Gay Patriot Header Image

Yes, Virginia, gay marriage is legal in all 50 states*

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 3:09 am - July 8, 2010.
Filed under: Gay Marriage

They accost you when you’re leaving the grocery store when you’re really not in the mood to deal with politics and have, I’m told, accosted citizens minding their own business in other public spaces.  Most seem to be kids in (or just out of) college.  And despite their education, they remain clueless about the meaning of the word, “legal.”

I do believe they mean well, but somehow in coming out of the closet, they join the gay organization on their college campus where they are often taught that activism is part of being gay.  Unless they engage in some kind of political activity (almost always for a left-wing organization like the folks in California laboring for the state Democratic Party front group, “Equality California” (EqCA)), they’re deemed selfish or self-hating.  (Hopefully, more on this expectation of activism in a subsequent post.)

I’m not entirely sure why EqCA has engaged these young folks to press for the legalization of something that is already legal — gay marriage –but they do seem to frequent grocery stores (and shopping malls) frequented by our Angeleno readers.

Now, you may say, as do many of our critics, that, well, didn’t the citizens of California vote to ban gay marriage when they passed Proposition 8?

And I will tell you that in fact they didn’t.  Prop 8 had nothing to do with making gay marriage illegal.  It had everything to do with what type of unions the state recognizes as “marriage.”

Let me build on my answer with a question:   in the 19 months since Prop 8 passed, can you name one person who has been arrested or otherwise punished by authorities from the State of California for getting married?

You may reply, well, but, you see, the state doesn’t recognize same-sex unions as marriage even if the partners involved call themselves married.  Still, the fact that we can call our unions “marriage” and to have religious institutions perform them means we are free to get married.  Now, you may contend as did one of our readers that:

Under the law, if you do not have a marriage license, you are not married. You are legal strangers. W/o that license, you must create special contracts and legal arrangements (a costly process) to get some of the benefits of that legal institution. And you still won’t get all of those benefits.

And he is right as go most of the states, but not for California.  Here, the state recognizes same-sex unions as domestic partnerships and confers on them all the benefits of marriage, save those granted by the federal government (which it lacks the authority to grant).

Given that these energetic young folk are in (have come to?) California, it’s important to understand what Prop 8 did.  Let’s recall first that advocates of that ballot measure were often at pains to say that same-sex couples still had domestic partnerships. Even they did not seek to take away those benefits (though I would daresay some of their fellow Prop 8 voters like to).  Not just that, in upholding Prop. 8, the California Supreme Court made clear that its ruling did not affect state recognition of those partnerships.

Thus, not only is it legal for gay people to get married in California, but while the state won’t call their unions marriage, it still confers a great number of benefits on the partners.

Now, you ask, why am I at great pains to make a point about semantics.  It is because, I believe it is a distinction with a difference.  Yes, I realize most states don’t even recognize same-sex civil unions, which would accord benefits similar to or the same as marriage.  And I do think they should.  Unlike many gay activists, I’m not beholden to the word marriage — and am not unhappy with the system currently in place in California.  I do believe the federal government would recognize such unions, particularly for awarding Social Security survivorship benefits and for facilitating citizenship requests of same-sex foreign partners of American citizens.

That said, I think the distinction matters because we need to understand what we’re fighting for and how far we’ve come.  We can increasingly live openly as gay people.  The state does not arrest gay people for getting married.  (Recall that the Lovings (of Loving v. Virginia) had three choices, get divorced, leave Virginia or go to jail.)

We are not victims, as some advocates of same-sex marriage suggest (and which the expression “legalization of gay marriage” implies).  Those advocates are pushing for a serious social change.  They are asking for the state to treat same-sex unions as it does different-sex unions and confer upon them a status, a marriage recognized by the state, long reserved for such different-sex unions.

Instead of whining like victims, make the case why our unions should be privileged as are different-sex unions.  But, I’ve said this before, more times than I can count, so let me repeat it once again:  advocates of state recognition of gay marriage are not fighting for the legalization of an institution, but seeking to have the state privilege certain same-sex unions as it now privileges different-sex ones.  So, we need to make a positive case for why our unions merit such privilege.

Let me repeat, his is not about rights, it’s about privileges. If it were about rights, there would be no issue.

Perhaps, I’m repeating myself a bit here, it’s late, I’m tired, but this topic was on my mind today.  And it does seem all the really important stuff is below the “jump.”

————–

*It’s just that the states don’t recognize those unions as marriage nor, in most of those states, confer on them the benefits it offers to individuals in different-sex unions who elect to call their unions marriage.

Share

105 Comments

  1. The fact that you have to asterisk your own post to state that we are, in effect, “equal”, or equal*, or equalish, raises this post to new heights of unintentional self-parody, even for this blog.

    Well done.

    Comment by torrentprime — July 8, 2010 @ 3:34 am - July 8, 2010

  2. torrent, I chose the title entirely to “bait” critics like you. Looks like I succeeded.

    I used the rest of the post to to make a broader point about semantics which you seem to have missed as the adjectives you use clearly indicate.

    So, please, torrent, do show me how it’s unintentional self-parody. And please show me just how the post deal with whether or not we’re equal or “equalish.” Thanks.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — July 8, 2010 @ 3:48 am - July 8, 2010

  3. Nope. You got the hit & run assholish comment from TP, made without reading the post, and he’s gone.

    That’s all you get.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — July 8, 2010 @ 4:40 am - July 8, 2010

  4. But, I’ve said this before, more times than I can count, so let me repeat it once again: advocates of state recognition of gay marriage are not fighting for the legalization of an institution, but seeking to have the state privilege certain same-sex unions as it now privileges different-sex ones.

    You do make a good point that Loving v. Virginia had substantial differences when compared to the current debate, so I’ll accept this as accurate.

    So, we need to make a positive case for why our unions merit such privilege.

    Equal protection? Two people of sound mind and body in a legal relationship wish to be privy to the same rights and responsibilities as any other couple?

    I really can’t see why there’s any need to make any more of a positive case beyond this.

    Comment by Serenity — July 8, 2010 @ 4:54 am - July 8, 2010

  5. I would add that if anyone wishes to use “Prop 8″ and “ban” in the same sentence, it was a effectively about a ban on what the state of California is allowed to do, and not on what gay residents of California are allowed to do.

    And I would suggest to advocates of legally-recognized same-sex marriage that they could improve the quality of their rhetoric by first making the argument: “Why same-sex couples have a fundamental right to Maine-type domestic partnerships.”

    NB: Maine, at the moment, legally recognizes same-sex domestic partnerships, but the DP law there is narrow in scope and confers only a few benefits — although the ones it does cover are significant, and include inheritance without a will, durable power of attorney, and “legal kinship.” On the other hand, it doesn’t say word one about adoption by gay couples, for example. So one can fairly characterize Maine-type DP as “narrow” or “limited,” though it’s not accurate to call the Maine law “weak” or “tokenist” or “toothless” — it may have only a few teeth, but the teeth it does have are strong and substantive.

    Anyway, because the Maine DP law is far more narrow in scope than the DPs in California or Washington state, it ought to be a fairly easy case to make — even arguing to a hostile audience — that same-sex couples throughout America have (at the very least), a right to Maine-type DPs. This should be much easier than arguing for federal “everything but the M-word” civil unions, or for Same-Sex Marriage™ in all 50 states.

    On the other hand, if you can’t make your case well enough to persuade skeptical listeners that a right to Maine-level domestic partnerships exists, then you might as well save your “right to same-sex marriage” talking points for when you’re bleating to the choir members who already agree with you.

    Comment by Throbert McGee — July 8, 2010 @ 6:44 am - July 8, 2010

  6. Dan, it is, as you eventually suggested, a matter of semantics. I suppose there are people out there who really believe that a same sex couple cannot marry. But when one says one cannot get married, it’s a shortcut for saying, “yes, I know I can have a ceremony (or whatever) with my partner that we can call marriage, but it won’t be recognized by the state and federal government, just like a marriage between straight people are, where the celebrant says something like, ‘on the authority granted to me by the state…’.”

    Is that important? You’ll have to ask the 99.9 or so percent of married straight couples that get their marriages legally recognized.

    But I do agree with your point on making the case for federally and state recognition.

    Comment by Pat — July 8, 2010 @ 7:10 am - July 8, 2010

  7. And once we get over the legal semantics, a gay person saying he can’t get married is an (or in 2010 should be) obvious shortcut for, “yes, I realize I can get married to a person of the opposite sex, just like Jim McGreevey and others did (and see how those marriages turned out). DUH! But just like we encourage a straight person to marry someone of the opposite sex, as opposed to the same sex, I want to marry someone of the same sex.”

    Comment by Pat — July 8, 2010 @ 7:17 am - July 8, 2010

  8. Serenity,

    You already have equal protection. All the same rules of marriage apply exactly to you as they do to anyone else. Every adult American can marry a person of the opposite sex, who is also an adult and is not an immediate family member. NO ONE may marry a person of the opposite sex. These rules apply equally to every person in America.

    Then, of course, you will argue that you cannot marry the person you love. Which does nothing to prove that you are being treated unequally by the law, indeed, no marriage license in any state requires or even asks that the couple be in love. There is no “love” test for any marriage anywhere. There is a sex test. Every marriage must contain exactly one person and only one person of each of the sexes necessary for human procreation. One man, one woman.

    What you are actually demanding is that the government NOT treat you equally to everyone else, which they are already doing, but that the government must treat homosexuality as though it were equal to heterosexuality, which only the most abject fool can even begin to claim is true.

    As absolute proof, I submit to you the planet Earth, which contains approximately 6.5 BILLION human beings, each and every one of whom has exactly one female mother and one male father. NONE of whom would even exist were that not true.

    Until such time as you can produce a planet that contains even ONE human being created by homosexuality, the “equal protection” argument is demonstrably, utterly, scientifically, logically, empirically, totally false.

    So what you are really arguing is not that the law must treat you equally — it does — or even that the law must treat equal things equally — it does that too. You are demanding that the law must treat fundamentally, consequentially, existentially DIFFERENT things as though they are equal.

    Which is simply silly.

    Comment by American Elephant — July 8, 2010 @ 7:20 am - July 8, 2010

  9. Ooops, that should read: “NO ONE may marry a person of the SAME sex.”

    Comment by American Elephant — July 8, 2010 @ 7:25 am - July 8, 2010

  10. Dan,

    Your point that interracial couples were not only NOT recognized, but punished under the law is excellent.

    And while I agree with your larger point that gays are free to commit to each other, build lives with each other, draw up legal arrangements with each other — and while its obviously true that gay couples can call themselves married, or call themselves whatever they want, the idea that marriage is whatever you want it to be is the big lie that caused society to get into this mess in the first place. so I dont think it should be reduced to semantics.

    Sure, its true that millions of married couples may have millions of different reasons for getting married — some for money, some for security, some for love, some for convenience, some because they were arranged…. but the definition and purpose of marriage to society is the same for every one of them…to get the two sexes that are necessary to create life. to get mothers and fathers tied in legal knots, hopefully before they create life and become mothers and fathers.

    In other words, the very idea that marriage can mean whatever one wants it to mean undermines the bedrock principle that the only legitimate authority to define institutions rests with the people.

    Its a lot like saying anyone who wants to can call themselves a veteran. Well, no they cant. That word has meaning, and if we lose sight of that meaning, then suddenly everyone has a right to veterans benefits, and the honor and purpose of the term become meaningless. It becomes just another meaningless entitlement.

    I’m in a rush, but the point is that marriage has purpose to society, that only the people and their representatives have the authority to define it, and to encourage other definitions undermines that authority. I hope I made that point clearly.

    Comment by American Elephant — July 8, 2010 @ 7:59 am - July 8, 2010

  11. What you are actually demanding is that the government NOT treat you equally to everyone else, which they are already doing, but that the government must treat homosexuality as though it were equal to heterosexuality

    Going back to my point in #5 — if Serenity (or Pat, or whoever) had begun by making the modest case that same-sex couples have a right merely to “narrow DPs” as in Maine, then they wouldn’t be vulnerable to the easy rebuttal that AE makes here.

    Because instead of trying to show that homosexual couples have some sort of “right to equality,” their task would be simply to persuade listeners that gay couples have a right to more than zero — i.e., a right to something more than only being left unbothered by the State, as was affirmed in Lawrence v. Texas.

    Comment by Throbert McGee — July 8, 2010 @ 8:01 am - July 8, 2010

  12. P.S. Figuring out how to make a case for a “right to limited domestic partnerships” is left as an exercise for the readers. I believe it can be done, but it takes a fundamental rethinking of your approach, and a drastic change in your rhetoric.

    Comment by Throbert McGee — July 8, 2010 @ 8:07 am - July 8, 2010

  13. if Serenity (or Pat, or whoever) had begun by making the modest case that same-sex couples have a right merely to “narrow DPs” as in Maine, then they wouldn’t be vulnerable to the easy rebuttal that AE makes here.

    Throbert, this post was more about semantics, so I didn’t even bother addressing your point. But since you bring it up, perhaps your approach is a wise one. I think a convincing argument could be made to most that we’re entitled to something more than Lawrence v. Texas.

    So my question is, is this strategy the best one, because the stepping stone approach is better? Or think this is the most a gay person is entitled to.

    And I’ll have to disagree with you on “easy rebuttal.” Yes, it was a rebuttal, but if by easy, you mean weak, I have to agree with you. But I guess you meant otherwise.

    Comment by Pat — July 8, 2010 @ 8:27 am - July 8, 2010

  14. Oh Jesus Christ.

    Keep making that case that gays should have to prove to straight people that we’re worthy of nice things. It’s not self-loathing at all, really.

    Comment by Evan Hurst — July 8, 2010 @ 9:51 am - July 8, 2010

  15. Just curious, how does having a piece of paper signed by a bureaucrat make a gay couple more capable of loving commitment than the absence of such a piece of paper?

    Comment by V the K — July 8, 2010 @ 9:59 am - July 8, 2010

  16. Serenity opines”

    Two people of sound mind and body in a legal relationship wish to be privy to the same rights and responsibilities as any other couple?

    Why just two? Tradition?

    What is “sound” mind? Been to domestic relations court?

    Why are you gainst people without “sound” bodies marrying?

    Don’t you love the smell of semantics burning pious pronouncements? As Serenity said:

    I really can’t see why there’s any need to make any more of a positive case beyond this.

    Comment by heliotrope — July 8, 2010 @ 10:14 am - July 8, 2010

  17. I think a convincing argument could be made to most that we’re entitled to something more than Lawrence v. Texas.

    One would think so, and yet we don’t try. Every popular referendum thus far has been forced by our opponents, rather than having been a gay-sponsored initiative. The best referendum “victory” we’ve had so far was in Washington state, where a legislative expansion of domestic partnerships was ultimately affirmed by a referendum that had been put on the ballot by gay opponents in order to block the expansion.

    Linda Lingle in HI has recently said that (even) civil unions for same-sex couples ought to be established by popular referendum. And “our” advocates, instead of saying, “Sure, Governor, we’ll take up your referendum challenge and quite possibly win,” have instead fallen back on the same-old-same-old strategy of trying to sue through the courts. It seems to me that if WE insisted on a referendum about creating same-sex DPs in Hawai’i, and we lost in the ballot, Hawaiian gay couples would not be the slightest bit worse off, since currently they have no form of DP law at all. But if the referendum passed, it would be a historic moral victory for gays even if it “only” succeeded in establishing narrow Maine-type DPs.

    So my question is, is this strategy the best one, because … this is the most a gay person is entitled to?

    There, fixed it. Try starting with the premise that NO ONE is automatically “entitled” to even so much as a “narrow Maine-type DP”, and from there proceed to build the case for the social utility of legally recognizing “couplehood” in the first place.

    Comment by Throbert McGee — July 8, 2010 @ 10:23 am - July 8, 2010

  18. Dan,

    This essay is terrific.

    The Civil Union is a perfect compromise which allows for the gay couple to have access to the legal “benefits” of marriage without hauling the state into tearing away at the marriage tradition.

    I would favor that “Civil Disunions” be subject to all the same bother and fuss as divorce.

    Clearly, gays who want equal respect for how they couple up in sex want much more than a compromise.

    I happened to be in Chelsea when the NYC Gay Pride Parade broke up. Most of the couples were just ordinary couples enjoying life. But then, along came the ones who were fired up and acting out. They were “tolerated” to the extent that everyone has a certain right to his own space. But, they were getting the looks and stares they deserved and were trolling for.

    One enormously tall guy was all beautiful legs and tiny outfit with a large, elaborate heart hat on. He was the Queen of Hearts all in sequins and high, high heels and white body paint and ….. well ….. he was a parade all by himself. He was also alone. People took lots of pictures and he strutted about for the most of an hour.

    I did not ask him his opinions on gay marriage or Civil Unions. For all I know, he may be an aspiring actor who will play any part, but I rather doubt it.

    In the final analysis, there is still a battle within the gay world over whether civil unions meet the expectations.

    Comment by heliotrope — July 8, 2010 @ 10:31 am - July 8, 2010

  19. Why just two? Tradition?

    Good point. If sex is irrelevant to marriage, why should numbers matter? The emotional plea of the gay marriage crowd is, “If two people love each other, what does it matter?” So, what if 3, or 6, or 50 people love each other? Are they not entitled to “Equality;” as the bumper-sticker rationale for gay marriage has it?

    Comment by V the K — July 8, 2010 @ 10:39 am - July 8, 2010

  20. “All the same rules of marriage apply exactly to you as they do to anyone else…”

    This is a pretty dumb sophistry. If a totalitarian state banned all public expressions of Christianity, could its leaders argue that Christians weren’t being discriminated against because everyone, even the atheists, had to obey those laws too?

    As to this, “Instead of whining like victims, make the case why our unions should be privileged as are different-sex unions…” I’m a little fuzzy about what the true conservative position is here. Is it that the government shouldn’t be in the business of granting privileges or that its business is deciding who gets them and who doe not.

    Comment by Bruce Garrett — July 8, 2010 @ 10:57 am - July 8, 2010

  21. Oh Jesus Christ.
    Keep making that case that gays should have to prove to straight people that we’re worthy of nice things. It’s not self-loathing at all, really.

    Evan Hurst, the burden of proof is on those advocating for large social change.

    One would think so, and yet we don’t try. Every popular referendum thus far has been forced by our opponents, rather than having been a gay-sponsored initiative.

    The reason for this is because the gay “rights” organizations are led by people in comfortably liberal bubbles, with no knowledge of how to convince the voters in a statewide campaign.

    It’s also because they’d rather want to scream “PERSECUTION! TAKING AWAY OUR FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS!” than actually make the case for positive change that such a referendum would entail. Because the latter can be very difficult.

    Comment by NYAlly — July 8, 2010 @ 11:23 am - July 8, 2010

  22. 15.Just curious, how does having a piece of paper signed by a bureaucrat make a gay couple more capable of loving commitment than the absence of such a piece of paper?

    V the K, it doesn’t. Yet, virtually 100% of straight couples when they get married opt for that piece of paper. So it may not make a couple more capable of commitment, but straight couples have good reason to do it.

    I imagine a 21-year-old woman saying to her parents, “I met the man of my dreams, who I want to spend the rest of my life with. However, we decided that we don’t want our union recognized by the state or federal government. Further, we want to call it a civil union.” If the father’s reaction was anything different than “over my dead body,” I’d be surprised.

    Throbert, thanks for explaining the approach. Perhaps your strategy would work better than the current one. But if that’s all that people asked for, who knows if they would even get that. But sometimes the all or nothing approach does work. The founding fathers, after ten or so years of discontentment with Britain didn’t settle for the equivalent of DPs (like autonomy, or something that Greenland has with Denmark). Yes, a different situation, so it’s hard to tell from the outset what approach works best.

    Comment by Pat — July 8, 2010 @ 11:31 am - July 8, 2010

  23. Delighted to see that my attempt to “stir the pot” with a provocative title had the desired effect of creating a stimulating discussion.

    I might have more accurately titled the piece, “The Semantics of Gay Marriage and Why it Matters.” But, that might not have attracted much attention.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — July 8, 2010 @ 11:51 am - July 8, 2010

  24. I wonder what precipitated such changes in the laws regarding marriage?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_civil_marriage_in_the_United_States
    1830 – Right of married woman to own property in her own name (instead of all property being owned exclusively by the husband) in Mississippi.

    1900 – All states now grant married women the right to own property in their own name.

    1948 – California Supreme Court overturns interracial marriage ban.

    1967 – Supreme Court overturns laws prohibiting interracial couples from marrying (Loving v. Virginia).

    Tis interesting to see the evolution of the laws. Would love to know how folk interested in changing law truly acted?

    I find this an interesting development. . .

    1973 – Maryland became to first state in the US to define marriage as between a man and a woman in statute.

    2010 – Maryland (from 24 February) recognizes same-sex marriages.

    Comment by rusty — July 8, 2010 @ 12:00 pm - July 8, 2010

  25. Perhaps your strategy would work better than the current one.

    It doesn’t have to be a totally either-or approach, though — after all, there are 40+ states that have no form of legal recognition for same-sex couples, and DPs/CUs remain “up for grabs” in some of these.

    Also, this isn’t only about “strategy” — as I said above, it’s also about refining your arguments. And it can expose weaknesses in your opponents’ positions. For example, opponents of DPs/CUs may be underprepared to rebutt the assertion that, in the absence of DP laws, gays aren’t getting a reasonable return on what they pay into state coffers as taxpayers. After all, we hardly ever make this pragmatic argument, even though it just might get those evil Teabaggers listening.

    Possibly because phrasing it as “You know, not having the most basic domestic partnership legislation is a damned inconvenience” doesn’t get other gay people angered up enough (or maudlin enough) to write those nice checky-poos to activists.

    Comment by Throbert McGee — July 8, 2010 @ 12:11 pm - July 8, 2010

  26. Now that I think about it, Arizona might be a logical state, besides Hawai’i, in which to attempt a gay-led referendum FOR domestic partnerships:

    In 2006, when religious conservatives got a referendum placed on the ballot to ban Arizona from establishing either same-sex marriage OR same-sex domestic partnerships, they had their asses handed to them.

    So in 2008, they had to come back with a less sweeping version that constitutionally defined “marriage” as “one-man, one-woman,” but left the domestic partnership question completely alone.

    They won with the second referendum, but as a consequence of this victory, those Arizonans who would want gay couples to have NO recognition deprived themselves of a key scare-tactic that they might otherwise have used against a pro-DP referendum — namely, they can’t reasonably claim that a DP law would be (ab)used by gays as a quick stepping-stone to force same-sex marriage. (Unless and until the 2008 amendment is rescinded by a subsequent amendment, SSM remains completely blocked off as a legal option in AZ — so establishing a DP law would not create a “danger” of sneaky gays sneaking SSM into the state.)

    Comment by Throbert McGee — July 8, 2010 @ 12:38 pm - July 8, 2010

  27. Just because something isn’t a crime doesn’t make it “legal.” Maybe you shouldn’t opine about all the people you believe are idiots because they “remain clueless about the meaning of the word, “legal.”,” when you don’t understand it yourself. Moron.

    Comment by mantis — July 8, 2010 @ 12:39 pm - July 8, 2010

  28. mantis, your name-calling does become you. Here’s a definition of the word, “legal”: “permitted by law”.

    And please do show me where I called anyone an “idiot” in my post.

    Thanks.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — July 8, 2010 @ 12:42 pm - July 8, 2010

  29. I question the validity of your claim that there would be no problem if this were simply a matter of rights. Individual rights, especially the rights of minorities (and, as Ayn Rand said, the smallest minority is the individual), have always been in danger of violation.

    Also, have you considered the possibility of eliminating any kind of privilege from the institution of marriage? Is there any legitimate reason these privileges are still in place?

    Anyway, great post, overall. Don’t take the flamers too seriously.

    Comment by Brendan — July 8, 2010 @ 12:56 pm - July 8, 2010

  30. Brendan, thanks for the good word — and the sage advice. :-)

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — July 8, 2010 @ 1:05 pm - July 8, 2010

  31. Wow, Dan, that provoked an interesting debate.

    I don’t think that the accurate title for this post was why “gay marriage is legal in 50 states.” Well, because it’s not — it’s only currently legal in 5 US states + DC. And then there are about another 5 states (California included) that recognize gay civil unions or domestic partnerships.

    What you’re trying to say (and I think others touched upon this), is that gay men or lesbians won’t be arrested for being in a same-sex relationship, and that they are free to determine their own living arrangements, and they won’t be arrested if they buy and wear “fake” wedding rings; they won’t be arrested if they have a “fake” ceremony, and they can also tell other people that they consider themselves “married” without being arrested. Right?

    So, too can straight people do the same thing without being arrested. Heterosexuals are free to live together, they can buy and wear rings, and they can have a “fake” wedding ceremony and they can casually mention to friends & family that they consider themselves “married” without officially having the government issued license.

    So why do even heterosexuals, need a government-backed legal recognition of their unions?

    For everyone who says, “it is for procreation and building of families”, I can respond that it is biologically possible (and it happens all the time) for a man and a woman to conceive a child without being in a marriage. And of course, there are men and women in heterosexual marriages who cannot conceive children at all because of medical issues. If it was biologically impossible for a man and a woman to conceive a child unless they were married, and it was the government-recognized, marital union that suddenly made the production of children possible — then I would certainly subscribe to the “procreation and building families argument.”

    North Dallas Thirty responded in a previous post that children of married (heterosexual) couples are “six times less likely to live in poverty” than unmarried (heterosexual) couples. Even if that statistic were true (?), that statistic does not prove CAUSATION. You can’t conclusively prove whether it was the marriage that caused the lowering in poverty rates. I can also tell you that in the United States, African-Americans are more likely, on average, than Caucasians to live in poverty. So does that mean that the African-American ethnicity, or having very dark skin, leads to higher poverty rates? That’s the same logic that was being used.

    Comment by James — July 8, 2010 @ 1:20 pm - July 8, 2010

  32. James, the point of the title was to provoke just such a debate. :-)

    But, you’re wrong, gay marriage is legal, it’s just not recognized by 45 states. And I believe that’s a distinction with a difference.

    While we disagree on some points, I do appreciate the civility of your responses. Keep on challenging me and keep on commenting!

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — July 8, 2010 @ 1:30 pm - July 8, 2010

  33. The almost sister-in-law and her husband refuse to marry in front of a judge/justice of the peace as they wanted nothing to do with the state in their marriage.

    Anecdotal data point and nothing more …

    They also had a ‘Best Man’ to attend the groom and a ‘Best Woman’, for the bride; wedding clothes they made themselves; and, a vegetarian buffet for the reception. Ah the 80s…

    Comment by Adriane — July 8, 2010 @ 1:57 pm - July 8, 2010

  34. Here’s a definition of the word, “legal”: “permitted by law”.

    Here’s the actual appropriate definition in this context:

    “appointed, established, or authorized by law; deriving authority from law.”

    And under that appropriate definition, unlike the one you prefer to use which clearly has more to do with what is a crime and what is not, this statement is blatantly stupid:

    Prop 8 had nothing to do with making gay marriage illegal. It had everything to do with what type of unions the state recognizes as “marriage.”

    In other words, “legal.” A union unrecognized by the state is not authorized by law, nor does it derive any authority from the law. It is, legally, nonexistent.

    Let me build on my answer with a question: in the 19 months since Prop 8 passed, can you name one person who has been arrested or otherwise punished by authorities from the State of California for getting married?

    Again, you’re a moron for thinking that just because something is not a crime that it is sanctioned by the government and thus carries with it a legal authority.

    And please do show me where I called anyone an “idiot” in my post.

    You certainly implied that anyone who has a different (or more complete, to be accurate) understanding of the law and what it means for something to be “legal” than you is an idiot:

    And despite their education, they remain clueless about the meaning of the word, “legal.”

    Making it all the more hilarious that it clearly is you who suffers from a paucity of clues.

    Comment by mantis — July 8, 2010 @ 2:09 pm - July 8, 2010

  35. The only thing standing between same-sex marriage and a felony is Lawrence v. Texas on one side and the DOMA on the other.

    Not that I’d expect you to have the modicum of sense required to understand what I’m saying.

    Yes, continue with your fantasy where your legal status in this country isn’t impaired in the slightest and societal change will come about when everyone sits down and shuts up. Anyway, I don’t suppose you really have to worry about things like marriage equality… I mean, you don’t start worrying about that shit until you’ve had a relationship that lasts longer than it takes you to expound upon your political views.

    Have fun blowing Republican state reps in pub bathrooms, and don’t forget to pick up the Abreva when you go to the grocery store.

    PS: blowing goats is still illegal. blowing old goats is legal, but still illegal to carry out in pub bathrooms. Food for thought… maybe another column?

    Comment by not a gator — July 8, 2010 @ 2:49 pm - July 8, 2010

  36. Mantis does a credible imitation of Dr. Bunsen Honeydew’s assistant Beaker:

    Meeble-meeble-meeble!

    The sad thing, Mantis, is that here on GayPatriot you actually have an opportunity for some free-of-charge sparring practice with friendly adversaries — because although we may be conservative morons, most of the people here ARE gay, and like being gay, and think there’s nothing at all wrong with being gay.

    So that’s a whole bunch of points you don’t need to expend energy persuading us on, and if you chose to, you could skip right to the task of trying out your best arguments on an “ideologically hostile” but non-homophobic audience, and possibly come away with some good critical feedback. Hell, you don’t even need to argue with us; just read Dan’s OP carefully and take it as a free mini-clinic on the importance of definitional precision in political debates.

    But if perfecting that delivery of “u r retardz” is all you aspire to, mantis, don’t let me discourage you from practicing!

    Comment by Throbert McGee — July 8, 2010 @ 2:50 pm - July 8, 2010

  37. Let me build on my answer with a question: in the 19 months since Prop 8 passed, can you name one person who has been arrested or otherwise punished by authorities from the State of California for getting married?

    Again, you’re a moron for thinking that just because something is not a crime that it is sanctioned by the government and thus carries with it a legal authority.

    No, mantis — the “morons” are gays and progressives who (for example) over-rely on appeals to Loving v. Virginia to make their case for same-sex marriage, despite the obvious point (or at least, it ought to be obvious) that Mr. and Mrs. Loving were facing jail time after they got legally married in Washington DC and then returned to Virginia soil. In other words, countless gay activists have used “legal” in precisely the same sense (“permitted by law”) that you say Dan should NOT use it — they do so every single time they try to score a point by bringing up Loving.

    Comment by Throbert McGee — July 8, 2010 @ 3:11 pm - July 8, 2010

  38. In 2006, when religious conservatives got a referendum placed on the ballot to ban Arizona from establishing either same-sex marriage OR same-sex domestic partnerships, they had their asses handed to them.

    For a different reason.

    What killed that particular referendum in Arizona was the fact that opposite-sex couples of retirement age, of which there are quite a lot in Arizona, were using it to get around the fact that Social Security payments for a household are less in most cases than they would be for two single people combined and that a remarriage negatively affects your ability to collect survivor benefits from your previous spouse. Hence, domestically partner, reap the benefits from the state, and take advantage of the fact that, to Federal Social Security, you’re single and thus entitled to a higher payment or still entitled to your survivor benefits from your previous spouse.

    Indeed, hilariously, the gay and lesbian community avoided at all costs mentioning gay-sex marriage. In short, they lied to the voters.

    Which is why Arizona passed the amendment two years later, after the lies of the gay and lesbian left and their organization had been exposed and outed.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 8, 2010 @ 3:29 pm - July 8, 2010

  39. North Dallas Thirty responded in a previous post that children of married (heterosexual) couples are “six times less likely to live in poverty” than unmarried (heterosexual) couples. Even if that statistic were true (?), that statistic does not prove CAUSATION. You can’t conclusively prove whether it was the marriage that caused the lowering in poverty rates. I can also tell you that in the United States, African-Americans are more likely, on average, than Caucasians to live in poverty. So does that mean that the African-American ethnicity, or having very dark skin, leads to higher poverty rates? That’s the same logic that was being used.

    Actually, it holds up quite nicely as being causative in several different directions.

    And let’s have a little sense here, James.

    - One parent = one job + child care costs.

    - Two parents = one job with no child care costs, or two jobs with child care costs.

    Common sense alone would dictate that one. But again, this is about the gay and lesbian community being steeped in the anti-traditional, man-hating dogma of the Sixties and still to this day convinced that marriage and the nuclear family are religious mind-control plots to oppress women and force meaningless “gender norms” on society.

    Which makes the sudden desperate need for gay-sex marriage, especially “for the children”, all that more suspicious. Why should anyone believe that the gay and lesbian community supports marriage, when it has spent decades bashing and tearing it down, or that they believe in children having married parents, when they have been railing against exactly that as oppressive and unnecessary?

    Gays and lesbians have spent four decades bashing both marriage and married-parent households. Until we hear that the gay and lesbian community was dead wrong for every single one of those years, I see gay-sex marriage as nothing more than a lie and a hoax.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 8, 2010 @ 3:39 pm - July 8, 2010

  40. There is no “love” test for any marriage anywhere. There is a sex test.

    Ooh, count me out. I don’t even kiss & tell. ;-)

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — July 8, 2010 @ 3:44 pm - July 8, 2010

  41. not a gator, thanks much for your comments. Helps confirm a point I’ve been making for a long while about the prejudices of left-wingers.

    fascinating too how you missed the entire point of my post. You wrote, “Yes, continue with your fantasy where your legal status in this country isn’t impaired in the slightest and societal change will come about when everyone sits down and shuts up.

    In the post (please read in its entirety before chiming in), I encourage advocates of gay marriage to “make a positive case for why our unions merit such privilege” (i.e., the benefits of state-recognized marriage). Which means that I’m encouraging them to speak out–not sit down and shut up (as you contend). In other words, you’re suggesting I’m saying the exact opposite of what I actually said.

    oh and mantis, yes, I do recognize, “legal” has multiple meanings. But, given my libertarian inclinations (of which you’d be aware if you actually read the post), I don’t believe we need the imprimatur of the state to make something legal. The state, to be sure, can make something illegal.

    So, check your dictionary, you’ll see that it allows for the definition I used.

    As to the statement you called “stupid,” well, please read the actual text of the language Prop 8 inserted into the constitution–and not the ballot language written by Jerry Brown. That’ll show the sense of my remark.

    mantis, I’ve offered you a challenge. If gay marriage is not legal, show me where gay people have been punished by declaring themselves married.

    Thanks.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — July 8, 2010 @ 3:54 pm - July 8, 2010

  42. I have the perfect solution to this.

    The right to have one’s most intimate relationship be sanctioned and recognized by your government (due to the conventions of the English language having been called “marriage”) is recognized as a fundamental right. The 14th Amendment does not allow for rights to be withheld based on arbitrary classifications (and homosexuals are a recognized class by SCOTUS since CLS v. Martinez).

    Marriage, by axiomatic definition, has been understood to only include one man-one woman couplings. Let’s just assume that voters have the authority to define that word, or any word, to their liking. Because Californians chose to define this label “marriage” in a way which excludes homosexuals as a class, this label is now fundamentally divorced from the previously recognized right of relationship recognition. Therefore, the only constitutional remedy in this situation is to declare the word “marriage” to have no legal meaning or any legal substance at all. It can not confer any benefits, rights, responsibilities, or privileges. It may not confer any status whatsoever. A couple enters the courthouse as legal strangers, get married, and leaves as legal strangers.

    The right of having one’s relationship recognized and sanctioned will now be called some other name, for ALL couples, regardless of what class they belong to. All couples in CA, whose sanctioned relationships have previously been referred to by their government by the word “marriage”, will now be referred to as “domestic partnership”. The nature of their union will not have been changed in any way, other than their GOVERNMENT, and only their government, is forbidden to use the term “marriage”. This fundemental right, the institution which exist independent of the word “marriage” is, has been, and always will be genderless, because the 14th Amendment demands equal protection for all people under the law, regardless of their classification. It makes no exceptions for tradition or sexual orientation.

    Everyone will get what they want. Prop 8 is left intact, the word marriage still refers to just heterosexuals. LGBTs get what they want, since their relationships are given the same recognition with the same rights, AND THE SAME TERMINOLOGY, as heterosexuals.

    Comment by Jeremy — July 8, 2010 @ 4:20 pm - July 8, 2010

  43. The right to have one’s most intimate relationship be sanctioned and recognized by your government (due to the conventions of the English language having been called “marriage”) is recognized as a fundamental right. The 14th Amendment does not allow for rights to be withheld based on arbitrary classifications

    Age is an arbitrary classification.

    Blood relationship is an arbitrary classification.

    Species is an arbitrary classification.

    Current marital status is an arbitrary classification.

    Therefore the government must sanction and recognize your most intimate relationship, regardless of with whom you have it — including with children, with animals, with blood relatives, and with people who are already married.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 8, 2010 @ 4:32 pm - July 8, 2010

  44. North Dallas Thirty: The government can in fact restrict the exercise of a fundamental right, but only if it is meeting a compelling interest, and the restriction they propose is narrowly tailored to meet that restriction. It is fairly easy to come up with compelling interests at stake for preventing animals, kids, or siblings to exercise that right, but becomes a lot harder when discussing why gay people shouldn’t be able toe exercise that right. Just what compelling interest is served by excluding gay relationships from the fundamental right of recognition and sanction for household formation (traditionally called marriage)?

    Comment by Jeremy — July 8, 2010 @ 4:37 pm - July 8, 2010

  45. NDT, thanks for the info about the role of domestically-partnered hetero seniors in defeating the 2006 amendment in AZ — I wasn’t aware of how much that was a factor.

    And I certainly don’t disagree with your point that the gay left never met a lie it didn’t like.

    But that doesn’t discourage me from being optimistic that Arizona gays could actually win access to domestic-partnership registries in AZ by popular referendum, if they would just swallow their (false) pride and say:

    Even granting that our relationships are less valuable to society than hetero marriages, that shouldn’t matter, because goddammit, what we’ve put into the system as hardworking taxpayers has earned us at least the basic protections and advantages that registered domestic partners of the opposite sex are entitled to in many AZ counties.”

    To demand one’s reasonable return as a “hardworking taxpayer” is to argue from a position of strength and dignity — but what the gay left would rather do is play to the sob-sister press, emphasizing gay weakness and dragging forth maudlin tales of same-sex spouses cruelly separated by callous hospital staff, and five-headed children of lesbian moms being teased on the playground.

    And all in the hopes, seemingly, of being able to someday say: “Nyah-nyah, in your face, Rethuglikkkan Christianists! We asked Nanny Gummint and she says that we’re as Good As You!”

    Comment by Throbert McGee — July 8, 2010 @ 4:44 pm - July 8, 2010

  46. Throbert McGee: Our people should not and will NEVER admit that we are not as good as straights or that our relationships are not as valuable. To say that is to say to ourselves and future children who are gay that they are by default lesser human beings. To suggest that we should “accept” that classification is traitorous.

    Further, the government has no legit interest in making that sort of classification. It is not allowed by the 14th Amendment to define certain classes or certain couples as “less valuable to society”.

    Comment by Jeremy — July 8, 2010 @ 4:54 pm - July 8, 2010

  47. whoopsie. . . DOMA ruled unconstitutional.

    http://www.baywindows.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=glbt&sc2=news&sc3=&id=107807

    In an enormous victory for same-sex marriage, a federal judge in Boston today (Thursday, July 8) ruled, in two separate cases, that a critical part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) unconstitutional.

    Comment by rusty — July 8, 2010 @ 5:01 pm - July 8, 2010

  48. North Dallas Thirty: The government can in fact restrict the exercise of a fundamental right, but only if it is meeting a compelling interest, and the restriction they propose is narrowly tailored to meet that restriction.

    So marriage is a fundamental right that can’t be denied to anyone, except when Jeremy wants it to be denied to other people. No one else is allowed to decide whether or not his relationship is harmful, but he gets to decide if other peoples’ are.

    This is where gay-sex liberalism really gets hilariously hypocritical.

    Now, to the deeper point: marriage is not a fundamental right. There is nothing that says the government has to recognize and sanction your most intimate relationship anywhere in the Constitution. Period.

    For everyone who says, “it is for procreation and building of families”, I can respond that it is biologically possible (and it happens all the time) for a man and a woman to conceive a child without being in a marriage. And of course, there are men and women in heterosexual marriages who cannot conceive children at all because of medical issues. If it was biologically impossible for a man and a woman to conceive a child unless they were married, and it was the government-recognized, marital union that suddenly made the production of children possible — then I would certainly subscribe to the “procreation and building families argument.”

    And same-sex couples are biologically incapable of producing offspring, period.

    Your problem, James, is that your logic falls apart if it can be conclusively shown that marriage produces better results for producing offspring. That is why you are ignoring the very clear evidence I presented you that it does.

    Since gay and lesbian couples will never under any circumstances produce offspring, there is no need to extend to them any sort of privilege or relationship status that is primarily for the welfare and benefit of children.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 8, 2010 @ 5:03 pm - July 8, 2010

  49. Throbert McGee: Our people should not and will NEVER admit that we are not as good as straights or that our relationships are not as valuable. To say that is to say to ourselves and future children who are gay that they are by default lesser human beings. To suggest that we should “accept” that classification is traitorous.

    Sorry, but unlike you, none of us here really think of ourselves as being inferior because we cannot marry our preferred sexual partners.

    That’s your problem. Your blaming your own psychological issues on your sexual orientation is really what has created this whole problem.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 8, 2010 @ 5:07 pm - July 8, 2010

  50. In an enormous victory for same-sex marriage, a federal judge in Boston today (Thursday, July ruled, in two separate cases, that a critical part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) unconstitutional.

    It’s only the beginning. It still has to go through the appellate and Supreme Courts.

    And if this or the Prop 8 trial leads to court-mandated gay marriage, there will be a severe backlash. Expect the FMA, or at least an amendment restoring marriage to the states, to return, and quite possibly pass.

    Comment by NYAlly — July 8, 2010 @ 5:13 pm - July 8, 2010

  51. The right to have one’s most intimate relationship be sanctioned and recognized by your government … is recognized as a fundamental right.

    Okay, Jeremy, I’ll concede this point.

    But would you mind explaining to me and the peanut gallery why the “narrow”, “Maine-type” domestic-partnership registry I’ve described above does not sufficiently sanction and recognize same-sex “intimate relationships”?

    P.S. BTW, from wikipedia, here’s what’s provided for by the “narrow/limited” domestic-partnership law currently existing in ME :

    Same-sex couples who register as domestic partners in Maine
    are considered each other’s closest next of kin;
    can inherit all or part of the partner’s estate if the partner dies without a will;
    can make funeral and burial arrangements;
    can be named a guardian or conservator if the partner becomes incapacitated;
    can be named a representative to administer a deceased partner’s estate;
    can authorize organ and tissue donations from the deceased partner.
    The law also includes protection for same-sex partners under the state’s domestic violence statutes.

    It appears to me that the current DP law in the Blueberry Lobster Toothpick Everyone Gets Eaten By Monsters From a Parallel Universe State, although not using the word “marriage,” and although providing fewer benefits than DP laws in California and Washington state, nonetheless meets the condition of sanctioning and recognizing intimate same-sex relationships.

    Comment by Throbert McGee — July 8, 2010 @ 5:19 pm - July 8, 2010

  52. It’s only the beginning. It still has to go through the appellate and Supreme Courts.

    And the hilarious part about it, NYAlly, is that the decision is contradictory to the gay-sex marriage lawsuiit that was filed in California.

    The Massachusetts case argued that DOMA intrudes on the sovereign right of the states to define marriage as they see fit without any interference from the Federal government.

    The California case argues that the state’s ability to define marriage as it sees fit is subordinate to the Federal government.

    Furthermore, the truly hilarious part comes from the fact that the states are demanding that the Federal government accept their individual definitions of marriage — when the liberal left is screaming that the states have no power to tell the Federal government what to do, such as in the Arizona immigration case.

    This will end very simply.

    The Supreme Court will make it clear that there is no Federal right to gay-sex marriage.

    The Supreme Court will make it clear that the states may do as they please in regard to gay-sex marriage, but that the Federal constitution contains no requirement that they recognize each others’ definitions.

    The Supreme Court will make it clear that, regardless of the state definition, the Federal government may make its own decisions regarding the granting of Federal benefits.

    And thus DOMA remains constitutional, Proposition 8 remains constitutional, and Massachusetts gets sent home with a year’s supply of Rice-a-Roni.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 8, 2010 @ 5:19 pm - July 8, 2010

  53. [...] right now I’m about to quote Gay Patriot on the topic of Gay Marriage.  I may be mistaken, but I think that Mr. Patriot is somewhat in favor of it.  But it’s [...]

    Pingback by Ruth Institute Blog » Gay Patriot on Gay Marriage — July 8, 2010 @ 5:37 pm - July 8, 2010

  54. From rusty’s link:

    [GLAD attorney Mary] Bonauto said the government has no reason to withhold the more than 1,000 federal benefits of marriage from same-sex couples

    Sigh, and facepalm.

    P.S. Though in fairness to Ms. Bonauto, it’s not clear whether the totally bogus “more than 1,000 federal benefits” bumpersticker-claim came from her, or was added by a reporter.

    Comment by Throbert McGee — July 8, 2010 @ 5:38 pm - July 8, 2010

  55. ND30: You must not be familiar with Constitutional law. The principle I was referring to is not *my* opinion, but a well established test of the Constitutionality of laws called Strict Scrutiny. A law gets strict scrutiny when it is only allowed when meeting a compelling interest and is narrowly tailored to meet that interest. Laws restricting speech for example get that treatment. And as of 2 weeks ago, laws restricting gun ownership also get that treatment.

    The right of having your intimate relationship recognized by the government (referred to as “marriage”) is an unemumerated right which is rooted in Common Law. It is protected by the 9th Amendment. And that right gets strict scrutiny. Laws forbidding prisoners, death row inmates, and child support scofflaws from marrying have all been struck down under the Strict Scrutiny test. I believe that laws forbidding that recognition for same-sex couples will also get that scrutiny too. SCOTUS’s decisions since Romer and Lawrence seem to be leading us there.

    And I do not consider myself inferior at all– because I refuse to accept that status. Even if the Heterosexual majority wishes me to see myself as an inferior, and give me inferior rights, i will not accept that status, and neither should you. This is a position of dignity, strength, and defiance. Not victims. Victims accept that they are “inferior” and make apologies to their oppressors when their compatriots refuse to settle like they do.

    Comment by Jeremy — July 8, 2010 @ 5:45 pm - July 8, 2010

  56. although we may be conservative morons, most of the people here ARE gay, and like being gay, and think there’s nothing at all wrong with being gay.

    So that’s a whole bunch of points you don’t need to expend energy persuading us on

    Thanks for the tip. Did you imagine me making some anti-homophobic arguments under some erroneous assumption, or are you just dishing out free, if completely obvious (hey, you get what you pay for), advice?

    In other words, countless gay activists have used “legal” in precisely the same sense (“permitted by law”) that you say Dan should NOT use it — they do so every single time they try to score a point by bringing up Loving.

    Even if some gay activists are confused about the differences between Loving and the current situation does not change the fact that gay marriage, while not being a crime, is not legally recognized in most states (i.e. not legal).

    Furthermore, you yourself seem to misunderstand Loving. Interracial marriage in Virginia at that time, much like gay marriage in most states today, was “legal” in the same narrow, wrongheaded, word-gamey sense that Dan refers to. Mildred Jeter and Richard Loving could have gotten married in Virginia at the time, a marriage that would not have been recognized by the state, and faced no criminal prosecution. Their crime, such as it were, was leaving the state, obtaining a marriage in a state (or district, as the case may be) where interracial marriage was legal, and returning to Virginia. The marriage certificate from D.C. was evidence of their “crime.” They could have had an uncertified, unrecognized ceremony among friends, just as Dan tells us gays can do today, and would not have committed a crime. Their marriage, however, would not have been legal in the sense recognized by those of us who aren’t playing idiotic word games in an attempt to paint gay activists as stupid.

    So basically, you’re completely wrong in your assertion that gay activists use Loving erroneously, as the Lovings’ marriage would have been “legal” according to Dan, if it had taken place in Virginia and not been recognized by any state or district (i.e. legal, to non morons).

    Comment by mantis — July 8, 2010 @ 6:04 pm - July 8, 2010

  57. So what exactly is the term for citizens of the United States who aren’t afforded the same freedoms / rights under the law as other citizens of the United States?

    Separate but equal was struck down long ago. If the government (whether federal, state, local) is gonna call it a marriage license, then they need to call it a marriage license for everyone. AND if all levels of government continue to afford special rights to people with marriage licenses, then they have to do it for everyone.

    I’ve long suspected that the arcane forms of discrimination against same-sex couples would be swept away by the constitution, especially the 14th ammendment. Glad to see it’s a step closer.

    Comment by Kevin — July 8, 2010 @ 6:08 pm - July 8, 2010

  58. ok, mantis, since you mentioned Loving, please list the names of some gay couples penalized as the Lovings were you know, say, a gay couple who got married in Massachusetts and moved to Virginia. Or got married in Massachusetts even though they were residents of Virginia.

    Once again, they got a marriage certificate in another jurisdiction, but faced sanction in the one where they resided. To show that this is relevant, you need provide examples and instead you play word games.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — July 8, 2010 @ 6:15 pm - July 8, 2010

  59. Laws restricting speech for example get that treatment. And as of 2 weeks ago, laws restricting gun ownership also get that treatment.

    That would be because of these two things.

    Amendment I
    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

    Amendment II
    A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

    In short, restrictions on these require strict scrutiny because the Constitution explicitly states in writing that these two rights shall not be abridged or infringed.

    Now, before you make that comparison again, point to the place in the Constitution where it explicitly states in writing, as it does for freedom of speech and the right to bear arms, that your most intimate relationship must be sanctioned and recognized by the government.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 8, 2010 @ 6:18 pm - July 8, 2010

  60. Meanwhile, since Jeremy wants to play constitutional scholar, let me point out something else.

    Jeremy in his desperate attempt blabbers about the Ninth Amendment.

    The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

    But amazingly enough, Jeremy ignores the next amendment.

    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

    In short, “your most intimate relationship must be sanctioned and recognized by the government” does not qualify as a right in the first place, and even if it did, since it is NOT mentioned in the Constitution, it is retained by THE PEOPLE to decide.

    Not the judiciary. Not the legislative branch. THE PEOPLE. You know, those folks who are identified in the first three words of the Preamble?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 8, 2010 @ 6:24 pm - July 8, 2010

  61. Mildred Jeter and Richard Loving could have gotten married in Virginia at the time, a marriage that would not have been recognized by the state, and faced no criminal prosecution.

    Um, wrong.

    And you might learn from that. The courts that have rejected the Fourteenth Amendment argument for gay-sex marriage have pointed out quite nicely that the Fourteenth Amendment was produced specifically to apply to race and that race itself, unlike gender, is a social construct with little to no biological basis or consistency and no real effect on the structure or relationship of marriage.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 8, 2010 @ 6:29 pm - July 8, 2010

  62. [...] Yes, Virginia, gay marriage is legal in all 50 states* [...]

    Pingback by GayPatriot » The semantics of the gay marriage debate & the meaning of the institution — July 8, 2010 @ 6:31 pm - July 8, 2010

  63. Jeremy et al, I do not know where marriage is a right, rooted in common law, please expand. Marriage is a social union or legal contract between individuals that creates kinship and bestows rights & obligations on the married parties. Further, an argument could be made that there is no unequal treatment of a gay man or lesbian. The reality is that a gay man/lesbian can marry (Note that I am theorizing based on non-same-sex marriage states); it just has to be to someone of the opposite sex who is not a sibling or other close relative codified in law, just like a “straight” man/woman. Also, it seems to me that the rights in the Constitution are individual rights, not couple rights.

    On another note, one of the premises that seems to be brought up is that “straight” folks desire the recognition of marriage from the “state”. What is closer to reality is that marriage is a construct instituted by society/the “state” to provide for what NDT describes, a supreme system to raise children (my words, not his). This is why the “state” grants privileges to married people, to encourage them to marry, preferably before having children.

    That being said, and I haven’t seen it yet, but what about Dan’s challenge, or put another way, give an argument as to how it would benefit society/the “state” to enact same-sex marriage, and further, how would that be different than what would be achieved with Civil Union or DP recognition.

    On a side note, with CA DP law, does a domestic partnership need to have administered an oath ceremony (i.e. a DP wedding) and is a certificate issued like one would see with a marriage ceremony? If not that seems to me a deficiency in the DP law, because one of the strengths of marriage is the public commitment of the two people and proof of said commitment.

    On a very different tangent, when some of you quote another’s comments and it appears in a pink box, HOW DO YOU GUYS DO THAT?

    Comment by HCN — July 8, 2010 @ 8:06 pm - July 8, 2010

  64. The box could be a light purple, maybe fuschia.

    Comment by HCN — July 8, 2010 @ 8:07 pm - July 8, 2010

  65. For everyone who’s quoting Loving, let’s not forget there’s that court case where the Supremes ruled that a state does not have to have gay marriage, I just can’t think of the name tonight.

    Comment by The_Livewire — July 8, 2010 @ 8:42 pm - July 8, 2010

  66. Livewire: Maybe you’re thinking of Baker v. Nelson? Note that in this case, the Minnesota supreme court’s dismissal got into far more detail than the one-sentence SCOTUS dismissal, which simply said that there was “no substantial federal question” and declined to further examine the Minnesota dismissal.

    HCN: Do you know generally how to do HTML tags for bold and italics? Well, the tag for creating a nice “pale salmon” box is like that, but with “blockquote” inside the angle-brackets. In other words:

    QUOTED TEXT GOES HERE

    …but with the spaces inside the angle-brackets closed up, producing:

    QUOTED TEXT GOES HERE

    Hope that’s sufficiently clear!

    Comment by Throbert McGee — July 8, 2010 @ 9:08 pm - July 8, 2010

  67. I understand your distinction between the institution of marriage and state recognition of a particular relationship as being part of that institution, but I still must disagree with your contention that same-sex marriage is legal in all 50 states.

    Iowa now has judicially mandated state recognition of same sex marriage the statutes prohibiting it are still on the books (our Dem controlled legislature and governor being unwilling to vote to bring the statutes into compliance with the court’s dictate). One of the statutes still there is something that I’m willing to guess is in effect in more than a few other states: The law regulating who has authority to preside over a state sanctioned marriage ceremony prohibits those authorities from presiding over a non-state-sanctioned ceremony. So a clergy member performing a religiously based same-sex wedding ceremony, even one without a state marriage certificate, would be violating his or her obligations under the civil law. (Subject to First Amendment free exercise and speech challenges).

    Comment by Banzel — July 8, 2010 @ 9:29 pm - July 8, 2010

  68. what about Dan’s challenge, or put another way, give an argument as to how it would benefit society/the “state” to enact same-sex marriage, and further, how would that be different than what would be achieved with Civil Union or DP recognition.

    HCN — although my feeling is that, on average, homosexual relationships will tend to be of less benefit than heterosexual relationships to society at large, I would reject any claim that homosexual relationships have NO value to society, and I don’t think it’s difficult to make a case for their positive social value.

    However, I will hold off on presenting my own case for this, because I’d love to see whether how mantis, Jeremy, et al. will respond to Dan’s challenge without me generously lobbing hints at them.

    On the other hand, the facts that homosexual relationships can have positive value for society as a whole, and that they can be of immeasurable value for us homos, do not automatically obligate society to recognize them with the “special legal status” that we confer on heterosexual marriage. After all, strong and enduring platonic friendships — whether male/male, male/female, or female/female — certainly have enormous positive value for society. And the individuals in such friendships may even consider themselves to be “even closer than real siblings”, and may become godparents and/or “honorary uncles and aunts” to each other’s children. Yet the law does not provide any formal recognition for platonic friendships that develop to the “blood brothers / kindred spirits” level, and few have argued that the law has any obligation to do so.

    Comment by Throbert McGee — July 8, 2010 @ 9:45 pm - July 8, 2010

  69. NYAlly, you said:

    “Evan Hurst, the burden of proof is on those advocating for large social change.”

    Uh. Yeah, those blacks shoulda PROVEN they deserved to drink out of the same fountains.

    Good Christ, it’s like some people don’t even understand the principles this nation was founded on, and what we’ve been striving for.

    NO, the burden of proof is not on the minority to prove to the majority that they/we DESERVE the same rights as they do.

    Comment by Evan Hurst — July 9, 2010 @ 3:04 am - July 9, 2010

  70. I can respond that it is biologically possible (and it happens all the time) for a man and a woman to conceive a child without being in a marriage

    Oh James,

    You are absolutely correct! And I think you’re truly on the very verge of a major epiphany here. Let me see if I can help nudge you towards it…

    It is absolutely true that men and women can have children without being married just as easily as they can when they are married, but, you see, the results are devastatingly different for society and for the child.

    For if straight couples have children outside of wedlock, what is to keep the father from wiping his hands, saying “thanks for puttin out babe, but I’m not really looking to be tied down right now, and walking away from the mother and child?” Or vice versa if you want to be PC.

    Nothing. Absolutely nothing.

    It happens every single day in the black community for example, where the out of wedlock birth rate is over 70%. And because the out of wedlock birth rate is so astronomical, so are the illiteracy rates, the drop out rates, the crime rates, the drug usage, the poverty, the dependence on government and just about every other social ill you can name.

    That’s the whole point of marriage. Men and women have a tendency to produce children when they have sex, whether its inside a legally binding relationship or outside a legally binding relationship.

    Turns out its much better for the child and for society when men and women are encouraged to get married — hopefully BEFORE they have children — because it results in children being protected by those legal bonds. Dad cant run off when all his money and property is tied up in legal knots with mom. Nor are married people even likely to want to run off because they’ve made a conscious choice to enter into a lifelong legally binding relationship.

    The epiphany I hope you are having is that marriage actually exists for a purpose, that it is not meant to be an entitlement like turning 21 entitles you to go to bars and drink yourself stupid. Americans are not entitled to get married to whomever they want, the institution has restrictions because the institution exists for a purpose: to deal with the natural consequences of heterosexuality.

    Which is why there is no logic whatsoever in the arguments that gay marriage is a right. Of course there can be no right for homosexuals to enter into an institution that exists to deal with natural consequences of heterosexuality.

    If it was biologically impossible for a man and a woman to conceive a child unless they were married, and it was the government-recognized, marital union that suddenly made the production of children possible — then I would certainly subscribe to the “procreation and building families argument.”

    You’re misunderstanding the argument. Its exactly the opposite. Its not because heterosexuals cant have children until they get married, its because they CAN and DO have children whether they are married or not, and it is much worse for the children and society if they have them outside of marriage and much better for the children and society if children are born into a legally binding, committed relationship between their mother and father than if they are born accidentally outside of it.

    Comment by American Elephant — July 9, 2010 @ 6:47 am - July 9, 2010

  71. Oops, that should read “Of course there can be no right for homosexual couples to enter into an institution that exists to deal with natural consequences of heterosexuality.

    Comment by American Elephant — July 9, 2010 @ 6:50 am - July 9, 2010

  72. There is no “love” test for any marriage anywhere. There is a sex test.

    Ooh, count me out. I don’t even kiss & tell. ;-)

    And its one test where the results are right there for everyone to see. But the good news is you can keep taking it as many times as you need to until you get it right.

    Comment by American Elephant — July 9, 2010 @ 6:53 am - July 9, 2010

  73. the Minnesota supreme court’s dismissal got into far more detail than the one-sentence SCOTUS dismissal, which simply said that there was “no substantial federal question” and declined to further examine the Minnesota dismissal.

    Actually, Baker v Nelson was appealed to SCOTUS on constitutional grounds, and when SCOTUS says there is no substantial federal question” in your appeal on Constitutional grounds, it means that they reject the merits of the Constituional arguments outright. That the Constitutional argument is false, and that is why its not a Federal issue. Which in turn means that the Minnesota Supreme Court ruling on the Constitutional issues is now federal controlling precedent. The law of the land. In short, there is no Constitutional right to same sex marriage based on

    the free speech clause, the association clause, cruel and unusual punishment, the right to privacy, due process nor the equal protection clause.

    Its not that SCOTUS declined to further examine the arguments, its that SCOTUS rejected them when they said their Constitutional appeal failed to raise a federal issue. ALL have already been rejected by SCOTUS in its dismissal.

    Comment by American Elephant — July 9, 2010 @ 7:15 am - July 9, 2010

  74. Thank you Thorbert.

    Not that I personally hold with any precident that disagrees with the Constitution (as I see it), but I always find it funny when you get the defense of “Look at Loving!”

    Re-reading Baker, I find it funny that actually, that decision does seem to support the Boston Judge, kind of.

    DOMA is a Federal Law, so I’d say (IaNaL) there is a ‘substantial Federal Question.’

    Evan, I’d point out that Jim CrowLaws were actions of the State governments to ban/bar impeed integration. They violated the 14th ammendment, specifically the “no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States” part.

    Please point out to me how DOMA/Prop 8 et. al. legally keeps you from sitting with your partner or associating with him.

    Comment by The_Livewire — July 9, 2010 @ 7:43 am - July 9, 2010

  75. Uh. Yeah, those blacks shoulda PROVEN they deserved to drink out of the same fountains.

    If I had a dollar every time an inappropriate comparison was made to the civil rights movement, I’d be rich. By insisting on full marriage and not on mere partnership laws, you are advocating for large social change, and thus the burden of proof is on you for why you should change that.

    And, funny enough, the civil rights movement didn’t really break through until footage of racial violence in the South like Bull Connor’s firehoses knocking down peaceful protesters appeared on TVs across the nation, proving that the blacks needed the civil rights laws they were asking for.

    Good Christ, it’s like some people don’t even understand the principles this nation was founded on, and what we’ve been striving for. NO, the burden of proof is not on the minority to prove to the majority that they/we DESERVE the same rights as they do.

    No, it’s not a question of rights. It’s a question of privileges, and the burden of proof is on those arguing that the privileges of state-recognized marriage should be extended to same-sex couples.

    Comment by NYAlly — July 9, 2010 @ 9:14 am - July 9, 2010

  76. #35 not a gator”

    PS: blowing goats is still illegal. blowing old goats is legal, but still illegal to carry out in pub bathrooms. Food for thought… maybe another column?

    I got out my ten foot pole and added two feet to it and decided to touch this stinkbomb.

    Here is a opportunity to thoughtfully discuss gay marriage and some yoyo wants to imply that his civil rights are under attack because “blowing goats is still illegal. blowing old goats is legal, but still illegal to carry out in pub bathrooms.”

    And this he claims is “food for thought.”

    Well, here is my thought. If you think using restrooms for sexual encounters is a civil right, make your case. Every word you utter in that idiocy is three steps backward for gay rights.

    The gay fringe is populated by people who want to make their style of sexual activity a civil right that must be accepted by society as a whole. For my money, their sex drive and agenda is not a bit different from NAMBLA.

    Those in the gay world who insist on making their sex acts part of the public discussion should somehow understand that they are generally being repulsive to a vast number of people who willingly accord them their right to privacy. “In your face” is a stupid game, no matter what the issue, unless you are in the game for a take down.

    Comment by heliotrope — July 9, 2010 @ 10:06 am - July 9, 2010

  77. NO, the burden of proof is not on the minority to prove to the majority that they/we DESERVE the same rights as they do.

    So Evan Hurst, since you insist that the majority has no right to deny marriage to a minority, then you should demand that pedophiles, bestialists, incest practitioners, and plural marriage practitioners be allowed to marry their chosen partners.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 9, 2010 @ 12:15 pm - July 9, 2010

  78. NDT–’ then you should demand that pedophiles, bestialists, incest practitioners, and plural marriage practitioners be allowed to marry their chosen partners.’

    AH miss Rita Beads, let’s see. Gays and Lesbians who are seeking SSM are more than willing to step into the local office to get a marriage license. They are willing to fill out the paper work, usually have a friend or two or three, some even have family who ‘witness’.

    But I really don’t think a pedophile is up to filling out the paperwork that will become public record acknowledging himself or herself as a pedophile and then it all comes down to the fact that his or her choice to be ‘partnered’ would have to come up with the necessary documentation and/or release from his/her custodian/parent. Kinda seems like a tough choice to be so public. And granted, I am pretty sure but an acknowledged pedophile might end up in an interview with the local law enforcement.
    Now the bestialists, well, walking into an office to sign the marriage papers, don’t think a paw/hoof print would suffice on the necessary documentation. and then those folk in that pesky incest category– again, a possible visit by the local law enforcement and/or family services agency. Just guessing. and then there are those bigamists/polygamists. . .seems like with the current system, I don’t really think that marriage licenses have multiple options for extra spouses.

    But you can go back to beading now.

    Comment by rusty — July 9, 2010 @ 1:48 pm - July 9, 2010

  79. But I really don’t think a pedophile is up to filling out the paperwork that will become public record acknowledging himself or herself as a pedophile and then it all comes down to the fact that his or her choice to be ‘partnered’ would have to come up with the necessary documentation and/or release from his/her custodian/parent.

    That’s funny, rusty.

    After whining against laws that criminalize private sexual conduct, you’re now arguing that people should be criminalized for private sexual conduct.

    After whining against laws that prevent people from marrying what they “love” and the partner of their “choice”, you’re now arguing that people should not be allowed to marry what they love and the partner of their choice.

    That’s what makes you really funny. You simply don’t realize how hypocritical and contradictory your stances are. But they’re necessary, because the public has reviewed gay-sex liberalism and made a very obvious observation — people who loathed marriage for years, who bashed it as oppressive and patriarchal, and who insisted that children born out of wedlock were no worse off than those born in, are now suddenly whining about the necessity of marriage for themselves.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 9, 2010 @ 2:04 pm - July 9, 2010

  80. Stances. . .?

    I do like this. . .

    Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a great battle.

    On Caricatures and Straw Men

    http://wakingupnow.com/blog/on-caricatures-and-straw-men#comments

    Comment by rusty — July 9, 2010 @ 2:17 pm - July 9, 2010

  81. ok, mantis, since you mentioned Loving, please list the names of some gay couples penalized as the Lovings were you know, say, a gay couple who got married in Massachusetts and moved to Virginia. Or got married in Massachusetts even though they were residents of Virginia.

    I didn’t mention Loving, Throbert McGee whined about “gays and progressives” using Loving in their arguments in response to my comment. A strange response, considering I never brought the case up. So you use his irrelevant response to come at me with some strawman. Nice try, moron.

    But I’ll indulge you and respond, since someone at least ought to rebut your ridiculous arguments, seeing as how you still insist on an obtuse, thickheaded dismissal of my original point: that people are not clueless for believing that gay marriage is not legal (i.e. legally recognized and supported by the authority of the law), simply because they don’t only consider that which is not criminal to be “legal,” as you insist on doing.

    The point of my response to McGee re:Loving was that that couple was free to do exactly what you say gays can do: get a marriage that is not recognized by the law. They could have done that. They didn’t; instead they traveled to D.C., married, and returned to Virginia, which at the time was illegal in that state. They were charged with, basically, returning to their home state after obtaining a legal (in D.C.) marriage. According to your logic, they were foolish to have done so, as they could have had an unofficial, not legally recognized marriage without the threat of criminal prosecution.

    My point was not–and do read carefully here, as you idiots seem unable to avoid attributing other people’s arguments (or just strawmen you invent) to me–that gays in America in 2010 suffer the same threat of prosecution as interracial couples in the 1960s south. I never made any such claim. That distinction, however, does not make gay marriage legal in 50 states in 2010, unless you’re a moron who wants to narrowly define the word “legal” to only include criminal statutes, in order to paint ideological opponents as stupid.

    Yours is the dishonest word game, and its all you’ve got.

    Comment by mantis — July 9, 2010 @ 4:03 pm - July 9, 2010

  82. The point of my response to McGee re:Loving was that that couple was free to do exactly what you say gays can do: get a marriage that is not recognized by the law.

    Actually, they were not, as you would have noted had you actually read the citation I gave you previously.

    And mantis, your definition is simply this: the only way in which something can be legal is if there is a specific statute saying that you can do it.

    This is where gay-sex liberalism’s crazy worldview really comes to the fore. Mantis seriously believes that it is not legal for you to do something unless the government tells you that it is. In Mantis’s worldview, it is not legal to drink a soda unless there is a statute stating explicitly that you may drink a soda.

    This is where the desperation of gay-sex liberals to be victims is most obvious and apparent. They insist that they are discriminated against because there is no government statute saying that they may marry.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 9, 2010 @ 4:30 pm - July 9, 2010

  83. Actually, they were not, as you would have noted had you actually read the citation I gave you previously.

    You mean where you linked to the Wikipedia page for Loving? You mean the page which specifically supports what I said?

    Ms. Loving had pointed to a marriage certificate on the wall in their bedroom; rather than defending them, it became the evidence the police needed for a criminal charge, because it proved they had been married in another state. Specifically, they were charged under Section 20-58 of the Virginia Code, which prohibited interracial couples from being married out of state and then returning to Virginia, and Section 20-59, which classified “miscegenation” as a felony, punishable by a prison sentence of between one and five years.

    As I said, they were charged with being married out of state and returning. Had they gotten an unofficial, not legally recognized marriage in Virginia, which they state would have known nothing about, they wouldn’t have been charged with a crime. Thus, they could have done exactly what Dan proposes for gays today, and according to him their marriage would have been “legal,” because it wouldn’t have been “criminal.” The law did not provide for prosecution of fake (i.e. not legally recognized) marriages, which is why they made it a crime to return after getting a legal marriage elsewhere.

    But please, forgive me for ignoring you when you post a link to Wikipedia and proclaim “Wrong!” without even bothering to have a clue what you’re talking about. So rude of me.

    And mantis, your definition is simply this: the only way in which something can be legal is if there is a specific statute saying that you can do it.

    No, that’s a strawman you invented. My point is that there is more to what is legal and not legal than what is criminal and not criminal. It’s an obvious point, and one any non-moron would have no problem agreeing to.

    Mantis seriously believes that it is not legal for you to do something unless the government tells you that it is.

    Strawman.

    Mantis’s worldview, it is not legal to drink a soda unless there is a statute stating explicitly that you may drink a soda.

    Strawman.

    This is where the desperation of gay-sex liberals to be victims is most obvious and apparent. They insist that they are discriminated against because there is no government statute saying that they may marry.

    No, moron, the point is that the government grants privileges to heterosexual couples that it denies to homosexual couples. The point is not that gays can’t commit to each other because the government doesn’t expressly permit it, the point is that gays are specifically prevented from equal protection and access to privileges that other citizens enjoy, simply because of their sexual orientation.

    You of course know this is the argument, but since you don’t like a difficult argument, you create easier ones to combat. Enjoy them, and try not to choke on all the straw flying around.

    Comment by mantis — July 9, 2010 @ 4:51 pm - July 9, 2010

  84. The law did not provide for prosecution of fake (i.e. not legally recognized) marriages, which is why they made it a crime to return after getting a legal marriage elsewhere.

    Do you have a supporting citation for this? You may be correct about Virginia law specifically, though given the state of race relations at the time, I would be surprised to learn that the miscegenation law did NOT ban “church marriages” that were done in the public eye, even if the couple did not seek to obtain a state marriage license.

    What IS clear is that in various states other than Virginia, the miscegenation laws against interracial marriage ALSO criminalized interracial sex and “cohabitation” even when the individuals in question had not sought to marry. Which is to say that in some states, interracial couples lived under the same theoretical threat that gays were subject to pre-Lawrence v. Texas.

    Comment by Throbert McGee — July 9, 2010 @ 5:35 pm - July 9, 2010

  85. No, it’s not a question of rights.

    Actually, it IS a question of rights, but not in the sense gay-leftists mean.

    The only right that anyone is trying to violate here is the right of the people to define their own institutions, and it is the gay-left that is attempting to violate that right.

    Comment by American Elephant — July 9, 2010 @ 5:54 pm - July 9, 2010

  86. No, moron, the point is that the government grants privileges to heterosexual couples that it denies to homosexual couples.

    And the government grants privileges to disabled people that it denies to able people. It grants privileges to people over a certain age that it denies to those below it. It grants privileges to people of minority racial and ethnic or gender status in government contracts and hiring.

    Do you agree with that? If so, you’re a hypocrite, since you are supposedly against the government providing privileges to one group that it then denies to another.

    Once you noodle that through your tiny head, here’s another good one: demographics. Gay and lesbian couples are net consumers. They will never reproduce themselves. They will never regenerate society.

    The hilarious and delusional thing about gay-sex liberals like yourself is how you denigrate and downplay the importance of reproduction and children to a society while demanding benefits from systems like Social Security whose funding model is dependent upon society producing enough children to pay for it. Liberalized Europe, in which reproduction has been denigrated to bits and in which gay-sex liberals have managed to make families irrelevant, is staring at the fact that, by 2060, every couple will have to support one pensioner in addition to themselves and any children they produce.

    In short, it is in government’s best interest to promote and protect stable environments for childrearing. Gay and lesbian couples are, under every circumstance, without exception, are biologically incapable of producing their own genetically-related children, and are dependent on the opposite gender or heterosexual sex to produce children for them. What earthly purpose would it serve the government to pay them?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 9, 2010 @ 6:07 pm - July 9, 2010

  87. My point is that there is more to what is legal and not legal than what is criminal and not criminal.

    Not really. You just don’t understand the basic concept of freedom.

    You are free to marry your same-sex partner. Go right ahead. Knock yourself out. Find a church that will do it, or designate one of your friends as the officiant. No one cares.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 9, 2010 @ 6:10 pm - July 9, 2010

  88. Gay and lesbian couples are net consumers.

    I think this is actually a refutable claim, in principle. That is, there’s no reason non-procreative homosexual couples can’t be net producers whose contributions to other people’s procreative success more than offsets the fact that they aren’t themselves giving life to the next generation of children.

    The rub, though, is that “LGBT culture” as it exists today certainly isn’t organized around the principle of gay people striving to be net producers instead of net consumers.

    Comment by Throbert McGee — July 9, 2010 @ 6:24 pm - July 9, 2010

  89. First, if we were to take procreation premise seriously, there would have to be radical changes to marriage laws. No infertile couples would be allowed to marry — this would include both young folk who are infertile due to health issues as well as older folk who are infertile due to age. Plus what about folk who are remarrying, due to a death of a spouse, divorce, etc. and they have no interest in more children? Who would agree to that?

    It is curious that the opprobrium heaped upon gays who want to marry is not also directed upon elderly people who want to marry, indicating that the problem cannot possibly stem from people’s disapproval of a couple that won’t be having children. Consider people’s reactions when someone gets married for reasons other that love, like citizenship, money, or social status. This indicates that society regards love as the basis for marrying, not producing children.

    If it comes to enforcing the idea that marriage exists for the sake of having and raising children, wouldn’t we prohibit couples from remaining childless voluntarily? Even if we didn’t outlaw both contraception and abortion, we would have to take steps to ensure that all married couples not be childless: if they won’t produce their own kids, they will have to adopt some of the many orphaned and abandon children currently without stable homes and families. Since we don’t see anyone arguing for such outrageous measures, we must conclude that opponents of same-sex marriage don’t take that principle as seriously as they seem; and because such measures are so outrageous, we have good reason not to take it seriously either.

    Gay Couples with Children
    Even without those conclusions, the premise itself has a number of flaws. It contains the idea that there is an essential disconnect between homosexuality and children, but this is mistake. Gay couples are not universally childless. Some have children because one or both partners were earlier involved in a heterosexual relationship that produced offspring. Some gay male couples have children because they have made arrangements with someone else to act as a surrogate mother. Some lesbian couples have children because they used artificial insemination. Finally, some gay couples have children because they have adopted.

    Whatever the reason, more and more gay couples are not childless — and if marriage, whether in “nature” or as a legal institution, exists to promote and protect both procreation and the raising of children, then why can’t it do so for gay couples as well as straight couples?

    A Cline (with my paraphrasing.)

    As far as throwing out the big ol piece of stink ‘ net consumers ‘, nice.

    Comment by rusty — July 9, 2010 @ 6:59 pm - July 9, 2010

  90. Wow, this is the 90th post. Is that a record?

    #69 Evan Hurst you said -

    “Uh. Yeah, those blacks shoulda PROVEN they deserved to drink out of the same fountains.”

    Well, yes, they did, anytime there is advocating for huge societal change, the burden of proof is on those advocating the change, whether the change is right or wrong. That is the reality we live in. If anyone wants change from what is the norm, then we need to prove it. Unfortunately, we do not live in a perfect world and it will never be perfect.

    #69 Evan Hurst you also said –

    “Good Christ, it’s like some people don’t even understand the principles this nation was founded on, and what we’ve been striving for.”

    I agree, I get from you that you think those principles are equality, and more specifically, equality of outcome. If that is correct, that’s unfortunate. The principles that this nation was founded on was equality with regards to certain unalienable rights such as Life, Liberty and the Persuit of Happiness. These rights relate to government confiscating property and our freedom. Now this starts to go into a totally different direction that that of the original post, but suffice to say, Dan makes a point, that those in a committed (or even a non-committed) same sex relationship are currently not punished, especially with the taking of their freedom or property (Jail or fine).

    Comment by HCN — July 9, 2010 @ 7:39 pm - July 9, 2010

  91. First, if we were to take procreation premise seriously, there would have to be radical changes to marriage laws. No infertile couples would be allowed to marry — this would include both young folk who are infertile due to health issues as well as older folk who are infertile due to age.

    Gays and lesbians who are desperate always try that argument. My response is simple: since by that logic the exception sets the rule and the rule must always accomodate the minority rather than the majority, gays and lesbians should be barred from having or being around children because a minority of them are pedophiles.

    At that point, the gays like rusty start screaming and squealing that it’s not fair or sensible to set rules based on a tiny minority — and then go wide-eyed once they realize they just undercut their own argument that marriage rules must be realigned for a tiny minority.

    The sensible answer is simply point out that the vast and overwhelming majority of opposite-sex couples are fertile and that those who are not are due to a biological abnormality over which they have no control, so it would be silly to base the rules solely on these exceptions.

    Meanwhile, no same-sex couple is fertile in the same fashion as a normal opposite-sex couple. Therefore, it would seem logical that, since a same-sex couple can never be fertile, that there is no need to include them in any arrangement made to encourage procreation and the raising of children.

    And then, rusty, your hypocrisy becomes hilarious.

    Whatever the reason, more and more gay couples are not childless — and if marriage, whether in “nature” or as a legal institution, exists to promote and protect both procreation and the raising of children, then why can’t it do so for gay couples as well as straight couples?

    But you have stated that it doesn’t, so your argument is spurious by your own logic.

    You need to decide, rusty. Is marriage an institution to promote and protect procreation and childraising, or isn’t it?

    If it isn’t, then you make it clear that gay-sex marriage supporters like yourself who invoke protecting children as you just did are hypocrites.

    If it is, then you make it obivous that gay-sex marriage supporters like yourself who deny it has anything to do with procreation and childraising are liars.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 9, 2010 @ 7:43 pm - July 9, 2010

  92. Some have children because one or both partners were earlier involved in a heterosexual relationship that produced offspring.

    Impossible. Gay and lesbian people cannot marry or have sex with someone of the opposite sex. Ted Olsen screamed and whined that in front of the court to “prove” why they needed gay-sex marriage.

    If gay and lesbian people can marry and have sex with someone of the opposite sex, then there is no need for gay-sex marriage. Remember? The exception proves the rule, rusty.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 9, 2010 @ 7:46 pm - July 9, 2010

  93. # 89 – Rusty, you said -
    “First, if we were to take procreation premise seriously, there would have to be radical changes to marriage laws. No infertile couples would be allowed to marry — this would include both young folk who are infertile due to health issues as well as older folk who are infertile due to age. Plus what about folk who are remarrying, due to a death of a spouse, divorce, etc. and they have no interest in more children? Who would agree to that?”

    I don’t think I would. From what I see, society/the state instituted marriage for family relations, to creat family to raise children. Because the first building block of a “family” is a father and mother, marriage ties up in legal knots (as NDT would say), a man and a woman. Two individuals to form what is arguably the best team to raise children. NOTE, this is not to say that two gay men or two lesbians can not successfully raise children. It is only to say that given the different natures of men and women, this appears to be the best combination. Given that, society/the state pays an extra cost in allowing those, such as infertile couples, old folks, and those breeders that just decide not to breed.

    There appears to be a need for some sort of state recognition of same sex relationships, because in today’s society, there are families where the kid has two mommies or two daddies. This is a fact of life today and our laws should incorporate that. Which is why I asked before about the DP law in CA.

    Post #91, lots of discussion on this topic.

    Comment by HCN — July 9, 2010 @ 7:51 pm - July 9, 2010

  94. Over at Waking Up Now Rob points out one more thing about ND30. He commonly offers up a bigoted and prejudiced kind of logical error. You see it these three habits:

    He offers up isolated instances as trends.
    He finds a statement or action by a gay person or group and declares it to be the position of you and the entire gay community — even when his source names other gay people who disagreed with the statement or action, even when you’ve personally disavowed it.
    He defames people with a strategy of: You’re gay, so you’re part of the gay community, and a gay person stated such-and-such, and since you’re part of the gay community, I can say you stated it too.
    Where’s the prejudice in these statements? It’s in the assumption that all gay people are the same. That when one gay person says or does something, then all gay people can be prejudged as having said or done it, too. It’s like presuming Condoleezza Rice agrees with gangsta rap, because, ya know, she’s black and so is Ice-T. Our opponents apply this kind of reasoning to us all the time, and we mustn’t ever let them get away with it.

    Ultimately, ND30 isn’t really that important. He can’t be argued with or persuaded; he won’t even acknowledge his own errors when they’re plainly pointed out.

    Rob closes askingus to remember the ancient Greek proverb,

    Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a great battle.

    Comment by rusty — July 9, 2010 @ 9:29 pm - July 9, 2010

  95. Ciao everyone. Off to the Sawtooth Mountains in Idaho for the next week. ENJOY

    Comment by rusty — July 9, 2010 @ 9:32 pm - July 9, 2010

  96. this is especially sweet NDT
    since by that logic the exception sets the rule and the rule must always accomodate the minority rather than the majority, gays and lesbians should be barred from having or being around children because a minority of them are pedophiles. this is especially sweet NDT

    Comment by rusty — July 9, 2010 @ 9:37 pm - July 9, 2010

  97. Of course, rusty, you can’t answer. Figures.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 10, 2010 @ 1:50 am - July 10, 2010

  98. there are many people who are parenting who are not fertile or were the bio parent of the child. to claim that a person is only valid if they are able to procreate is kinda silly. many people can and have procreated but walk from their responsibilities.

    Comment by rusty — July 10, 2010 @ 2:39 am - July 10, 2010

  99. NDT you really dishoner many of the commenters here for they are actually gay or lesbian parents. you also dishoner many of those folk who have fertility issues with your ‘logic’

    Comment by rusty — July 10, 2010 @ 2:42 am - July 10, 2010

  100. sorry, have fertility issues and are taken aback with your ‘logic’

    Comment by rusty — July 10, 2010 @ 2:47 am - July 10, 2010

  101. to claim that a person is only valid if they are able to procreate is kinda silly.

    Not nearly as silly as claiming a person is only valid if the government recognizes their chosen sexual union.

    NDT you really dishoner many of the commenters here for they are actually gay or lesbian parents.

    I think they can speak for themselves, thank you. But I will go out and point out that V the K is a parent and freely admits that, while he is a good parent and is far better than nothing, that he cannot match a married, committed mother and father.

    you also dishoner many of those folk who have fertility issues with your ‘logic’

    How so? I have no problem with them getting married. You’re the one who petulantly is throwing tantrums insisting that if you can’t marry your sex partners, it’s unfair to allow them to get married.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 10, 2010 @ 2:49 am - July 10, 2010

  102. And just for the record NDT, if I met you in person, I would walk up to you and offer you a hug, if you were up to it. I find your views, a little hard to handle, but I also find you intriquing. Ciao

    Comment by rusty — July 10, 2010 @ 2:50 am - July 10, 2010

  103. didn’t realize V the K was ‘family’ THANKS

    Comment by rusty — July 10, 2010 @ 10:32 am - July 10, 2010

  104. united states v. Carolene products. it says clearly that different degrees of scrutiny must be imposed if there is an history of legal discrimination for the minority or not. we see that in fact a desire of criminalize us is patent in part of usa. this is proved by the gop party platforms in texas,idaho and montana.Probably a minority of republicans have this positions,but the majority thinks that the party can have this official position without backlash. So our theoretical destruction is considered an acceptable end to the major texan party.i don’t think that the time is ready for an attack to the state-amendments,but they are doomed because their foundament is not understandable in a country that respects lgbt people and has on the books an equal protection amendment. i have given an answer on same-sex marriage in previous posts that show that the usual maggie gallagher position about reproduction is without bases.A very simple upper limit at 58 for women could make marriage laws consistent with their suppose reproductive-only end.the state could spare precious funds. Instead 15 and an half years children can not be separated in mature and not mature in an objective,simple way. the present situation is only the dross of an abysmal past,with lobotomies,pain and bereavement.Our enemies like this horrible past;they never recognize what we suffered

    Comment by volpi — July 10, 2010 @ 2:49 pm - July 10, 2010

  105. How so? I have no problem with them getting married. You’re the one who petulantly is throwing tantrums insisting that if you can’t marry your sex partners, it’s unfair to allow them to get married.

    NDT, this is the part of the argument I don’t get. Your argument is that 0% of gay couples can procreate. Agreed. As such, you believe they should not be given the privilege of marriage. Fine. However, 0% of opposite sex couples in which one or both are infertile can procreate. Yet you have no problem with these couples getting married.

    My take is Rusty is not trying to prevent infertile couples from getting married. Not at all. And you’re not either, unless they are the same sex.

    Comment by Pat — July 12, 2010 @ 8:43 am - July 12, 2010

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.