GayPatriot

The Internet home for American gay conservatives.

Powered by Genesis

Maine Voters Reject Gay Marriage

November 4, 2009 by B. Daniel Blatt

Given that the elected legislature had passed and the elected Governor had signed the law in Maine recognizing same-sex marriage, I had expected the dynamics of the race to be a little different in the Pine Tree State.  But, the result is nearly identical to that in the Golden State just one year ago.  With 87% of the vote in, 52.8% of the state’s citizens voted to reject the law.

On the other side of the country, in the Evergreen State, an initiative to approve the state’s domestic partnership law is ahead by about 2 points with half of all precincts reporting.  If that margin holds, it would confirm polls showing increasing support for state recognition of same-sex civil unions, but steady opposition to gay marriage.  In every state where citizens have been asked about gay marriage, they have voted it down, but by smaller margins than when such referenda first appeared on American ballots.

Methinks that for now, we should focus on getting state recognition of civil unions, but the closeness of the Washington State result is striking.  The state, like others on the West Coast is socially liberal, particularly in its western counties.  And there are likely many Republicans who voted to approve the Domestic Partnership proposal.

My biggest fear about the Maine vote is that the President will use it as an excuse not to move forward on issues of concern to the gay community, particularly repeal of Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell.

FROM THE COMMENTS:  DaveO gets it:

No on 1 made the same mistake that No on 8 made in California. It WAS a vote on “Equality”, or at least that’s how that side tried to portray it. They just don’t get that fuzzy terms like “Equality” only appeal to liberal Democrats with guilty consciences and pretty much to no one else.

That’s just one reason we needed new gay leadership, not individuals beholden to such socialist-sounding words as “equality.”

Filed Under: 2009 Elections, Gay Marriage

Comments

  1. ILoveCapitalism says

    November 4, 2009 at 1:32 am - November 4, 2009

    I seem to remember that the pro-gay-marriage campaign in Maine was a little better than in CA 2008, but still not off to a strong start. Sad.

  2. Alex in Denver says

    November 4, 2009 at 1:39 am - November 4, 2009

    (Originally a comment on the last post regarding Maine:) I’m definitely an incrementalist when it comes to gay marriage. I am happy to accept civil unions, particularly ones indistinguishable from marriage apart from nomenclature, as intermediate steps. The Washington state referendum, which is precisely that, is fine with me. Indeed, I think that’s the way to go in a lot of places–and probably the next step for gay marriage in Maine.

    Nonetheless, I just want to smack the smug smile off Maggie Gallagher’s fat foul face.

    I’m going to calm myself down with Virginia and New Jersey. And scotch.

  3. Spidey says

    November 4, 2009 at 1:55 am - November 4, 2009

    I’m depressed about the result from Maine, but I’m also an incrementalist. I will take “civil unions” instead of “marriage” for now. I really don’t care what you call it (and i’m from a very conservative family). But, Alex, I agree with you, I’d smack Maggie as well.

  4. American Elephant says

    November 4, 2009 at 2:10 am - November 4, 2009

    Maggie Gallagher is a very decent person, who has very legitimate concerns about one of society’s most important institutions, marriage. Do you? Do you have any idea WHY it is important? Or is it just another “entitlement” that you want because you feel entitled to it?

  5. Alex in Denver says

    November 4, 2009 at 2:22 am - November 4, 2009

    Oh, calm down, AE. I am wholly supportive of marriage and agree that it is very important. Further, I am fully in favor of protections for religious institutions that are unwilling to perform ceremonies consecrating same sex marriage. I just take a wee bit of offense at the implication that my participation in the institution is, as her activism seems to suggest, a harbinger of the end of civilization.

  6. American Elephant says

    November 4, 2009 at 3:10 am - November 4, 2009

    I stick up for good people when they are attacked unfairly, demonized and mischaracterized.

    I’m sure Gallagher would be thrilled if you were to participate in the institution. Have you ever stopped to consider that redefining the institution from one that by definition exists is to support children and the nuclear family, to one that exists to provide entitlements to adults might perhaps be a bad development for society?

    the vast majority of gay marriage supporters haven’t.

  7. ILoveCapitalism says

    November 4, 2009 at 3:30 am - November 4, 2009

    I stick up for good people when they are attacked unfairly, demonized and mischaracterized.

    That’s commendable, and same here.

    redefining the institution from one that by definition exists is to support children and the nuclear family, to one that exists to provide entitlements to adults might perhaps be a bad development for society

    Oops, too late. Heterosexuals already did it when they introduced no-fault divorce… and equally, when they failed to introduce positive fertility tests as a requirement for marriage, instead tolerating and even encouraging marriages that are blatantly incapable of producing children (such as among the elderly).

    Meanwhile, thousands of homosexual couples support children amd their nuclear families need protecting. Mind you, I have no objection to doing it with civil-union laws, incrementalism and democracy. I view State “relationship licenses” (whether marriage or civil union) as a privilege, and as something rightly designed to create a certain kind of inequality: privileging stable, two-person relationships over other kinds. And in America, privileges must or should always be legislated democratically.

    The point about both left-wing gay marriage advocates and Gallagher is that they typically forget all these points. Left-wing gay marriage advocates blather on about “rights” and “equality” in a fashion that is simply inappropriate. Meanwhile, Gallagher makes arguments against gay marriage that are somewhere between ‘thin’ and ‘specious’.

  8. Amy K. says

    November 4, 2009 at 3:51 am - November 4, 2009

    I just take a wee bit of offense at the implication that my participation in the institution is, as her activism seems to suggest, a harbinger of the end of civilization.

    You can take offense all you want, but it’s probably true. The family is the core unit of civilization. Mess with it at your peril. I happen to think no-fault divorce and the trend toward people remaining single is also dangerous. But just because those things are happening doesn’t mean we should throw caution to the winds and completely change the definition of marriage.

  9. straightAussie says

    November 4, 2009 at 3:55 am - November 4, 2009

    As a straight and married person, I do not agree with “gay marriage” because of what marriage represents.

    If this was only about the recognition of a relationship, then I do think that what is offered to heterosexual common law partners should or could apply to same-sex partnerships. Heterosexual common law partnerships have a similar problem since the relationship is not recognized by a license.

    If it is simply about “equal rights” whatever that might mean, then I see no reason why this cannot be recognized in some form.

    However, I do suspect that those who have been pushing this agenda are doing it in order to permanently change the institution of marriage. If that is the case, then I would do as the majority did in Maine and in California.

    The way forward is to keep on trying quietly to get those changes where there is genuine discrimination. If there are problems with things like insurance policies for example, then this needs to be changed, at the appropriate level.

    The activism does more to harm “gay rights” than it does to advance the cause.

  10. Amy K. says

    November 4, 2009 at 3:55 am - November 4, 2009

    You know, what the hell. We’re all going to hell in a handbasket. You may as well be married while we go down in flames. Enjoy your seat on the Titanic.

  11. American Elephant says

    November 4, 2009 at 4:49 am - November 4, 2009

    Oops, too late. Heterosexuals already did it

    Wrong. The institution still exists to encourage men and women to get together so that children are born INTO marriage. The fact that liberals made it easier for them to split apart has definitely harmed the institution but it does not change that definitive purpose.

    Allowing men to marry men and women to marry women, however does.

    and equally, when they failed to introduce positive fertility tests as a requirement for marriage,

    Wrong again. First of all, I believe the country you are looking for is Communist China where they actually do that sort of thing. But more importantly encouraging everyone to marry a person of the opposite sex already supports that goal, without any of your totalitarian, invasive means. For the more men and women marry, the more chidren will be born inside the bounds of wedlock to their natural parents, regardless of how many individuals are infertile.

    Meanwhile, thousands of homosexual couples support children amd their nuclear families need protecting.

    Gay couples are by definition incapable of heading nuclear families. But as to your silly argument, SINGLE PARENTS SUPPORT CHILDREN TOO! Perhaps we should let single mothers marry themselves!

    But we dont, because marriage exists to encourage an ideal, not to encourage alternatives to the ideal.

  12. American Elephant says

    November 4, 2009 at 5:19 am - November 4, 2009

    Every state in the country in which the people have had a vote on gay marriage has rejected it. Not just the red states, but in the bluest of the blue states as well.

    But something else they have said everywhere, is that they have no animosity towards gays. They simply refuse to believe the lie that a sexuality that is categorically incapable of reproduction is the same as the sexuality that is responsible for all reproduction in the history of the world. They refuse to believe the lie that gender is irrelevant, or that mothers and fathers dont matter. And they are right, everywhere, to do so.

  13. David Ezell says

    November 4, 2009 at 6:18 am - November 4, 2009

    The fight for gay civil rights is a bartering situation. Like all deals many times the initial request is turned down but a lesser offer is put on the table. You want $10,000 for your car and I offer you $9k. That is how humans make negotiate.

    And that is what we are witnessing here. Queers want gay marriage. The voters (who have no business dictating civil rights policy) rebut with civil unions.

    Sadly, we are not discussing a 1974 El Camino or last year’s Prius. We are talking about lives–mine and yours. Separate but equal is a fiction, not a deal. And anything less than full rights is really nothing at all.

  14. American Elephant says

    November 4, 2009 at 6:52 am - November 4, 2009

    I am gay, David, and I have all my civil rights. Not one is denied me. (well actually, Democrats have restricted my civil rights in a number of ways, but for the sake of argument I wont go there)

    Not only the state courts have affirmed this, but the United States Supreme Court has affirmed this when they rejected an appeal of Baker v. Nelson on the merits of precisely those “civil rights” arguments.

    That is the official congress-approved, SCOTUS-upheld law of the land.

    I wonder why you feel so strongly that you have the right for people to pretend that you and your male partner have between you, a penis, a vagina, a womb and two ovaries? You dont, so why do you believe the law must pretend that you do?

  15. American Elephant says

    November 4, 2009 at 7:00 am - November 4, 2009

    But look at it this way libs, Maine was the ONE big race where Obama’s policy actually won!

    Oh, and by the way, we quickly have to embrace gay marriage because opposing it is so obviously a losing issue.

    I mean, the anti-gay-marriage forces can only manage a bare majority in the Deep South states of California and Maine. ~ Ace

  16. Senatus says

    November 4, 2009 at 7:45 am - November 4, 2009

    Why am I not surprised? Social conservatism scores yet another victory against basic legal protections for gay and lesbian couples. Social conservatives of both parties have shown gay people, as if we needed more proof, that they are our implacable enemies, a group that views us as less than themselves – not deserving to be treated like equal citizens, we are simply sub-human to them. These social troglodytes want our lives, loves, and even our children to be utterly invisible, as evidenced by their irrational fear that Maine’s public schools might actually mention we exist and are not the frightening perverted deviants these socially conservative parents view us as.

    Of course, hanging like a pall over all of this is the shadow of the reactionary Roman Catholic hierarchy. I know far too many genuinely kind, accepting, and loving Catholic lay people to hold this against them. No, contrary to what most might think, I don’t blame Christians in general for this defeat. Given the fact that I am a member of a welcoming and affirming congregation of the United Church of Christ, I know full well there are wonderful Christians who put their heart and soul into working to make sure that all people are treated with respect by our government. Unfortunately, churches like mine are a small drop in an ocean of Christian homophobic and transphobic fear and hatred. I guess one plus side of this might be to show those Catholics like my acquaintances just what the church does with their offerings, I know several who refuse to contribute monetarily to their church for fear it might use that money against people like me.

    Anyway, keep on fighting fellow gays and lesbians, younger people truly are coming more and more to our side. Even if we have to abandon the loaded “M”-word for the time being, still fight for what is right, fight to be treated like a full citizen of this country deserving of the same legal protections straight couples take so for granted.

  17. Jim Michaud says

    November 4, 2009 at 7:56 am - November 4, 2009

    AAAAAARGH!!!!! Dang! We lost here in Maine. Oh well. At least we still have a civil rights law (passed by the voters in 2005). Let’s dry our eyes & strengthen our DP and/or civil unions. You’re right AE. Most SSM opponents don’t harbor ill-will towards gays. I say most though. Some of the online comments from newspapers here have been gloating & disturbing.

  18. Pat says

    November 4, 2009 at 8:22 am - November 4, 2009

    It’s a shame that the referendum lost. But the fact that there was even a vote is progress. If a vote was put out even as recent as ten years ago, it would have lost by at least a 50% margin.

    So maybe this trend won’t continue, but it’s looking bad for people like Maggie Gallagher. I applaud her goal for strengthening marriage. She’s just wasting her time and resources in attaining that goal.

    I wonder why you feel so strongly that you have the right for people to pretend that you and your male partner have between you, a penis, a vagina, a womb and two ovaries? You dont, so why do you believe the law must pretend that you do?

    David, I’m curious. Does your support of same sex marriage have anything to do with pretending that you and your partner or potential partner has “a penis, a vagina, a womb, and two ovaries”? And if you live in some bizarro universe where you do and other people pretend that about other people reasons for getting married, do you object to a woman with a full hysterectomy getting married?

  19. Mainiac says

    November 4, 2009 at 8:24 am - November 4, 2009

    Greetings from Maine:)

    I am a straight Maine woman who did not vote this year for a reason. I was on the fence. I do believe in rights for everyone. I don’t necessarily believe that if you are gay you have to be married to get the rights that have been brought up as issues. People here in Maine are not close-minded, cruel, or a bunch of bible thumpers. We do tend to be a little old fashioned. Most people I have talked to about this (gay and straight) informed me they would vote yes, and it was because they believed that it didn’t need to be pushed so far to get the rights that were needed. I hear alot about minority rights. However, it seems to me that the straight, married couple is becoming a minority in itself. I do agree that this does work well as a negotiation tactic and that now, other rights that are asked for will probably go through much easier. Either way, it is a process, and I do admire the courage that it takes to speak out and be involved.

  20. Alex in Denver says

    November 4, 2009 at 8:29 am - November 4, 2009

    a few points AE:

    a) Obama’s position on marriage is irrelevant to me. I don’t agree with him on many issues, anyway. I am not a lefty ;ppn who saw Obama as the great gay savior.

    b) Because the question is whether gay marriage is a good or bad thing, the position of the voters is also irrelevant. That the people are the ultimate political authority in this system grants them no special power to divine what is right and what is wrong. Indeed that’s a good reason we are Republic rather than a democracy.

    c) Now I agree with you that marriage is primarily about raising children. I also agree with you that children are better off being raised by stable monogamous couples, and that it is even better if the couple had been stable and monogamous since before the child entered the family. Finally, I further agree that same sex couples are naturally incapable of producing children, but I then ask so what? Incapability of producing doesn’t lead to incapability of raising. I am loathe to make the comparison to infertile couples, though here would be an excellent place to do so. Maggie’s misrepresentations to the contrary notwithstanding, there is no evidence that children raised by same-sex couples are at a material disadvantage to those raided by opposite-sex couples. Any study demonstrating the advantages of children having having both a mother and father compares them to children raised by single parents. Indeed even if it were demonstrably true that having opposite-sex parents is better than having same sex parents the conclusion (that same-sex couples shouldn’t enjoy civil benefits of marriage) doesn’t follow. That an arrangement is sub-optimal does not make it dangerous. If it did, we would only provide benefits to independently wealthy couples who value health and education have no family history of addiction or mental illness. Moreover, I am sure both you and Maggie, whom I still detest, would agree that it is preferable for a child raised by a loving stable gay couple than to be shuttled among foster homes, to grow up in third world, to be raised by a single parent without the means or maturity to support a child except in poverty, or, worst of all, to die because of abortion. And if gay couples are capable of serving society, not to mention the children, by giving a home and a family to otherwise unwanted or destitute children, why not support the family by providing those parents the same civil benefits that are taken for granted by opposite-sex couples, regardless of their intention to raise children?

  21. Alex in Denver says

    November 4, 2009 at 8:31 am - November 4, 2009

    in comment 19.a. “;ppn” should read “loon”

  22. rusty says

    November 4, 2009 at 8:58 am - November 4, 2009

    Pat. . .this was AE > I wonder why you feel so strongly that you have the right for people to pretend that you and your male partner have between you, a penis, a vagina, a womb and two ovaries? You dont, so why do you believe the law must pretend that you do?

  23. Pat says

    November 4, 2009 at 9:03 am - November 4, 2009

    Rusty, thanks. I know David didn’t write that. But his response was interpreted as such by AE. And I just wanted it to be clear whether David support of marriage could possibly have anything to do with such pretending.

  24. gillie says

    November 4, 2009 at 9:16 am - November 4, 2009

    Very sad. I have a very good friend there who was so happy full of joy at the prospect of real marraige.
    Talking to them this morning was very depressing..

    I could care less about VA, NY and NJ.
    Only Maine.
    Damn. Damn.
    Double Damn.

  25. Geena says

    November 4, 2009 at 9:24 am - November 4, 2009

    American Elephant is hitting home runs on this thread.
    Especially #12

  26. heliotrope says

    November 4, 2009 at 9:30 am - November 4, 2009

    I will take “civil unions” instead of “marriage” for now.

    I am a straight (str8) who has arrived over time at the realization that a civil union is a logical construct that does not weaken the social fabric. If a gay couple goes the civil union route and all the legal “inequities” are resolved, why would marriage still be the goal?

    Bash me if I miss the answer, but it seems that gay marriage is the key to equal respect by law.

    Can a gay guy open a daycare center? Yes. Is it possible for it to be successful? Yes, if the gay guy is very careful not to cause the parents to be concerned. How do I know? My children were in such a place and we were all sorry to see the man retire. Could a gay couple have been as successful? According to the man I have referred to, it would have been a nightmare. Why? Because the wary public would not be at ease with depending on the two men keeping their relationship out of the picture.

    All of this is to say that there is a lot of uncharted territory between being homophobic and admiring and respecting gay marriage.

  27. Man says

    November 4, 2009 at 9:37 am - November 4, 2009

    It’s delusional to believe, or even to hope, that equal rights to marry will be put into place by any state by referendum.
    In our tripartite system, the rights of the minority have historically been affirmed by the judiciary. There are two important cases before the courts at present; in California and in Massachusetts. Let’s follow those cases and hope.

  28. Man says

    November 4, 2009 at 9:40 am - November 4, 2009

    And I agree that the outcome in Maine will add more cover for Obama to distance himself from equal marriage rights and DADT.

  29. Ashpenaz says

    November 4, 2009 at 9:42 am - November 4, 2009

    Gay marriage lost in Maine because gays have chosen to side with sexual liberation rather than traditional values. Maine voters are afraid, and rightly so, that gay rights means their children will be taught “Heather Has Two Mommies–Who are Proud, Carpet-Eating Dykes!” or “My Two Dads–Who Like To Fist Each Other” or “And Tango Makes a Threesome.” Gay Pride parades and Prop 8 protests and Stonewall celebrations have destroyed any trust society might have in gay relationships. It’s clear that MOST (not all) gays want marriage to mean open relationships, serial monogamy, and multiple partners. I, who support gay marriage, would have voted against it Maine and California because I want to protect traditional values, not overthrow them.

    You can ignore me or marginalize me or mock me all you want, but I am right on this. I’m right, I’m right, I’m right, and you all know it.

  30. ILoveCapitalism says

    November 4, 2009 at 9:43 am - November 4, 2009

    The institution still exists to encourage men and women to get together so that children are born INTO marriage. The fact that liberals made it easier for them to split apart has definitely harmed the institution but it does not change that definitive purpose.

    Wrong. Or to be precise: Only partly right. The creating and raising of kids is *one* of the institution of marriage’s top two purposes. The other purpose is to encourage people to form these little stable, 2-person, mutual-aid societies known as “families”. The married couple is still a family, even if they don’t have kids.

    Also, AE: Once more you ignore the fact of gay couples who have kids. They may have them from adoption, from previous marriages, or from the use of assisted-reproduction techniques like those used by infertile straight couples. A gay couple is reproductively equivalent to an infertile straight couple.

    encouraging everyone to marry a person of the opposite sex already supports that goal [of creating and raising kids], without [the need for positive fertility tests in handing out marriage licenses].

    Wrong again.

    First, AE, you have unwisely called “totalitarian and invasive” something that states already do: Administer certain health tests, as a requirement for getting a marriage license. Is the blood test that many states already have “totalitarian and invasive”? If yes, then I concede you to possess the virtue of consistency. But if not, then why would a basic fertility test then be? Especially if procreation is the only purpose of marriage worth considering, as you incorrectly claim?

    Second, AE – Have you heard of people who deliberately self-sterilize? Have you heard of people who deliberately kill their unborn children? How does letting such people into marriage, with not even the slightest pro forma, imperfect attempt at screening them out – not even having them sign a declaration of their intent to raise kids – fit with your idea, “The institution still exists to encourage men and women to get together so that children are born INTO marriage”? Hint: It doesn’t. And gays didn’t do that to marriage; heterosexuals did.

    For the more men and women marry, the more chidren will be born inside the bounds of wedlock to their natural parents, regardless of how many individuals are infertile.

    And, yet again you ignore the fact of gay couples who have kids.

    Gay couples are by definition incapable of heading nuclear families.

    And, yet again you ignore the fact of gay couples who have kids. Gay NUCLEAR FAMILIES. Your saying that a thing cannot exist, AE, is insufficient to make it not exist. But hey, keep burying your head in the sand and making specious arguments, if you want. Like Gallagher.

    Perhaps we should let single mothers marry themselves!

    The purpose of a State marriage license is to give two people, who are unrelated by blood and unmarried to anyone else, a way to legally declare themselves “a family” in the eyes of the law and society, whether or not they have kids. “Two people” is a necessity. My argument reflects that. Don’t mischaracterize it.

  31. Man says

    November 4, 2009 at 9:47 am - November 4, 2009

    ILC, well said!

  32. ILoveCapitalism says

    November 4, 2009 at 9:51 am - November 4, 2009

    Maggie’s misrepresentations to the contrary notwithstanding, there is no evidence that children raised by same-sex couples are at a material disadvantage to those raided by opposite-sex couples. Any study demonstrating the advantages of children having having both a mother and father compares them to children raised by single parents. Indeed even if it were demonstrably true that having opposite-sex parents is better than having same sex parents the conclusion (that same-sex couples shouldn’t enjoy civil benefits of marriage) doesn’t follow. That an arrangement is sub-optimal does not make it dangerous. If it did, we would only provide benefits to independently wealthy couples who value health and education have no family history of addiction or mental illness…

    Alex, quite so. I don’t think you’re going to make any progress in convincing Gallagher or her fans; neither am I. They cling to illogical claims. But it’s nice to ‘air’ the better arguments or more valid points, just the same.

  33. Kevin says

    November 4, 2009 at 9:58 am - November 4, 2009

    Did any of you see the comments linked to by Instapundit on how as this happened, an admitted lesbian leads in the Houston mayor election? The linked post suggests, perhaps tongue in cheek, that its the national organization’s fault in Maine? Maybe but I always wonder if its a lot of the freak factor and the pushing of the issue as anti-conservative and anti-religion? (after all, its not just Christianity that has issues with homosexuality…some other religions are even more extreme in their opposition – try coming out at your mosque – and some you’d think aren’t are in local variations.)

    I’ll admit my major concern is that the day after it passes, my faith’s churches will be sued because we don’t accept it. I can see the next step as it being forced on the Church in opposition to its teachings. Of course, when that happens, I doubt anyone will have the stones to sue a mosque.

  34. Pat says

    November 4, 2009 at 10:01 am - November 4, 2009

    Maine voters are afraid, and rightly so, that gay rights means their children will be taught “Heather Has Two Mommies–Who are Proud, Carpet-Eating Dykes!” or “My Two Dads–Who Like To Fist Each Other” or “And Tango Makes a Threesome.”

    Sorry, Ashpenaz, but I don’t think Maine voters are that stupid. I don’t even think Gallagher is that stupid. If you are exaggerating to make a point, I’ll concede somewhat. I think Gallagher and others are really afraid that kids will (gasp) be taught there are gay people, and she upped the ante to try to scare people, and some were stupid enough to buy it, perhaps enough to make the difference. Who knows?

    Gay Pride parades and Prop 8 protests and Stonewall celebrations have destroyed any trust society might have in gay relationships.

    And yet, since Stonewall, the exact opposite has happened. People have put trust in gay relationships as straight. And realized that while not all relationships are ideal, gay and straight, that we should encourage stable, monogamous relationships, and stop having gay people marrying persons of the opposite sex.

    Also, I agree with Man in 30.

  35. rusty says

    November 4, 2009 at 10:07 am - November 4, 2009

    People take different roads seeking fulfillment and happiness. Just because they’re not on your road doesn’t mean they’ve gotten lost. Dalai Lama

  36. Pat says

    November 4, 2009 at 10:07 am - November 4, 2009

    I’ll admit my major concern is that the day after it passes, my faith’s churches will be sued because we don’t accept it. I can see the next step as it being forced on the Church in opposition to its teachings. Of course, when that happens, I doubt anyone will have the stones to sue a mosque.

    Kevin, I doubt that will happen. And if it does, it won’t have a chance to succeed. The Catholic Church will not marry persons in which one or both are divorced and haven’t received a church annulment. So they are able to pick and choose which straight couples they can choose to marry.

    In fact, what I think will happen first is that churches themselves will voluntarily decide to marry same sex couples. Heck, it’s happened already in some churches.

  37. rusty says

    November 4, 2009 at 10:09 am - November 4, 2009

    but then. . .A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices. William James

  38. ILoveCapitalism says

    November 4, 2009 at 10:10 am - November 4, 2009

    Thanks, Man and Pat 🙂

  39. Ashpenaz says

    November 4, 2009 at 10:14 am - November 4, 2009

    If the proposition had been written this way, “Do you support lifelong, sexually exclusive, publically accountable relationships between members of the same sex?” I think the result would have been much different. For instance, gays would have voted it down. But straight, rural people probably would have had enough votes to pass it.

  40. heliotrope says

    November 4, 2009 at 10:19 am - November 4, 2009

    In fact, what I think will happen first is that churches themselves will voluntarily decide to marry same sex couples. Heck, it’s happened already in some churches.

    Heck, Pat, you can start the Church of Tolerance and Convenience and get the ball rolling.

    What underlies your thoughts, I believe, is the misunderstanding of core religion. I doubt you would attend a church that views homosexuality as a sin. But you might attend a church that has opened its arms to gays. That is what “church shopping” is all about. However, using the Church of England as a model, those churches that dole out scripture based on polling the congregation steadily decline to the point where there is one embattled bishop and no congregants.

    You are probably right about overturning the Judeo-Christian ethic as the sure road to gay marriage.

  41. TnnsNE1 says

    November 4, 2009 at 10:39 am - November 4, 2009

    Religious institutions in Maine would have been exempt from having to conduct same gender ceremonies. They would have also been exempt from lawsuits.

    Maine’s existing DP laws are *almost* the same as being married. The one biggest difference is the filing of joint state tax returns. The big ticket items : pension plans and federal protections would not have been granted.

    When Maine voters passed the “Equal Rights Law” back in 2005, they were told over and over again by the gay political establishment that equal rights inclusion would not be a precursor to same gender marriage. They lied. Within months of passing that law, the existing law banning unmarried people (gay or straight) from jointly adopting was overturned. Shortly after that, a same gender marriage law was introduced at committee. That one did not make it out of committee. The second one did. I think the voters in Maine reacted to the lies and the *hidden* agenda of the gay political movement.

    They made the same mistake as the courts did in Mass. They pressed too hard, too soon.

    Maybe it would be nice if they made it more acceptable to date openly in high school before concentrating on marriage. They have put the cart before the horse.

    Ashpenaz : You completely miss the fact that gay people do not get to learn how to date/relate at the same incremental stages that straight people do. These incremental development stages have a HUGE effect on the way we conduct ourselves as adults. To place so much blame for the misguided sexual attitudes of some gay people is the same as placing blame on the illiterate black people of the 50’s who were not given the chance to learn to read. Give gay people the chance to develop sexually in the same way that straight people can and you will see a difference in the adult sexual behaviors of gay people. You also have a very rosy sexual picture of the heterosexual community and marriage.

  42. Ashpenaz says

    November 4, 2009 at 10:49 am - November 4, 2009

    My parents were divorced and my dad tried to have my mom put into an insane asylum, so, no, I don’t have a rosy picture of marriage.

    I absolutely agree with you that straight people move incrementally into marriage with the support of family and community, which changes the way marriage works. I am fully supportive of my church, ELCA Lutheran, opening the door to gay couples. I think that if gays are included in mainstream society and gay kids can be part of things like youth groups and all that, their behavior will mature.

    But most gays don’t want to admit that they need support from the straight community. They don’t want to repair the damage of being marginalized–they want to revel in it and undermine the very traditions which would help them mature. It is like blacks finally being given the opportunity to go to college who choose to burn down the college. Many blacks feel that way–they think getting educated is “acting white.” Lifelong monogamy is “acting straight.”

    I support blacks who want education. I support gays who want traditional marriage, however poorly prepared they are for it. I have no interest in the gay movement as it currently is which wants to remain immature and undeveloped.

  43. Pat says

    November 4, 2009 at 10:52 am - November 4, 2009

    38.If the proposition had been written this way, “Do you support lifelong, sexually exclusive, publically accountable relationships between members of the same sex?” I think the result would have been much different. For instance, gays would have voted it down. But straight, rural people probably would have had enough votes to pass it.

    Ashpenaz, that would be interesting to see such a vote. But we haven’t even done such a vote for opposite sex couples.

    Heck, Pat, you can start the Church of Tolerance and Convenience and get the ball rolling.

    I don’t have to, Heliotrope, the ball has been rolling for a few hundred years or so. Further, most Catholics (that I know, lay persons and otherwise) are quite supportive of homosexuals and homosexuality. And almost all of them blow off the silly birth control rules.

    As for church shopping, we all do it. While we may have a certain religion as kids, as adults, we have free choice as to our religion, including the choice to stay in the same religion, even under the guise of “understanding” what core religion is all about. But that’s another topic.

    You are probably right about overturning the Judeo-Christian ethic as the sure road to gay marriage.

    No, I wouldn’t be right about that, because I’ve made no such claim. I don’t believe at all that same sex marriage will overturn the Judeo-Christian ethic. Same sex marriage or not, Judeo-Christianity has changed quite a bit in the past 500 years. I think we can both agree it has done so for the better. Churches are made up by people, and over time, people change their minds about things, including church doctrine, and as to which scriptures should be followed literally, and which ones shouldn’t. Even the Catholic Church. My grandmother couldn’t get married in a church, because she married a Protestant. Most of her family took a vacation day to the beach while she got married. I don’t think Judeo-Christianity ethics suffered when garbage like that is now condemned as it should be. We’ll see what the future holds for Judeo-Christian ethic and same sex marriage. But I don’t agree that Christian churches allowing same sex marriage is overturning Judeo-Chrisian ethic.

  44. Pat says

    November 4, 2009 at 11:06 am - November 4, 2009

    Maybe it would be nice if they made it more acceptable to date openly in high school before concentrating on marriage. They have put the cart before the horse.

    TnnsNE1, I agree with your point here. Sometimes, though, in order to get the horse going, you need to put the cart in front of it. In any case, unfortunately, Maggie Gallagher and ohers do not agree with either of us. She doesn’t want gay teen boys to date other teen boys, or at least, not even mention that in schools.

    As for your point about gay rights activists in Maine lying, I agree somewhat. They had no business saying that same sex marriage will not result as part of the 2005 law. In fact, almost 48% of Maine citizens apparently disagreed with them.

    I support blacks who want education. I support gays who want traditional marriage,

    That’s good Ashpenaz. So do I. However, I don’t want to eliminate education for all Black persons and only have it for Whites, until all Blacks come to my way of thinking as to what education should be. That’s pretty much what you want to do with marriage. Continue banning it from gay persons, until gay persons come to your way of thinking as to what marriage should be.

  45. Kevin says

    November 4, 2009 at 11:50 am - November 4, 2009

    Pat

    I’m not Catholic, nor Morman. Lots of faiths still have issues with both homosexual and extra-martial sex. Both are considered wrong by most Christian faiths (many protestants, Catholic, Orthodox, Coptic, etc), many Hindus, Moslems, Mormans, some Buddhists, etc. Heck, some churches still refuse to marry straights living together, althro many seem to have given up on the pre-martial thingy. BTW that does not mean gay members are not welcome, just don’t expect to have your pet sin accepted. That, btw, includes non-sexual sins. It’s a theological thing so it doesn’t mean anyone has to like it but if you join, its the way it is.

    It’s like creationism in a way. If you think its just those evil Christian nutters, you gonna be surprised. Several school system have found Islam and Hinduism have their own objects to evolution…

    And I strongly doubt that you are right. I give it 48 hours until someone does. Look at the BSA and the continual attacks they are under because of both their position on gay scoutmasters ( Personally I am not happy with young women as asst scoutmaster either. Scouts run up to 18 and I’d had hit some of these younger women at that age. Hell, at that age I’d hit a rockpile if I thought a female chipmunk was under there.) and on atheists where people go out of their way to attack them, look at the Catholic Church in California whose charity arm is now legally required to supply medical care against their faith, or trace the whole priestess mess in Christian churches (There were suits filed). In our society, we have almost regressed to what is permitted is demanded and opting out is not longer much of an option.

    As an aside, does anyone know what the point of 34 and 36 is? Other than showing someone can use a quotation finder?

  46. Sean A says

    November 4, 2009 at 11:54 am - November 4, 2009

    #23: “I could care less about VA, NY and NJ.
    Only Maine.
    Damn. Damn.
    Double Damn.”

    Note the sad irony that gillie’s “pro-gay” President woke up this morning with precisely the OPPOSITE view than the one quoted above.

  47. Chad says

    November 4, 2009 at 12:20 pm - November 4, 2009

    i think AE provides an acceptable rationale for promoting heterosexual marriage. but the possibility of procreation is a wholly insufficient rationale for prohibiting same-sex marriage.

  48. Tim says

    November 4, 2009 at 12:40 pm - November 4, 2009

    Good post Dan. I agree at this point the only way to get around the nutjob religious wackos is to exploit their misunderstanding of legal jargon and just pass the civil unions so we at least have the rights.

  49. mattm says

    November 4, 2009 at 1:00 pm - November 4, 2009

    Where is the rage at the President? With control of just about every part of government, the Democratic administration has done nothing. I guess hate crime laws and a few ambassadorships keep people happy.

  50. TnnsNE1 says

    November 4, 2009 at 1:15 pm - November 4, 2009

    #50 Just not being Bush makes lots of lefties happy. It don’t take much !

  51. ILoveCapitalism says

    November 4, 2009 at 1:17 pm - November 4, 2009

    Ace rightly notes that the loss of gay marriage in Maine is an OBAMA victory: http://ace.mu.nu/archives/294362.php

  52. ILoveCapitalism says

    November 4, 2009 at 1:18 pm - November 4, 2009

    (Not that Obama personally had tons to do with that contest, but… it’s Obama’s position.)

  53. Eric says

    November 4, 2009 at 1:32 pm - November 4, 2009

    What makes this vote so hurtful, is that the vote was not about marriage or equality. The vote was about you, about me, about every gay moment in our lives. The Yes on 1 campaigns effective message, “They will teach gay sex to your kids” exploits a strain of homophobia.

    So sad about Maine

  54. DaveO says

    November 4, 2009 at 1:47 pm - November 4, 2009

    “My biggest fear about the Maine vote is that the President will use it as an excuse not to move forward on issues of concern to the gay community, particularly repeal of Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell.”

    I wouldn’t worry about that. He was always going to find some excuse or another. This makes it much simpler.

  55. DaveO says

    November 4, 2009 at 1:49 pm - November 4, 2009

    @Eric “What makes this vote so hurtful, is that the vote was not about marriage or equality. The vote was about you, about me, about every gay moment in our lives.”

    I wish I could agree. No on 1 made the same mistake that No on 8 made in California. It WAS a vote on “Equality”, or at least that’s how that side tried to portray it. They just don’t get that fuzzy terms like “Equality” only appeal to liberal Democrats with guilty consciences and pretty much to no one else.

  56. TnnsNE1 says

    November 4, 2009 at 1:53 pm - November 4, 2009

    Did people honestly think that this law would be uphold? I mean really..

    It was a misguided effort by an out of touch liberal legislature. Sound familiar?

  57. Ashpenaz says

    November 4, 2009 at 1:59 pm - November 4, 2009

    I am a “nutjob religious wacko” who happens to be gay, and the vote was NOT about me. It was about gay people who continue to believe they can live a lifestyle which largely supports/gives a blind eye to multiple partners, open relationships, serial monogamy, drugs, STDs, exploitation of youth, etc., etc., etc. The gays who are upset about this vote are like kids who draw on the walls with crayon and when caught say, “I didn’t do that! And don’t send me to the naughty corner for something I didn’t do!” Then, when you point out they have crayons in their hands, they say, “Where did those come from? Waaaah! You hate me!”

    Here’s a better strategy. Stop drawing on the walls with crayon. Clean up the mess you’ve made. Start doing positive things, like homework. For those of you who have trouble with allegory, here’s what I mean: Stop with the sexual liberation, multiple partners, parades, etc. Clean up the drugs and broken lives from exploitation. Start forming lifelong, sexually exclusive, publically accountable relationships. THEN Mommy and Daddy might get you what you want.

    Gays shouldn’t have to do all that!! Well, too bad. Suck it up and do it anyway.

  58. TnnsNE1 says

    November 4, 2009 at 2:09 pm - November 4, 2009

    #58… Perhaps we should ban about 75% of the heterosexual population based on your criteria. Or does your criteria only apply to the gay population?

  59. TnnsNE1 says

    November 4, 2009 at 2:40 pm - November 4, 2009

    BOYCOTT MAINE BUSINESSES! Calling On All Gays (NYC/NJ/Boston/Phila)

    Posting on craigslist….
    http://maine.craigslist.org/act/1451044061.html

    ya, that should help “the cause”

  60. North Dallas Thirty says

    November 4, 2009 at 3:23 pm - November 4, 2009

    The Yes on 1 campaigns effective message, “They will teach gay sex to your kids” exploits a strain of homophobia.

    Or simply a good reading of available resources and existing examples.

    Not to mention finding out that, according to the head of “safe schools” for Barack Obama, when you encounter an underage teenager having anonymous sex with people they are meeting in bus station restrooms, you should a) ignore laws requiring you to report it and b) encourage the teenager to continue doing it “safely”.

  61. BC says

    November 4, 2009 at 3:47 pm - November 4, 2009

    #59: I’m a straight guy nonetheless hugely supportive of SSM. But I think there’s a lot of truth in what Ashpenaz says. The reality of the situation is that while heterosexual America hasn’t exactly covered itself in glory respecting the sanctity of marriage, there are a lot of truly ugly pathologies floating around the GLBT community that society is understandably reluctant to normalize but has come to see as part of the GLBT package. Moaning about the unfairness of this, and pretending that the country is crawling with bigots, is good for some momentary psychic satisfaction but does nothing to advance the ball. Doing something to marginalize those pathologies, on the other hand, might persuade Ma and Pa Kettle to the point of influencing their votes.

  62. American Elephant says

    November 4, 2009 at 3:47 pm - November 4, 2009

    That the people are the ultimate political authority in this system grants them no special power to divine what is right and what is wrong.

    Who is it that you believe IS the ultimate authority in our Republic? The Supreme court? It has REJECTED the argument that gay marriage is a civil right in the case Baker v. Nelson. But you might check your Constitution, it gives THE PEOPLE the right to overturn even the Supreme Court. So yes, the people are the ultimate authority in our country. Kind of disturbing that you believe otherwise.

  63. American Elephant says

    November 4, 2009 at 3:55 pm - November 4, 2009

    i think AE provides an acceptable rationale for promoting heterosexual marriage. but the possibility of procreation is a wholly insufficient rationale for prohibiting same-sex marriage.

    Not according to the vast majority of state courts, and not according to SCOTUS.

    Indeed, not according to logic either.

    If your purpose is to encourage men and women to marry so that children are born into wedlock between their biological parents, it is COUNTERPRODUCTIVE to encourage gay relationships, because biology dictates that they categorically cannot reproduce within their relationships. No child adopted by one or more gay partners can EVER be raised by both its biological parents.

    Man, the outright denial of basic biology amongst the gay community is truly frightening.

  64. Ashpenaz says

    November 4, 2009 at 4:05 pm - November 4, 2009

    I keep forgetting–whenever you criticize the gay community, the standard comeback is, “The straight community is just as bad.”

    The straight community isn’t just as bad, actually. Until they hit age 25, maybe straights have a bunch o’ sex, but they grow up. Gays don’t.

    Now, for the second standard response–call me a self-loathing, closet queen. Go ahead. You know you want to.

  65. American Elephant says

    November 4, 2009 at 4:09 pm - November 4, 2009

    Maggie’s misrepresentations to the contrary notwithstanding, there is no evidence that children raised by same-sex couples are at a material disadvantage to those raided by opposite-sex couples.

    It is an established material advantage to know ones family medical history. That is inherent in the nuclear family and not inherent in adoptive families. It is an established material advantage to have both male and female leadership in raising a child. That is inherent in all same sex relationships and not inherent in any same sex relationship even though it CAN (but not necessarily is) compensated for.

    even if it were demonstrably true that having opposite-sex parents is better than having same sex parents the conclusion (that same-sex couples shouldn’t enjoy civil benefits of marriage) doesn’t follow.

    Only if you think the purpose of marriage is to provide an entitlement to adults, if you believe as both the people and the courts at all levels have upheld that the institution exists for the benefit of children and society, then yes, it does.

  66. TnnsNE1 says

    November 4, 2009 at 4:22 pm - November 4, 2009

    #64… “Until they hit age 25, maybe straights have a bunch o’ sex, but they grow up. Gays don’t.”

    Really…. got numbers to back that up or is that just a personal observation? My numbers show divorce rate of over 50%. The divorce rate says otherwise, so does Hollywood. Some children have multiple sets of step-parents. Ever see the show “snapped”? Straight women killing their boyfriends/husband out of greed. None of my gay friends fall into the category of wild sexual freaks with drug problems.

    Also, at any given time there are 1,000,000 children in foster care due to heterosexual misbehavior.

    “The straight community is just as bad.”
    That was not my response. My response was : why do you have two different standards of behavior for the gay community and the straight community? Do you have two different standards for education for people of color and for white people?

  67. TnnsNE1 says

    November 4, 2009 at 4:33 pm - November 4, 2009

    Medical history has only become a factor in anything in the last 50 years or so.

    So, all families headed by a single female are non-optimal?

    Our son (adopted at age 12 from one hell of an abusive heterosexual family) learned that laundry is not just for women. Our son learned that men can be sensitive, caring and nurturing. They can also love muscle cars, roller coasters and chainsaws. Now that our son is a father, he is a caring, supportive, nurturing and loving father. He does diaper changes, laundry, cooking and cleaning. In his “nuclear” family, he is the stay at home dad. All his older half siblings (7 of them. All raised by heterosexuals) are either addicted to drugs or booze and have had children by multiple partners. Try and figure out medical histories there. All, 100% of them live off the state. My son does not. Go ahead, tell me again why 2 parents of opposite genders are needed to raise children.

  68. North Dallas Thirty says

    November 4, 2009 at 4:43 pm - November 4, 2009

    So, all families headed by a single female are non-optimal?

    YES.

    And a single parent is preferable to an orphanage.

    And a stable gay couple is preferable to rotating foster care.

    However, that does NOT mean they are the same as a two-parent opposite-sex household. Nor is it an argument that they should be given the same incentives and privileges as a two-parent opposite-sex household.

  69. TnnsNE1 says

    November 4, 2009 at 4:49 pm - November 4, 2009

    “However, that does NOT mean they are the same as a two-parent opposite-sex household.”

    You are right, a stable 2 parent same gendered family is better than a stable 2 parent opposite gender family.

    I will leave it to you to figure out why…

  70. Jenny says

    November 4, 2009 at 5:21 pm - November 4, 2009

    My husband and I were had a civil ceremony, with a justice of the peace. We consider ourselves married, but the church doesn’t consider us married, because marriage is a religious ceremony. After reading about the insanity that occurred after prop 8 passed, I’m deeply troubled about the subject of gay marriage. The far leftist activists in the gay community did gays and lesbians no favors, the racism, the black lists, the violence, the threats and church invasions were appalling. It struck me as hypocritical, when gays and lesbians have long taken a stand against having to conform to heterosexual norms, yet some of them are demanding that heterosexuals, especially the religious should have to conform. Nor do I appreciate it when the activists claim that concerns about what would be taught in schools, are lies, or propaganda, when from what I’ve heard from friends in Massachusetts (who are very liberal) and how they struggle with protecting their children from being sexualized, and how they are attacked as a result.

    I believe Elton John had it right when he commented last year after 8 passed, that civil unions ought to be enough. You can consider yourselves married, as heterosexual couples who have had what are actually civil unions all these many years have. It’s seeming to me that the emphasis given on gay marriage has seemed to be more of an attempt to take a swing at religion/churches.

  71. Ashpenaz says

    November 4, 2009 at 5:21 pm - November 4, 2009

    Divorce is a tragedy, and many straights, yes, are involved in a certain amount of serial monogamy. In the straight world, open relationships end up in divorce.

    Straights have obligations to family, community, jobs, and yes, church, which keeps their serial monogamy to a minimum. They want to avoid divorce when possible, and after a divorce, they frequently get remarried. The point is not to remain in a perpetual adolescence of parades and parties. Gays never admit any obligations to anyone other than themselves.

  72. TnnsNE1 says

    November 4, 2009 at 5:26 pm - November 4, 2009

    “open relationships end up in divorce”

    Really, search craigslist for the ads of the married people who are looking for a 3rd to spice things up.

    “Straights have obligations to family, community, jobs, and yes, church, which keeps their serial monogamy to a minimum.”

    I must be straight, I have all those same obligations.

    “Gays never admit any obligations to anyone other than themselves.”

    Is that like the all people of religion hate gay people?

  73. Jenny says

    November 4, 2009 at 5:27 pm - November 4, 2009

    oops, almost forgot. I also believe that there should be federal recognition of civil unions, and access to benefits, the same ones heterosexual couples benefit from.

    One other point. When it comes to children, the gays and lesbian couples I know, who’ve had children, either have adopted, or if it was conceived through invitro, the partner who wasn’t the biological parent adopted the child. So legal guardianship and financial responsibility were legally arranged.

  74. North Dallas Thirty says

    November 4, 2009 at 5:27 pm - November 4, 2009

    I will leave it to you to figure out why…

    Actually, the answer, or at least your answer, is pretty obvious in your statement.

    Our son learned that men can be sensitive, caring and nurturing.

    In your worldview, it’s obvious that you believe that children that are raised by heterosexual parents aren’t taught that.

    So of course, in order to make yourself look better, you run down heterosexual parents and couples.

    The endless irony to me is that the gay couples who whine about not judging on the basis of sexual orientation are invariably the first to run down others based on their being heterosexual.

    You really need to overcome the man-hating feminazism that is at the core of so much gay philosophy and that leads you to bash and condemn heterosexual couples.

  75. Pat says

    November 4, 2009 at 5:39 pm - November 4, 2009

    I’m not Catholic, nor Morman. Lots of faiths still have issues with both homosexual and extra-martial sex.

    Kevin, I’ve never even mentioned Mormon. Anyway, I didn’t know what religion you are. I assumed you belong to a Christian religion. And yes, many faiths, Christian and others still consider homosexuality a sin.

    BTW that does not mean gay members are not welcome, just don’t expect to have your pet sin accepted. That, btw, includes non-sexual sins. It’s a theological thing so it doesn’t mean anyone has to like it but if you join, its the way it is.

    My “pet” sin? The thing is, and I thought about this a long time. I do not consider homosexuality, or acting on it in an adult, responsible manner, a sin. And frankly, I don’t see any rational reason why it should be regarded as a sin. The only reason I hear, is because the Bible (or other sacred book) says so, or God allegedly said it was bad. That promiscuity is sinful, and that many homosexuals (and heterosexuals) engage in it. That’s a different story.

    Personally, I wouldn’t belong to a church in which homosexuality is considered a sin. I would not feel welcome in a church that “loves me but hates the sin,” where I would essentially have to hide my partner. If one doesn’t want to call it marriage, that’s fine. But one thing I have common with straight people. I’m not going to lower myself to two steps above a piece of dirt to belong.

    It’s like creationism in a way. If you think its just those evil Christian nutters, you gonna be surprised. Several school system have found Islam and Hinduism have their own objects to evolution…

    No, I don’t think it’s just the evil people. People learn what they learn. It probably took a hundred years or so before everybody believed that the Earth revolved around the Sun after there was proof saying otherwise. My suspicion is that there are people who know evolution is a fact, but say otherwise, in some wicked belief to control the masses. No proof, just a suspicion. I just find it hard to believe that persons who are in a position to know are that stupid.

    And I strongly doubt that you are right. I give it 48 hours until someone does. Look at the BSA and the continual attacks they are under because of both their position on gay scoutmasters

    With the BSA, weren’t they given government money? Anyway, the worst that I could see happen is that churches lose their tax exempt status if they choose to not marry persons who can legally marry. But I still doubt it.

  76. American Elephant says

    November 4, 2009 at 5:49 pm - November 4, 2009

    The creating and raising of kids is *one* of the institution of marriage’s top two purposes. The other purpose is to encourage people to form these little stable, 2-person, mutual-aid societies known as “families”.

    WRONG! And I quote:

    “The Legislature was entitled to believe that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples furthers procreation, essential to the survival of the human race and furthers the well-being of children by encouraging families where children are reared in homes headed by children’s biological parents,” ~ SCOWA

    Moreover, if you were correct that one of marriages purposes is to, encourage people to form, “these little stable, 2-person, mutual-aid societies known as “families” then

    1. that purpose would be stated somewhere in law, by the people or their representatives, which it is not — you have made it up.
    2. gay marriage WOULD indeed be a “right” which both you and the Supreme Court of the United States have rejected. And
    3. bigamy and polygamy would also be a right because 3 can provide more mutual aid than 2, and 4 can provide more mutual aid than 3, etc…

    Your entire argument is predicated on the delusion that YOU get to declare from on high what the purpose of marriage is. You dont. The people have the RIGHT to define the purpose of their institutions. I have never had that problem because I have always understood that right. Your argument by definition rejects it.

    You see, ILC, you continue to have this delusion that YOU get to decide what the purpose of marriage is. Your entire argument is at odds with what the people have said in every instance. I have never had a similar delusion. I have always realized that it is the right of the people to decide what the purpose of their institutions is, and that they have spoken loudly and clearly. The people have defined the institution, and reiterated that definition. EVERYWHERE the people have spoken they have re-affirmed that definition.

    First, AE, you have unwisely called “totalitarian and invasive” something that states already do: Administer certain health tests,

    WRONG AGAIN! You have entirely failed to understand the argument before you reflexively reject it.

    I called totalitarian and invasive requiring specific, inaccurate tests when a general test is all that is necessary. Despite your protestations against biology, it nonetheless remains scientific fact that it requires a man and a woman to make a baby. The state tests for that. Indeed, that is the very test you are objecting to.

    Your failed argument is that because YOU fail the more general, least invasive test, that it must be made more invasive to weed out people who “cant” have children.

    Except what you continue to ignore is that that would also be counter productive. You admit that getting men and women to marry so that children are born WITHIN the bonds of matrimony is at least “one” of the purposes of marriage, and yet you propose a test that is known to be inaccurate in millions of cases and would result in children being born OUTSIDE the bonds of matrimony, when, as happens so often, people who were wrongly told they are infertile, actually conceive.

    How does letting such people into marriage, with not even the slightest pro forma, imperfect attempt at screening them out – not even having them sign a declaration of their intent to raise kids – fit with your idea, “The institution still exists to encourage men and women to get together so that children are born INTO marriage”? Hint: It doesn’t. And gays didn’t do that to marriage; heterosexuals did.

    WROOOONNNNNG AGAIN! 1. You continue to deny the incontrovertible fact that MILLIONS of babies are born to parents who dont intend to have them.

    You can exclude everyone that swears to God they wont have and never want to have children, and what will result is that millions of additional babies will be born outside of wedlock, because they changed their mind.

    And once again you try to deny that the state tests for ability to procreate. It does. It performs the least invasive, MOST accurate test of all. It requires that one of each of the sexes necessary for procreation is involved, and it also recognizes that more invasive tests are often inaccurate and it recognizes that accidents happen and minds change.

    Denial aint just a river in Egypt, it is the foundation of your arguments.

    What works better is the current, less invasive test. If ALL men and women were to marry, ALL children would be born within the bonds of matrimony.

    The institution still exists to encourage men and women to get together so that children are born INTO marriage”? Hint: It doesn’t.

    Wow, youre REALLY good at being WRONG!

    The institution doesnt encourage men and women to marry? Funny, there are gays out there who wont stop talking about the thousands of incentives that straights get for marrying that they do not. I’m unaware of anybody, any court, or any organization that doesnt recognize that the marriage institution offers incentives (encouragement) for men and women to get married. As far as I know youre the only person in the world who doesnt recognize that.

    I guess you think reducing red tape is a discouragement? I guess that would make sense when talking about a guy who thinks the government needs to be more invasive not less.

    And, yet again you ignore the fact of gay couples who have kids. Gay NUCLEAR FAMILIES.

    Man, this is getting embarrassing, but since you want to deny simple facts. I quote again:

    From wikipedia:
    A nuclear family is a family group consisting of only a father and mother and their children, who share living quarters…

    In its most common usage, the term “nuclear family” refers to a household consisting of a father, a mother and their children all in one household dwelling (siblings).[10] George Murdock also describes the term in this way:

    The family is a social group characterized by common residence, economic cooperation and reproduction. It contains adults of both sexes, at least two of whom maintain a socially approved sexual relationship, and one or more children, own or adopted, of the sexually cohabiting adults.

    From Dictionary.com:

    –noun
    a social unit composed of father, mother, and children.

    From Merriam Webster:

    a family group that consists only of father, mother, and children

    From Answes.com Dictionary:

    Dictionary: nuclear family n.

    A family unit consisting of a mother and father and their children.

    From thefreedictionary.com

    n.
    A family unit consisting of a mother and father and their children.

    But the English language is SOOOO homophobic! Nonetheless, it remains the language we use, and your attempts to redefine it are simply dishonest debate tactics.

    The purpose of a State marriage license is to give two people, who are unrelated by blood and unmarried to anyone else, a way to legally declare themselves “a family” in the eyes of the law and society, whether or not they have kids. “Two people” is a necessity. My argument reflects that. Don’t mischaracterize it.

    As I showed above, your definition of the purpose of marriage is not supported by the people, their representatives, the law, or the courts. It is your proclamation from the land where you are king and get to decide such things. Fortunately, no such land exists, and we remain a nation of laws where the people define their institutions, and they agree with me, and not with you.

    “Two people” is a necessity. My argument reflects that. Don’t mischaracterize it.

    WRONG! Two people of opposite sexes is what is a necessity. You mischaracterized and tried to deny that fact, and I was correcting you in a way that shows the fallacy of your argument. If the institution exists to support people who “support children” as YOU CLAIMED, then it must support ALL people who support children,

    But it doesn’t exist to support people who support children. It exists to encourage the IDEAL situation for supporting children.

    You are now free to keep regurgitating the same dis-proven, dishonest, illogical, and unsupported arguments until you are blue in the face, however, they remain dis-proven.

  77. TnnsNE1 says

    November 4, 2009 at 6:00 pm - November 4, 2009

    #75.. But it is okay for you to bash my family?

    I am pointing out that both gay families and straight families have issues. Some of the issues may be the same, some of the issues are different.

    Gender roles are inherently destructive in today’s modern world. You have to admit that the straight guy’s fear of pink on his boy-child is a little weird.

    In a same gender 2 parent family, the children learn that tasks must be completed in order to make a household function. The tasks are non-gender related. We are free to pick those that we like to perform. The non-picked tasks are divided by some means other than gender.

    Both my partner and I come from loving families. Our parents have been married a collective 109 years. Pointing out to another poster that the faults that he attributed solely as faults of the gay community are in fact faults of society as a whole is not hetero-bashing or running down heterosexuals.

    Your premise that heterosexuals are better parents simply because they have different genitals is absurd. Very much like the 1950’s views that people of color could not be as good at parenting as white people.

    From my parenting and foster parenting experience, I can tell you that 2 parents is much better than one.

  78. TnnsNE1 says

    November 4, 2009 at 6:01 pm - November 4, 2009

    #71 .. ” and how they struggle with protecting their children from being sexualized, and how they are attacked as a result.”

    How does showing that Johnny has 2 dads promote this? Are the books including how-to’s of sex? Or are they simply showing there are different family constructs?

    I had a 5yo foster son ask my partner and I why we slept in the same bed. The answer : We love each other and sleeping together makes us feel close to each other.

    His response : Snuggling is good.

    Why is the straight community so afraid that their children will grow up gay? I do not understand the fear that a non-sexual gay imagine presented to child will turn that child gay. I was presented with nothing but heterosexual images in the 1970’s yet I am gay. Is the straight sexuality so fragile that one image or a pink shirt on a boy-child can turn a child gay?

    The gender roles have expanded greatly for women but not so much for men. How many men are encouraged to be nurses? Daycare providers? Elementary school teachers? Executive assistants? Yet, we encourage all women to go into all traditionally male oriented careers. These things become mute in a 2 parent same gendered family. The possibilities are endless.

  79. North Dallas Thirty says

    November 4, 2009 at 6:16 pm - November 4, 2009

    I do so love it when gay liberals have their “typical white person” moments.

    Gender roles are inherently destructive in today’s modern world.

    Straight out of the feminazi handbook.

    You have to admit that the straight guy’s fear of pink on his boy-child is a little weird.

    No; what’s weird is that you seem to believe all straight men are afraid of pink. Stereotype much?

    In a same gender 2 parent family, the children learn that tasks must be completed in order to make a household function.

    Of course, they never learn that in a heterosexual household. Never.

    The tasks are non-gender related. We are free to pick those that we like to perform. The non-picked tasks are divided by some means other than gender.

    But of course! The only reason tasks are ever divided up in a heterosexual household is based on gender. Silly me.

    Both my partner and I come from loving families. Our parents have been married a collective 109 years.

    Impossible. Clearly, these were households in which you, the children, were horribly impaired, given how your parents stuck to destructive gender roles, were utterly phobic of pink, and subdivided the chores rigidly by gender.

  80. The_Livewire says

    November 4, 2009 at 6:17 pm - November 4, 2009

    TnnsNE1, nice to see you again.

    I’d point out in your reply to “Who thought this would remain legal?” question, I know one person who did.

    I will say, I’ve never felt less satisfied in being right.

    And I agree with the OP, this will give president Obama the crisis he needs to kick the DADT can down the road.

  81. Alex in Denver says

    November 4, 2009 at 6:33 pm - November 4, 2009

    AE, you surprise me because you seem to be unwilling or unable to read and consider my actual comments without projecting what you think (incorrectly) that I believe.

    re 62: I answer your question in the very sentence you quote. The people are the ultimate political authority, and they are the ones that make the decision, either directly or indirectly, about the policy. My point, however, is that it is a logical fallacy to determine that a proposition is a good policy by appealing to the authority of an entity that can choose a bad policy as easily as it can choose a good one. I make no appeal whatsoever to judicial authority–they can easily make the wrong choice too.

    re 66: I must have missed where you define “nuclear family” as, oddly, requiring biological relation of all the members. Regardless, the medical history objection is more appropriately a disadvantage of adoption than gay marriage (or ven than gay adoption) because it would apply regardless of the sexual orientation of the adopting parents. Consider the objection in the case of the the possible alternatives to a child being adopted by a gay couple: 1) a child is adopted by a straight couple or a single person and the medical history disadvantage is the same, 2) the child is not adopted but stays in foster care where the disadvantage is the same, 3) the child remains with its parent or parents in a situation that is even more disadvantageous than having incomplete or no medical history as evidenced by the fact that the parent or parents would have otherwise given the child up if another couple had been willing or eager to adopt the child.

    Also, exactly how is it an established material advantage to have both a mother and father over having two mothers or two fathers? How are the outcomes significantly different? Your side likes to state this as a fact, but never seems to get around to providing any evidence to support it.

    Finally, I admit that I focus on civil benefits (and, therefore, entitlements in the sense that an entitlement is a legal guarantee of access to some benefit. As an aside, I do not appreciate your attempt to push my conservative buttons by using terminology that undoubtedly carries a negative connotation for you and you may suspect carries the same connotation for me). I said so in my first post. You have either overlooked or ignored that I agree the primary purpose of marriage is to provide a good environment for raising children. My focus on civil benefits is because we have determined that those benefits should be an encouragement of and facilitator for establishing and maintaining stable monogamous couples for the purpose of creating that environment for raising children. Please explain why it is suitable to provide benefits (such as priority in guardianship appointment, health decision making and visitation, intestacy and elective share, tax advantages, and a host of other benefits that may or may not be directly related to child rearing) to one couple that can, but won’t necessarily, raise children but not to another couple that can, but won’t necessarily, raise children simply because of the gender composition of the couples.

    We are both, it appears, concerned with strengthening families, but why are you so intent on focusing on the sexual orientation of the parents? In a time where many children are denied a stable monogamous couple for parents from birth and the divorce rate is alarmingly high (in no small part because a divorce is so easy to acquire), aren’t there bigger fish to fry for families?

    Frankly, I think you are just mad at me for saying something mean about Maggie Gallagher, my opinion about whom and about whose positions you seem dedicated to affirming.

  82. ILoveCapitalism says

    November 4, 2009 at 6:38 pm - November 4, 2009

    And I quote: …

    …something that, while true, in no way refutes anything I said.

    that purpose would be stated somewhere in law

    It’s been either stated or implied in various court decisions. It’s also implied by the fact that fertility or procreative ability and intention, in fact, ***is not*** one of the requirements of marriage in any State in the United States.

    You see, ILC, you continue to have this delusion that YOU get to decide what the purpose of marriage is…

    AE, you would appear to be engaged in the imputation of personal motive and as such, in what psychologists call “projection”. (Since you are the one who wants to decide the purpose of marriage, and impose it not through reference to fact, but through sheer repetition.) Is name-calling next?

    it nonetheless remains scientific fact that it requires a man and a woman to make a baby. The state tests for that.

    First, five states don’t, so you’re wrong on that, AE.

    Second, what is actually required to make a baby is a fertile womb and live sperm, plus the intent to carry the pregnancy to completion or not abort it. And the State tests for ***none*** of those things. It does not screen out men who have willingly had, or will have, vasectomies. It does not screen out women who have had, or soon will have, tubal ligations or (say) hysterectomies. It does not screen out people who fully intend to abort any pregnancy that happens to them. It does bother to ask the woman if she still has her monthly fertility cycle. It does not even bother to ask people to say in a pro forma fashion, “Yes, we plan to try for children”.

    None of those tests just mentioned would be totalitarian nor invasive, GIVEN that a State marriage license is in fact a privilege (for those who meet qualifications which the People are able to define) and not a right; and IF procreation were, in fact, the only purpose of marriage worth considering. As far as the State is concerned, procreation is *a* purpose of marriage (or one of the two major purposes, as I put it), not the sole purpose worth considering.

    You continue to deny the incontrovertible fact that MILLIONS of babies are born to parents who dont intend to have them.

    Nope. Now you’re just making stuff up, AE, trying to put words in my mouth. Sorry, I’m not having it.

    And once again you try to deny that the state tests for ability to procreate. It does.

    Nope. Forty-five States test for nothing more than that one party appears to be male and the other female, with no effort at verification and no reference to their fertility; the other five states don’t even bother testing for that.

  83. DRH says

    November 4, 2009 at 7:04 pm - November 4, 2009

    What’s the message here? AE and Ashpenaz are OK with gays being “free” but they’re just not good enough to enjoy the privileges straight folk have?

  84. ILoveCapitalism says

    November 4, 2009 at 7:06 pm - November 4, 2009

    Next, AE, you blockquote this as if it were a point I was making:

    The institution still exists to encourage men and women to get together so that children are born INTO marriage”? Hint: It doesn’t.

    And you rephrase that rhetorically as if my point had been this:

    The institution doesnt encourage men and women to marry?

    But I never said nor thought any such thing. And there is no way that, on a careful and honest reading of what I did say, you could have thought I had said that. Pathetic.

    Of course the institution of State marriage licenses encourage men and women to marry. I have said so, on this blog, on many such occasions. Indeed, a key part of my argument that it is such good public policy to have these State licenses that encourage heterosexual men and women and marry, that society ought to create an equivalent of some sort for gays.

    As for the whole “nuclear family” business, AE: Good job citing definitions that include the words “mother” and “father”. Glad you can Google. Now, in real life, most people use “nuclear family” in distinction from other major forms such as “extended family”, polyamorous trible or collective, etc. I.e., “nuclear family” as parents-with-children. Common definitions of “extended family” make that clear:

    extended family
    n.
    1. A family group that consists of parents, children, and other close relatives…

    extended family
    n
    (Sociology) Sociol Anthropol a social unit that contains the nuclear family together with blood relatives, often spanning three or more generations

    This would appear to be a case – and there are many – where dictionaries have not caught up with usage. Very good for you, that you can cite such definitions. But some of your citations go on to say some interesting things which weaken your case or your usage. Naturally, you’ve omitted them. For example, from Wiki:

    Historical records indicate that it was not until the 17th and 18th centuries that the nuclear family became prevalent in Western Europe… [ed: so much for them being the foundation of Western civilization]
    Some also use the term [nuclear family] to describe single-parent households and families in which the parents are a cohabiting, unmarried couple… [ed: so much for marriage being a requirement of “nuclear family”]

    Further, the Wiki article does not even countenance the reality of small, two-parents-with-children families that are headed by lesbian or gay couples. In other words, its definition of “nuclear family” excludes gay-headed nuclear families not by meaningful distinction, but by some form of denial (or perhaps ignorance). I’m so impressed.

  85. ILoveCapitalism says

    November 4, 2009 at 7:18 pm - November 4, 2009

    To expand on something I just said:

    Forty-five States test for nothing more than that one party appears to be male and the other female, with no effort at verification and no reference to their fertility; the other five states don’t even bother testing for that.

    What did I mean by “no effort at verification”? I have in mind heterosexual-appearing couples where one of the partners is transsexual. They are allowed to marry, even in most states that ban gay marriage. They could easily be screened out, by the State asking a very simple question. (“Were you born male?” of the man, and “Were you born female”? of the woman.) Or by a simple genetic test that could easily and non-invasively be tacked onto the blood test that some States do. I am NOT saying they should be screened out, only pointing out how cavalier is the State’s alleged (by AE) concern for procreation in marriage.

  86. ILoveCapitalism says

    November 4, 2009 at 7:30 pm - November 4, 2009

    Typo – I meant to write at #83, “[the State] does -not- bother to ask the woman if she still has her monthly fertility cycle.” I had meant to say “not”.

  87. The_Livewire says

    November 4, 2009 at 7:41 pm - November 4, 2009

    DRH,

    you have the exact same access as I have. That you choose not to take advantage of it does not invalidate that fact.

  88. TnnsNE1 says

    November 4, 2009 at 8:16 pm - November 4, 2009

    #81… Look at the date. I posted that if this went to vote in November 2010, the results would be different. Not November 2009.

  89. TnnsNE1 says

    November 4, 2009 at 8:29 pm - November 4, 2009

    #80… “Impossible. Clearly, these were households in which you, the children, were horribly impaired, given how your parents stuck to destructive gender roles, were utterly phobic of pink, and subdivided the chores rigidly by gender.”

    Yes, that is the household I grew up in. Very much a 1970’s household wouldn’t you say?

    Try giving a pink article of clothing to the next boy-child baby shower you get invited to send a gift to. See if the boy-child ever wears it.

    You assume because I am a gay adoptive parent that I am a liberal. Stereotype much? haha

    I also am not a supporter of same gender marriage. In this case, civil unions are more appropriate.

    Based upon your comments regarding how gender defines household chores, you are woefully ignorant of mainstream American families. The household chores are divided by gender. On one hand you lament the American male becoming feminine yet on the other hand you praise the opposite gender families for being progressive in their gender roles. Which is it?

    I ballroom dance as a follower but I am also a boxer. I can crochet a sweater and change a tire. I don’t let my gender or my sexuality define me. I tried to install that in my son as well. Clearly, in your eyes that defines me as a second (maybe even 3rd) class parent. So be it.

  90. Kevin says

    November 4, 2009 at 9:00 pm - November 4, 2009

    #67 Do the damned math. The annual divorce rate is about 50% of marriages. So the next year, more successful marriages accumulate. They don’t all rest Jan first. Last time I ran the math, I got about 30%.

    Now if you look at that, there are even outliers that warp the data worse. Most people marry and stay marriages on the first of second try, but some marry 5-6 times. That warps the numbers.

    The technical term for what you did with that 50% is, I believe, a lie. It doesn’t come close to true. It’s a nice convenient misleading statement about marriage that is totally bullshit. I’d fluke the student who did stats like that.

    And one can also look at the numbers of partners…. straight versus gay. I’ll let you do the research on that one.

  91. Ashpenaz says

    November 4, 2009 at 9:06 pm - November 4, 2009

    “Gender roles are inherently destructive in today’s modern world.”

    That is one of the truly STUPIDEST things I have read in a long time. I am proud of being male. I am proud of my gender. I am GAY because I love MEN. Nothing makes me happier than a man who is comfortable in his masculinity.

    Being gay has nothing to do with undermining gender roles. Gay is the ultimate love of one’s gender.

  92. Amy K. says

    November 4, 2009 at 9:49 pm - November 4, 2009

    Gender roles are inherently destructive in today’s modern world.

    I feel like I need to ask you what you mean by that. On the face of it, it seems like an utterly ridiculous statement. But maybe you are talking about being forced to hew to a 1950s Donna Reed/Father Knows Best/Leave it to Beaver format. I don’t personally know anyone in the history of my knowing people that has been forced to act out those roles, but maybe you mean something else.

  93. ILoveCapitalism says

    November 5, 2009 at 12:16 am - November 5, 2009

    Ed Morrissey rules. This comes pretty close to my view:

    Californians [rejected gay marriage in 2008] with Proposition 8, and have been attacked ever since for their decision… [Some Left gay marriage advocates] proceeded to insult Californians and sue the state for all sorts of intrusive searches of records on the referendum. It hardly builds sympathy for a later try on the measure, and made the entire idea look more radical than it was — which certainly couldn’t have helped in Maine.

    As far as protecting the “institution of marriage,” though, the states gave up on that decades ago with no-fault divorce. Marriage is the only contract that one partner can abrogate without penalty. People would be better protected by partnership contracts, where property and child access would be decided and agreed long before problems appeared in the relationship, and leave marriage to the churches, which are much better suited to protect the institution. Divorce is a much bigger danger to marriage than gay marriage ever will be…

  94. ILoveCapitalism says

    November 5, 2009 at 12:18 am - November 5, 2009

    At the very least, those who seriously want to protect the institution of marriage should be working to end no-fault divorce in cases where there are living, minor children.

  95. Kurt says

    November 5, 2009 at 12:54 am - November 5, 2009

    I’m very late to this discussion, but I just posted related thoughts at this discussion at Classical Values. Here’s what I wrote there (which echoes some of the points in the highlighted DaveO quote):

    I think some of the main problems that Gay, Inc. has is it is filled with the sorts of activists who populate and attend gay pride parades, and it is completely partisan. Gay, Inc. has no use whatsoever for gay conservatives or gay Republicans and it is quick to call them traitors. But this partisan one-sidedness is part of what relegates Gay, Inc. to a fringe movement. Until gay activists recognize that sexual orientation is not the same thing as politial orientation, then the public at large will continue to view gay people only in terms of a highly political alternative lifestyle.

    One of the other problems with both the gay and the anti-gay movements is that both can only argue for their positions based on claims of faith. The science behind sexual preference and sexual orientation has never been too sophisticated or too complete (homosexuality was removed from the DSM for reasons that were as political as they were scientific), and it is currently taboo in academia to undertake any sort of social science research which seeks to explain or understand what makes some people gay and most not (though it is considered ok to advance the cause by looking for a gay gene or other physical or physiological markers). However, the leftist “queer” movement, has only complicated the issue by applying post-modern critiques to deterministic statements about orientation, by suggesting that sexuality might be a choice.

    The only arguments that really work persuasively to advance the cause are those that focus on freedom for all and not rights, equality and entitlements per se, but those are not the arguments that most gay activists want to make. They seek to apply the civil rights movement’s template of victimhood to gay people, but this line of argument only works with those who are more inclined to accept the premises of such an argument from the start.

  96. American Elephant says

    November 5, 2009 at 1:44 am - November 5, 2009

    #67 Do the damned math. The annual divorce rate is about 50% of marriages.

    Not even close. The divorce rate is about 30% of FIRST marriages. The vast majority of first marriages survive til death does them part.

  97. American Elephant says

    November 5, 2009 at 3:18 am - November 5, 2009

    …something that, while true, in no way refutes anything I said.

    No, it doesn’t refute anything you said, what it does is prove that my definition of marriage comes from the people, was expressly stated by their elected representatives and recognized as entirely valid, legal and constitutional by the courts of law.

    I did this to illustrate that YOU have no such support from anyone for your made-up definition. NONE WHATSOEVER. No where have the people affirmed your definition, NOWHERE has any legislative body affirmed your definition, and nowhere has any court affirmed your definition. You pulled it directly out of your ass.

    And, sorry, but you dont get to proclaim the purpose of marriage all by your little old self. The people get to define it, and they define it in law, And the law agrees with ME.

    It’s been either stated or implied in various court decisions.

    Source please!

    AE, you would appear to be engaged in the imputation of personal motive and as such, in what psychologists call “projection”.

    No ILC, I provide sources showing that my definition is codified into law. You do not. You are the one projecting.

    Second, what is actually required to make a baby is a fertile womb and live sperm

    The former of which belong ONLY to women, the latter of which come ONLY from men. Thank you for begrudgingly admitting that biological fact.

    plus the intent to carry the pregnancy to completion or not abort it.

    WRONG AGAIN! lol. Man, you are humiliating yourself. Intents change. And abortions have been known to be botched. Barack Obama favors killing such babies, for example. perhaps you support his Chicago law because in some twisted way it makes your gay marriage argument begin to hold water?

    And the State tests for ***none*** of those things.

    Because it doesnt ****need**** to! (I have more asterisks, I win!)

    For the five BILLIONTH time: The more men and women are married to eachother, the more children will be born inside wedlock.

    The idea that the state needs to start digging around in womens wombs to see if they are working BECAUSE YOU DONT HAVE A WOMB TO BEGIN WITH is patently ridiculous. And yes, frightfully totalitarian.

    As far as the State is concerned, procreation is *a* purpose of marriage (or one of the two major purposes, as I put it), not the sole purpose worth considering.

    Source please! (I can save you time, it doesnt exist)

    You continue to deny the incontrovertible fact that MILLIONS of babies are born to parents who dont intend to have them.

    Nope. Now you’re just making stuff up, AE, trying to put words in my mouth. Sorry, I’m not having it.

    WRONG AGAIN!. It is the direct implication of your moronic, childish and endlessly REPEATED argument that “the state doesn’t test for intent! the state doesn’t test for intent! the state doesn’t test for intent!”

    And the only thing you are “having” is an a** whooping, served up by me.

    And once again you try to deny that the state tests for ability to procreate. It does.

    Nope. Forty-five States test for nothing more than that one party appears to be male and the other female, with no effort at verification and no reference to their fertility; the other five states don’t even bother testing for that.

    As usual, you pretend the part of the statemet that obliterates your argument doesnt exist.

    It performs the least invasive, MOST accurate test of all. It requires that one of each of the sexes necessary for procreation is involved. Funny how you claim that the very test for sexual compatibility that you are trying to overturn doesn’t exist! That’s so….YOU!

    But you are correct that five states do not, (Actually, isnt it four now that the people of Maine have rejected Gay Marriage?) by judicial fiat, against the expressed will of the people.

    But from the beginning I have been talking about the will of the people and their right to define their own institutions, and from the beginning you have been arguing against their right to do so.

    But I never said nor thought any such thing.

    Yes, you did. I quoted you verbatim. Don’t blame me for what you wrote.

    As for the whole “nuclear family” business, AE: Good job citing definitions that include the words “mother” and “father”. Glad you can Google. Now, in real life, most people use

    You are really so sleazy, I feel as though I must take a bath every time I argue with you. We use English. I provided EVERY dictionary definition I could find , ALL of which agree with me.

    YOU try to redefine English like Bill Clinton redefining the meaning of the word “is” or your previous attempts to redefine the meaning of the word “reproduce” to mean adopt a child that someone else reproduced.

    Seriously, arguing with someone as sleazy as you makes my skin CRAWL! Andrew Sullivan is more intellectually honest.

    But just to blow your repulsively dishonest attempts to redefine the English language away, lets use the definition YOU sanctioned of extended family:

    Now, in real life, most people use “nuclear family” in distinction from other major forms such as “extended family”, polyamorous trible or collective, etc. I.e., “nuclear family” as parents-with-children. Common definitions of “extended family” make that clear:

    extended family
    n.
    1. A family group that consists of parents, children, and other close relatives…

    extended family
    n
    (Sociology) Sociol Anthropol a social unit that contains the nuclear family together with blood relatives, often spanning three or more generations

    But you see, YOUR OWN SOURCE DISAGREES WITH YOU!

    I can google. And the definition you just cited comes from “thefreedictionary.com which I already quoted above as defining a nuclear family as a mother a father and their children:

    n.
    A family unit consisting of a mother and father and their children.

    So NO! The definition of extended family DOES NOT prove your point, IT PROVES MINE!

    Now, I really must go take a long hot bath after getting down in your sleaze, afterwhich I think I wlll cleanse my mind by reading someone more intellectually honest, like Bill Clinton or Andrew Sullivan!

    And please. Come to terms with what you are. You do not have ovaries, you do not have a womb. Neither does your partner. You are not the same as a heterosexual couple. You are here, you are queer, GET THERAPY!

  98. The_Livewire says

    November 5, 2009 at 6:12 am - November 5, 2009

    TnnNE1,

    Actually you initially said November, then qualified Nov 2010, but that wasn’t the point.

    I was searching the archives to make sure I remembered what I said correctly, and that post, amused me. I was just pointing out you were cautiously optimisitc that it would fail, so it was funny to say “Who thought it would remain legal?” I thought it had to be brought to the ballot to finish the process, but am sad that it passed, if that makes sense. No offence was intended, but I apparently added too much snark. I appologize.

    At least Maine has a DP law. (So score one for ‘Fred’)

  99. DRH says

    November 5, 2009 at 7:39 am - November 5, 2009

    And, sorry, but you dont get to proclaim the purpose of marriage all by your little old self. The people get to define it, and they define it in law, And the law agrees with ME.

    What a strange blend of Authoritarian and Populist. Glad to see you enshrine your love of mob rule. It’s great so long as you can say “the mob agrees with ME! with ME!”

  100. V the K says

    November 5, 2009 at 8:14 am - November 5, 2009

    Did you ever notice that any time the public votes down something a liberal wants, it’s not democracy, it’s “mob rule?”

  101. ILoveCapitalism says

    November 5, 2009 at 9:12 am - November 5, 2009

    No where have the people affirmed your definition, NOWHERE has any legislative body affirmed your definition, and nowhere has any court affirmed your definition. You pulled it directly out of your ass.
    …sleazy… Andrew Sullivan is more intellectually honest… GET THERAPY!

    Alex in Denver – see what I meant, at #33?

    We know that marriage law is what it is. It treats married couples as families, regardless of whether they possess even the remotest possibility of producing children. It encourages couples to settle down and be married, regardless of their ability or willingness to produce children. Also, in the manner of infertile straight couples (or with the assistance of technology and outsiders), there is the fact of lesbian and gay couples that produce children, children that are related genetically to one or both of the parents (depending on the exact technique used) and raised closely by both parents as a nuclear family (as opposed to a broken family, an extended family, etc.).

    Yet Alex, we see the above Gallagher supporter clinging emotionally to claims that range from ‘thin’ to ‘specious’, imagining perhaps that he can make them true by repetition, straw man tactics and rageful attacks. Gallagher and her supporters, while possibly well intended, are unfortunately pathetic in execution, most of the time.

    from the beginning I have been talking about the will of the people and their right to define their own institutions, and from the beginning you have been arguing against their right to do so.

    Yet another pathetic straw man from you, AE, since I quite clearly stated the following up at #7 AND in virtually every comment I’ve written on the subject of gay marriage, over a period of years:

    Mind you, I have no objection to doing it [enacting protections for today’s gay couples and gay-headed nuclear families] with civil-union laws, incrementalism and democracy. I view State “relationship licenses” (whether marriage or civil union) as a privilege, and as something rightly designed to create a certain kind of inequality: privileging stable, two-person relationships over other kinds. And in America, privileges must or should always be legislated democratically.

    AE: Look in the mirror, look in the mirror, look in the mirror. Make peace with that guy. Before it’s too late.

  102. Scott Lassiter says

    November 5, 2009 at 9:32 am - November 5, 2009

    All this time, all these votes, and still it doesn’t sink in. Gay marriage has lost every time. Don’t you think this is saying something? You are like children that keep screaming and crying because they didn’t get the toy they wanted. I’m aware that many of you who respond so strongly will never relent. It’s a shame that you have so little respect for your fellow man and woman that you can’t see how important it is for the culture to retain the accepted definition of marriage. It’s always about others respecting you….isn’t it? You all are nothing more than bullies at this point. If you somehow find a way to get gay marriage through, my partner and I will stay as far away from it as possible. If you want to become adults and look towards something different, like domestic partnerships, you might actually find that all those people you think are bigots really want you to live a rewarding life.

  103. ILoveCapitalism says

    November 5, 2009 at 9:43 am - November 5, 2009

    Typo, sorry. I meant to say, “…AND in virtually every -thread- where I’ve written on the subject of gay marriage…”

  104. ILoveCapitalism says

    November 5, 2009 at 10:24 am - November 5, 2009

    Yes, you did. I quoted you verbatim.

    Wrong again. In the specific example under discussion (see the top of #85), you chopped my words into out-of-context half-sentences to turn their sense into a ridiculous opposite of what I actually believe and have actually been saying in this thread. It was the kind of thing certain Democrats do, AE. Lame beyond words.

  105. ILoveCapitalism says

    November 5, 2009 at 10:44 am - November 5, 2009

    P.S. To review, here is what I said at #31:

    Have you heard of people who deliberately self-sterilize? Have you heard of people who deliberately kill their unborn children? *How does letting such people into marriage*, with not even the slightest pro forma, imperfect attempt at screening them out – not even having them sign a declaration of their intent to raise kids – *fit with your idea*, “The institution still exists to encourage men and women to get together so that children are born INTO marriage”? Hint: It doesn’t. [ed: i.e., it doesn’t fit] And gays didn’t do that to marriage; heterosexuals did.

    Emphasis added. Defying all standards of quotation and discussion in English, you then framed a fragment to tell a lie, suggesting that I believed:

    The institution doesnt encourage men and women to marry?

  106. Classical Liberal Dave says

    November 6, 2009 at 1:13 am - November 6, 2009

    My biggest fear about the Maine vote is that the President will use it as an excuse not to move forward on issues of concern to the gay community, particularly repeal of Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell.

    Let that fear depart from your mind, Daniel. Obama was never going to press the DADT matter in the first place.

  107. Zoe Brain says

    November 8, 2009 at 12:02 am - November 8, 2009

    American Elephant:
    While it’s true for 99.999999% that 2 opposite sexes are necessary for conception, it’s not 100%.

    There exists at least one boy I know of whose genetic parents are both female. One is very badly intersexed indeed, and her male glands, while almost completely dysfunctional, were adequate to provide gametes for fertilisation, with medical help, at the 14th attempt.

    Shortly afterwards, her long-delayed female puberty completed, and the glands became totally dysfunctional. Before that unexpected event, she’d been considered on the male side of the line, but afterwards, incontestably female.

    Her female glands had unfortunately been removed long before in an attempt to “normalise” her as the male she appeared to be at the time, before she married. But it’s totally impossible that they would have ever worked.

    So although she’s more female than male now, she didn’t look like it initially.

    Such changes are rare. Far more common are cases where the individual is born looking female, but masculinises later.

    Anyway, the question “were you born female” can be answered in the affirmative by thousands of American men, many of whom have fathered children after their masculinisation.

    Biology is messy. Such cases are rare, but then, so is transsexuality, another intersex condition, where the brain is cross-sexed. About 1 in 10 have other, obvious intersex conditions too.

    As for genes:
    A 46,XY mother who developed as a normal woman underwent spontaneous puberty, reached menarche, menstruated regularly, experienced two unassisted pregnancies, and gave birth to a 46,XY daughter with complete gonadal dysgenesis– J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2008 Jan;93(1):182-9

Categories

Archives