On gay marriage, civil unions and the 2009 elections
As many of you may know that last Tuesday while voters in Maine rejected gay marriage, voters in Washington State approved domestic partnerships. That “split decision” occasioned my latest column for Pajamas Media. Here’s a taste:
Largely lost amidst the hullabaloo of Republican gubernatorial victories in New Jersey and Virginia and a Conservative defeat in New York’s 23rd congressional district last week was a successful citizens’ veto in Maine of a state statute recognizing gay marriage. At the same time, across the nation, citizens in Washington State approved a statute making “the rights, responsibilities, and obligations of same-sex and senior domestic partners” the equivalent to those of married spouses without calling the relationships marriage. The margins were nearly identical. In the Pine Tree State, 52.8% of voters approved Question 1, rejecting state recognition of same-sex marriage. In the Evergreen State, 52.56% voted to approve domestic partnerships.
This split decision, if you will, could have tremendous reverberations in the current debate on gay marriage, particularly as it relates to the strategies gay activists employ to secure state recognition of and legal benefits to same-sex couples. When Maine voters’ approval of Question 1, the Pine Tree State become the 31st state to either reject same-sex marriage or accept the traditional definition of marriage by popular initiative. No state has recognized same-sex marriage at the ballot box.
By contrast, Washington State become the first state to approve state recognition of same-sex domestic partnerships at the ballot box.* It’s only been ten years since California became the first state to recognize same-sex relationships when the state legislature enacted the Domestic Partnership Act of 1999. While some state courts (e.g., Vermont that year and New Jersey in 2003) mandated the state legislature enact legislation recognizing civil unions, until last Tuesday, voters, via a statewide initiative process, had never previously approved such legislation.
40 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
That’s progress – I’ll take it.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 11, 2009 @ 12:54 pm - November 11, 2009
It’s been quite a week here in Maine. I just have the feeling that a civil unions bill is going to go before the legislature & activists will pressure members to turn it down because civil unions are an “insult”. Well, after the rejection of SSM by Maine voters what do we have: a pretty weak domestic partner registry. Many activists compare this issue with “whites only” and “colored” drinking fountains. I make this comparison: rejecting civil unions and holding out for SSM is like you’re starving to death & you’re offered a bowl of pasta but you turn it down because the pasta isn’t cooked “al dente”. Gays in Mississippi & Alabama would be tickled pink to receive civil unions. Those who want it all get nothing.
Comment by Jim Michaud — November 11, 2009 @ 1:31 pm - November 11, 2009
It is NOT like “whites only” and “colored only” drinking fountains. It is recognizing that homosexual partnerships have a different dynamic and history than heterosexual partnerships. I don’t want homosexual partnerships to be called “marriage.” I don’t want homosexuals to feel they have to co-opt a straight tradition in order to feel validated. I want to create a new legal relationship based on the history of homosexual partnerships. We are not, and we never tried to be, heterosexual, and we don’t need their traditions. I would use the word “covenant” since I think that best describes the dynamic of gay partnerships throughout history.
Gay activists demand the word “marriage” because they want to undermine marriage for everyone. They want to make marriage mean open relationships, serial monogamy, and multiple partners. They also want to use “marriage” to indoctrinate children into thinking all of these are normal–”And Tango Makes a Threesome.” Gay activists don’t want to celebrate homosexual history, they want to free everyone from patriarchal, oppressive norms which stop people from having sex with whoever they want.
Comment by Ashpenaz — November 11, 2009 @ 1:43 pm - November 11, 2009
Dale Carpenter over at Volokh also posted on this a few days ago.
Comment by Sonicfrog — November 11, 2009 @ 2:06 pm - November 11, 2009
There is another Mainah posting here? Wow !!
Comment by TnnsNE1 — November 11, 2009 @ 5:11 pm - November 11, 2009
Ash, how does extending martital status to gays “undermine” marriage? Upon what evidence do you base your assertion that gay “activists . . . want to make marriage mean open relationships, serial monogamy, and multiple partners. They also want to use “marriage” to indoctrinate children into into thinking all of these are normal–”And Tango Makes a Threesome.” Are you saying everyone who supports gay marriage is an activist who wants these things?
If you disageee with gay marriage, no problem, but please don’t assume others who hold a different view are activists who want to destroy marriage. That’s an extremist view and not worthy of you.
Comment by Man — November 11, 2009 @ 8:24 pm - November 11, 2009
What do people want, the name (marriage) or the rights and responsibilities.
Comment by HCN — November 11, 2009 @ 8:33 pm - November 11, 2009
The gay agenda is not to get legal rights for homosexuals in lifelong, sexually exclusive, publicly accountable relationships. Gay leftists do not use the term “marriage” or even “monogamy” in the same way as it is generally understood. Once “marriage” is applied to gay relationships, gays can start the work of making the word mean what they want it to mean.
Here’s the reason gays are losing the votes: people have figured out the supposedly “hidden” gay agenda, and, yes, there is one. Gays think they have disguised what they really want by using “marriage” as a cover. People know that minute gays get “marriage,” schools will be forced to discuss fisting with 3rd graders. Because it’s not about “marriage”–it’s about promoting sexual liberation. And people know it.
So, don’t play the victim and act innocent–no one is saying that extending marital status to gays would undermine society. What I’m saying is that gays don’t want marital status. They pretend to want it so they can wedge in a sexual liberationist agenda.
That’s why the word “marriage” is so important to gay leftists. Until they grab the term, they won’t be able to undermine it. Having open relationships and multiple partners in a “civil union” doesn’t undermine anything, so they have to take over “marriage” to make sure that this oppressive, patriarchal institution is destroyed.
Comment by Ashpenaz — November 11, 2009 @ 8:54 pm - November 11, 2009
Ashpenaz is exactly right on what the gay activists want when they demand gay marriage. And even if they didn’t want the ultimate result to be a sexual free-for-all that is what the end result of legalizing gay marriage will be. No, it probably won’t happen overnight but it will happen. Gays who demand that marriage be redefined to validate them have no crediblity insisting that marriage shouldn’t/won’t be redefined to validate every other aberrant sexual/domestic lifestyle. I mean, if two gay men can be married why can’t one straight man marry two women? Or better yet, why can’t one man legally marry one woman and simultaneously have a “domestic partnership” or “civil union” with another one? C’mon you advocates of gay marriage, why not?
Comment by Seane-Anna — November 11, 2009 @ 9:00 pm - November 11, 2009
And Ashpenaz, you might want to hold off on your disdain for the sexual liberationist agenda. Gay liberation grew out of that agenda; so, when you condemn sexual liberation you’re condemning the fundamental rationale for gay rights. As a social conservative I oppose the philosophy of sexual liberation, which is why I oppose gay rights in general and gay marriage in particular. I understand that the latter is the child of the former. I’m a little confused as to why you don’t. Not being rhetorical or facetious; I really don’t understand.
Comment by Seane-Anna — November 11, 2009 @ 9:15 pm - November 11, 2009
“Gay Agenda??? Ash, You imply one must be a leftist to want the right to enjoy all the benefits of marriage currently accorded to heterosexuals. Well I’m gay and your description does not accord with mine. I’ve noticed you paint with a very broad brush indeed. And it’s rather boring to read all your self-hatred. Ash, if God in His love created you as He surely did, why must you rail against others like you? As for playing the victim, my sense is that it’s you who play the victim . . . . poor me, I’m gay! Yes you are, so be happy with it and life your life, but allow others to live theirs too.
Comment by Man — November 11, 2009 @ 9:20 pm - November 11, 2009
By changing the definition of what marriage is and why it exists.
People probably asked the same question of no-fault divorce. How does my MY getting a divorce hurt YOUR marriage?
Nevertheless, no fault divorce has been deeply harmful to the institution, and those who argued it wouldnt be are undoubtedly now arguing for gay marriage.
The ESSENTIAL function that marriage provides to society is in getting the two sexes responsible for all reproduction in history to get tied in legal knots for the sake of children. So that before children are even born, their biological parents are so tied up in knots, that they aren’t going anywhere.
To that end, all men and women are allowed to get married, but there are restrictions on whom they can marry. They cant marry a person to whom they are so closely related that their offspring might have birth defects, they aren’t allowed to marry a minor, they aren’t allowed to marry another species, they aren’t allowed to marry an inanimate object, they aren’t allowed to marry more than one other person, they aren’t allowed to marry themselves, and they aren’t allowed to marry a person of the wrong sex.
Every one of these restrictions is predicated on the same definition of the institution. It is not one that exists for the benefit of the adults, indeed, the incentives exist to coerce adults into taking part. The institution exists to get mom and dad tied in knots for the welfare of children, and for the benefit to society.
You CANNOT remove any of those restrictions without changing the very definition of the institution.
If you suddenly start allowing siblings to get married, that would immediately change the definition of the institution because it CANNOT be one that exists to encourage ideal procreation circumstances if you allow inbreeding. Therefore if we allowed siblings to marry, the very definition of the institution would have to change to one that exists for what it provides to adults, not what it provides for children. And likewise, all the other restrictions on marriage would instantly become arbitrary discrimination instead of lawful, logical restrictions.
The exact same thing is true if you allow people of the wrong sex to marry. It immediately changes the institution from one that exists to get the reproductive sexes together — which keeps the focus on children — to one that exists to get couples of ANY sex together. By allowing same sex couples you immediately negate the reproductive nature of the institution and turn it into an institution that exists to provide benefits to adults instead of one that exists to get mom and dads tied up in knots.
In addition, allowing people of the same gender to marry immediately negates any logical restrictions on incestual marriage, on group marriage, etc. If two people of the wrong gender for reproduction are allowed to marry, then marriage cannot claim to be about reproduction, and all other restrictions become arbitrary discrimination.
In short, it changes the definition of the institution from one that exists to provide the best situation for children, to one that exists to provide entitlements to adults. And there really can be no lawful discrimination against any kind of couple when that becomes the purpose.
Comment by American Elephant — November 12, 2009 @ 1:28 am - November 12, 2009
Nevertheless, no fault divorce has been deeply harmful to the institution,Far more harmful than gay marriage could ever be.
One of the two essential functions.
The law recognizes that even couples who are blatantly incapable of reproduction (sucn as self-sterilized ones, old ones, etc.) or who would systematically kill every one of their unborn children if they had any, are still worthy of encouragement to settle down and still worthy of recognition as families under the law. Thus, it includes them in State-licensed marriage. Thus, State-licensed marriage has in reality a second essential purpose, of encouraging people to form these stable little mutual-welfare dyads known as “families” (which may or may not then proceed to have children).
Also, to the extent that State-licensed marriage is about protecting children (and it is a large extent), there are gay families with children to protect. But personally, I don’t buy the whole “separate is unequal” shtick, so I am pleased to see progress toward marriage-equivalent civil unions for gays, as I indicated at #1.
As indicated, State-licensed marriage already isn’t exclusively about procreation. However, siblings/relatives should absolutely continue to be excluded from marriage and, under marriage’s “other” essential purpose, there is another reason: They are already a family. Given that the institution exists to let two non-familied adults (two adults unrelated to each other and unmarried to anyone else) make themselves a family in the eyes of the law, letting in people who are already family would be sheer insanity.
Oops, too late. Heterosexuals have already done that. Without gays.
No – see above.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 12, 2009 @ 9:22 am - November 12, 2009
Sorry, the above comment should have opened like this:
Far more harmful than gay marriage could ever be.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 12, 2009 @ 9:23 am - November 12, 2009
“(O)ne must be a leftist to want the right to enjoy all the benefits of marriage currently accorded to heterosexuals.”
If that’s all gay leftists wanted, then that would be OK. My point is that gay leftists don’t want the benefits of marriage–they simply use that as a cover for a sexual liberationist agenda. They use a lot of nifty words and parade out the 50 or so lifelong, monogamous gay couples on their commercials, but the underlying goal is to get kids to read “My Several Dads.”
“all your self-hatred”
Really? Seriously? Could you guys all get together and come up with a new insult?
Comment by Ashpenaz — November 12, 2009 @ 9:47 am - November 12, 2009
Ashpenaz, you still haven’t answered my question.
Comment by Seane-Anna — November 12, 2009 @ 10:30 pm - November 12, 2009
Source please! As I pointed out before, YOU dont get to decide the purpose of marriage. Society does. So please cite the statute that defines this as the purpose, or we can just save everyone time and admit that youre just making stuff up as usual.
It does? Where does the law recognize this? Please quote and cite.
The law doesn’t mention anything about any of these things. It simply allows all men and all women to marry a person of the correct gender.
YOU are simply making this up because YOU dont like the fact that YOU cant even pass the most general test for marriage, so like a petulant child YOU are demanding that everyone else must undergo more invasive, inaccurate and counterproductive tests in order to make YOU feel better about the fact that YOU are asking to do something entirely different.
And until YOU can cite the law that recognizes this, and quote the relevant passage, then YOU are wrong again.
But we’re used to it.
Comment by American Elephant — November 12, 2009 @ 10:31 pm - November 12, 2009
Reality, AE. Just look at marriage. Look at what the law actually allows. My dad’s retirement community is a hotbed of new marriages – that have absolutely ***NOTHING WHATEVER*** to do with “getting the two sexes… tied in legal knots for the sake of children”. Nothing.
As for this:
I hereby once again quote and cite REALITY. What State, AE, when it hands out marriage licenses, tries to screen out couples who have self-sterilized through surgical procedures? Or who have become blatantly sterile with extreme age? Or what State makes any attempt, even an imperfect pro forma attempt like having people put their signature on a statement, to screen out couples who intend not only to practice contraception, but to abort (i.e., kill) every one of their pregnancies that ever does occur?
Reality is always a great source, AE, if you can but face up to it.
Oh, but you are projecting! ROFL
After all, these ‘discussions’ always end with you making up complete crap about me personally. One time, you tried to claim I was in favor of bestiality. (For the sane people: Needless to say, I never have been.)
In a more recent discussion, AE, you tried sleazy tricks to misrepresent/falsify my actual views… not only once, but twice. (The two links are to places where I pointed it out for the record.) So cut to the chase. You know you want to go there. Do it! I get something from it. Namely, when my opponent on a certain issue turns both nasty and dishonest each and every time, as you do AE, it shows me that there really aren’t very good answers to my points.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 12, 2009 @ 11:36 pm - November 12, 2009
To be clear, AE: Don’t just stop at lying about me. Try some of your other tricks, like screeching “GET THERAPY!” (capital letters yours) and name-calling. It’s entertaining.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 12, 2009 @ 11:38 pm - November 12, 2009
Marriage has never been about sexuality to the gay leadership. The gay establishment and all of those in favor of gay marriage refuse to answer this question:
How much freedom of speech and expression does the majority have to give up for 5-percent of the population to have the word marriage?
I ask this because although the ordinary gay American (like many of us here) just want equal rights in terms of hospital visitation, taxes, property rights, adoption, and so forth, the gay establishment doesn’t give a damn about that, as was proven in California. Gays in California have exactly the same rights as heterosexual couples do; the measure was explicitly about how to define marriage. I have a trust for the ordinary gay person, but not for the gay establishment, nor the ACLU or any other liberal progressive organization or political pundits. This is about religion, not sexuality.
Christianity is the most practiced religion in this country, we are a Christian nation and the gay establishment and the ultra-liberal left despise this fact. If gay marriage was enacted, can you legislatively assure the religious population that their rights will not be abridged for your own? Can you assure that groups like the ACLU will not completely tear down the wall of separation of Church and State and force pastors to perform gay marriages because to not do so would be discrimination? Can you further assure that the state won’t further go into the Church and further legislate the language and the belief system and values of the Church and religious communities? I don’t think that you can. If the churches are forced to perform these marriages, this means that they are forced to legally recognize gay marriage when it stands in complete defiance to the Bible and their beliefs. Thus, it would be a symbolic destruction of Christianity to the gay establishment and those that openly revile the Christian community for their disagreement in gay marriage and the homosexual lifestyle. My family disagrees with gay marriage, and they disagree with my lifestyle, but they love me. They want me to have the same legal rights in my relationship, but all they ask is that marriage be honored as it has been historically and culturally for centuries.
In the United States marriage has historically and culturally been a religious institution. Religiously, marriage is symbolic in Christianity as a promise and oath before God in the forging of a union of one man and one woman. In Christianity, God ordained man and wife with the union when He says that a man shall leave his family and a woman hers and be joined by God. We understand this to be “marriage.” Does the gay community want this eradicated, no, but I believe that the gay leadership does and I promise you the ACLU does. It appears that they seek to destroy and undermine any group that makes the gay establishment question themselves.
I also want clarification on if the definition of marriage is changed, that the legislation would bar marriage between a minor and an adult, polygamy, and so forth. If we cannot discriminate against homosexuals, can we discriminate against bisexuals?
Also, I’m sick of listening to this being a Constitutional right. No, it’s not. I have read the Constitution and it’s not in there. Marriage was never meant to be legislated; I’m guessing our Founding Fathers never thought that it would be an issue.
Some may think that what I have said is foolish, but our society has historically and culturally defined marriage as a religious union, thus, in legal terms, this is the precedent. This does not make our relationships of less value because with civil unions we would be equal under state law. If all we are talking about is equal rights, we have that with civil unions. That’s not good enough though for the gay establishment…it’s as if by winning this battle they have defeated God Himself. I have a feeling that is what some are trying to do.
Don’t even get me started on the gay agenda in the school system, which is absolutely ridiculous. Are we as a community so spineless that we must seek validation of our relationships from 5 year olds? Let them be children. They should be learning about the actual history of this country, reading and analysis, proper grammar and sentence structure, and how about knowing some sort of math before graduation? Nope, this takes a backseat because what these kids really need is not an education, but social engineering. This will help them become successful in the name of Diversity. We should be ashamed that this goes on and the fact that the gay community does not stand up is not only disheartening, but disgusting. They do not need to know what I do in my bedroom and it’s not for the schools to teach. The gay establishment knows that gays are unable to procreate though, so how else are we going to continue to enforce the gay agenda with children we don’t have…oh yes, the Conservative Christian children sitting at their desks in public schools without their parents knowledge. How proud we must be.
For those here that want gay marriage, I support your right to raise your voice and hope that you continue to promote equal rights. I will say that those that I know who stand for traditional marriage, have no ill-will towards gays at all. They see marriage as a union between one man and one woman before God, therefore when you tell them to vote for gay marriage, you, knowingly or not, are telling them to choose gay marriage or God. I’m all for civil unions, not for gay marriage.
Comment by Holly — November 12, 2009 @ 11:51 pm - November 12, 2009
P.P.S. to my #18 and #19 (since #19 was a P.S.) – But for other people on this blog:
I recognize, as I hope you-all do, that we are not going to agree on every issue. That’s OK. If you think you have good points against my position in favor of gay civil unions and/or gay marriage achieved democratically (not through courts), and if you can state them without the excesses I’ve mentioned encountering from AE, I welcome it. Please recognize that you are probably not going to change my mind – just as I fully recognize that I am probably not going to change yours. You would know, as I do, that civil and intelligent people often must agree-to-disagree and merely ‘airing’ the different sides and points of an issue is often as far as a blog discussion gets, or ever needs to get.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 12, 2009 @ 11:55 pm - November 12, 2009
Holly, good post.
As for me, and as I’ve said time and time again in discussions on this blog, I want gay marriage to be passed democratically and I’m fine settling for civil unions, domestic partnership laws, etc.
A State license for marriage, professional practice, driving, fishing or anything is always a privilege not a right. A right is something you have morally, even if a tyrannical government tramples it. While a privilege is something the government creates. And in America, we had a revolution to establish that (among other points) privileges must be legislated – i.e., set by a democratic process.
So, if we are going to expand State marriage licensing to include gays, let’s get there democratically. I support gay marriage. As part of the democratic process, I state my support for gay marriage out loud. People can agree or disagree with me. (Or even flip out, as American Elephant does with me.) I recognize the reality that States license marriages even for couples who knowingly, blatantly will never have children. And the reality that some gay couples have children. I say both of those out loud, too. At the end of it, people can agree or disagree with me, and the democratic process will decide what it decides. If that’s civil unions, I’m fine with it.
I will say the same for all of the heterosexuals that I personally know, who oppose gay marriage.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 13, 2009 @ 12:10 am - November 13, 2009
ilovecapitalism,
I agree with you that these are priviledges and not rights.
We have the right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. We have the Bill of Rights, including the freedom of speech, religion and so forth. As we know, these are our rights as defined in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution that our Founders declared were ordained by our Creator. These are our rights.
Comment by Holly — November 13, 2009 @ 12:34 am - November 13, 2009
Exactly. You’re speaking my language.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 13, 2009 @ 12:42 am - November 13, 2009
Sorry liar, you lose there too.
Reality is that institutions are defined by laws, not by ILC, not by what ILC claims is “reality” while conveniently ignoring everything that refutes his arguements. And you cant cite ANY legislature or ANY statute that verifies your argument because your argument is FALSE.
You lose. And I lose for wasting my time with a lying loser like you.
Comment by American Elephant — November 13, 2009 @ 1:11 am - November 13, 2009
Once again, AE: Reality is always a great source, if you can but face up to it.
And: Look in the mirror, look in the mirror, look in the mirror. Make peace with that guy. Before it’s too late.
You habitually tell outright lies about me, AE – then call me “a lying loser”. You disgrace yourself.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 13, 2009 @ 2:16 am - November 13, 2009
Oh, and: you don’t answer my points.
I don’t have to look up the many texts and court decisions where the law recognizes childless, sterile and/or anti-child couples as families whose existence benefits society (although I could), because you lack effective answers for basic points like this, from earlier:
When you’ve shown me that you can tolerate differences of opinion by addressing the other person’s points, AE, and civilly, then maybe I’ll do more legwork for you. Not before.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 13, 2009 @ 2:39 am - November 13, 2009
Who bookmarked AE-ILCPissingMatch.com in my browser?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — November 13, 2009 @ 3:07 am - November 13, 2009
TGC, if you think it’s a pissing match that’s fine. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. They’re also entitled to defend themselves. AE tells lies, he’s free to do it but I’m simply not taking it.
See? We just had a difference of opinion and I tolerated it (while maintaining my own opinion) without attacking you, screeching at you, or trying to tell lies about you. Think AE could ever learn those tricks from me?
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 13, 2009 @ 10:07 am - November 13, 2009
(aargh, sorry, should have been singular, “that trick”)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 13, 2009 @ 10:37 am - November 13, 2009
But it’s the same damn thing in almost every post. Tell him he’s full of shit and/or get over it.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — November 13, 2009 @ 12:46 pm - November 13, 2009
And no, I’m not choosing sides.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — November 13, 2009 @ 12:46 pm - November 13, 2009
LOL
– I didn’t think anyone was reading. Point taken.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 13, 2009 @ 12:51 pm - November 13, 2009
this is better than Dynasty, ILC Crystal – - AE Alexis
Comment by rusty — November 13, 2009 @ 12:56 pm - November 13, 2009
More like skimming. I can tell when you guys are at it and start scrolling away.
Actually, anything more than a few sentences are less likely to hold my attention. And Dan, God love ‘im, drives me nuts with his erudition. My motto comes from the old bumper sticker “Eschew Obfuscation”.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — November 13, 2009 @ 3:38 pm - November 13, 2009
rusty – I reviewed the tape and I’ll take that as a compliment
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 14, 2009 @ 1:59 pm - November 14, 2009
was hoping so. . .
Comment by rusty — November 14, 2009 @ 2:53 pm - November 14, 2009
something for you ILC
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAOkwjQdm6Q
Comment by rusty — November 19, 2009 @ 12:20 pm - November 19, 2009
@American Elephant — November 12, 2009 @ 1:28 am – November 12, 2009
I find your position and expression both well-stated and agreeable. I do, however, have one point of personal concern: my wife and I cannot procreate. I may not be able to father children – we have never found out – but we both know that she could never safely bear due to her diabetes and kidney failure. Even if she got a new kidney, the anti-rejection meds would preclude having children.
How, if at all, might this impact the validity of our marriage?
If you wish to respond to me, please look me up on FaceBook. I look forward to your response.
Guy “buzzkill” Hardy
Comment by Guy Hardy — November 24, 2009 @ 11:27 am - November 24, 2009
It wont impact the validity of your marriage at all.
You are trying to imply that in order for the state to have a vested interest in getting men and women to marry for the sake of children, that everyone who gets married MUST therefore have children.
Which is entirely illogical, one does not follow from the other. Sorry.
But its a very popular argument for people who havent given the matter any thought to make. You are one among dozens of people who have tried to make it
Comment by American Elephant — December 1, 2009 @ 3:57 am - December 1, 2009