I don’t understand why you need to reduce human relationships to the “biological” when there is so much more involved.

No argument from me, but then, I didn’t reduce human relationships to the “biological” as you imply.

The topic is marriage. The state has made marriage its business. The common requirements for marriage are that they involve no more than one man and one woman. The couple may not be too closely related. The couple must both be older than an age set by law. The mental capacity of each person must be sufficient to understand the marriage contract and its ramifications.

You, I assume, are subject to the 14th Amendment. You are not denied access to marriage if you examine the above restrictions. It is your contention that two men or two women should be permitted to marry under the law. You want to change the one man, one woman restriction.

Why only two? Why a prohibition from marrying a close relative? Perhaps a strong case for a person and his beloved animal could be addressed with your own words: “I don’t understand why you need to reduce human relationships to the ‘biological’ when there is so much more involved.” To play the sophist, you did not specify that it be a relationship between two humans. You only referred to “human relationships” which could well be a group of humans and their animals or a group of humans who prefer little children, etc. You find this observation:

From that and your obvious contempt for gays and their relationships — stated in grossly insulting terms — I can see that there’s no real dialogue possible here.

Your concern vis a vis marriage is not “biological” because sex between two or many men can not possibly involve the state in concerns over parentage. In that same vein, sex between a two or more men of close kinship can not possibly involve the state in concerns over parentage. The same points also involve two or more women, although the state can be dragged into issues concerning parentage if one or more engage in some type of insemination.

The state interest in marriage is strongly concerned with the “biological” component. The gay desire to redefine the one man, one woman requirement can not possibly be based on shifting the “biological” component. So, where does that leave the gay stand?

I fully understand the desire of some gays to find “fulfillment” by exchanging vows and becoming “married.” What, in fact, does being “married” do for the gay couple? How will the society in general be improved?

I have read extensively in this whole issue and I can not find anything that remotely resembles a compelling argument for reworking the ages old tradition of marriage in our culture.

Gays make up a miniscule part of our society. For gays to convince the society at large to change its terms for marriage, gays will have to develop that convincing argument.

The words you have written concerning my person and my ability to reason would seem to display why you are probably not the messenger who will inform society on the compelling reasons for gay marriage.

I am disappointed in how easily you decided to “rest your case.” You seem to believe that I have hung myself with my own words and that the rest is history.

Respectfully, you should never underestimate your adversary or over rely on your own perception of your cleverness.

I will be right here, if you decide to address the issues with respect and careful thinking.

And I present the counter, from the same post (#34).

I could care less what you and your beloved do in private. You deserve the respect of the law to borrow money, take guardianship, inherit, etc. A civil union would take care of that and would be a small change to the understandings of common law. But, your barren partnership defies the very meaning that underlies societies’ interest in regulating the institution of marriage.

Now, Hunter, you have established that, according to you, anyone who supports civil unions rather than marriage has an “obvious contempt for gays” and an obvious contempt for “their (gay) relationships”.

Now let’s see if you’ll apply that to Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

I don’t understand why you need to reduce human relationships to the “biological” when there is so much more involved.

Then you should support incestuous and bestial marriages, since the ban on those is based primarily on biology.

Our “lifestyle” includes such degenerate and disgusting things as going to work, paying the bills, cleaning house, running errands, and caring for the kids (for those of us who have them), and for each other. There’s not a whole lot of biology involved, but you don’t seem to be able to see beyond that.

Polygamous groups do all of the above too; therefore, in order to be consistent, you should legitimize those marriages as well.

And our relationships, if they are good ones, grow from mutual trust, respect, affection, caring, and yes, sex — just like anyone else’s.

Therefore, you should be allowed to marry anyone who makes you “happy” — which, as Heliotrope pointed out, can be applied to incestuous, child, bestial, and polygamous relationships as well.

The problem here is that you are unwilling to acknowledge the fact that an opposite-sex couple in the vast majority of cases is capable of producing and raising their own children — while no same-sex couple is capable of doing so. This is why, over thousands of years, the human race has experimented with, and largely tossed aside, other permutations like polygamy, child marriage, incestuous marriage, bestial marriage, and same-sex marriage; none of these provide the same combination of present stabilization and future perpetuation for society that our current definition of marriage does.

The problem is, Hunter, that you apparently believe that accepting your difference from heterosexuals means that you accept yourself as being inferior — and therefore, you demand that the definitions be changed so that you won’t be “inferior”, but instead “equal”. That makes no more sense than arguing that, since you cannot dribble as readily as other basketball players can, that the rules should be changed to eliminate dribbling. Stop obsessing over getting rid of dribbling and work on your passing and shooting skills.

People like Heliotrope are not antigay. They recognize that gay and straight couples are different and they support a legal structure that recognizes those differences.

And don’t forget that the bill legalizing same-sex marriage in New York has passed the NY house and is waiting for action from the senate.

Paterson’s position starts to look more and more solid.

What exactly proves to you that I have an “obvious contempt for gays” and an obvious contempt for “their (gay) relationships”?

Heliotrope, #34:

Hunter, you want to “happy” which means you want to marry someone of the same sex. Or an animal. Or your sibling. Or many people. Or a child. Or yourself. Or whatever. By forcing the state to permit you to be “happy” you see your choice as the “equal” of the traditional marriage formula. By “equal” you are actually saying that you want society at large to “respect” you and your life style.

I rest my case.

The “exercise” you have identified is an end run through the courts to try to force society to respect homosexuality as the biological equivalent to heterosexual unions.

Does the above still look like I have “obviously missed the whole point of the exercise…”?

I think you answered your own question.

I don’t understand why you need to reduce human relationships to the “biological” when there is so much more involved. From your ridiculous statement that we’re free to marry someone of the opposite sex, just like anyone else, I draw the conclusion that you don’t really have much respect for marriage: are you proposing we lie to our potential spouses, or that everyone enter into it tongue-in-cheek, as a charade? Not a lot of respect for the institution demonstrated there.

Our “lifestyle” includes such degenerate and disgusting things as going to work, paying the bills, cleaning house, running errands, and caring for the kids (for those of us who have them), and for each other. There’s not a whole lot of biology involved, but you don’t seem to be able to see beyond that.

And our relationships, if they are good ones, grow from mutual trust, respect, affection, caring, and yes, sex — just like anyone else’s. And as both the California and United States Supreme Courts have said, they are as deserving of respect as anyone’s relationships. (Which would seem to be a no-brainer.)

So, yes, based on your comments, I can confidently say that you have nothing but contempt for gay people and that as far as the issues are concerned, You. Just. Don’t. Get. It.

From that and your obvious contempt for gays and their relationships — stated in grossly insulting terms — I can see that there’s no real dialogue possible here.

Well, certainly not when you draw the snap opinion of me that you have. What exactly proves to you that I have an “obvious contempt for gays” and an obvious contempt for “their (gay) relationships”?

I would suggest that you find no room for dialog if you are up against someone who does not agree with you.

Your issue is that you want society to accept same sex marriage. I am unaware of any compelling reason you can put forth that would cause society to change the age old traditions of marriage.

If your nose is not too out of joint, come back and have a dialog.

With apologies for your bruised ego, you seem to have very carefully avoided the point of my comments, which is simply that the people do not have the final say on issues of civil rights, which this is.

I am talking about the courts producing new law. Claiming that same-sex marriage was the intent of any California legal document is to invent new law.

No one produced any new law, and the comment about same-sex marriage being the “intent” of the California constitution or any other legal document is beside the point. The “new law” that the court produced was simply that in the absence of a compelling state interest, the California constitution demands that the laws be applied equally to all, which is hardly a revolutionary concept, and is an intent I suspect no one will have any trouble finding in those “legal documents,” whatever thay are.

Now, you may disagree with the ruling and question the reasoning involved, but the process has been perfectly legitimate. If you know of a compelling state interest in refusing the right to marry to same-sex couples, I think you should make it known to the California Attorney General’s office. No one else seems to have done so.

And re: comment #37:

I see it’s dire prediction time — apparently, straight out of the Concerned Women for American phrasebook. Sorry, but I would find your comments highly amusing if they weren’t so sad.

This one, though:

It is up to society to channel polymorphous human sexuality into an exclusively heterosexual direction — until now, accomplished through marriage.

seems to indicate that all your pious statements about loving gays are just so much camouflage.

Heliotrope (#34):

But Hunter, what is all this stuff about “equality?” Grab the hand of a person of the opposite sex who is not too closely related to you, who is not retarded, who is of age and legally single and get married. You are acting on your status as an equal to everyone else in the society.

You can’t really be advancing that as a serious argument. Who writes your stuff, The Onion?

From that and your obvious contempt for gays and their relationships — stated in grossly insulting terms — I can see that there’s no real dialogue possible here.

http://www.townhall.com/MediaPlayer/AudioPlayer.aspx?ContentGuid=7e3d155b-99e3-4916-bc11-f9a43393480c

Like with most issues, I agree with him completely.

This is excerpt from an article he wrote a few weeks ago.

http://dennisprager.townhall.com/columnists/DennisPrager/2008/05/20/california_decision_will_radically_change_society

Americans seem mesmerized by the word “change.” And, by golly, they sure got it last week from the California Supreme Court. It is difficult to imagine a single social change greater than redefining marriage from opposite sex to include members of the same sex.

Nothing imaginable — leftward or rightward — would constitute as radical a change in the way society is structured as this redefining of marriage for the first time in history: Not another Prohibition, not government taking over all health care, not changing all public education to private schools, not America leaving the United Nations, not rescinding the income tax and replacing it with a consumption tax. Nothing.

…

Which leads to a third reason such a sea change could be so cavalierly imposed by four individuals — the modern supplanting of wisdom with compassion as the supreme guide in forming society’s values and laws. Just as for religious fundamentalists, “the Bible says” ends discussion, for liberal fundamentalists, “compassion says” ends discussion.

If this verdict stands, society as we have known it will change. The California Supreme Court and its millions of supporters are playing with fire. And it will eventually burn future generations in ways we can only begin to imagine.

Outside of the privacy of their homes, young girls will be discouraged from imagining one day marrying their prince charming — to do so would be declared “heterosexist,” morally equivalent to racist. Rather, they will be told to imagine a prince or a princess. Schoolbooks will not be allowed to describe marriage in male-female ways alone. Little girls will be asked by other girls and by teachers if they want one day to marry a man or a woman.

The sexual confusion that same-sex marriage will create among young people is not fully measurable. Suffice it to say that, contrary to the sexual know-nothings who believe that sexual orientation is fixed from birth and permanent, the fact is that sexual orientation is more of a continuum that ranges from exclusive heterosexuality to exclusive homosexuality. Much of humanity — especially females — can enjoy homosexual sex. It is up to society to channel polymorphous human sexuality into an exclusively heterosexual direction — until now, accomplished through marriage. But that of course is “heterosexism,” a bigoted preference for man-woman erotic love, and therefore to be extirpated from society.

Any advocacy of man-woman marriage alone will be regarded morally as hate speech, and shortly thereafter it will be deemed so in law

…

Traditional Jews and Christians — i.e. those who believe in a divine scripture — will be marginalized. Already Catholic groups in Massachusetts have abandoned adoption work since they will only allow a child to be adopted by a married couple as the Bible defines it — a man and a woman.

Anyone who advocates marriage between a man and a woman will be morally regarded the same as racist. And soon it will be a hate crime.

Indeed — and this is the ultimate goal of many of the same-sex marriage activists — the terms “male” and “female,” “man” and “woman” will gradually lose their significance. They already are. On the intellectual and cultural left, “male” and “female” are deemed social constructs that have little meaning. That is why same-sex marriage advocates argue that children have no need for both a mother and a father — the sexes are interchangeable. Whatever a father can do a second mother can do. Whatever a mother can do, a second father can do. Genitalia are the only real differences between the sexes, and even they can be switched at will.

And what will happen after divorce — which presumably will occur at the same rates as heterosexual divorce? A boy raised by two lesbian mothers who divorce and remarry will then have four mothers and no father.

We have entered something beyond Huxley’s “Brave New World.” All thanks to the hubris of four individuals. But such hubris never goes unanswered. Our children and their children will pay the price.

Anticipating reactions to this column — as to all defenses of man-woman marriage — that it or its author are “homophobic,” i.e., bigoted and unworthy of respectful rejoinder, it is important to reaffirm that nothing written here is implicitly, let alone explicitly, anti-gay. I take it as axiomatic that a gay man or woman is created in God’s image and as precious as any other human being. And I readily acknowledge that it is unfair when an adult is not allowed to marry the love of his or her choice. But social policy cannot be made solely on the basis of eradicating all of life’s unfairness. Thus, we must love the gay person — and his and or her partner as well. But we must never change the definition of marriage. The price to society and succeeding generations will be too great.

That is why Californians must amend their state’s Constitution.

But, since the leftist courts and governor in New York have argued that New York must respect all marriages contracted outside its borders, including in other countries like Canada, New York should now be forced to recognize child marriages from India, polygamous marriages from Saudi Arabia, and incestuous marriages from any number of countries in Africa.

You’ve obviously missed the whole point of the exercise, and the reason both the California and Massachusetts courts found for granting full marriage, and yet you’ve stated the reason yourself: you don’t see civil unions as equal. That’s because they’re not. And the issue here is equality.

Wow! I love that you call it an “exercise.” I could not have used any better term.

No, civil unions and marriage are not equal. Civil Unions, like common law marriage have the effect of marriage.

But Hunter, what is all this stuff about “equality?” Grab the hand of a person of the opposite sex who is not too closely related to you, who is not retarded, who is of age and legally single and get married. You are acting on your status as an equal to everyone else in the society.

Hunter, you want to “happy” which means you want to marry someone of the same sex. Or an animal. Or your sibling. Or many people. Or a child. Or yourself. Or whatever. By forcing the state to permit you to be “happy” you see your choice as the “equal” of the traditional marriage formula. By “equal” you are actually saying that you want society at large to “respect” you and your life style.

The “exercise” you have identified is an end run through the courts to try to force society to respect homosexuality as the biological equivalent to heterosexual unions.

Does the above still look like I have “obviously missed the whole point of the exercise…”?

I could care less what you and your beloved do in private. You deserve the respect of the law to borrow money, take guardianship, inherit, etc. A civil union would take care of that and would be a small change to the understandings of common law. But, your barren partnership defies the very meaning that underlies societies’ interest in regulating the institution of marriage.

(Now you need to throw the old canard at me that if same sex marriage isn’t allowed, then barren heterosexuals should be barred as well. It is not about whether the plumbing works; it is about whether the plumbing is able to work.)

I am not talking about Judicial Review by which an existing law is evualated against the Constitution, other law, or other precedent.

I am talking about the courts producing new law. Claiming that same-sex marriage was the intent of any California legal document is to invent new law.

Plus I like to say that in the Constitution it could be argued that the Framers have given Congress the final say about a (Federal) law’s reviewability.

Article III Section 2

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.

Congres has never invoked this right.

I am absolutely opposed to any court action that seeks to enact a change in a policy because it bypasses the poltical/democratic processes that is the foundation of our Republic.

With all due respect, I’m going to recommend that you participate in a course in remedial civics. Judicial review has been an established principle of American law since Marbury vs. Madison (1803). Marriage is recognized as a fundamental right (Loving vs. Virginia (1967)) and not only does the government not have the right to interfere in personal relationships, but it may not decree that some of those relationships are criminal or invalid because of “animus” (Lawrence and Garner vs. Texas (2003)). (Justice Kennedy was quite eloquent in saying that same-sex relationships deserve the same respect under the law as opposite-sex relationships.) The Constitution trumps the popular whim (that is called “the limited sovereignty of the people,” and on that note, if the anti-marriage amendment passes in California, it will be equally easy to repeal it in a couple of years), and that is exactly the reason we have a Bill of Rights. The courts decide if laws enacted by whatever means pass constitutional muster, particularly those dealing with civil rights: that is the process that is the foundation of our Republic. The alternative is mob rule. (You won’t hear about this from the far right because, I suspect, they don’t really like the American system. Or at the very least, you can’t generate a lot of outrage by acceding to the fact that the system is working the way it was meant to. And what better way to forestall public dialogue on an inssue than to ram through a constitutional amendment?)

Yes, of course in a perfect world the people should enact marriage equality — but in a perfect world, they wouldn’t have to, because it would already exist in the law. Oh, wait . . . that’s why all those legislatures had to pass DOMAs.

I’m curious as to why you oppose same-sex marriage. If you don’t want to get married yourself, that’s all fine and good — don’t. If you’re against others having the right to get married, I’d like to see some reasons.

I take issue with GPW’s opening statement for the same reasons, as well as the fact that I see it as a complete misframing of the question: the courts have not mandated gay marriage; the courts have found, in most cases, that the various constitutions mandate equal treatment under the law, including marriage. (And against New York and Washington State, both of which opinions are pretty sad from a reasoning point of view, I would pose Hawai’i, Alaska, Vermont, New Jersey, Massachusetts and California.)

I wouldn’t rely on quotes from the likes of Bill Duncan or Matt Staver, since you can count on getting only half the story. Re: Duncan’s comment, for example, in point of fact the court found that the New York constitution does not mandate same-sex marriage, but neither does it forbid it, and not only has New York not enacted a DOMA, the New York House has passed an inclusive marriage bill (which will probably die in the Republican-dominated Senate, but that says nothing about the merits of the bill and a great deal about the merits of the Senate). You tell me, which more reflects the will of the people, the representatives who serve shorter terms and are more subject to the reactions of their constituents, or the senators who form a patrician house that can count on the furor dying down before they have to stand for re-election?

Gov. Paterson seems to be on solid ground; we’ll see what the activist judges have to say about it.

(Oh, and about the comparisons of “goodies” in the video — I’ve been through this with GPW before. At some point, you have to deal with tangibles, particularly in a court of law, but also in general discourse. My own feeling is that the intangibles are of overwhelming importance in this issue, and I’m gratified that both the California and Massachusetts courts attempted to addressed them, but for a lot of people, they don’t register. You have to be able to point to some real, visible, apprehendible “damage” before people will consider that you have a point. And when it gets right down to it, what have gay people done to destroy marriage? And please don’t point to Stanley Kurtz’ made-up “studies” of the desperate plight of marriage in Scandinavia. That’s straight out of the Paul Cameron school of social science.)

Heliotrope (#12):

I accept gay civil unions. I accept brothers or sisters having a civil union. I accept a father and son or a mother and daughter having a civil union. I accept six men or six women having a civil union. I do not look upon any of those associations as marriages. I see them merely as loophole plugs that make the participants happy and assure they can exercise certain legal rights.

You’ve obviously missed the whole point of the exercise, and the reason both the California and Massachusetts courts found for granting full marriage, and yet you’ve stated the reason yourself: you don’t see civil unions as equal. That’s because they’re not. And the issue here is equality.

I really wish I’d run across this thread sooner.

Furthermore, given that the primary reasons underlying the bans on polygamy and incest are based on the effect on the children both types of unions could produce, consistency would require you to eliminate the bans on both.

Got it. Thanks for the explanation.

How does natural law deal with sterile couples and couples where the woman is post-menopausal? If marriage in these instances is allowed under natural law, then procreation could not be considered a reason for marriage since it cannot occur.

They applied the test established apparently by Moore, 92 NY at 524:

“it is to be recognized as such in the courts of this State, unless contrary to the prohibitions of natural law or the express prohibitions of a statute”

But then the court falsely claimed that the only marriages natural law prohibited were those of incest or polygamy. It has always been natural law that has limited marriage to the two sexes necessary to procreate in the first place. And therein lies the judicial activism.

Christian theology may undergird Western culture, but Western culture has adapted and transformed that undergirding over the centuries. I think that Greek and Roman culture are part of the undergirding as well and should not be ignored.

I think a fundamental difference exists between people who want tradition to remain unchanged and those who use it as a foundation that is amenable to adaptation and transformation as circumstances alter. I often wonder if an individual’s personality plays a role in determining where he falls along this continuum, e.g., people uncomfortable with change becoming traditionalists since it plays well with their personality.

I do understand that the social compact is fluid and subject to change. What I find distressing are arguments that propose tradition as a barrier to change. My quoting of Emerson was to point out that I think fluidity and change are the only realities a person can depend on.

What I am scared of is when people argue that God/Allah/Yahweh decree that things should be this way, and then demand laws reflecting their personal religious revelation. My religious beliefs are mine and I do not try to get others to agree with them. They play an important role in shaping my understanding about how society should function, but I realize that demanding that society conform to my religious beliefs will lead to strife. I think it enormously valuable when the people involved in creating and maintaining the social compact are inspired by their religious beliefs, but simply to import them whole cloth into social structures is to defeat the goal of “domestic tranquility” that the founders announced in the Constitution.

A Christian who does not believe in same-sex marriage is not a Christian in my tradition. That we disagree is fine. But while we are inspired by our religious beliefs, we must discover common ground outside of them in order to decide the issue. For me to say that same-sex marriage is fine with God is no reason to make it so legally. By the same token, for someone to assert that same-sex marriage is not fine with God and, therefore, should be banned is equally suspect. How can one determine with a decisive degree of certainty which religious position is the correct one? For me, the challenge is to find the middle ground between theocracy where religious beliefs are made law and a relativistic society where anything goes.

Vince:

I agree that in prior times people understood one of their responsibilities as living their lives in accord with their Christian faith. But what was meant by the term “Christian faith” hundreds of years ago is not necessarily what is meant today. As I said in response to Heliotrope, my Christian faith might be unrecognizable to a person from the 17th century just as their faith is unrecognizable to me. I think that we may agree upon the fact that human behavior and the work of building societies should be based on an ethical foundation. My problem is while I want to keep the ethical foundation, I believe that it is vital that the rules generated from this ground be regularly assessed to see if they are responsive to the changing needs, understandings, and circumstances of people.

I am frustrated both by the contention that ethics should be abandoned and people allowed to do as they please as well as by the one that maintains that centuries-old rules should be adhered to without question or revision. The belief of the founders that ethical considerations need to be part of society-making is vital. But religion (and specifically Christianity) is not monolithic in its beliefs and tenets. The reason that religion has become decoupled from morality is that in some cases religion has failed to evolve as times changed. The ethical impulse is constant: what changes is the definition of what is ethical. What needs to be encouraged is rational, logical discussion in this area.

AE:

I do not see how an application of law is judicial activism. The court merely noted that the legislature had not forbidden recognition of legal out-of-state same-sex marriages. Since such recognition had not been forbidden, then it must be okay to recognize them. Why is the drawing of logical conclusions judicial activism? It would have been activism to deny such recognition in the face of the legislature’s silence, thereby speaking for the legislature. The legislature spoke when it decided not to act and permitted recognition of these marriages. If it wants to close the door, all it has to do is pass a law.

Religion as an instiution was not to be established by the federal govt so as to not entangle church matters with political matters and there by pollute both.

Many of the founders believed this.

And I think it’s true.. It’s been decades now since religion was decoupled from morality.

And now I think we’re seeing morality becoming decoupled from the people.

And it wont be too long before people become decouped from being able to live in liberty with small govt.

If I look at colleges today i can’t help but observe that far too many schools are pumping out left-wing brainwashed people who have absolutely no clue what the Constitution was meant to protect.