Marriage Protection Act

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

Makkun, I think the only reason people are outraged about gay marriage is that it would nail the coffin solidly shut on the idea that the United States is a christian nation.

While the bible is a little circumspect about the whole gay thing (how circumspect depends on who you ask), it does positively proclaim that marriage is between a man and a woman. If we change that, we’re effectively demonstrating that the bible is no longer the underlying reason behind our morality laws, and that scares the crap out of some people.

42

[quote]rainjack wrote:
makkun wrote:
… Yes, it would help “normalise” the lifestyle of a minority…

That is where your whole argument falls apart, and where I refuse budge. The gay community is not a minority. It is a lifestyle choice.
[/quote]

Sorry Rainjack,
I do not get your point here.

I thought a minority is defined as a group of people that are, well, not many - that would be a majority then. But if the gay community is not a minority, a democratic system should not have a problem implementing its demands, because most people would sympathise with its goals. Last time I checked, living gay was not majority behaviour. Hence, I would dare say it is a minority.

If your reference to “life-style” means that gay people have a choice if they live their life as gay people - be my guest. A society based on personal freedom let’s people live the way they want to. That means people can be Christian, Muslim, Atheist, Bodybuilders, married, promiscuous, vegetarian, whatever. If being gay is a choice (which I am not entirely sure of), should it then not be endorsed as it is a legal and for some people obviously fulfilling endeavour?

Now back to my main problem: Following your logic (as far as I got it), why would should anyone speak against a majority life-style choice? Why is that an argument against gay marriage?

Please help me understand.

43

Makkun,

“I understand that it would mean a substantial change in society, if gay marriage were allowed. Yes, it would help “normalise” the lifestyle of a minority, and this is being pushed by (sometimes quite strong) activism, introducing many consequences into our societies.”

Your argument is about the benefits of ‘normalizing’ for minorities. Assuming you are right, it makes the case for all ‘minority’ relationships outside the mainstream. Are you willing to allow for all ‘minorities’ or just homosexuals?

“What I cannot understand is the outrage with which the appeal for gay marriage is often confronted - as if it would mean the end of the family, or western civilisation. No argument has convinced me yet that gay marriage would have any negative consequences for society (or the family or children) in general. I would rather see it as another variation in the way we let people pursue their happiness and thus contribute to society in a positive way.”

In my view, there is nothing but danger in experimentation of the family arrangement. We should be trying to strengthen the historical arrangement rather than trying to redefine it and experiment with it.

Why? Because non-traditional family arrangements are artificial. They are mere constructs for the sake of doing it differently. If we are in a science lab, experiment away. But faced with the responsibility of raising children, the youngsters shouldn’t be proverbial guineau pigs just so certain relationships outside the mainstream or the conventional can feel better about themselves. And that’s ultimately the motive - seeking legitimacy for their behavior.

My belief in protecting traditional marriage and family arrangments goes to what I personally believe is best for the raising of children - masculine and feminine roles filled by men and women, respectively, naturally. Adults have been ridiculously irresponsible with their parenting in the past 15 years - the divorce rate has been a national tragedy, the laissez-faire approaches to their children’s guidance in this postmodern version of family sociology have been shameful - and the children, through no fault of their own, are the ones stuck with the check when they grow into adults.

44

I agree that, in it’s purest definition, the gay lifestyle is a minority choice.

I don’t begrudge anyone the right to engage in whatever activity they choose - regardless of my moral views.

My problem - and I think this is where I might have confused you - is this: To equate the gay lifestyle with other minority groups such as blacks, hispanics, asians, or the handicapped, and afford them with the federally protected rights of said groups is wrong.

45

[quote]Pyotr wrote:
I can’t believe some of the silly notions I am reading here. I am gay, and I am married. I hear people calling legal recognition of my marriage “all about what I want,” “a slippery slope,” “not conducive to a stable relationship,” and other silly comments.[/quote]

Well, since two of the three silly comments you mention are mine, please allow me to introduce myself personally. I was referring to the characteristic of selfishness in both of those comments, in which case they are both indisputably true, and applicable to ANY relationship.

These comments epitomize those leftist grand generalities that are very abstract and impossible to concretely define (there is a very long list of these, perhaps worthy of its own thread). I would ask you to clarify each of those points, using specific language, explaining how it “builds the community,” constitutes “simple justice,” “builds morality” and “helps children.”

BostonBarrister has done an excellent job explaining the legal side of this debate. A bit of research has turned up what might be the societal results.

The sociological implications, which many here are referring to as panicking or some related thing, are real and serious, and are supported by a great deal of research. More than ten thousand studies have concluded that kids do best when they are raised by loving and committed mothers and fathers. They are less likely to be on drugs, less likely to be held back in or drop out of school, less likely to commit suicide, less likely to be in poverty, less likely to become juvenile delinquents, and for the girls, less likely to become teen mothers. They are healthier both emotionally and physically, even thirty years later, than those without traditional parents.

Social scientists have been very consistent about the impact of fractured families. If present trends continue, many children will have several moms and dads, and numerous grandparents and half-siblings. They will be caught in an unpredictable pattern of living arrangements (think about the lives of children in broken heterosexual marriages: they too tend to have more social problems). Thus is the fruit of an environment where nothing is stable and where people think primarily about themselves. What will happen when homosexuals with children become divorced and re"marry"? Instead of two moms/dads, they will have to contend with three or four. How would you like to be a new husband a generation later who instantly had four or six or eight mother-in-laws. All that is to say that if marriage and the biologically functional family are undermined, so is orderly society. I refer again to the comment I made earlier about the destruction of the Black family via welfare. It may seem nice and innocuous and harmless now, but we have to look a few generations down the road.

I wish it were as simple as “letting people just do what they want,” because you may not recognize it, but I very much believe in “live and let live.” Unfortunately, this issue is not so simple. Understand that if you are “gay” and your procilvities are in that direction, I have no desire to stop you. I might, however, want to try to understand what happened in your life to lead you that way. Very often homosexuality is linked to some deficiency in the realtionship a person had with their parents, particularly the same-sex one.

This is an interesting topic. I hope you don’t take my views personally and I hope we can keep the tenor gentlemanly, as I am sure you are a perfectly likable guy, even if I’m not. :slight_smile:

I gather you live outside the US?

46

Traditional marriage itself was an experiment at one time. You folks wrap it up in fancy historic claptrap, but it really placed a woman in servitude to a man.

The reason traditional marriage is failing is because it no longer represents what it used to. Women are no longer depedent on men for survival as they once were.

Anyway, on another tack, the US once had a second class of citizens which were kept as slaves. This was wrong, and the elimination of this practice was resisted. Now, the US has various second class citizens known as minorities. This is probably also wrong and perhaps one day the practice will be eliminated.

However, given the shoddy educational system and the large number of rednecks, it might be impossible to root out discriminatory behavior and attitudes.

Y’know, I’m glad I’m not a minority in any capacity that I’m aware of…

47

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Makkun,

“I understand that it would mean a substantial change in society, if gay marriage were allowed. Yes, it would help “normalise” the lifestyle of a minority, and this is being pushed by (sometimes quite strong) activism, introducing many consequences into our societies.”

Your argument is about the benefits of ‘normalizing’ for minorities. Assuming you are right, it makes the case for all ‘minority’ relationships outside the mainstream. Are you willing to allow for all ‘minorities’ or just homosexuals?[/quote]

Good question. But what other minorities are we talking about? Shoe-fetishists can already marry. :wink:
My point is that there is a significantly big enough group in society which often already lives in quasi-marriage relationships, and in some cases actually raises children, as if they were married. I do not see any other legally accepted group filing for marriage. And, I do not want gay marriage for the benefit of normalising it for the minority - I want it to actually help strengthen family (see below).

[quote]“What I cannot understand is the outrage with which the appeal for gay marriage is often confronted - as if it would mean the end of the family, or western civilisation. No argument has convinced me yet that gay marriage would have any negative consequences for society (or the family or children) in general. I would rather see it as another variation in the way we let people pursue their happiness and thus contribute to society in a positive way.”

In my view, there is nothing but danger in experimentation of the family arrangement. We should be trying to strengthen the historical arrangement rather than trying to redefine it and experiment with it.

Why? Because non-traditional family arrangements are artificial. They are mere constructs for the sake of doing it differently. If we are in a science lab, experiment away.[/quote]

I am not proposing this for experimentation’s sake. If you check a little bit into the history of marriage and how people have organised relationships, you will see that what we view as “normal” is also just convention. Just a bit older. This is how culture works - tried and true systems start failing and they are replaced or amended accordingly. What I propose is merely more flexibility in dealing with this change.

Here, I beg to differ. A gay person does not need to legitimise his/her behaviour. And being gay is not necessarily an ego-trip.
Even if so - people are not only just one thing. There are conservative, christian gay people who believe in the holyness of marriage. They love children and want to raise them according to the beliefs shared with their heterosexual brethren. People who actually care about marriage and children. What is so wrong with that?

[quote]
My belief in protecting traditional marriage and family arrangments goes to what I personally believe is best for the raising of children - masculine and feminine roles filled by men and women, respectively, naturally. Adults have been ridiculously irresponsible with their parenting in the past 15 years - the divorce rate has been a national tragedy, the laissez-faire approaches to their children’s guidance in this postmodern version of family sociology have been shameful - and the children, through no fault of their own, are the ones stuck with the check when they grow into adults.[/quote]

Here, I mostly agree with you. I just do not think that sociology as a descriptive science is responsible for the downfall of family/marriage, etc. It is the majority of adults (hey, that’s us!) who is responsible. So in that sense, we have already “experimented” with the family - by choosing to neglect it / or not being able to relate to it anymore (choose one, or both).
And here comes one way to help (definitely not the only one): Open up marriage and family to people who are really motivated to fulfil their duty to society, by getting married and raising children. No one who does not want to should be coerced - just the ones who want should be let.

48

Rainjack,

[quote]rainjack wrote:
I agree that, in it’s purest definition, the gay lifestyle is a minority choice.

I don’t begrudge anyone the right to engage in whatever activity they choose - regardless of my moral views.

My problem - and I think this is where I might have confused you - is this: To equate the gay lifestyle with other minority groups such as blacks, hispanics, asians, or the handicapped, and afford them with the federally protected rights of said groups is wrong.[/quote]

Thanks for explaining - it helped understand your viewpoint better.

But I cannot see why it would be wrong to give people equal rights. I mean, I don’t propose some kind of affirmative action here (funny thought, that :wink: ), just letting the (perhaps even few) people who want to strengthen the backbone of society (sorry, that sounded a bit corny) do their bit.
I do not even see a moral conflict here. There would be off course quite a few legal and bureaucratic problems - but I don’t think they are impossible to solve.

49

Vroom,

“Traditional marriage itself was an experiment at one time. You folks wrap it up in fancy historic claptrap, but it really placed a woman in servitude to a man.”

This is absolutely one of the most ignorant statements I have seen here.

Marriage does not place women in servitude to men. Marriage has existed in matriarchal societies, where women have the power of lineage and inheritance. Traditional marriage relationships stem from an easy path of development: heterosexual union that produces offspring and the ability of each gender to provide something unique to the raising of children. A woman’s access to power or status was determined more by the culture she lived in - ancient Egyptians had equal rights for women in law, if not always in practice - but the institution of marriage transcends the various societies and their social norms about the staus of women.

“The reason traditional marriage is failing is because it no longer represents what it used to. Women are no longer depedent on men for survival as they once were.”

Absolute nonsense. Vroom, you’re just reaching at phantoms. In fact, marriage developed in contrast to concubinage, the ultimate form dependency and indeed, slavery.

Your Marxist/feminist critiques aren’t supported by history. There have been all kinds of marital relationships - arranged, compulsory, property rights arrangement, love - but your theory of ‘instant oppression’ is unsubstantiated.

“Anyway, on another tack, the US once had a second class of citizens which were kept as slaves. This was wrong, and the elimination of this practice was resisted. Now, the US has various second class citizens known as minorities. This is probably also wrong and perhaps one day the practice will be eliminated.”

By second-class citizens, do you mean ‘ineligible to participate in the political process’? Slaves weren’t free and they could do nothing to change the government to improve their lot in life. Name another ‘minority’ in the US that isn’t free and isn’t eligible to use democratic process to change their situation.

“However, given the shoddy educational system and the large number of rednecks, it might be impossible to root out discriminatory behavior and attitudes.”

Shoddy educational system? Yes, in particular whatever courses spews forth a deconstruction of marriage in spite of the historical record. That’s a good a place as any for some serious reform. As for rednecks, I though the liberal-left were the champions of the lower classes, defenders of the weak, ignorant, and unwashed? Oh well, I guess you get to pick and choose when you’re a populist and when you’re an elitist. Moving on.

50

Makkun,

“I do not see any other legally accepted group filing for marriage.”

I’d recommend looking at the bigamist, polygamist, and polyandrist groups that want to gain legal legitimacy for their desired marital arrangements. In your mind, are they eligible for legal marriage? If not, why not?

“This is how culture works - tried and true systems start failing and they are replaced or amended accordingly.”

I don’t understand how marriage is failing. The institution of traditional marriage has had what negative impact on society?

If the institution itself is failing, then I agree it is due for reform. But I don’t believe the institution is failing. I think people are failing the institution.

“What I propose is merely more flexibility in dealing with this change.”

Which is why I support states being able to legislatively enacting gay marriage despite my disagreeing with it. If California or Massachusetts wants to redefine marriage, I think they should be able to. But I don’t want that experiment to be valid in a place where it is not accepted.

“Here, I beg to differ. A gay person does not need to legitimise his/her behaviour. And being gay is not necessarily an ego-trip.”

I don’t think being gay is an ‘ego-trip’ but I do think most homosexuals desire marriage not for the sake of the government benefits, but because it would be a public badge of acceptance of their lifestyle.

“Here, I mostly agree with you. I just do not think that sociology as a descriptive science is responsible for the downfall of family/marriage, etc. It is the majority of adults (hey, that’s us!) who is responsible.”

Absolutely agreed. I am not blaming the academic discipline of sociology for the mess - my point was that the new, fashionable ways to reinvent and view social relationships are dead ends.

“Open up marriage and family to people who are really motivated to fulfil their duty to society, by getting married and raising children. No one who does not want to should be coerced - just the ones who want should be let.”

And that’s where we differ - marriage is the vanguard of raising children, and I do not support children being raised in gay households. It is an experiment I don’t support, as expressed by my previous views.

51

Vroom got OWNED!!!

52

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Makkun,

“I do not see any other legally accepted group filing for marriage.”

I’d recommend looking at the bigamist, polygamist, and polyandrist groups that want to gain legal legitimacy for their desired marital arrangements. In your mind, are they eligible for legal marriage? If not, why not?[/quote]

As I said - these life-styles are not legal in our western societies. Homosexuality is. Hence, in my view it is acceptable for them to go for “more”.
As for these groups trying to gain legality - I guess it is better they try openly than breaking the law.[quote]

“This is how culture works - tried and true systems start failing and they are replaced or amended accordingly.”

I don’t understand how marriage is failing. The institution of traditional marriage has had what negative impact on society?

If the institution itself is failing, then I agree it is due for reform. But I don’t believe the institution is failing. I think people are failing the institution. [/quote]

Spot on! Here I absolutely agree. And I did not say marriage had a negative impact on society. I do say, the way we handle it nowadays might. I don’t say marriage should be abandoned - it should be reformed that it fits they way we nowadays live a little more. An institution itself has no meaning, if it is not supported by the people.

[quote]“What I propose is merely more flexibility in dealing with this change.”

Which is why I support states being able to legislatively enacting gay marriage despite my disagreeing with it. If California or Massachusetts wants to redefine marriage, I think they should be able to. But I don’t want that experiment to be valid in a place where it is not accepted.[/quote]

I absolutely agree with this. That’s democracy. I guess there is a legal issue of consistency (I think BostonBarrister explained it): If it is accepted in one state it must be accepted in all of them.[quote]

I don’t think being gay is an ‘ego-trip’ but I do think most homosexuals desire marriage not for the sake of the government benefits, but because it would be a public badge of acceptance of their lifestyle.[/quote]

That might be - but why do heterosexual couples marry nowadays? It is not illegal (or ostracised) to have sex outside of marriage; even children. And - how many couples marry without planning to actually raise a family? Isn’t that also just a life-style choice, sealed with a public badge? Gay and heterosexual people pretty much live in the same individualistic society - and their behaviours differ surprisingly minimally.[quote]

“Here, I mostly agree with you. I just do not think that sociology as a descriptive science is responsible for the downfall of family/marriage, etc. It is the majority of adults (hey, that’s us!) who is responsible.”

Absolutely agreed. I am not blaming the academic discipline of sociology for the mess - my point was that the new, fashionable ways to reinvent and view social relationships are dead ends.[/quote]

Possibly - and I am actually not even convinced if institutionalised gay marriage will “work” in the end. I just think that we should try and find out, so our societies can get new and beneficiary impulses.

[quote]“Open up marriage and family to people who are really motivated to fulfil their duty to society, by getting married and raising children. No one who does not want to should be coerced - just the ones who want should be let.”

And that’s where we differ - marriage is the vanguard of raising children, and I do not support children being raised in gay households. It is an experiment I don’t support, as expressed by my previous views.[/quote]

Given the fact that it is already happening, and has always happened in hidden forms, I think it is not even an experiment. And I think we can give our children more credit - I think they can handle it, when they see that society supports them.

Do I think that it is best for children to grow up with male and female adults (preferably their parents) that respect them and show them how to live by being good role models? Yes. Do I think that if that formula fails for whatever reason, and children have to grow up under other circumstances, that there is a danger to them? Yes. But that danger can be thwarted by an effort of the people surrounding them, providing them with as positive role models as they can be. And there are in my view worse role models than a gay couple who really does its best.

BTW thunderbolt23, I really enjoy this debate. Good arguments! :slight_smile:

53

The assertion that being gay is a “lifestyle choice” is absurd. I was born gay, and I tried for 40 years to become straight. I tried more methods of becoming straight than you could ever imagine, and worked at this religiously day in and day out for FORTY years. I finally realized that it is impossible. There is not ONE scientifically proven instance of anyone ever changing sexual orientation.

That aside, it doesn’t matter whether you accept me, like me, or think I AM a silly lifestyle choice. I am an American. I live a more honorable life than anyone you ever MET, I am quite certain. And I deserve equal rights. It’s as simple as that.

Saying that marriage is for procreation is a fine argument, if you want to make it, but I must insist that heterosexual couples who do NOT then have children should be disqualified from having the rights of marriage.

Someone called gays raising children a social experiment… well it is hardly that. I have worked in the ghetto for years helping poor children. I have seen COUNTLESS heterosexual parents abandon their children and leave them to roam the dangerous streets. I have also seem COUNTLESS gay couples adopt these children and TRANSFORM those same kids into loving, brilliant, well-adjusted, beautiful children gleaming with self-confidence. DON’T try to tell me about the “superiority” of hetero parenting. From what Ive seen, if judged objectively, we should ban heteros from raising children and only let gays raise them because we do a MUCH better job than our straight brothers and sisters do overall. if you have ever read studies comparing gay and straight parents, and MET some gay parents, you would quickly realize that gay parents are the BEST parents, not a silly “Social experiment.” We are saving LIVES and we have been doing it for decades. It is not new.

54

It takes a man and a woman to make a baby.

It takes a mom and a dad to raise a child.

Not daycare.
Not a single parent.
Not a gay couple.

It takes a mom and a dad.

55

[quote]Pyotr wrote:
The assertion that being gay is a “lifestyle choice” is absurd. I was born gay, and I tried for 40 years to become straight. I tried more methods of becoming straight than you could ever imagine, and worked at this religiously day in and day out for FORTY years. I finally realized that it is impossible. There is not ONE scientifically proven instance of anyone ever changing sexual orientation.

That aside, it doesn’t matter whether you accept me, like me, or think I AM a silly lifestyle choice. I am an American. I live a more honorable life than anyone you ever MET, I am quite certain. And I deserve equal rights. It’s as simple as that.

Saying that marriage is for procreation is a fine argument, if you want to make it, but I must insist that heterosexual couples who do NOT then have children should be disqualified from having the rights of marriage.

Someone called gays raising children a social experiment… well it is hardly that. I have worked in the ghetto for years helping poor children. I have seen COUNTLESS heterosexual parents abandon their children and leave them to roam the dangerous streets. I have also seem COUNTLESS gay couples adopt these children and TRANSFORM those same kids into loving, brilliant, well-adjusted, beautiful children gleaming with self-confidence. DON’T try to tell me about the “superiority” of hetero parenting. From what Ive seen, if judged objectively, we should ban heteros from raising children and only let gays raise them because we do a MUCH better job than our straight brothers and sisters do overall. if you have ever read studies comparing gay and straight parents, and MET some gay parents, you would quickly realize that gay parents are the BEST parents, not a silly “Social experiment.” We are saving LIVES and we have been doing it for decades. It is not new. [/quote]

I suppose one uses the word “COUNTLESS” multiple times when there are no studies whatsoever to back up claims? Sorry, but I have rarely seen a post with more contentions and only the appeal to personal experience as a buttress. This is good polemic, but it takes away from the reasoned debate of the thread.

56

For the Constitutional scholars, Professor Volokh, a UCLA Con-Law prof with 1st Amendment specialty, has weighed in on the constitutionality issue:

[Links embedded in original post]

http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2004_07_21.shtml#1090973631

[Eugene Volokh, July 27, 2004 at 8:13pm] Possible Trackbacks
Jurisdiction-stripping:

Several people e-mailed me to ask whether HR 3133, which was just passed by the House, is constitutional. The bill would provide that:

No court created by Act of Congress shall have any jurisdiction, and the Supreme Court shall have no appellate jurisdiction, to hear or decide any question pertaining to the interpretation of, or the validity under the Constitution of, section 1738C or this section.

Legal scholars have spent decades and volumes discussing the question of when Congress may strip federal courts of jurisdiction over certain matters. I’m not an expert on the subject, so I was reluctant to weigh in; and a brief conversation with my colleague Gary Rowe, who does know the literature, reinforced my reluctance. So I can offer only a few observations:

  As I noted here, such a bill may do more harm than good even from its proponents' viewpoint:

      Even if federal courts lose jurisdiction over objections to some statute, state courts would still be able to entertain them -- state courts must enforce the U.S. Constitution just as much as federal courts do (that's in art. VI, sec. 2). If people are worried that the U.S. Supreme Court may strike down the Defense of Marriage Act, then they should be worried that state supreme courts may do the same; and even those state supreme courts that might not take this view on their own might feel moved by precedents from other states, since courts throughout the country tend to try to interpret the U.S. Constitution consistently with the decisions of other courts.

      What's more, if a state supreme court does hold DOMA unconstitutional under the U.S. Constitution, then there'll be no remedy (short of impeaching the state supreme court Justices). Amending the state constitution, which is a remedy for state supreme court decisions based on the state constitution -- such as the Goodridge gay marriage decision in the Massachusetts -- will do nothing to change the state court's interpretation of the U.S. constitution. And an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court won't be possible, because the Court has been stripped of jurisdiction to hear the case. (I suppose one could strip the Court of jurisdiction to hear appeals from decisions upholding DOMA but not from decisions invalidating DOMA, but then if the Court upholds a decision invalidating DOMA, DOMA will be invalid throughout the country.)

      True, the jurisdiction-stripping would at least confine the DOMA invalidations to those states where the supreme courts rendered such decisions; that's something DOMA supporters might appreciate. But my sense is that they won't be wild even about this result, especially since the alternative might be the Supreme Court's upholding DOMA on a nationwide basis. It seems to me that if you really want to make sure a statute isn't invalidated, a narrowly tailored constitutional amendment (not the currently talked-about Musgrave draft Federal Marriage Amendment, which would go far beyond protecting DOMA) is indeed the first-best alternative, especially when it seems like it could well be politically plausible.

  Such a jurisdiction-stripping statute would nonetheless probably be constitutional, because of article III, section 2, clause 2 of the Constitution (emphasis added):

      In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

  (The "state shall be party" original jurisdiction proviso won't help, because under another provision of article III, coupled with the Eleventh Amendment and certain longstanding court interpretations, lawsuits by individuals against states basically aren't covered under the Court's original jurisdiction.)

  People would still be able to assert their federal constitutional rights -- just in state courts, which are also required to follow the U.S. Constitution, rather than in federal courts. (Recall that the Constitution doesn't even require Congress to create subordinate federal courts at all, and, as the quote above shows, specifically authorizes Congress to limit even the Supreme Court's appellate authority.) My understanding, from what Gary said, is that this is the majority view among leading federal courts scholars.

  However, as I mentioned, some highly respected scholars argue otherwise; and Gary very kindly let me put on the Web his summary of the debate that he distributes to his students. It's aimed at law students, and refers to other readings that they were assigned, so it will likely be quite cryptic; but I pass it along in case some of you find it interesting.

Please note that Gary is doing me a favor by letting me distribute this; please don’t bother him with any questions, counterarguments, or corrections. Please also note that, as I said, I myself am not an expert on the subject, and my view in item 2 above is based on a casual analysis, not any serious learning on the matter. I don’t expect to blog much more on the subject, but I thought I’d pass along what I had.

57

Um… a few questions:

First of all, how does homosexual relationships out in the open do more damage to the institution of marriage than adultery, divorce, and the kind of extreme selfishness that Dr. Laura’s book “the Proper Care and Feeding of Husbands” devotes itself to fighting?
(Note to homosexuals: that book isn’t just for heteros- or even women. It’s simply that Dr. Laura found such selfishness to be exceptionally strong amongst hetero women instilled with the “Me First” mentality, so that’s who the book focuses on)

Second of all, if this is a Christian nation, where do I and the other Jews go? Will there be trains involved? Will we have to ride with the Wiccans and the Asatruar?

Third, from what I understand, the reason that the proposed “amendment” is being fought over, is because all legal permits and certifications issued by one state are recognized by all others, by force of law. Which is why a driver’s license is good in all 50 states. So why isn’t a CCW(Concealed Weapons Carry) permit from one state accepted in all 50 states?

Fourth, the statement of 1% of the population being homosexual. I’d heard the same- but it was one tenth of 1%. And it was a door to door survey. The survey actually shows the number of people in the survey sample who would admit to being gay when questioned by complete strangers showing up at the front door and demanding “are you a homosexual?” How many of the other figures presented here, by both sides, also fit the saying, “there are lies, damned lies, and statistics?”

Fifth, I have a number of transgendered friends. Friends who take soy based products specifically for the testosterone sapping effects, and who run the gamut from hermaphrodites to MTFs and FTMs who get upset at terms like “Shemale” or “Dickgirl” to trannies who embrace such terms while looking for someone to love. Who should they marry?
(note to reactionaries: imagine a woman who looks like Brittney Spears in every regard, save for a penis that gets rock hard on your account. And loves anal sex. And knows exactly how to pleasure your cock, based on personal experience. What is your reaction now?)

Sixth, how many of you were raised in a binary heterosexual home? Was it everything the right claims it was? No physical/emotional/sexual abuse by a parent, no constant fighting, no hypocrisies such as a substance addicted parent lecturing on the dangers of drugs and alcohol?

Seventh(and last, I promise), there are actually three types of marriage. The first is a legal contract entered into between two or more persons, stipulating duties and legal benefits for a set amount of time. This could be monogamy for life and “for better and for worse,” a polygamous relationship ending when the male partner chooses, an open relationship ending when the partners choose to part ways(Gypsy wedding: “I swear to leave you the moment I am no longer in love. Today, Tomorrow, or a Thousand Years from now”), or any other type of contract considered valid by the law of the land. The second is a spiritual bonding between the partners involved, which no one save their deity can either join nor sunder. The third is a ritual, often set in a religious house of worship. Which of these three is being objected to?

58

It takes a mom and a dad.

Oh really? With a fifty percent divorce rate these days, I wonder. I certainly had a mom and a dad, but I was raised by my mother after the divorce.

What a pile of emotional bullshit…

59

Archone,

“First of all, how does homosexual relationships out in the open do more damage to the institution of marriage than adultery, divorce…”

Who said that homosexuality in the open did more damage to traditional marriage than adultery or divorce?

“Second of all, if this is a Christian nation, where do I and the other Jews go? Will there be trains involved? Will we have to ride with the Wiccans and the Asatruar?”

Please. It’s foolish to play the whiney victim card here, especially given the fact that no one is suggesting making it illegal to be a ‘minority’, regardless of your definition. This suggestion is just stupid.

“Fifth, I have a number of transgendered friends. Friends who take soy based products specifically for the testosterone sapping effects, and who run the gamut from hermaphrodites to MTFs and FTMs who get upset at terms like “Shemale” or “Dickgirl” to trannies who embrace such terms while looking for someone to love. Who should they marry?”

The opposite of their biological sex, if they so choose.

“…(note to reactionaries: imagine a woman who looks like Brittney Spears in every regard, save for a penis that gets rock hard on your account. And loves anal sex. And knows exactly how to pleasure your cock, based on personal experience. What is your reaction now?)”

My reaction, is, um, oh yeah, I’m not gay. Next question.

“Sixth, how many of you were raised in a binary heterosexual home? Was it everything the right claims it was? No physical/emotional/sexual abuse by a parent, no constant fighting, no hypocrisies such as a substance addicted parent lecturing on the dangers of drugs and alcohol?”

This has nothing to do with the gay marriage argument. It’s a red herring. I’m sure there are many problems in many homes - what does that have to do with anything? If gay marriages were allowed to exist and gay households were the norm, are you suggesting that they would not suffer from the problems listed above?

“Seventh(and last, I promise), there are actually three types of marriage.”

Actually, there is only one being debated here - the state-recognized and state-endorsed marriage. Anyone can get into any relationship they choose privately, and they often do. Whether that be homsoexual monogamy, swinging wife-swapping among married folks, seriosly committed three-way relationships, etc. The debate is over what the state will recognize as legitimate, legal, and worthy of state endorsement.

60

vroom -

Maybe that is emotional bullshit to you, but it is true nonetheless.

That’s why the family is in such a sorry state today - moms and dads aren’t staying together.

Did you ever miss your dad? Did you ever wish your parents had not split?

CS said it in one of his blog posts - to raise healthy kids requires not only a mom, but a DAD.

vroom - If I’m wrong - counter me. Do better than just calling bullshit - prove it.