Or if not married, fine, but at least civil-unioned. And if not them – i.e., if not a couple whose names we know, one educated and prosperous enough to get protections for their kids written up by lawyers – then some other couple with kids; that couple whose names we don’t know.

the point is AE is that people create families and have the support of their loved ones.

I know that some people make the silly argument that two men with two penises and zero ovaries and no womb are “reproductively equivalent” to a man and a woman who unlike two people of the same sex have all the necessary organs to have children, just because someone tells them they cant have children.

But that argument has always been ridiculous, and the facts refute it utterly:

The couple, who had been told they could not have children, last year adopted a boy from Ukraine. Three months after he came to live with them in Houston, Rebecca Bresnik learned she was pregnant.

Just one of MILLIONS upon MILLIONS of examples of children who would be born outside of wedlock if we followed the ridiculous suggestion that the law should treat some heterosexual couples as if they were “reproductively equivalent” to two people of the same sex!

But no matter how many times some people make such silly arguments, they will never be true, and basing policy on such ridiculousness would have tragic results for millions upon millions of very real children.

Unlike heterosexuals Mary and her partner could not by any stretch of the imagination have had a child together, the only possible way for them to have a child is to make a conscious decision and effort to go outside their relationship to make a child with a third party and have the other partner adopt it, or adopt a child that is unrelated to either of them.

Hernandez v. Robles addresses this exact issue and explains why it is not a constitutional issue.

Now the implied social policy argument, on the other hand, is that society should treat two mommies as equal to a mother and a father. But should it? THAT is a good question, and one that the people should be given a chance to answer. I would argue that anyone who understands taxation or even psychology 101, understands that taxing a behavior reduces that behavior and rewarding a behavior increases it.

Do we really want to encourage, not tolerate, but encourage more children to be raised without both a mother and a father?

I’d argue that we should not. And Mary Cheney’s situation would support my position, despite her personal opinion, because she proves that gay marriage was entirely unnecessary. (Indeed, if gay marriage IS necessary to provide for her child, then she is a HORRIBLE example of a mother because she went and did it anyway.)

Yet why is it that gay marriage supporters NEVER frame the question to reflect what they really want. If they really want America to declare that two mommies are just as good as a mother and a father, then why dont they ask Americans that question?

Because they know that Americans would overwhelmingly reject that proposition — by far greater numbers than they already reject gay marriage.

So gay marriage supporters continue to try to confuse and obfuscate the issue by regurgitating legally dis-proven and rejected arguments about equality and “hate”.

rusty, I’ve said it before and will again: Gay and lesbian couples are reproductively equivalent to infertile straight couples.

(Disclaimer: operative phrases “infertile” and “reproductively equivalent”. No rational reader should think I just said that gay and lesbian couples are identical to fertile straight couples. Or that the physical sex is the same. Golly, I wouldn’t even be gay, if I thought that! But out here on the internets, rusty, sometimes people will find the strangest ways to take things.)

The family released the following statement: “Former Vice President Dick Cheney and his wife, Lynne Cheney, welcomed their seventh grandchild, Sarah Lynne Cheney, Wednesday, November 18, 2009. She weighed 6 lbs., 14 oz and was born at 8:17 A.M. at Sibley Hospital in Washington, D.C. Her parents are the Cheneys’ daughter Mary and her partner, Heather Poe.”

HMMMMMM now there’s a family for you NDT and AE

Until then, sorry, I have dealt with and destroyed every argument you have 100 times over.

I am not saying homosexuality is equivalent; I just don’t know.

All human life on EARTH throughout ALL TIME comes from heterosexuality, NO LIFE has ever, can ever or will ever come from homosexuality, and you “don’t know” if they are equal or not….

Thank you for proving ALL my points about the deep denial that the vast majority of gays are in. And thank you for saving me from wasting my time.

your assertion of inequality based on ability to procreate is just absurd.

Its NOT based on ability to procreate. Its based on SCIENCE. BIOLOGY specifically. ALL Children come from heterosexuality. ALL. NONE come from homosexuality. Therefore we have policies to deal with heterosexuality that are not relevant to homosexuality. Laws deal with behaviors, not identities.

What about infertile men and women?

What about them? They still engage in the behavior that is the focus of the institution. Gays still dont.

And as for the courts, they once upheld Jim Crow laws…..

Translation: “I know the courts disagree with me, therefore I dont need to read their reasoning because I reject it before I’ve even read it”

Once again, you prove I knew what you were going to say before you even said it.

I’m not a defensive person. You, however, are very hostile.

Yes, I am very hostile towards close-minded people.

Ed Morrissey did mention a famous saying among lawyers that those who have the facts on their side argue the facts, those who have the law on their side argue the law, and those who have neither attack the character of the witnesses.

But that saying deals with how reasonable lawyers behave in court — it does not address debating with true-believers, zealots who wont budge from their position even when all the facts, all the science, and all the law is against them.

I am very hostile towards unreasonable true-believing zealots who disregard facts, science and the law in favor of their FEELINGS.

Their inability is due to a biological dysfunction or a deliberate choice not to have children when they are fully capable of doing so.

If you’d like to state that homosexuality is a biological dysfunction, then you may feel free to do so. If you would like to state that homosexuality is a deliberate choice, then you may do so. At that point, then infertile couples or childless couples may be inserted into the argument.

But if you do not wish to state that homosexuality is a biological dysfunction or that it is a choice that people deliberately make to avoid having children, then the situations are not comparable.

I’m very ambivalent myself about “marriage rights” and feel much more comfortable with civil domestic partnerships

In other words, you’ve actually presented a fairly moderate or modest position in favor of gay… something, not necessarily marriage. I agree with that position and never tire of explaining to people that a State marriage license – the end product, not merely access to the process that would qualify you for it – is not a right for anyone. Not even for straights.

I’m not a defensive person. You, however, are very hostile. Are you always this hostile, or just on this blog?

You are being willfully blind to the actual argument being made. Nobody is taking credit for a “gay victory.” Conservatives don’t see this as a gay victory. You are a gay activist, so that is the lens you see it through. Conservative activists see things through a conservative lens, so they see this as a fiscal conservative victory, and oh yeah, we’re not homophobic.

There is a saying in litigation that one [i.e., a lawyer] argues the facts when the facts are on one’s side, the law when the facts aren’t, and attack the character of witnesses when neither the law nor the facts support one’s case.

Didn’t see any conservatives there. Except one woman who is livid because several people died after getting drunk at her bar and their families sued her.

I’ll let you guys know if I see any Republicans at the inauguration tomorrow.

I’ll let you guys get back to taking credit for Gay victories you did nothing to further.

and, Tom, if you’re so interested in my thoughts, why don’t you read my archives?