basis do we treat any TWO people equally? If they DO the same thing. Sex-segregated relationships are not equal to bride+groom relationships, and so there is no obligation to treat them equally.

Affirming Marriage Is Not Hateful

In July of 2008, the Pink Lady (known to some as the Los Angeles Times, tried to convince readers that Proposition 8 was doomed at the ballot box. Of course, it went on to be approved in November that year, adding the California Marriage Amendment to the state constitution.

The Los Angeles Times tried to convince us that since what they see as the "in-crowd" supports marriage neutering and that those of us who honor the bride+groom construct should give up. Staff writers Jessica Garrison and Dan Morain reported. [NOTE: They now have a paywall, so free clicks are limited.]

A bare majority of California voters would continue to allow gay marriage, according to a new poll released Friday.

Yet again, that was extremely sloppy language used. Proposition 8 RESTORED bride-groom marriage licensing to the State of California. "Gay marriage" was not banned (and neither were round squares). Anyone, regardless of sexual orientation, could "marry" someone of the same sex in ceremonies, form legal partnerships, commit to each other, live with each other, etc. Passing Proposition 8 did not send the Gestapo (or, as one dispicable ad depicted, Mormon missionairies) into Metropolitan churches and homes and banquet halls to break up "gay marriages".

The Right to Vote

In early 2009, there was an entry on the Los Angeles Times blog [NOTE: The Pink Lady now has a paywall, that last I checked, kicked in after so many hits from you per month] about the LDS church contributions supporting the California Marriage Amendment. Of course, the entry prompted a bunch of the usual comments.  I'm picking out one to analyze here.
"scotch9" wrote on January 31, 2009 at 03:22 PM:

It would seem that the right wing conseravtive movement wants America to adopt a Middle easrten Style Government where religion dictates the thoughts and actions of people.

Not all right wing conservatives are traditionally religious. But I think he means the "religious right", and no, major personalities in the religious right do NOT want a theocracy. Actually, they (the Christian ones, anyway) await a benevolent dictatorship with the return of Christ, but until then they champion the Constitution.

For 233 years we have fought aganst this all around the world.

No, we haven't. We have fought tyranny in various ways, and that the California Supreme Court did by ordering the neutering of marriage licenses was tyrannical.

I know some are uncomfortable with same sex relationships. So what.

That's not the issue here (although you think state-issued marriage licenses mean affirmation). The issue here is who gets to decide state licensing requirements? A handful of people, or the voting citizenry?
The writer then goes on to compare present-day conservatives with Tories from the time of the American Revolution, defenders of American slavery, opponents of women's suffrage, segregationists, and Jim Crow proponents, before going on to this gem:

We were even attacked on Septemeber 11, 2001 by right wing conservative religious types screaming glory to the god they say is suprior to the God these American Chistains rage for, and they say,makes them superior to gay persons. These poeple seek to devide, inspire violence, murder, hate and create evil.

The hijackers were all male, too, so I guess all men are just like them.

They know all about all, just ask them.

Well if you aren't confident that you know anything, then why should anyone else listen to your opinion?

It is entirely possible that "conservatives" have been wrong on many things, but are right about this thing.

This is what people like me want: Limited, constitutional government. I don't want to come into your home using the force of law and tell you how to live. But that also means you can't come to me and take something from me without my approval. So if you want to live with someone of the same sex, exchange vows and jewelry and names with them, have a party, go on vacation together, and all of that, you are free to do so.  But when you march on down to a building that is paid for by the taxpayers, and ask a public servant to issue you a state marriage license on behalf of the people of California, then the people of California, including me, have a right to say "no" if you don't meet the requirements, as long as the requirements are clear and applied equally. And that's exactly what we do. Men and women can get marriage licenses, regardless of sexual orientation. Women are not excluded. Homosexuals are not excluded.

I also have the right to practice my religion and vote as I choose.

Defending Your Support of Marriage

Are you being criticized for your defense of marriage, and state licenses requiring both a bride and a groom, rather than excluding women or excluding men? Maybe friends, family, bosses, customers, coworkers, social networking contacts, bloggers, and commenters have lashed out and you or pressured you?  Maybe you have received angry calls from strangers that you perceived as threatening bodily harm to you, but in retrospect, you realize that the person calling you willingly subjects himself to the described treatment for jollies? Have you been called a hater or a bigot?
Well, I think I have a solution.
Feel free to copy and paste this defense I am providing below.  You don’t even have to give me credit.  Just be sure to modify it so your critic's name appears in the salutation. Modify as necessary to be relevant to your circumstances. I refer to California Proposition 8, for example.

Shall We Vote on Your Marriage Now?

That, or some variation of that, was used by some protestors against California's marriage amendment, voted in as Proposition 8, and has been used ever since in the USA and around the world regarding disputes about neutering marriage. It is used by demonstrators in person and online and in print.
They are trying to stir sympathy, asking you to place yourself in their shoes. But what is the logical argument, if any, being made? It seems to be "You voted against licensing my relationship as marriage, and that hurts because I want my relationship to be licensed as marriage."
I'm sure I’ll be corrected if I am wrong.
We've all wanted something, at sometime in our lives, that was wrong, or that wasn't ours to have, or wasn't even possible. That we want something doesn't mean we have a right to have it. It still isn't a right even if a bunch of us want it. It still isn't a right even if a court one day says it is. Wanting something doesn't mean it is right that you get it, or that any means used to get it are right.
Marriage has existed for all of human history. Our state, our current governments, did not create it. It recognizes it and has chosen to license it. There is a reason that the state is involved in marriage licensing, and it isn't because anyone has a right to a marriage license. It isn't so that the state can reward two people for finding love, mutual attraction, or good times together. There is a reason marriage throughout history has united the sexes, and that state licensing of marriage has reflected that.
And those reasons have nothing to do with stopping anyone from engaging in same-sex partnering or physical activity, or punishing people for having same-sex attractions, or trying to make such people feel bad. It does not prevent same-sex couples from living together, committing to each other, forming legal relationships, or considering themselves married or being treated by others as married.
As I've said many times, there is no right to a state-issued license against the demonstrated will of the state voters. True rights do not obligate others without their consent, unless a crime has been committed. When you ask someone (the people of California, for example) for something (a marriage license), they have the right to say "no".  We have the freedom of speech. It is even enumerated in the Constitution. But I do not have a right to force you to read this blog or listen to what I have to say – because that would obligate you without your consent.
Marriage defenders are not the people who took this matter to the courts. In doing so, same-sex partners were already subjecting their marriages to a vote – a vote by the judges. Since our government rules through the consent of the governed, marriage licensing stipulations fall under our authority. Even with equal access/protection and nondiscrimination laws, there is no compelling reason for a court to force neutered marriage licensing, because there is equal access to traditional marriage licenses for both men and women of any sexual orientation. That someone does not want to get that license under current terms does not compel a change. That I prefer to grow and eat vegetables instead of fish does not mean that something is wrong with fishing licenses, even if people will mount large catches on their wall and receive praise, while nobody cares as much that I grow tasty vegetables.
Now given that marriage licensing is up to the people of the state, what about that original question?  What if people voted to change marriage licensing so that only same-sex couples could get them?  I wouldn't be happy about it, but it wouldn't stop me from being married to my wife. I would still be happy with her, I would still live my life married to her, whether or not the state licensed it. That is because my marriage is based on biological fact and it is part of a historical tradition and is about our commitment to each other before God.
There is nothing stopping anyone from circulating a petition to change marriage licensing in such a way. So far, there has been ONE state where someone neutered marriage licensing by circulating a petition to get in on on the ballot, getting it on the ballot, and the voters approving it. So if they get enough signatures, it will get on the ballot. If the ballot measure gets enough votes, it will pass.  So if you want to vote on my marriage, I say... go for it. My happiness does not depend on what you think of my marriage.

Does the Constitution Prohibit Voting According Religious Beliefs?

The answer should be obvious, but all throughout the push to neuter marriage, people have said things that either explicitly or implicity indicate that those with religious beliefs about sex and marriage that are incompatible with those of the Left are not allowed to vote according to thier beliefs. The same goes for abortion.

To give you an example, on March 9, 2009 the Orange County Register printed a short letter from a Carey Strombotne that asked "If church and state are separate, why then do religious people have the right to weigh in on the issue of Proposition 8?"

The  paper subsequently printed several responses at this URL. (Note that the OCR now has a paywall in place.)

It is a perversion of the American system to suggest that citizens should not be able to vote according to their conscience. If that includes notions that are also found in tradtional, organized religion, so be it. Non-religious arguments have been made for the California Marriage Amendment and similar laws. Non-religious arguments have been made supporting the state's interest in licensing marriage as something uniting the sexes.

Is Your News Source Lying To You?

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

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

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

Here's the truth:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Previously:

Neutered Marriage Means Marriage Can't Be About Children

Neutering Marriage: Where We Are and What It Means

Manipulation & Misreporting of Polls to Advocate Marriage Neutering

Marriage Neutering and Newspeak

It's Not a "Ban on Gay Marriage"

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