GayPatriot

Comments

RSS feed for comments on this post.

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: http://www.gaypatriot.net/2012/02/09/no-you-dont-need-state-sanction-to-get-married/trackback/

  1. Yeah BDB it is called ‘shacking up’

    Comment by rusty — February 9, 2012 @ 8:38 am - February 9, 2012

  2. Representative Pedersen’s statement is very compelling to me. Here is a man who wants his child to know that having two daddies is just as valuable and just as ….. (dare I say) …… normal as all marriages. Pedersen particularly values the understanding of “lifelong commitment” that is implied in the understanding of marriage.

    But then I awaken to the fact that marriage as a lifelong commitment is as rare as hen’s teeth in too many instances and that the culture of marriage is a joke in our entertainment world.

    I don’t know if Pedersen is liberal or conservative. But I somehow imagine his view of marriage to be something like that of June and Ward Cleaver and their boys Wally and “Beaver.” Pedersen will use Eddie Haskell as a constant parenting tool to help Wally and “Beaver” value work, cleanliness, honesty, responsibility, integrity, wholesomeness, charity, and on and on.

    In the final analysis, however, I am mystified as to why any sentient adult in 2012 would see a marriage license as a short cut to the very, very hard work of making an “ideal” marriage work. Nor do I quite understand why the June and Ward Cleaver standard can not be met without such a license.

    We have “moved on” from the Cleaver household to the Madonna halftime Super Bowl show. We buried the Cleavers along with Dick and Jane in a pile of public scorn. We embraced the reality of single parent moms and created a world of benign neglect toward the fracturing of the family. We shifted the responsibility of keeping a hearth and home to the government which stands in for missing parents and offers up social workers to manage whole neighborhoods.

    I wonder if the Cleavers ever visited Planned Parenthood or if Planned Parenthood even had their “women’s health services” depots near the Pine Street or Mapleton Drive houses. Or in Mayberry? Didn’t Aunt Bee need breast checkups?

    So, our liberal nanny state socialists who engage in pushing the envelope as a mission are now pining for the respect that came from old fashioned adherence to a value system that they have helped ridicule and break down.

    My, my, my. Such confusion.

    Comment by Heliotrope — February 9, 2012 @ 8:57 am - February 9, 2012

  3. It’s just the way the left thinks. They claim they want the Government “out of our bedrooms.” But in fact, they want the Government to be involved everywhere, all the time, including the bedroom. They want a bureaucrat’s signature to make their relationships valid; presumably they mean nothing elsewise. They want to have the state cover their abortions, birth control, and STD treatments so they can gratify themselves without consequences. They want state-run schools to teach kids how to have sex so when they pick up fifteen year olds in the men’s room at the bus stop, they don’t have to spend a lot of time explaining stuff.

    To me, the entire notion of having Government that involved in every intimate detail of your life is repugnant.

    Comment by V the K — February 9, 2012 @ 9:05 am - February 9, 2012

  4. Wow, it only took two comments for this thread to hit the smut gutter. Is that a new record?
    Anyhow, I tend to agree with another post I read on a different (and perhaps somewhat more moderate) board. We already have same-sex marriage in all fifty states. Contrary to some more religiously motivated pundits, saying there is no such thing as same-sex marriage is like saying there are no homosexuals in Iran. If the Untied States as a governmental entity were to collapse tomorrow, would we suddenly have millions of formerly married couples?
    Which is why I usually attempt to convince my more left leaning friends that civil unions, if they are given the true equal weight of marriage, is all we require. This gives us the protections we pay for as US citizens, and still allows our more fundamental neighbors to sleep better at night. And if we hold this union to be sacred in our hearts and before our Creator, and our religious institutions offer their blessings, then heck. Pin the sign on the back of the car and tie on the tin cans cuz you just got married! You can introduce your other half as you husband, wife, spouse, ball and chain or old man. No one can stop you from doing as much. With no discernable difference between straight married couples and same-sex married couples, other then what’s written on a piece of paper, it wont be long before a marriage is a marriage is a marriage.

    Comment by Sandhorse — February 9, 2012 @ 9:46 am - February 9, 2012

  5. as is typical with the left, straw men abound in their arguments. State sanction of their relationships is not about love. It’s about normalizing the behavior in society as well as the money (tax treatment) and benefits that come with the sanction.

    Comment by Real American — February 9, 2012 @ 10:25 am - February 9, 2012

  6. Wow, it only took two comments for this thread to hit the smut gutter.

    Continuing along the lines of civility in discourse, who precisely has hit the smut gutter and what precisely is the clear example in the comments above that earned the (flippant?) charge of going into the smut gutter and, just for clarification, how is one expected to know when one is approaching smut gutter territory?

    Like all charges of a political correctness nature, it would seem only fair for the elites to take the time and patience to attempt to raise the lower minds to a higher level.

    Come back, oh Buddha, and enlighten us.

    Comment by Heliotrope — February 9, 2012 @ 10:32 am - February 9, 2012

  7. I think now it would be interesting to ask Pederson if he believes that children of unmarried parents are damaged or disadvantaged — and if so, why he and his party support, endorse, and encourage single and unmarried parenting.

    Pederson has demonstrated that he thinks nothing of marriage already. His attempt to invoke its values now is nothing but blatant hypocrisy.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 9, 2012 @ 10:37 am - February 9, 2012

  8. Progressives: “Keep Government Out of Our Bedrooms But Please Micromanage our medicine cabinets.

    Comment by Matt Damon — February 9, 2012 @ 10:49 am - February 9, 2012

  9. “Didn’t Aunt Bee need breast checkups?”

    “They want to have the state cover their abortions, birth control, and STD treatments so they can gratify themselves without consequences.”

    “They want state-run schools to teach kids how to have sex so when they pick up fifteen year olds in the men’s room at the bus stop…”

    Perhaps ‘smut’ was a bit too strong of a word, although I didn’t realize opinions were a privileged here. In any case, I don’t see why we have to resort to such base talking points just to make an argument. The original post made a case without ever going below the belt.

    However, I don’t want this disagreement to distract from the original topic, so if my comment was offensive, please except my sincere apology.

    Comment by Sandhorse — February 9, 2012 @ 10:56 am - February 9, 2012

  10. You mean, his children wouldn’t recognize that commitment if the state didn’t recognize their union as marriage? (He’s not the first to make this kind of claim.) Theirs must be a pretty weak relationship if they need state sanction to show their commitment.

    So if a couple has a baby out of wedlock, and decides to call themselves married without actually doing so, that’s just fine? They are on equal footing as those who get either the state sanction or have a church ceremony?

    Comment by sonicfrog — February 9, 2012 @ 11:00 am - February 9, 2012

  11. Interesting thought Sonic, but it still misses the point.

    For the sake of argument let’s reverse your statement. What if a couple is legally married but live on two separate sides of the country, they never see each other, and the child never sees them together, is the child going to perceive them as married. If so, what would ‘marriage’ then mean to the mind of a child? And the perspective of the child is what’s being questioned in this discussion. Not the legal ramifications.

    Comment by Sandhorse — February 9, 2012 @ 11:10 am - February 9, 2012

  12. I’m afraid this piece doesn’t really work for me, Dan. I’m not a fan of gay marriage or of Pedersen’s POV, but I don’t think your argument here, that you can get married without the involvement of the state, really holds water. In real life, here and now, marriage is a legal condition, not just a religious or personal one.

    Comment by EssEm — February 9, 2012 @ 11:12 am - February 9, 2012

  13. the willful ignorance co-opted by Gay republicans in order to convince yourselves that your chosen party doesn’t actually think lesser of you is staggering.

    you’re all a bunch of insecure wimps, who can’t even put a face and name to your comments, all because your parents resented having you cowardly gay boys for sons.

    btw, keep coming on to my blog and posting Anonymously.

    it only proves me right.

    grow some balls. maybe then one day your parents will respect you. unlikely, of course, but you never know.

    Comment by Little_Kiwi — February 9, 2012 @ 11:53 am - February 9, 2012

  14. EssEm, your criticism makes me consider whether or not I need to tweak the post.

    I’m not really making an argument about whether or not the state should recognize marriages here, merely about the semantics of the debate.

    I wanted to make the distinction between state recognition of marriages and the freedom to get married — even without that recognition.

    If that wasn’t clear (which is highly likely since I posted it just before bed), I’ll tweak the post.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — February 9, 2012 @ 12:00 pm - February 9, 2012

  15. a culture that says “we don’t recognize your marriage in this state!” is a culture still ruled by ignorance, fear, prejudice and bigotry.

    it’s pathetic that in 2012 people in the USA are still making the same cowardly excuses they were making to excuses State-sanctioned racial prejudice.

    but who are we kidding? the white boys who come to this site no doubt have family that miss the Good Old Days of Segregation. you know it. that’s why you wimps can’t show your faces :D

    Comment by Little_Kiwi — February 9, 2012 @ 12:03 pm - February 9, 2012

  16. For the sake of argument let’s reverse your statement. What if a couple is legally married but live on two separate sides of the country, they never see each other, and the child never sees them together, is the child going to perceive them as married. If so, what would ‘marriage’ then mean to the mind of a child? And the perspective of the child is what’s being questioned in this discussion. Not the legal ramifications.

    That’s an interesting point. A few thoughts on it.

    You have numerous examples of that very type of relationship circumstance. There are situations where work takes one of the parents to another state or another country for long periods of time. This can include the life of a married soldier fighting overseas. People who work in the music business, on the touring side of things, can be gone for very lengthy periods. The child knows the marital status, and so does the state.

    Then there is the other case, where the couple in question are separated, yet for whatever reason, do not get divorced. Funny thing is, my older brother was touring with a few bands – The Church, Gilby Clark, Tripping Daisys – while his wife was at home raising the kids. On the last tour, his wife started having an affair. When my brother came back home and found this out, he and the wife separated, but did not get a divorce. Why? She really flipped out, got messed up on crack, and abandoned the kids with my brother. Not only did he not have the money to go through the divorce procedure, but he couldn’t track down his wife as she ended up living on the streets. And yes, my sister-in-law was really a crack whore. Not wanting to expose the kids to any of that, my bro moved the kids up to Washington state to keep them safe from any of the drug related things that might happen. So, they were still married legally, but it obviously didn’t mean crap.

    My sister-in-law has since straightened out her life and has been sober for eight years now. And they did finally get a divorce.

    Comment by sonicfrog — February 9, 2012 @ 12:09 pm - February 9, 2012

  17. Ah, Teh Crazy. I had really missed it since Auntie Dogma got banned. Good stuff. Always entertaining.

    Comment by Matt Damon — February 9, 2012 @ 12:09 pm - February 9, 2012

  18. Little Kiwi, if DOMA was overturned tomorrow. And all 50 states from sea to shining sea recognized same-sex marriage; do you truly believe those you consider are “still ruled by ignorance, fear, prejudice and bigotry” will suddenly invite you and your spouse over for thanksgiving dinner and pumpkin pie?

    Comment by Sandhorse — February 9, 2012 @ 12:12 pm - February 9, 2012

  19. more from the legislative folk in WA

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CbmbdWK6338

    Comment by rusty — February 9, 2012 @ 12:16 pm - February 9, 2012

  20. and this is the transcript of Maureen Walsh R Walla Walla

    I don’t wax as eloquently as most of the people on the floor here, but I have allowed my heart and mind to guide me on a lot of different decisions I’ve made in the legislature. I think sometimes that’s what we have to do.
    I too don’t want to wag my finger at anybody about which way to vote on this. It’s certainly an issue of consciousness for me that I’ve been weighing very heavily for the past few weeks.
    You know, I was married for 23 years to the love of my life and he died 6 years ago. I think of all the wonderful years we had and the wonderful fringe benefits of having 3 beautiful children. I don’t miss the sex, and to me that’s kind of what this boils down to. I don’t miss that… I mean I certainly miss it, but it’s certainly not the aspect of that relationship, that incredible bond I had with that human being, that I really really genuinely wish I still had. And so I just think to myself: how could I deny anyone the right to have that incredible bond with another individual in life. To me it seems almost cruel.
    Years ago my daughter went to elementary school. Many of you have met my daughter she’s a fabulous girl, she’s wonderful, my boys are great too, but she’s really something special. She was the light of her father’s eye.
    So she went to school and there were a whole group of kids picking on another kid, and you know, my daughter stuck up for that kid. Even though it wasn’t the popular thing to do it was the right thing to do. I was never more proud of my kid than knowing she was speaking against the vocal majority on behalf of the rights of the minority. And to me, it is incumbent upon us as legislators in this state to do that. That is why we are here.
    And I shudder to think that if folks who had preceded us in history did not do that, frankly I’m not sure I would be here as a woman. I’m not sure other people would be here due to their race or creed. And to me that is what’s disconcerting.
    And someone made the comment that this is not about equality. Well yes it is about equality. And why in the world would be not allow those equal rights for individuals who are truly committed to one another in life to be able to show that in the way of a marriage.
    My daughter came out of the closet a couple of years ago and you know what I thought I was going to agonize about that. Nothing’s different. She’s still a fabulous human being and she met someone she loves very much. And some day, by God, I want to throw a wedding for that kid. And someday I hope that’s what I can do. I hope she will not feel like a second-class citizen involved in something called a “domestic partnership” which frankly sounds like a Mary Maids franchise to me.
    Thank you Mr. Speaker. That’s all I want to say.

    Comment by rusty — February 9, 2012 @ 12:20 pm - February 9, 2012

  21. There is this quote from the same article.:

    Rep. Jay Rodne, R-Snoqualmie, said that the measure “severs the cultural, historical and legal underpinnings of the institution of marriage.”
    “This bill is really an exercise of raw political power,” he said. “It contravenes human nature and it will hurt families and children.”

    I don’t get this argument…. How does a legal marriage consisting of two males or two females actually hurt families and children? Are children in Washington state going to value their mommy and daddy less because gays can now marry? In June, are they going to suddenly shudder “as if millions of marriages cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced.” as if they felt a great disturbance in the marriage force? I mean, come on, how is it going to “hurt” families and children?

    Comment by sonicfrog — February 9, 2012 @ 12:30 pm - February 9, 2012

  22. Rusty, thanks for the quote. Nice way to make the case for SSM.

    Comment by sonicfrog — February 9, 2012 @ 12:33 pm - February 9, 2012

  23. yw SF

    Comment by rusty — February 9, 2012 @ 12:38 pm - February 9, 2012

  24. OK, back to square one.

    Free love, open marriage, the welfare state, the entertainment industry, sex education, no-fault divorce, and much more have had a large impact on marriage in the United States since 1960. The statistics are plain and clear and readily accessible.

    There were three dominant institutions in our society before 1960: the family, the church and schools. Now the description of the “average” family is entirely different from pre-1960. The church has continued to shrink as a social force and is being driven out of the state and the schools. The schools have switched to being the place where society expects its “ills” to be educated out of the children.

    Marriage has no clear definition any longer for a vast number of people. It is a state where two people hook up for a certain length of time and try to carry out some sort of “positive” relationship. However, there are no real standards assumed or implied. Marriage is just another situation in a sea of moral relativity that is subject to change based on shifts in the overlapping areas of two people each seeking individual gratification and validation. (The sociological terms can go on forever to describe mules pulling apart.)

    So, way too many kids grow up in families that have weak standards and go to schools which will accommodate nearly any type of disturbed behavior or pseudo-scientific disorder that has been assigned important initials and the church is either foreign to them or is so plain vanilla that it is little more than a feel good festival ground where everyone is delivered a happiness fix.

    And into this void steps the government with all manner of band aids delivered by the corps of social workers who throw short bursts of individualized attention on a growing cadre of troubled parents and kids all being chased by demons, real and imagined.

    When you look at the pictures from the families in crushing poverty during the great depression, you see unimaginable conditions in terms of standard of living “stuff.” But you also see real families struggling together. And, often as not, a picture of Jesus on the wall.

    Now we have reached the point where marriage is becoming increasingly rare among the young and many marriages are childless. At the same time, more and more parents are homeschooling their children and finding ways to isolate themselves from the state intervention which preaches the latest political correctness fad.

    Now entering into all of this marriage dysfunction, decline, and chaos is the argument that “one man and one woman” needs to be redefined in order to accommodate gays and lesbians. And, added to that fundamental redefinition of marriage is the attached notion that everyone is supposed to accept the change and like and respect it.

    I would like to hear more from Pedersen and his reasoning concerning how marriage will give him the base that was the common denominator in terms of the conservative aspects and expectations of marriage prior to 1960.

    Back into the slut gutter. Not the least of the problems of modern marriage are the presumptions of society at large concerning abortion and its flagship, the SS Planned Parenthood. Dumping the hump and destroying unwanted children (but not those actually born) has become a societal norm and state funded. This is a sacrament of enlightened modern thinking. (And of no possible interest in the gay marriage formulation.)

    Planned Parenthood is contraception based and abortion is just another form of contraception. Planned Parenthood has its offices where it deems its “services” are most needed and where motherhood outside of wedlock is most prevalent. Planned Parenthood is the brainchild of societal elites who know what is best for the underclass. Planned Parenthood is now under pressure and putting forth the claim that only 3% of its “services” involve abortion. This is laughable on its face and is a claim that is backed by highly manipulated numbers that are kept for the purpose of skewing the results for purposes intended. Now Planned Parenthood is floating the line that it is first and foremost a women’s health center. (As its name clearly does not imply.)

    If you create enough “newspeak” the dummies, who make up the masses in the liberal view of the world, will just lap it up. That includes “gay marriage.”

    Comment by Heliotrope — February 9, 2012 @ 12:58 pm - February 9, 2012

  25. 1960

    I don’t get this argument…. How does liberalizing divorce laws actually hurt families and children? Are children in intact families going to value their mommy and daddy less because parents who don’t love each other can get an easy no-fault divorce? … I mean, come on, how is it going to “hurt” families and children?

    1975

    I don’t get this argument…. How does destigmatizing single parenthood actually hurt families and children? Are children in intact families going to value their mommy and daddy less because unwed mothers are socially acceptable? … I mean, come on, how is it going to “hurt” families and children?

    1990

    I think it’s great that Madonna has mainstreamed open sexuality into the culture. I don’t get the argument that it cheapens and degrades people because people can openly flaunt behavior previously considered pr0nographic? I mean, come on, how is it going to “hurt” families and children?

    Society arrived at its set of rules and values through a lot of trial and error. We are currently experiencing the trial part.

    Comment by Matt Damon — February 9, 2012 @ 1:03 pm - February 9, 2012

  26. Free love, open marriage, the welfare state, the entertainment industry, sex education, no-fault divorce, and much more have had a large impact on marriage in the United States since 1960. The statistics are plain and clear and readily accessible.

    And the same secular leftists that assured us that all of these things were benign, and probably beneficial, are now championing the cause of same-sex marriage.

    Comment by Matt Damon — February 9, 2012 @ 1:04 pm - February 9, 2012

  27. And those who claim you can’t compare “No Fault Divorce” and “Same Sex Marriage” miss the key philosophy that unites them; that marriage is nothing but a contractual arrangement that should be made and dissolved at will as soon as both parties grow tired of it. Plus, you get bennies.

    (Sigh) Bring on the SMOD. Our culture is doomed anyway.

    Comment by V the K — February 9, 2012 @ 1:06 pm - February 9, 2012

  28. Matt Damon/VtheK makes the point. These things play out over time. How is a little welfare support to a struggling single mother gonna hurt anyone?

    Comment by EssEm — February 9, 2012 @ 1:12 pm - February 9, 2012

  29. Virtue knows no orientation.
    Virtue knows no political affiliation.

    Comment by Sandhorse — February 9, 2012 @ 1:14 pm - February 9, 2012

  30. I, personally, would be more receptive toward same sex marriage if it were within a culture where marriage were still viewed as lifelong, monogamous commitment.

    Paradoxically, I think if that were still the case, it wouldn’t be an issue, because there wouldn’t be a mass movement of gay activists demanding it.

    Comment by V the K — February 9, 2012 @ 1:28 pm - February 9, 2012

  31. I noticed of late a set of rather unfriendly comments from a “Little_Kiwi”, comments which seemed exceptionally repetitive. So I did go visit his website. All questions were answered there.

    Comment by EssEm — February 9, 2012 @ 1:31 pm - February 9, 2012

  32. a culture that says “we don’t recognize your marriage in this state!” is a culture still ruled by ignorance, fear, prejudice and bigotry.

    Comment by Little_Kiwi — February 9, 2012 @ 12:03 pm – February 9, 2012

    Still ruled by ignorance, fear, prejudice and bigotry: Those who oppose polygamy; those who oppose gay brothers marrying; those who oppose arranged marriages; those who don’t understand the love and bond between a man and his goat; those who oppose one of everything for the transgendered.

    Little QueeBee is one righteous dude. First, he fires this arrow of righteousness:

    you’re all a bunch of insecure wimps, who can’t even put a face and name to your comments, all because your parents resented having you cowardly gay boys for sons

    … and then he tears open his shirt and there, blazoned across his manly chest is a tattoo of a care bear holding a pennant bearing these words: a culture that says “we don’t recognize your marriage in this state!” is a culture still ruled by ignorance, fear, prejudice and bigotry.

    A regular Joan of Snark. Nice work, Joan. Now run along and suck on a vodka drenched tampon.

    Comment by Heliotrope — February 9, 2012 @ 1:35 pm - February 9, 2012

  33. a tattoo of a care bear. . .haven’t heard about care bears in a long while.

    :)

    Comment by rusty — February 9, 2012 @ 1:40 pm - February 9, 2012

  34. @rusty I think they’re coming back.

    I know I found it funny my godkids played with Strawberry Shortcake, Gobots and Transformers. (Though my sister and I never had Strawberry Shortcake. She had ‘glamor gals’ and I ran gun battles between GI Joe and Cobra on her cruise ship playset.)

    On, maybe that was TMI.

    Comment by The Livewire — February 9, 2012 @ 2:03 pm - February 9, 2012

  35. I don’t know if I will ever get over the fact that my parents sold / gave away most of my JOE’s and accessories.

    http://gijoevintage.info/vintage-joe-team/

    http://www.ebay.com/itm/Vintage-GI-JOE-Adventure-Team-Helicopter-/290668190387?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item43ad2c9ab3#ht_500wt_1202

    a couple of my favorites.

    Loved GI JOE. had four of them plus lots of accessories

    Comment by rusty — February 9, 2012 @ 2:16 pm - February 9, 2012

  36. V the K, your absolutely right. I wish that sensibility was more predominant. WHO got us to this place is really beside the point. I think it’s safe to say the blame can be shared.

    The larger question is. “Where do we go from here?”

    One option is to give up altogether. If that’s what we as a society choose to do then there really IS no reason to bar same-sex couples from marriage recognition. If we’re not going to attempt to right the ship then we might as well jump into the water.

    Another option is; we could keep having the vast majority of the heterosexual community treating the institution of marriage as its cheap plaything, while telling the homosexual community it’s sacred. This is what I think we’ve been doing; with no discernable increase in the value of marriage.

    Or, we could focus on the institution of marriage itself. Give it back the teeth and claws it once had, along with its strong arms of security and protection. D.O.M.A. could truly live up to its name and defend ALL marriages. Instill financial penalties for breaking the contract that, thus far, only offers tax breaks for those under its wing. NOM could actually fight for ALL MARRIAGES. Who knows, odds are they may even receive support from conservative homosexuals. Whether this would be enough to offset the loss of less willing heterosexuals would have to be played out. Regardless of whether the couples that enter into it are straight or gay, they would all be held to the same standard.

    What if we were successful with that third option? What would that look like? Marriage would naturally protect itself, and wouldn’t need any political body to protect it. The vary authority we have given it would organically weed out those who seek to undermine it. And no one could claim discrimination since black, white, straight, gay and everything in between, marriage would be blind too all characteristics.

    Comment by Sandhorse — February 9, 2012 @ 2:28 pm - February 9, 2012

  37. 1960:

    I don’t get this argument…. How does liberalizing divorce laws actually hurt families and children?

    This has hurt some, and saved others. If the marriage is a faulty, tormented, thing, where the mother, or father, and / or the child is physically or mentally abused, the child will likely be screwed up as an adult either way. But then you also have Brittany Spears. So this is a wash.

    When divorce was “harder” to get* (I’ll get back to that in a minute) you typically had husbands abandoning the family to go chase the latest piece of tail, leaving behind a single mother, who often wouldn’t get a divorce due to societal stigmas, which clearly did hurt the children as she was not able to remarry again.

    Divorce wasn’t that hard to get prior to “No-Fault” as one party, usually the wife would claim “cruelty” with little evidence, and that would be enough. If both parties in the marriage wanted a divorce, they would agree to make up and present to the court a story about the husband having an affair. OK, so they committed perjury, but they got what they wanted.

    And you might want to do a little research on the origins of “no-fault” divorce. Prior to this being an accepted vehicle for divorce, it was left to the whims of a judge to decide if you should divorce or not. So, you would rather we go back to having more government control of our lives… Typical Social Conservative position.

    Unlike your weak causal link to “No-Fault” to the fall of society, there were very tangible measured benefits to having that system, including:

    20% reduction in female suicide after 20 years, none for men
    33% reduction in domestic violence against women (after a rise in other states vs. a drop in no-fault states)
    Reduction in the domestic murder rate for women, none for men

    The study also states this:

    Critics of no-fault divorce have argued that it leads to the breakdown of the family unit. In a separate study, Wolfers found that while divorce rates rose sharply immediately after a state adopted no-fault divorce laws, the trend reversed within about a decade. He chalks up the initial spike to pent-up demand for divorce.

    If you’re interested, the study is here. But, fuck it, that only helped women, which always seems to cause society to go to hell according to Social Conservatives.

    1975

    I don’t get this argument…. How does destigmatizing single parenthood actually hurt families and children? Are children in intact families going to value their mommy and daddy less because unwed mothers are socially acceptable?

    going to value their mommy and daddy less” Really???? Where is the proof that they actually value THEIR mommy and daddy less? If a grown adult becomes a single parent, is that your metric?

    1990

    I think it’s great that Madonna has mainstreamed open sexuality into the culture. I don’t get the argument that it cheapens and degrades people because people can openly flaunt behavior previously considered pr0nographic? I mean, come on, how is it going to “hurt” families and children?

    Reductio-Ad-Madonna…. That’s a new one. So the existence of Madonna has actually hurt families and children? OK, I’ll admit she has hurt children, those who were subjected to going to her concerts by their parents! But married couples devalue their marriages because she exists? You act as if Madonna did anything different than any of her predecessors. She just push the envelope further. It’s almost as if Elizabeth Taylor or Marilyn Monroe never existed, who did scandalous things in their day. Note that Monroe divorced twice, and Taylor, seven times, all before 1960. So it’s not as if it wasn’t already destroying the institution. Hell, if you really want to blame some one,

    For the record (pun intended) I can’t stand Madonna, Cher, or their spliced clone Lady GagGag.

    Comment by sonicfrog — February 9, 2012 @ 2:48 pm - February 9, 2012

  38. Loved GI JOE.

    The movie was HORRIBLE…. Though Tatum Channing was awful nice to look at… Those lips… yum! And Yes, I’m sure the Sonic-Mate will drag me, kicking and screaming, to the God-awful sequel.

    Comment by sonicfrog — February 9, 2012 @ 2:54 pm - February 9, 2012

  39. spam filter.

    Comment by sonicfrog — February 9, 2012 @ 2:54 pm - February 9, 2012

  40. Sorry not the movie, the action hero you from the 70s

    Comment by rusty — February 9, 2012 @ 2:57 pm - February 9, 2012

  41. keep proving me right, boys ;-)

    http://littlekiwilovesbauhaus.blogspot.com/2010/08/441am-stoned-thoughts-on-gay.html

    Comment by Little_Kiwi — February 9, 2012 @ 3:07 pm - February 9, 2012

  42. More on the history of divorce via wiki

    California’s Family Law Act of 1969
    “No-fault” divorce was pioneered in the United States by the state of California when Governor Ronald Reagan signed into law the Family Law Act of 1969 on September 4, 1969 (effective January 1, 1970).The Act abolished California’s common law action for divorce and replaced it with the proceeding for dissolution of marriage on the grounds of irreconcilable differences. The grounds of irreconcilable differences were accepted as true, based on the assertions of one of the parties to the marriage, and thus the Family Law Act of 1969 eliminated the showing-of-fault requirements to obtain a divorce both for spouses seeking a divorce by mutual consent, and in cases where only one of the parties to the marriage wants a divorce.

    Comment by rusty — February 9, 2012 @ 3:07 pm - February 9, 2012

  43. Plus, returning to a system prior to the “No-Fault” one would require more judges to be hired by the state to handle the increased divorce case load, thus costing the state even more money. But then, Social Conservatives don’t really care about fiscal priorities anyway. Fixing everyone else and society via the strong hand of a Social Conservative Government will always trump Fiscal Conservatism every time.

    Wonder why there is no Tea Party Conservative even in the current crop of Republicans running for the President?.

    Comment by sonicfrog — February 9, 2012 @ 3:16 pm - February 9, 2012

  44. Wonder why there is no Tea Party Conservative even in the current crop of Republicans running for the President?

    Well I might argue it says more about the political party than the tea party.

    Seriously Sonic, your statement about SoCons “Not caring about the fisical” is incorrect. Some SoCons may not be focused on the financial. Doesn’t mean all of us aren’t.

    Re no fault divorce. You may argue that it made things better for some, worse for others (made my dissolutions easier and cheaper). You can’t argue however that it changed, and that all the reprecussions couldn’t be predicted. The usual “Look at Britney Spears!” arguments saying that we’ve not ‘sanctified’ the institution of marriage ignores everyone who tries to, even those who fail, like me.

    Holding Britney Spears up as an example of Marriage Fidelity is akin to holding up Roman Polanski as an example of positive parenting. You’re arguing the worst is represenative.

    To use the Madonna example, Madonna made no one dress up in a pointy bra, but she put pointy bras out there and made it so people wanted to emulate her. If you think Madonna’s pointy bra led to the downfall of society, then you can blame her.

    Comment by The Livewire — February 9, 2012 @ 3:43 pm - February 9, 2012

  45. Re no fault divorce. You may argue that it made things better for some, worse for others (made my dissolutions easier and cheaper). You can’t argue however that it changed, and that all the reprecussions couldn’t be predicted. The usual “Look at Britney Spears!” arguments saying that we’ve not ‘sanctified’ the institution of marriage ignores everyone who tries to, even those who fail, like me.

    Holding Britney Spears up as an example of Marriage Fidelity is akin to holding up Roman Polanski as an example of positive parenting. You’re arguing the worst is represenative.

    Um… You might want to rephrase that. It doesn’t make much sense. Again, people had already found various ways to get through the pre “no-fault”system, at least those who found that lying to the court was an acceptable solution to a bad marriage. So the reality is that implementing “no-fault” didn’t change much, except making divorce easier and getting government out of our lives a little more. The argument ins’t that far removed from simplifying the tax code, which would eliminate the “need”, as it were, for people to take questionable deductions, or even lie on their tax returns to save some money.

    Did you have a failed marriage? If so… Why?

    And, as far as I know, Roman Polanski’s only child was never born and was killed along with his mother. He was never a parent so it would be impossible to use him as an example of positive parenting.

    Comment by sonicfrog — February 9, 2012 @ 4:06 pm - February 9, 2012

  46. To use the Madonna example, Madonna made no one dress up in a pointy bra, but she put pointy bras out there and made it so people wanted to emulate her. If you think Madonna’s pointy bra led to the downfall of society, then you can blame her.

    Um… I wasn’t blaming Madonna for the downfall of society… That would be Matt Damon.

    Comment by sonicfrog — February 9, 2012 @ 4:08 pm - February 9, 2012

  47. Matt Damon # 25

    Comment by sonicfrog — February 9, 2012 @ 4:08 pm - February 9, 2012

  48. What defines marriage is a function of the public square. The legislation that affects marriage arises from the presumptions of the public square.

    Unfortunately, the public square has lost track of the guardrails of classical morality and been seduced, more and more by moral relativity.

    If you want to see moral relativity played out by those who make everything into a game, just watch Jerry Springer who capitalizes in shamelessly whoring any shred of what was once moral decency.

    How we return to a more thoughtful nation where personal responsibility reigns is a lot to contemplate. And the issue is made much more difficult by the reality that nearly half of the population has no skin in the game when it comes to income taxes, but they are very much dependent upon the transfer of wealth entitlements that the welfare society has heaped on them.

    In fact, we are fighting fiscal bankruptcy, moral bankruptcy and the ever growing dependency of the welfare class all at the same time. The society that robs Peter to pay Paul will always be supported by Paul.

    The next round in this modern game of surviving on other people’s money and depending on their tolerance, is the sudden loss of tolerance. The whole concept of the gated community will change.

    When the battle comes down to a fight between the people who take care of themselves and the statists and their horde of dependents, it is not going to be a war where people “reach across the aisle” and try to “understand” one another. What is to understand about a government that sticks a gun to your head and takes your money by force so that a growing population of leeches can continue to practice their “craft” of lethargy, entitlement demands and preaching about victimization?

    Comment by Heliotrope — February 9, 2012 @ 4:18 pm - February 9, 2012

  49. I’ll likely write more coherently when I get home.

    Re: No fault. IT may well be the case, but at the same time we have no data on how many people in the days of fault toughed it out because there was no easy exit and emerged stronger for it.

    I was using Heliotrope’s Madonna bit to point out that when one person ‘pushes a boundry’ in a public way it means it’s more acceptable. But if you let your little prostitot dress like Madonna (as way too many of my peers were allowed in the 80′s) You can’t yell and point to it being Madonna’s fault. Who bought your kid’s clothes budget? Did Madonna become the focus of amorality in the 80′s? Maybe. But she’s not solely to blame. If no one bought her music, her antics would have as much impact as, well, Matt Damon. ;-)

    First marriage failed because we were young and foolish and she was an abusive psychotic witch. Second marriage failed because of my mental illness and that she couldn’t handle it. Or as I joke “I missed the mental health exception in ‘in sickness and in health’.” I don’t think the institution needs to be changed because I suck at it.

    Donna and I never ‘bothered’ with marriage. Just didn’t seem to feel right.

    Comment by The Livewire — February 9, 2012 @ 4:19 pm - February 9, 2012

  50. stupid hypertext.

    Comment by The Livewire — February 9, 2012 @ 4:19 pm - February 9, 2012

  51. Shorter Sonic Frog: “Gay marriage will be just as good for the country as broken families, single motherhood, and unrestrained promiscuity.”

    I actually agree with that.

    Of course, some say that giving marriage status to people whose culture is defined by promiscuity and self gratification will make gays more committed and monogamous. Sure, just like welfare checks make poor people more self-sufficient.

    Comment by V the K — February 9, 2012 @ 4:41 pm - February 9, 2012

  52. Madonna did not sell anything the masses were not buying. To put it another way, she gave them what they wanted. If she was ahead of them and led them down the path, then she was merely exercising her capitalistic powers in the realm of supply and demand.

    Madonna was and is not so much the demon that needs to be exorcised as she is the commercial animal who understands how to tweak the drooling class that seeks hedonistic pleasures. (Full disclosure: I would pay good money to see a tag team of Madonna and Rachel Maddow mud wrestle Jerry Springer and Lady GaGa.)

    Comment by Heliotrope — February 9, 2012 @ 4:49 pm - February 9, 2012

  53. Sonic, the short answer to your post is this: your solution to “marry in haste, repent at leisure” is to eliminate the hazard of the latter — and then wonder at the sudden explosion of the former.

    Back when marriage was a lifelong commitment, people didn’t enter it lightly. They actually thought about what they were doing first. Divorce laws were thus built with that in mind; they thus had the same grounds for dissolution as do other legal contracts, which all have the implication that you studied and thought about signing before you did.

    Unsurprisingly, when you lessen the penalties for thoughtlessness and irresponsibility, they happen more frequently. As V the K aptly put it, when you can obtain the same income by working or by claiming welfare, why would you work?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 9, 2012 @ 5:44 pm - February 9, 2012

  54. Back when marriage was a lifelong commitment

    ?? and when was that?

    California’s Family Law Act of 1969
    “No-fault” divorce was pioneered in the United States by the state of California when Governor Ronald Reagan signed into law the Family Law Act of 1969 on September 4, 1969 (effective January 1, 1970).The Act abolished California’s common law action for divorce and replaced it with the proceeding for dissolution of marriage on the grounds of irreconcilable differences. The grounds of irreconcilable differences were accepted as true, based on the assertions of one of the parties to the marriage, and thus the Family Law Act of 1969 eliminated the showing-of-fault requirements to obtain a divorce both for spouses seeking a divorce by mutual consent, and in cases where only one of the parties to the marriage wants a divorce.

    Comment by rusty — February 9, 2012 @ 3:07 pm – February 9, 2012

    Comment by rusty — February 9, 2012 @ 6:12 pm - February 9, 2012

  55. And now a second gay marriage advocate sneers at the notion that marriage ought to be a lifelong commitment.

    Proving. My. Point.

    Comment by V the K — February 9, 2012 @ 6:18 pm - February 9, 2012

  56. I have to wonder why folks who believe the American people should be taxed into oblivion to save the Bamster’s ass want the tax breaks that come with marriage.

    Comment by TGC — February 9, 2012 @ 6:18 pm - February 9, 2012

  57. Rusty,

    Do you have the temerity to come to this site and blame Reagan for no fault divorce sweeping the United States or not?

    Innuendo is not some sort of Italian suppository.

    Either be a man and stand up for what you would imply or go such your thumb.

    Comment by Heliotrope — February 9, 2012 @ 6:18 pm - February 9, 2012

  58. Shorter Sonic Frog: “Gay marriage will be just as good for the country as broken families, single motherhood, and unrestrained promiscuity.”

    Nope, you apparently need to get the Roseta Stone for Sonic-Speak.

    Back when marriage was a lifelong commitment, people didn’t enter it lightly. They actually thought about what they were doing first.

    Because these days, when people get married, they never think about it and don’t consider it a lifetime commitment…..

    What BS!

    Who do you know personally that took the prospect of getting married lightly??? There are the few who have decided to get married on a whim (impulse wedding) but this is hardly a modern phenomena that has only existed since no-fault divorce came into being; that impulsive person has existed through out history. According to Merriam-Websters, the term elope has been in use since at least 1682.

    Oh, and did you miss the part where I showed that the statistical rate of divorce spiked due to pent-up demand for divorce. then dropped back to pre “no-fault” levels about a decade after “no-fault” was put into place by the various states? In other words, “no-fault” divorce laws do not cause an increase in failed marriages. Neither do same sex marriages.

    Live… Thank you for the background. I’m glad you’ve come through it and have found someone to share your life with.

    Comment by sonicfrog — February 9, 2012 @ 6:27 pm - February 9, 2012

  59. it’s pathetic that in 2012 people in the USA are still making the same cowardly excuses they were making to excuses State-sanctioned racial prejudice.

    but who are we kidding? the white boys who come to this site no doubt have family that miss the Good Old Days of Segregation.

    Ummm…..That’s the party you masturbate furiously over and you know damn well that no amount of your frantic projection will ever change that fact.

    Comment by TGC — February 9, 2012 @ 6:27 pm - February 9, 2012

  60. heliotrope. . .jus stating the facts sir. just the facts.

    and V. . .my parents just celebrated 61 years of marriage. on my mother’s side, none of her 6 siblings ever divorced. on my dad’s side only one of his 4 siblings ended up in divorce back in the early 50′s because she married someone who had issues with alcohol and was abusive.

    Out of the 30 cousins only two of the females divorced and those divorces were also a result of DV.

    I have attended three celebrations in the last year of ssm couples, one of 20 years, one of 15 years and had their two children celebrate with them, and then the last couple celebrate 30 years.

    Long term committed folk are very much part of my circle of family and friends.

    Comment by rusty — February 9, 2012 @ 6:29 pm - February 9, 2012

  61. And why did Ronald Reagan, the pro-family conservative, sign such a law? I believe that some of his reasons were personal. Notice that Dad signed the no-fault divorce law some twenty years after going through his own divorce. His wife, Jane Wyman, had divorced him on grounds of “mental cruelty.”
    Even though listing grounds for divorce was largely a formality, those words were probably a bitter pill for him to swallow. He wanted to do something to make the divorce process less acrimonious, less contentious, and less expensive.

    Excerpt from Michael Reagan’s New Book: TWICE ADOPTED

    Comment by rusty — February 9, 2012 @ 6:36 pm - February 9, 2012

  62. And why did Ronald Reagan, the pro-family conservative, sign such a law?

    Reagan actually made a lot of mistakes. Not giving Hamas a beatdown after the Marine Barracks massacre, for example. Compromising with the Democrats on tax increases and Amnesty, for a couple more. If you are looking for a group of people who worship a politician as a flawless, divine figure… that’s Obamunists, not conservatives.

    Second, as has been explained to you countless times, but yet never seems to quite sink in, “Appeal to Authority” is a fallacious argument.

    Comment by V the K — February 9, 2012 @ 7:34 pm - February 9, 2012

  63. Madonna did not sell anything the masses were not buying.

    Right, and I did not mean to imply otherwise. Madonna, single parenthood, broken families, and yes… same sex marriage… are symptoms of our culture’s rot, not the causes.

    The root of our problems is that self-gratification has become the paramount value and aspiration for our entire secular culture. Fewer and fewer people are willing to set aside their desire for self-gratification for the greater good; which is the root of all of our social, political, and fiscal problems.

    Comment by V the K — February 9, 2012 @ 7:40 pm - February 9, 2012

  64. Who do you know personally that took the prospect of getting married lightly???

    Britney Spears and Kim Kardashian. Since you wanted to use them as points of argument and excuses for why gay-sex marriage should be allowed, I think it only fair to bring them up.

    Oddly enough, both of them are gay-sex marriage supporters. I think that speaks for itself.

    Oh, and did you miss the part where I showed that the statistical rate of divorce spiked due to pent-up demand for divorce. then dropped back to pre “no-fault” levels about a decade after “no-fault” was put into place by the various states?

    The divorce rate, which you love to cite, was over 50% in 1950?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 9, 2012 @ 8:00 pm - February 9, 2012

  65. Me:

    Who do you know personally that took the prospect of getting married lightly???

    You:

    Britney Spears and Kim Kardashian.

    NDT… You know them personally???? How are they??? What are they like???? Do they take you shopping with them??? Do they let you share their boyfriends?????

    Please learn to read for comprehension, and the divorce rate is not 50%.Not even close

    http://townhall.com/tipsheet/michaelmedved/2007/10/01/marriage_gloom-and-doomers_are_divorced_from_reality

    Comment by sonicfrog — February 9, 2012 @ 8:29 pm - February 9, 2012

  66. Anyone else find it chuckle-worthy that Mr. Ron-Paul-Lovin’-Total-Die-Hard-Libertarian-Everybody-Who-Won’t-For-Ron-Paul-Is-A-Statist supports the notion that the most intimate and committed human relationship means nothing without a license from… The Government!

    Comment by V the K — February 9, 2012 @ 9:06 pm - February 9, 2012

  67. I think Sonicfrog hates social conservatives because they don’t worship at the altar of gay marriage, not because they supposedly don’t care about fiscal issues.

    Comment by Seane-Anna — February 9, 2012 @ 9:28 pm - February 9, 2012

  68. It’s a pretty common thing: “Government should stay out of people’s lives… except for issues I have a personal stake in, in which case, the Government absolutely must be involved and must enforce my point of view.”

    Comment by V the K — February 9, 2012 @ 9:52 pm - February 9, 2012

  69. Anyone else find it chuckle-worthy that Mr. Ron-Paul-Lovin’-Total-Die-Hard-Libertarian-Everybody-Who-Won’t-For-Ron-Paul-Is-A-Statist supports the notion that the most intimate and committed human relationship means nothing without a license from… The Government!

    Nope.

    V, After all this time, I figured you knew me better than that. As I have said many times, I am a libertarian with a little “L”. I would be happy if the state didn’t recognize either as that would put everyone on a level playing field. But, if they are going to recognize one, they are inevitably going to recognize the other. That is right and just.

    I think Sonicfrog hates social conservatives because they don’t worship at the altar of gay marriage, not because they supposedly don’t care about fiscal issues.

    Nope.

    Seane, I have seven years of blogging to show why I have such contempt for Social Conservatives. But I won’t bother going to my blog to pull up my various posts on the subject when V has provided the perfect summary:

    “Government should stay out of people’s lives… except for issues I have a personal stake in, in which case, the Government absolutely must be involved and must enforce my point of view.”

    Thank you V. Couldn’t have said it better my self.

    Comment by sonicfrog — February 10, 2012 @ 1:10 am - February 10, 2012

  70. Dan, I agree that there are no laws that prevent two people calling themselves married, even the marriage is not recognized by the state. And that is certainly a good thing. However, for better or worse, an overwhelming majority of people who consider themselves married are recognized by the state as married. Even today, I still get the impression that most parents, even conservative ones, wouldn’t be thrilled if their daughters, and even their sons, consider themselves married (and maybe even had some kind of ceremony), but don’t have state recognition. As Rusty stated, many people call that “shacking up.”

    My partner and I have been committed to each other for 8 years. At my age, sure, I don’t need a piece of paper to believe my relationship is a marriage, or even a civil union. But for the first five years we didn’t have a civil union. What I found was that when we did get the civil union, then many others did finally recognize us as a committed couple. In other words this piece of paper meant more to other people than it did to us. In fact, I’ve been to several weddings where the celebrant stated that the ceremony is not just about the couple, but about family, friends, etc., recognizing the couple as committed partners. Interestingly, rarely do the celebrants mention anything about procreation.

    Comment by Pat — February 10, 2012 @ 6:51 am - February 10, 2012

  71. I enjoyed the discussion regarding the evolution of marriage over the past 50 years or so. I also can’t help notice that marriage doesn’t seem to be the same serious commitment than it has been in the past. I’m sure a lot of that can be attributed to the social changes and views that have happened in the past 50 years. What follows mostly, is my perceptions and opinions about marriage, and may be easily refuted by those who have done actual research.

    What makes marriage difficult, is that it involves commitment from two people. (It gets worse with more, which is one reason most people believe polygamy is a bad idea). It’s much easier for one person to make a commitment, but that person has no control over the other person. What can be done when the other person changes their mind and no longer wants to honor that commitment? Or the other person makes things so unbearable? We only have so much control over the other person’s commitment.

    So the question is, why does marriage appear to not be as strong today? In general, I don’t think people are less serious today about entering marriage than they were over 50 years ago. Even with no-fault divorce, people still see this as a defining commitment. In fact, people are getting married later, instead of jumping into marriage as was the case over 50 years ago.

    Also, marriage was generally not an equal partnership in the past. Sure, one can give anecdotal evidence to the contrary, or even cases where the wife was the one with control. But it was generally the husband. As long as he was committed to the marriage under his conditions (a much easier task), then the marriage could last, even if the conditions were intolerable for the wife. Wives had to “obey” their husbands as per their wedding vows. I don’t think anybody would agree that, even to save marriage, we need or should go back to that.

    Also, it was more common for one (or both) to die in their 40s than it is today. So a lot of marriages didn’t have to stand the test of time.

    V the K mentions that acceptance of same sex marriage isn’t causing moral decline, but is a symptom of it. I’m not sure that is the case, even assuming that we are in a midst of moral decline. Granted, there have been many changes in the past 50 years, and I think we can all agree that some of them have been positive, and some negative (although we may not agree as to which ones have been positive). One of the changes is the gradual mainstream acceptance of homosexuality. Some believe that this is a terrible thing. Some believe that this is a positive thing. Some are in the middle, i.e., perhaps believe that homosexuality, in itself, is no more evil than heterosexuality, but don’t believe that homosexuals should be afforded the same privileges. Frankly, I don’t prefer this half-a$$ed approach. If we believe there is nothing wrong with homosexuality (except, of course, when, like anything else, is acted on irresponsibly), we shouldn’t discourage the positive things that are afforded to heterosexuals. This is one of the reasons why I object to same sex marriage being compared to polygamy, marriage between adults and children, marriage betweem close relatives, interspecies marriage, by those who accept homosexuality. If you believe that homosexuality is evil, then I can at least understand the comparison. The point is, if we accept homosexuality, we should encourage the same positive opportunities that we do for everyone else.

    So why should we even have marriage when I said above that marriage and keeping the commitment is difficult? Because it is part of our genetics to be connected with another human being. This instinct exists whether or not persons choose to procreate, although it was probably the reason why we have it in the first place. But we found that it was more beneficial to have stable relationships. So we encourage it. And we still do today, regardless of whether the couple is able to, or has any intention to procreate. We find it as a positive ideal to strive for, even though we see too many straight persons failing. Yes, I agree that, in general, gay persons are more promiscuous than straight persons. And so many gay persons are loathe to commitment. But that should not stop us from encouraging stable relationships of gay persons, and having marriage as a goal is one way to do this.

    Comment by Pat — February 10, 2012 @ 7:58 am - February 10, 2012

  72. In other words, Pat, the marriage certificate is for people other than the couple being married.

    Rock and roll! Gays can get “married” in a church or bed and breakfast garden and play all the roles and mothers can weep and a good time will be had by all. Rings can be exchanged, cakes cut, toasts made and everybody will be impressed and go home with warm fuzzy feelings.

    Who is preventing that? Nobody. But, many gays want the state to make the paper official so that ………… What?

    Comment by Heliotrope — February 10, 2012 @ 7:59 am - February 10, 2012

  73. @Pat

    Maybe I’m the odd man out (duh!) but I don’t see the goal a decline, but I see the means as the decline. But I admit I have biases

    It would be foolish to ignore that same sex couples exist. From the legends of the Theban Speckeled Band to John Barrowman and his partner, it’s clear they’ve existed. The question (in a republic) is what do we do with them?

    I’ve said before I prefer ‘Fred’ as an answer. California has (effectively) Fred, even after Prop-8 passed. CT and WA now have SSM. I disagree with the results in WA and CT (preferring Fred) but agree with the method. That’s why I’m citizen Livewire and not Emperor Livewire. ;-) Now were I a WA resident and someone was circulating a petition to recall the governour over SSM, I’d not sign it. Were they circulating a petition to amend the constitution I’d sign it if it ‘defined marriage as between a man and a woman’ but left room for Fred as that’s my goal. If it was Ohio’s DOMA? On reflection I’d vote against it. The people have recourse (elections) to ‘fix’ the SSM legislation that yanking it entirely would be overkill. (of course now the 9th circus says that states can’t change their laws, but that’s another complaint).

    My issue is the means, regardless of the end. Ohio’s DOMA was passed in reaction to MA. We (yes, I voted for it) took steps to make sure that our courts couldn’t pull a rabbit out of a hat and *presto* invent SSM. Now, even when I voted for it, I said if someone wants to start a petition drive to have it removed, I’d sign it. If that passed, it would show the people of the state of Ohio decided it’s time to address the issue in a mature way.

    Courts inventing penumbras, like Presidents making exceptiosn to laws that don’t exist, move us away from a republic and to a tyrany. Agree or disagree with a federal DOMA, it’s the correct way to address an issue in the constitution, especially in the light of the 9th’s decision. (Really to be technical from a small government POV, the Feds should stay the heck out of Marriage, except for FFC issues, but that’s an ugly long slog of cutting Leviathan back, so I’m not going to get into that here.)

    Comment by The Livewire — February 10, 2012 @ 8:41 am - February 10, 2012

  74. @Heliotrope,

    My mom and her (now) ex-partner actually did that. Ceremony was funky to me, no invitation of G_d to bless their union for example.

    I think you hit on a point though. There are (at least) three viewpoints of the pro SSM idea.

    1) I want the government regcognition to give my relationship the same official legitimacy that Bill and Sue have.
    2) I want the federal benefits that come with marriage. Gimme gimme gimme!
    3) Frak society, I want to tear the patriarchal institution down, making marriage just a word will do that!

    I’m sure someone could draw some amusing ven diagrams from that.

    Oh I forgot there’s the 4th group that thinks that getting that cert will suddenly magically make everyone like and accept them. But I promised myself I’d not mention little fruit anymore. ;-)

    Comment by The Livewire — February 10, 2012 @ 8:55 am - February 10, 2012

  75. So nice to hear from you Pat. :)

    Comment by rusty — February 10, 2012 @ 8:56 am - February 10, 2012

  76. Why is your self esteem so dependent on the Government “recognizing my relationship as equal to anyone else’s?” Set aside, for the moment, the simple fact that it is not.

    Comment by V the K — February 10, 2012 @ 9:43 am - February 10, 2012

  77. 72.In other words, Pat, the marriage certificate is for people other than the couple being married.

    Heliotrope, I believe it’s for the married couple and other people. Don’t you?

    Rock and roll! Gays can get “married” in a church or bed and breakfast garden and play all the roles and mothers can weep and a good time will be had by all. Rings can be exchanged, cakes cut, toasts made and everybody will be impressed and go home with warm fuzzy feelings.

    Who is preventing that? Nobody.

    I agree that nobody is preventing that. But then reality hits. For example, when you got married, did you have all that minus the official state recognition. Something tells me if you did, it wasn’t all warm and fuzzy. Or are you saying that you would be okay with the state (somehow) stripping the official recognition of your marriage, while leaving everyone else’s intact. Note: I am not saying that you wouldn’t value your marriage any less, but I suspect that you would fight to have the official recognition restored. If I’m wrong, I’ll stand corrected.

    Livewire, I agree with much of what you are saying. Although I prefer marriage, like you I much prefer the legislative route. I want to address the four groups that you mentioned.

    1) I almost fall into this group. I do think my relationship deserves the same recognition as others. Maybe it’s selfish, but heck, that’s what Bill and Sue wanted, so maybe we’re all selfish. In any case, I’ll be fine with the same recognition or not.

    2) Not in this group at all. In our case, I don’t believe we would benefit financially from it. In fact, NJ recognizes the civil union, but we were denied an extra tax refund because our incomes are included together.

    3) Definitely not a part of this group.

    4) Not this one either. Obviously, handing one a government system is not going to make someone that thinks your homosexuality is evil like you. But I do maintain that this does help people recognize others’ marriage, when it otherwise wouldn’t. Even today, warm and fuzzy weddings without government recognition don’t cut it for most people.

    As for Venn diagrams, with three categories it’s very doable. With four it’s rather difficult.

    Rusty, thanks. I’ve been quite busy too often to post. But I have checked in from time to time and witnessed some of the interesting developments over the past couple of months.

    Comment by Pat — February 10, 2012 @ 9:50 am - February 10, 2012

  78. 76.Why is your self esteem so dependent on the Government “recognizing my relationship as equal to anyone else’s?” Set aside, for the moment, the simple fact that it is not.

    V the K, I assume you are addressing me. Thankfully, my self-esteem is not dependent on government recognition. However, my self-esteem is not dependent on the status quo either. I don’t support or oppose positions based on my self-esteem. Just as I would assume that straight married couples aren’t supporting the government recognition on their marriage based solely on their self-esteem.

    As to whether my relationship is “equal” to anyone else’s, technically speaking it is not. Obviously every relationship is different, etc. Some are better than others, some worse. However, because my self-esteem is pretty good, then yes, I do view my relationship on par with other committed couples, straight or gay.

    Comment by Pat — February 10, 2012 @ 10:01 am - February 10, 2012

  79. Pat, what a hilarious juxtaposition.

    You say this:

    I don’t support or oppose positions based on my self-esteem. Just as I would assume that straight married couples aren’t supporting the government recognition on their marriage based solely on their self-esteem.

    Comment by Pat — February 10, 2012 @ 10:01 am – February 10, 2012

    But earlier, you tried this argument.

    Or are you saying that you would be okay with the state (somehow) stripping the official recognition of your marriage, while leaving everyone else’s intact. Note: I am not saying that you wouldn’t value your marriage any less, but I suspect that you would fight to have the official recognition restored.

    Comment by Pat — February 10, 2012 @ 9:50 am – February 10, 2012

    You claim your argument is not based on self-esteem, but then try to argue using self-esteem.

    But the real motivation is right here.

    If we believe there is nothing wrong with homosexuality (except, of course, when, like anything else, is acted on irresponsibly), we shouldn’t discourage the positive things that are afforded to heterosexuals.

    It’s all about demanding benefits, isn’t it?

    You don’t have any concept of WHY society gives these things to heterosexual relationships. All you see is that someone else is getting something you’re not, and like a bratty teenage girl, you start bawling and screaming that you’re being made to feel “inferior”, and that Mommy and Daddy are mean because they won’t buy you the BMW that someone else is driving.

    Grow up.

    Nobody cares that you choose to have sex with the same gender. Nobody particularly cares that you enter into whatever legal arrangements are needed with it. But don’t delude yourself into thinking that your choice warrants the same level of public trust, support, and subsidy that is given to the very relationship that made your existence possible in the first place.

    Heterosexuals are treated differently because their activities have the greatest impact on the most helpless humans on the planet — babies and children. It is strongly in society’s interest to encourage, support, and yes FORCE, heterosexuals to do the right thing for the children their activities produce.

    You do everything in your power to avoid that basic fact. You and yours blather on endlessly about childless and infertile heterosexuals and insist that these exceptions mean that you should be able to cash in. You whine and complain about Britney Spears and Kim Kardashian. But all that shows is that you don’t even understand or conceptualize the basic reason that marriage exists in the first place. You just want fatter welfare checks and a piece of paper from the government to force people to like you more.

    You’re a moocher, Pat. Period. You see the toys the other kids have and you demand them. But you won’t think about even the basic reasons for WHY and HOW, and come up with all sorts of elaborate rationalizations.

    Grow. Up.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 10, 2012 @ 10:49 am - February 10, 2012

  80. Pat, what a hilarious juxtaposition.

    You say this:

    I don’t support or oppose positions based on my self-esteem. Just as I would assume that straight married couples aren’t supporting the government recognition on their marriage based solely on their self-esteem.

    Comment by Pat — February 10, 2012 @ 10:01 am – February 10, 2012

    But earlier, you tried this argument.

    Or are you saying that you would be okay with the state (somehow) stripping the official recognition of your marriage, while leaving everyone else’s intact. Note: I am not saying that you wouldn’t value your marriage any less, but I suspect that you would fight to have the official recognition restored.

    Comment by Pat — February 10, 2012 @ 9:50 am – February 10, 2012

    You claim your argument is not based on self-esteem, but then try to argue using self-esteem.

    But the real motivation is right here.

    If we believe there is nothing wrong with homosexuality (except, of course, when, like anything else, is acted on irresponsibly), we shouldn’t discourage the positive things that are afforded to heterosexuals.

    It’s all about demanding benefits, isn’t it?

    You don’t have any concept of WHY society gives these things to heterosexual relationships. All you see is that someone else is getting something you’re not, and like a bratty teenage girl, you start bawling and screaming that you’re being made to feel “inferior”, and that Mommy and Daddy are mean because they won’t buy you the BMW that someone else is driving.

    Grow up.

    Nobody cares that you choose to have sex with the same gender. Nobody particularly cares that you enter into whatever legal arrangements are needed with it. But don’t delude yourself into thinking that your choice warrants the same level of public trust, support, and subsidy that is given to the very relationship that made your existence possible in the first place.

    Heterosexuals are treated differently because their activities have the greatest impact on the most helpless humans on the planet — babies and children. It is strongly in society’s interest to encourage, support, and yes FORCE, heterosexuals to do the right thing for the children their activities produce.

    You do everything in your power to avoid that basic fact. You and yours blather on endlessly about childless and infertile heterosexuals and insist that these exceptions mean that you should be able to cash in. You whine and complain about Britney Spears and Kim Kardashian. But all that shows is that you don’t even understand or conceptualize the basic reason that marriage exists in the first place. You just want fatter welfare checks and a piece of paper from the government to force people to like you more.

    You’re a moocher, Pat. Period. You see the toys the other kids have and you demand them. But you won’t think about even the basic reasons for WHY and HOW, and come up with all sorts of elaborate rationalizations.

    Grow. Up.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 10, 2012 @ 10:50 am - February 10, 2012

  81. For those of us who oppose SSM, we have a pretty clearcut argument; benefit-oriented same sex partnerships do not impart the same degree or type of value to society as family-oriented heterosexual partnerships (i.e. Marriage) and ought not be accorded the same status as those relationships.

    For those on the other side, they can’t really be that straightforward; at the end of the day, for them, it’s really about getting benefits and status. But since that sounds as selfish as it actually is, they have to come up with all these convoluted rationales that end up contradicting each other.

    As a single parent, I realize my family arrangement is not equal to a family arrangement led by a committed mom and dad. I can accept that because I’m not a whining little sissy boy when needs the Government to make-believe it is for me.

    Comment by V the K — February 10, 2012 @ 11:02 am - February 10, 2012

  82. Please learn to read for comprehension, and the divorce rate is not 50%.Not even close

    Comment by sonicfrog — February 9, 2012 @ 8:29 pm – February 9, 2012

    Oh, so all those gay and lesbian commenters and community leaders who cite both Britney Spears and Kim Kardashian, as well as the divorce rate, as reasons for why opposition to gay marriage is wrong are themselves…..wrong?

    Meanwhile, Sonic, the reason I am so supportive of heterosexual marriage is because of all the people I know around me, friends and family, who are. The rules are very simple.

    1) Marry only if you’re planning to spend the rest of your life with this person

    2) Given 1), it behooves you to think about your choice BEFORE you marry

    3) Realize that 1) means what it says — so refer again to 2).

    Why? Because divorce and remarriage f*ck up and with children. The only thing that is preferable to is outright abuse.

    Furthermore, “conflict” or “incompatibility” are NOT abuse. They are things you figure out in the dating and pre-marital counseling process. If you choose to go into the marriage anyway, the only way you’re going to get out is if one or both of you is willing to admit that you are a total f*ckup in a court of law.

    I’m sure Ronald Reagan didn’t want to do that, but the facts were the facts. He and Jane Wyman f*cked up, and he chose the wrong out.

    Gay relationships? Ha. Nowhere near the societal impact. If you and your partner break up, nowhere near the impact would take place as it does when two parents with kids break a family apart.

    This is the fundamental reason why heterosexuals are treated differently. And it’s a damn good one. You would have far more credibility on requesting legal recognition of gay and lesbian ones if you were actually championing and acknowledging the value of heterosexual ones.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 10, 2012 @ 11:06 am - February 10, 2012

  83. @V the K

    Comment by The Livewire — February 10, 2012 @ 11:07 am - February 10, 2012

  84. @V the K

    I think there are some who want government recognition not for the benefits, but for reason 1. I don’t assign percentages to benefits.

    @NDT, don’t drink and blockquote. :-)

    Comment by The Livewire — February 10, 2012 @ 11:08 am - February 10, 2012

  85. Again Pat, glad to see you back. . .seems like you have been busy. Hope it has been a good ‘busy’.

    just wanted to point out a post back on 1/23/12 by BDB:

    he stated: The masks that we put on others. To our commenters, think about that before you reply to someone who offers an opinion different from your own. Don’t make assumptions about who they are. You may be surprised how much you have in common.

    although there was only one comment from Lori. . .her response was great.

    if you have a moment, I encourage you to read Lori’s comment. :)

    Comment by rusty — February 10, 2012 @ 11:13 am - February 10, 2012

  86. As a single parent, I realize my family arrangement is not equal to a family arrangement led by a committed mom and dad. I can accept that because I’m not a whining little sissy boy when needs the Government to make-believe it is for me.

    Comment by V the K — February 10, 2012 @ 11:02 am – February 10, 2012

    Bingo, V.

    I think you are a great parent.

    But I think you would be the first to acknowledge that your being a parent is the result of two other people failing to be, and ultimately how much better it would have been for them had your sons actually been able to be raised by the people who brought them into the world.

    You have the ability to acknowledge that your answer is not the best solution to the problem and that your situation is not the ideal. It’s a stopgap, made necessary by two other peoples’ failure to live up to their commitments and their responsibility.

    The problem that we’re dealing with is that Pat, Sonicfrog, and others cannot recognize that. In their world, acknowledging that their relationships are different and have different impacts is tatamount to failure. Hence their insistence on the Manichean duality that marriage can never have anything to do with children and procreation because not all heterosexual couples are able to procreate.

    What I find endlessly hilarious is how the animal behaviorists, in attempting to rationalize homosexuality, insist that allowing “uncle” and “aunt” relationships in the animal kingdom increases survivability. Of course it does; but those relationships center on supporting and helping the existing heterosexual relationships that produce offspring, rather than demanding that those relationships that don’t produce receive “equal treatment”.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 10, 2012 @ 11:16 am - February 10, 2012

  87. I think you are a great parent.

    Whether I am a good parent or not, the Government saying I’m just as good a parent as anyone else does not make it so. Yes, I have a foster care license signed by a government bureaucrat. So does this guy. That piece of paper does not make us equal. If I’m a better parent, it’s because I chose to be. I made myself be.

    Comment by V the K — February 10, 2012 @ 12:15 pm - February 10, 2012

  88. What I find endlessly hilarious is how the animal behaviorists, in attempting to rationalize homosexuality, insist that allowing “uncle” and “aunt” relationships in the animal kingdom increases survivability.

    I always prefer, “So you prefer that I come over beat you up and take your stuff? That happens in ‘nature’ too.”

    Comment by The Livewire — February 10, 2012 @ 12:43 pm - February 10, 2012

  89. “So you prefer that I come over beat you up and take your stuff? That happens in ‘nature’ too.”

    Brill

    Comment by V the K — February 10, 2012 @ 1:10 pm - February 10, 2012

  90. 2) I want the federal benefits that come with marriage. Gimme gimme gimme!

    Since gay citizens pay taxes into the federal system (like straight citizens do), AND gay couples are quite willing to pay a reasonable price for their state-issued DP/CU/SSM license (like straight couples do), the charge of “Gimme gimme gimme!” seems odd and gratuitous to me.

    What exactly is greedy or grasping about a group of people wanting access to a fee-based government service that is already available to another group of people?

    Comment by Throbert McGee — February 10, 2012 @ 1:10 pm - February 10, 2012

  91. What exactly is greedy or grasping about a group of people wanting access to a fee-based government service that is already available to another group of people?

    They can get the same fee-based service through civil unions, but they don’t get the status or legitimacy they imagine derives from the word “marriage,” or the gratifying “In Yer Face” to the Christian Right.

    Comment by V the K — February 10, 2012 @ 1:15 pm - February 10, 2012

  92. Thorbert,

    So can a single person marry himself? Or can a perfectly healthy person get SSI before 65?

    Comment by The Livewire — February 10, 2012 @ 1:41 pm - February 10, 2012

  93. Teh Leviwire,

    Why shouldn’t a single person have a right to visit himself in the hospital, and to inherit his own property in the event that he dies without a will?

    Sheesh.

    Comment by Throbert McGee — February 10, 2012 @ 2:00 pm - February 10, 2012

  94. V the K,

    I completely agree with your point that DP/CU legislation can be, in principle, an entirely sufficient remedy for gay couples who argue that a lack of legal recognition essentially shortchanges them as contributing taxpayers. In other words, I agree that the “fee-based service” angle fails as an argument for SSM; it’s merely an argument that the government may have a moral obligation to offer gay couples more than zero.

    But my main point is that it’s not inherently selfish or greedy to petition for a particular gov’t entitlement, if you’re willing to pay for it.

    Comment by Throbert McGee — February 10, 2012 @ 2:17 pm - February 10, 2012

  95. And when asked a question, Thorbert resorts to non-sequetors.

    Since the two examples given are covered by POA and wills, I assume that Thorbert is now conceeding there’s no ‘need’ for SSM in his view.

    Comment by The Livewire — February 10, 2012 @ 2:19 pm - February 10, 2012

  96. From Pat @70

    My partner and I have been committed to each other for 8 years. At my age, sure, I don’t need a piece of paper to believe my relationship is a marriage, or even a civil union. But for the first five years we didn’t have a civil union. What I found was that when we did get the civil union, then many others did finally recognize us as a committed couple. In other words this piece of paper meant more to other people than it did to us……

    Pat, a few years ago my husband and I threw a party for ourselves to mark our 25th aniversary. We did not put the purpose on the invitation because we did not want people buying gifts. About 150 people, friends and family, came with only a few knowing the occasion. I think many assumed it was an early Christmas Party. About midway threw the party, I had one of the band members announce the the reason for the celebration. There was lots of applause and congratulations as would be expected, but we were surprised at the people who expressed surprise that we celebrated a anniverary. One person actually said just like “real people” not in a demeaning or malicious way, it was just the first thing that popped in his head. Another cousin who’s wedding we attended 15 years prior and who we send a card acknowlegding their anniversay each year was in tears because she said it never occurred to her to send us one.

    This, among other things, causes me to think that whether legally recognized or not, whether public or private, before a crowd or just before God, a commitment is necessary. We had one, in fact a very private one, just the two of us, our parents and our Rector. For us this date reminds us every day, not just on the date itself, that we made a promise to each other, in front of our parents, who sadly were not with us on the 25th anniversary, and before God.

    We are married as far as we are concerned.

    Comment by David in N.O. — February 10, 2012 @ 2:38 pm - February 10, 2012

  97. and like a bratty teenage girl, you start bawling and screaming

    Grow up.

    You whine and complain about Britney Spears and Kim Kardashian(???)

    You just want fatter welfare checks and a piece of paper from the government to force people to like you more.

    You’re a moocher, Pat. Period.

    Grow. Up.

    NDT, whew! They were all good, particularly the moocher comment. It doesn’t matter that I stated I LOST a financial benefit as a result of my civil union. Since your response fell well short of being civil, and full of distortions and name-calling, I will not be able to respond to your diatribe. I suggest you re-read Dan and Bruce’s call for civility and try again. Otherwise, please have a blessed day. Thanks.

    Comment by Pat — February 10, 2012 @ 2:40 pm - February 10, 2012

  98. 9

    5.And when asked a question, Thorbert resorts to non-sequetors.

    Since the two examples given are covered by POA and wills, I assume that Thorbert is now conceeding there’s no ‘need’ for SSM in his view.

    Comment by The Livewire — February 10, 2012 @ 2:19 pm – February 10, 2012

    But you do realize it is much more that just what POA and Wills will cover don’t you. I am sure you do, because of your advocacy for “Fred”. Just wanted to make sure.

    Comment by David in N.O. — February 10, 2012 @ 2:42 pm - February 10, 2012

  99. 85.Again Pat, glad to see you back. . .seems like you have been busy. Hope it has been a good ‘busy’.

    Rusty, mooching and collecting welfare checks have kept me really busy. :-) Seriously, work has been busier, some of it good, some of it not so good.

    if you have a moment, I encourage you to read Lori’s comment.

    I just read it, and agree with you. It’s the type of comment that we should read over every so often, to remind us of its message.

    Comment by Pat — February 10, 2012 @ 2:58 pm - February 10, 2012

  100. David, I’m glad you had a wonderful silver anniversary party. I’m sure it was a great experience for everybody. And I agree having your ceremony even though it was very small, was worth it, and a good reminder of the commitment you and your partner made. Our civil union ceremony also was very small. My parents, and the celebrant (a former neighboring county clerk and current county executive).

    Comment by Pat — February 10, 2012 @ 3:04 pm - February 10, 2012

  101. NDT says:

    Oh, so all those gay and lesbian commenters and community leaders who cite both Britney Spears and Kim Kardashian, as well as the divorce rate, as reasons for why opposition to gay marriage is wrong are themselves…..wrong?

    That’s not why they cite it and you know it. They cite Spears and Kardashian when opponents of SSM try to make the argument that heterosexuals treat marriage as a sacred institution, and homosexuals won’t. Clearly, some hetero’s don’t as well. Personally, I don’t think it’s a compelling rebuttal, but it’s there.

    Meanwhile, Sonic, the reason I am so supportive of heterosexual marriage….

    OK. Stop right there. Are you saying that supporters of same sex marriage somehow automatically oppose regular heterosexual marriage???? Where on earth do you get that??? Oh, there is probably some Dan Savage quote somewhere where he derides heterosexual marriage, but he’s an idiot and not very many take him that seriously. He’s a squawking head with a poison pen, and is irrelevant in the eyes of the law. If same sex marriage become a recognized privilege here in California, how many heterosexual marriages will become null and void, or become devalued in the eyes of the law?

    Answer – Zero, of course.

    …is because of all the people I know around me, friends and family, who are. The rules are very simple.

    1) Marry only if you’re planning to spend the rest of your life with this person

    I ask you again, do you know anyone personally who gets married and does not plan to spend the rest of their lives together? Do you know anyone who got married, then told you “Meh, I’m going to get a divorce in a couple of years, we’re just doing this for the hell of it”? I can’t emphatically deny that someone out there, somewhere hasn’t done that, but it certainly isn’t common.

    That said, some people DO hedge their bets via prenuptial agreements. If you are really serious about point # 1, you must advocate for making those illegal, as the prenup indicates that the rich person getting married to the young nubile thing is not, as you say, “planning to spend the rest of your life with this person”.

    2) Given 1), it behooves you to think about your choice BEFORE you marry

    Seeing that you have to get a marriage license and often get blood test and jump through other hoops, it’s probably pretty difficult to get married without thinking about it.

    3) Realize that 1) means what it says — so refer again to 2).

    Redundant, Redundant, Redundant,

    Why? Because divorce and remarriage f*ck up and with children. The only thing that is preferable to is outright abuse.

    Too much wine or pot or something????

    Comment by sonicfrog — February 10, 2012 @ 3:08 pm - February 10, 2012

  102. David, TY for sharing.

    My partner and I helped my siblings but together the 60th Anniversary party for my parents back in 2010. Such a fun event. There were folk from their early days together, friends and family from over the years and almost everyone in the bio circle including cousins and 3rd gens.

    At one table I was sitting with a couple of cousins, a very mixed group both politically and religious. There were stories floating around how folk met their spouses mixed with the stories of the elder’s early lives. One of my more liberal creative cousin asked ‘when and how do you celebrate your anniversary? I said that we recognize the day we first met in person (I met my partner through an internet posting and we chatted for 3 months before meeting in person even though we only lived 6 miles from each other). We also recognize the day we ‘started to shack up’. — and with the recent changes in the state of WA, we have tossed around the idea of what a ceremony might look like and when and if?

    Back to the conversation at my Parent’s 60th celebration.
    My most conservative cousin, and the most well-to-do in the clan, got up from the table, came to me and put her arms around me and said that it would be her complete pleasure to host our ceremony when we decide on a date. She had a tear in her eye. and whispered to me ‘you look so happy’

    Comment by rusty — February 10, 2012 @ 3:18 pm - February 10, 2012

  103. That is very nice Rusty. You are to have a loving family and lucky to be in a state where you have a choice. We have homes in three differents states and one foreign country and in not one of them are civil unions or ssm legal! Que sera. But again, what really is important is what’s in your hearts and the strength of your commitment.

    Comment by David in N.O. — February 10, 2012 @ 3:33 pm - February 10, 2012

  104. s/b …..you are lucky to have a loving family…..

    Comment by David in N.O. — February 10, 2012 @ 3:34 pm - February 10, 2012

  105. @David, congratulations on 25+ (paperless) years.

    @Thorbert So again you avoid the simple question. Are you unable to answer it?

    @Pat
    Something I missed in your original post I wanted to hit.

    This is one of the reasons why I object to same sex marriage being compared to polygamy, marriage between adults and children, marriage betweem close relatives, interspecies marriage, by those who accept homosexuality.

    I’m sure to people who are polygamists, marry 10 year olds or want to marry their sheep are upset that they’re compared to homosexuals.

    In a free republic, ‘normal’ and ‘evil’ are defined by consensus. There’s no legal difference between you, me, and Seane-Anna in that aspect. We’re all three repulsed by some things, (kids being raped, for example.) We pass laws, based on our beliefs, to condemn those things. Sometimes we lose big (see Ohio’s smoking ban for my example), sometimes we lose small (for me, WA’s decision is a ‘small loss) sometimes we lose big. (Seane-anna and Lawrence v. Texas). The only way to win is to ‘mainstream’ your argument, i.e. get the majority to go along. The 9th circus, problems I have with the logic aside, could strengthen DOMA progress, if it motivates enough of the majority. While people resistant to change have the right and the obligation to fight the changes they don’t want civilly, respect of all sides should be maintained.

    I use Caprica as my most recent example. Sam and Larry were presented as a normal couple, with normal issues. That they were same sex partners was not trumpted “Sam’s bringing his guyfriend over!” or hidden. Same thing for Sister Clarice’s family.

    Examples like that do more for promoting the ‘SSM agenda’ than Will and Grace ever did.

    (aside, does anyone else think the 9th circus has set up age of consent laws to be challenged?)

    Comment by The Livewire — February 10, 2012 @ 3:37 pm - February 10, 2012

  106. Examples like that do more for promoting the ‘SSM agenda’ than Will and Grace ever did.

    Are you talking about Santorum and/or Mitt’s CPAC statement about marriage? just my opinion, anti-gay folk often end up ousting folk off the fence alot faster than will and grace.

    OMM group’s attack on Ellen is going to have some interesting impacts.

    Comment by rusty — February 10, 2012 @ 3:46 pm - February 10, 2012

  107. Rusty… That’s a great story. I’m always happy to read about others who have found the person they plan to spend the rest of their lives with. Me and the Sonic-Mate have been together for 16 + years, and will marry when the option becomes available again here in California.

    Comment by sonicfrog — February 10, 2012 @ 3:48 pm - February 10, 2012

  108. rusty,

    I was talking about fictional portrayals.

    As to the OMM, if I understand your logic, then BOR and Glenn Beck’s full throated defense of Ellen will make ‘teh gheys’ more likely to vote conservative.

    Comment by The Livewire — February 10, 2012 @ 3:49 pm - February 10, 2012

  109. Does anyone else think the 9th circus has set up age of consent laws to be challenged?

    Yeah, but I don’t think that’s going to happen right away. Right now, the NAMBLA types are bad PR for the gay marriage crowd, so they have to feign opposition to it. (Of course, to use paraphrase Sonic Frog: “If adult-child marriage became a recognized privilege here in California, how many heterosexual marriages would become null and void, or become devalued in the eyes of the law? Answer – Zero, of course.”)

    General society still has to be softened up a little before they can accept adult-child sex. Although it’s not such a big deal among sophisticated west coast types. Victor Salva’s child rape conviction certainly didn’t hurt his directing career. There’s a lot of support for Roman Polansky. And the notion that children should be provided with sex instruction and contraceptives in the public schools enjoys a broad consensus among secular progressives.

    So, the time isn’t right yet, but they are laying the groundwork for it.

    Comment by V the K — February 10, 2012 @ 3:51 pm - February 10, 2012

  110. Livewire, I have to leave soon, but wanted to respond to your comment. You made some excellent points, but I’m afraid it may have to wait until tomorrow morning.

    Comment by Pat — February 10, 2012 @ 3:52 pm - February 10, 2012

  111. GOPROUD. . .on Romney

    http://www.goproud.org/goproud-expresses-disappointment-with-governor-romney/

    LW and some say santorum’s run is a tad bit fictional. or a tall tale

    no there are conservative folk who will support SSM. Don’t be surprised with some politico folk on the right making pro SSM statements in the near future. The risk of the whipping pole has greatly lessened. Even if they begin with FRED

    Comment by rusty — February 10, 2012 @ 3:53 pm - February 10, 2012

  112. Ah, Sonic, you never fail to amuse.

    That’s not why they cite it and you know it. They cite Spears and Kardashian when opponents of SSM try to make the argument that heterosexuals treat marriage as a sacred institution, and homosexuals won’t.

    Followed by:

    Oh, there is probably some Dan Savage quote somewhere where he derides heterosexual marriage, but he’s an idiot and not very many take him that seriously.

    I can provide you multiple links of heterosexual people, including community leaders, condemning the behavior of Spears and Kardashian.

    Show me the same of gay and lesbian leaders condemning Dan Savage.

    And therein lies the difference. Heterosexuals have ZERO problem condemning other heterosexuals’ behavior. Gays and lesbians are utterly incapable of the same.

    Next up:

    OK. Stop right there. Are you saying that supporters of same sex marriage somehow automatically oppose regular heterosexual marriage???? Where on earth do you get that???

    Easy.

    And as for the rest, V the K answered beautifully:

    (Of course, to use paraphrase Sonic Frog: “If adult-child marriage became a recognized privilege here in California, how many heterosexual marriages would become null and void, or become devalued in the eyes of the law? Answer – Zero, of course.”)

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 10, 2012 @ 4:25 pm - February 10, 2012

  113. Since your response fell well short of being civil, and full of distortions and name-calling, I will not be able to respond to your diatribe. I suggest you re-read Dan and Bruce’s call for civility and try again.

    Comment by Pat — February 10, 2012 @ 2:40 pm – February 10, 2012

    That’s really funny, considering your utter silence in response to things like this and this.

    But then again, I forgot, Pat; when bigot gays like yourself talk about “equality”, it’s all about you being able to do whatever you want and everyone else having to follow the rules.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 10, 2012 @ 4:32 pm - February 10, 2012

  114. Pat,

    I am a bit confused by your hypothetical. However, if my wife and I were to have our state recognition stripped from our marriage, it would not make a lick of difference to us or anyone we know.

    If we had been married and never got the certificate, it would be no different that it has been for 48 years. We don’t know where the certificate is and it may well have gone missing shortly after our marriage when we packed up our junk and headed out for new places.

    Marriage is a state of mind. Oscar Levant defined it as “the triumph of habit over hate” and that is a shockingly true definition. You learn to accept (tolerate) your differences and you soon learn to appreciate each other’s idiosyncrasies.

    The long and the short of it is that we have checked the “married” box for 48 years and we have never been challenged in any way or form.

    Comment by Heliotrope — February 10, 2012 @ 4:40 pm - February 10, 2012

  115. However, if my wife and I were to have our state recognition stripped from our marriage, it would not make a lick of difference to us or anyone we know.

    Gee, I wonder why, Heliotrope.

    Could it be that marriage is made more by the behavior and character of those in it than it is the piece of paper?

    Could it be that the respect of society comes more from the behavior than it does from the certificate?

    Perhaps the reason Pat, rusty, Little Kiwi, and others are so obsessed with the piece of paper and the certificate is because they are so incapable of living up to the behaviors.

    Typical liberalism. Why shouldn’t people who don’t want to work or make good choices reap the same rewards as those who do? To think otherwise is “unequal” and makes people who don’t want to work or make good choices feel “inferior”.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 10, 2012 @ 4:49 pm - February 10, 2012

  116. Heterosexuals have ZERO problem condemning other heterosexuals’ behavior. Gays and lesbians are utterly incapable of the same.

    And that is really disheartening. Worse, they rally around gays like Kevin Jennings, Sam Adams, and Gerry Studds when they are caught engaging in or facilitating sexual activity with minors.

    Just reminds me of a Groucho Marx quote, “I’m defending her honor, which is more than she ever did.”

    Comment by V the K — February 10, 2012 @ 4:51 pm - February 10, 2012

  117. And that is really disheartening. Worse, they rally around gays like Kevin Jennings, Sam Adams, and Gerry Studds when they are caught engaging in or facilitating sexual activity with minors.

    And even worse than that, V the K, they defend and support the promiscuity, irresponsibility, and things like no-fault divorce laws that help the Spearses and Kardashians of the world, while mocking and trying to get rid of the things like religious belief, monogamy, and moral principles that stand squarely against what Spears and Kardashian did.

    The ultimate hypocrisy for me is when they try to use Spears and Kardashian as examples while insisting that their own behavior, which overwhelmingly puts Spears and Kardashian to shame, will change once they get marriage.

    It’s a lie. Worse, it’s a deliberate deception.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 10, 2012 @ 5:00 pm - February 10, 2012

  118. The long and the short of it is that we have checked the “married” box for 48 years and we have never been challenged in any way or form.

    We too. In fact, just this morning I had to report to Criminal Court for jury duty and as per habit, I checked the married box.

    Comment by David in N.O. — February 10, 2012 @ 5:12 pm - February 10, 2012

  119. It is quite a spectacle that people who see no problem with hooking up with 50 strangers at a bathhouse or public sex at Folsom Street Fair wagging their fingers at Britney Spears and Kim Cardassian.

    Comment by V the K — February 10, 2012 @ 5:29 pm - February 10, 2012

  120. “Ceeping Up With the Cardassians” = the reality-show spinoff of Deep Space Nine. :)

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 10, 2012 @ 7:01 pm - February 10, 2012

  121. @V the K
    Well my logic on the 9th circus ruling is that I take away that once a ‘right’ is given, it can’t be taken away.

    In doing some research, the age of consent in California was raised from 10 to 14 to 18. So using the 9th circut’s logic, those laws raising age of consent need to be abolished as they ‘took away’ the right of consent for 10-17 year olds.

    Likewise, one could argue that any restriction on weapon ownership needs to be repealed because you’ve taken away my right to a Gatling Gun, a P-90 or a RPG.

    Just thinking if I had money, and lived in California, I could have fun with this.

    Comment by The_Livewire — February 10, 2012 @ 7:02 pm - February 10, 2012

  122. NDT:

    http://www.tshirtbordello.com/images/keeping-up-with-the-cardassians-l1.gif

    Comment by V the K — February 10, 2012 @ 7:46 pm - February 10, 2012

  123. NDT, You said:

    I can provide you multiple links of heterosexual people, including community leaders, condemning the behavior of Spears and Kardashian.

    Show me the same of gay and lesbian leaders condemning Dan Savage.

    And therein lies the difference. Heterosexuals have ZERO problem condemning other heterosexuals’ behavior. Gays and lesbians are utterly incapable of the same.

    And that is pertinent to gays and lesbians having the privilege to marry how????

    It’s not.

    Oh, And there are gay critics of Dan Savage, found here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here.

    And again, what Dan Savage thinks or says has no relevance on whether or not the advent of same sex marriage will destroy opposite sex ones.

    Next. I asked:

    OK. Stop right there. Are you saying that supporters of same sex marriage somehow automatically oppose regular heterosexual marriage???? Where on earth do you get that???

    You answered with this link…..

    Um… Have you actually read it? Here is the heart of this ol-line petition:

    The Principles at the Heart of Our Vision

    We, the undersigned, suggest that strategies rooted in the following principles are urgently needed:

    Ø Recognition and respect for our chosen relationships, in their many forms

    Ø Legal recognition for a wide range of relationships, households, and families, and for the children in all of those households and families, including same-sex marriage, domestic partner benefits, second-parent adoptions, and others

    Ø The means to care for one another and those we love

    Ø The separation of benefits and recognition from marital status, citizenship status, and the requirement that “legitimate” relationships be conjugal

    Ø Separation of church and state in all matters, including regulation and recognition of relationships, households, and families

    Ø Access for all to vital government support programs, including but not limited to: affordable and adequate health care, affordable housing, a secure and enhanced Social Security system, genuine disaster recovery assistance, welfare for the poor

    Ø Freedom from a narrow definition of our sexual lives and gender choices, identities, and expression

    Ø Recognition of interdependence as a civic principle and practical affirmation of the importance of joining with others (who may or may not be LGBT) who also face opposition to their household and family compositions, including old people, immigrant communities, single parents, battered women, prisoners and former prisoners, people with disabilities, and poor people

    We must ensure that our strategies do not help create or strengthen the legal framework for gutting domestic partnerships (LGBT and heterosexual) for those who prefer this or another option to marriage, reciprocal beneficiary agreements, and more. LGBT movement strategies must never secure privilege for some while at the same time foreclosing options for many. Our strategies should expand the current terms of debate, not reinforce them.

    “We oppose heterosexual marriage” is no where to be found. And the list are not even solid demands – they are suggestions.

    Further, did you look at the list of people who signed this petition? It’s barely 500 if that. And it’s been online for almost 6 years. The investigate Chris Dodd petition got at least five times as many signatures only two weeks.

    Next, you made the assertion that one should

    “Marry only if you’re planning to spend the rest of your life with this person”

    And then I noted that people who are planning to marry often get prenups, which indicates that they are making plans just in case they don’t spend the rest of their lives with someone. If you are really serious about marriage being a life long commitment, you should be against prenups.

    So are you? Or are you just going to avoid the point like you always do when something is uncomfortable to reply to?

    Comment by sonicfrog — February 10, 2012 @ 9:46 pm - February 10, 2012

  124. spam filter

    Comment by sonicfrog — February 10, 2012 @ 11:32 pm - February 10, 2012

  125. And then I noted that people who are planning to marry often get prenups, which indicates that they are making plans just in case they don’t spend the rest of their lives with someone. If you are really serious about marriage being a life long commitment, you should be against prenups.

    So are you? Or are you just going to avoid the point like you always do when something is uncomfortable to reply to?

    Comment by sonicfrog — February 10, 2012 @ 9:46 pm – February 10, 2012

    No; I’m simply going to point out that there are reasons to have a pre-nup other than divorce. What happens in the event of death comes immediately to mind; a pre-nup allows you to distribute property or assets differently than the standard marital “default”. A pre-nup in common-property states like California allows one person to shield another from the effect of bankruptcy — such as when one is a sole proprietor of a business and wants to make sure any negative business judgments don’t take out the other spouse.

    Hence your statement is incorrect. There are many more reasons than divorce to have a pre-nup, and in fact, more and more counselors are advising it, especially in examples of disparate income like I just noted.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 11, 2012 @ 10:10 am - February 11, 2012

  126. In a free republic, ‘normal’ and ‘evil’ are defined by consensus. There’s no legal difference between you, me, and Seane-Anna in that aspect

    Livewire, I agree with what you are saying in your post. Since none of us have sole power to define what is good and what is evil, we do this by consensus, and it’s best when the courts stay out of it.

    Seane-Anna believes homosexuality is sinful. She believes that homosexual relationships should be discouraged, and certainly not mainstreamed. As such, it is no surprise that not only does she oppose SSM, but Fred as well. Further, it is no surprise that she would compare SSM to, say marriage with children.

    I am more puzzled when someone says that accept homosexuality, but opposes SSM and Fred. I just don’t think it is a good idea to go half-a$$ed on this. In other words, if homosexuality is okay, we should encourage stable relationships the same way we encourage stable relationships for straight persons.

    As for SSM vs. Fred, I prefer SSM and you prefer Fred. Despite our disagreement on this, I do understand yours and others’ position on this, which is basically saying that this would be a fundamental change to marriage. My belief is that, yes, it is a big change to marriage. But there had been other changes to marriage that have been big and have been beneficial to marriage, and I believe this would benefit all as well.

    Comment by Pat — February 11, 2012 @ 11:00 am - February 11, 2012

  127. I forgot, Pat; when bigot gays like yourself

    NDT, I guess you forgot to re-read Dan and Bruce’s call for civility and/or deliberately chose to attack me again.

    That’s really funny, considering your utter silence in response to things like this and this.

    Yes, it’s really funny. Because your friend that you linked to never attacked me specifically and personally. You did. Furthermore, I was silent when you specifically and personally attacked others in this thread. In light of the call for civility, I will only defend myself when attacked, and leave it to others to decide how to respond to harassment. Since you are comparing your own uncivil behavior to your friend, perhaps the two of you can go back and re-read the call for civility together. Thanks and have another blessed day.

    Comment by Pat — February 11, 2012 @ 11:10 am - February 11, 2012

  128. Heliotrope, sorry for any confusion. I’ll try to clarify. You had stated that gay couples do not need government recognition, and they can still have a “wedding” with cake, toast, etc. And I basically asked if that’s the case with your marriage.

    In fact, you stated that if your state officially nullified recognition of your marriage and only yours, it wouldn’t make a difference to you, and you wouldn’t bother fighting to have the official recognition restored. Also, from your response, it appears that if you went back and did it over again, you might not bother with the government recognition, that you would have been just as satisfied with a “wedding” with cake, toast, etc., and that would be okay. That’s fine. But I’m not convinced most married couples would feel that way. Anyway, thanks for clarifying your position.

    Comment by Pat — February 11, 2012 @ 11:19 am - February 11, 2012

  129. What happens in the event of death comes immediately to mind; a pre-nup allows you to distribute property or assets differently than the standard marital “default”.

    Sorry… That’s called a will.

    Try again.

    Comment by sonicfrog — February 11, 2012 @ 12:08 pm - February 11, 2012

  130. In a free republic, ‘normal’ and ‘evil’ are defined by consensus.

    Not be a horse’s keister or pick at nits, but this statement can lead down the path to a lot of mischief.

    Clearly, if the free republic is motivated by the work of Ba’al as “The Lord of the Flies” and his ways are followed and hedonism reigns, then what is recognized as “normal” and “evil” would be quite different from “normal” and “evil” in a free republic that values Yahweh.

    The problem here is “consensus.” Tyranny is too often the product of “consensus” and that means that “tyranny” is the norm and not evil.

    When you attempt to take morality out of the public square, you are left with the conundrum of “consensus.” The “fall of the Roman Empire” is a vivid history lesson in “consensus” over steady principle. The Romans forgot how their successes were built and to hold fast to fundamental principles. Instead, they split among themselves, taxed themselves silly, poured out coinage until it was hyper-inflated into a joke and scrapped over entitlements.

    The “barbarians” easily smelled the weakness at the core of Rome and poured in to take the lands and treasure that suited them. “Barbarians” indeed. These were people who had a greater “consensus” of their aims and direction than did the flabby and complacent Romans.

    From the Judeo-Christian view, there is a thin line between “good” and “evil” and we wander across it regularly. Our job is to become wiser about the thin line and to recognize when we have “erred” or sinned. Having recognized it is not enough. We must atone and learn and attempt to do better.

    The “consensus” crowd often says there is not a thin line between “good” and “evil” and the “consensus” crowd replaces the thin line with a broad “no-man’s” land of moral relativity where you can pretty much talk your way out of responsibility. It is the clever neverland of “reasoning” and willful pride. It is a vessel known as the ship of fools.

    When you divorce yourself from religion, you are still left with the nagging questions of “who are we” and “what is our purpose” which leads to “rational” and “reasoned” explanations based on “consensus” science, pseudo-science and enlightened bigotry. “Morality” superseded by the state imposition of “correct” thinking, “correct” actions, “correct” tolerance, “correct” understanding, etc. What is not “correct” is not permitted. The tyranny of “consensus” is at work.

    Comment by Heliotrope — February 11, 2012 @ 12:14 pm - February 11, 2012

  131. Pre-nups are exactly what you say they are Sonic. NDT is not correct. Declarations of separate property or separate property agreements are used in the examples he cited, not pre-nups.

    Comment by David in N.O. — February 11, 2012 @ 12:20 pm - February 11, 2012

  132. Heliotrope, the Roman Empire is definitely a good example on how great nations rise and fall. The fall of the Roman Empire was probably due to great moral failings as you suggested. However, I don’t believe it reached its greatness by having a strong moral code.

    As for the U.S., perhaps we are in a decline (hopefully not permanent). But unless I’m missing your point, didn’t we achieve greatness because we accepted consensus as opposed to tyranny of one who decided what the moral code should be? In fact, that’s how and why we were founded.

    Comment by Pat — February 11, 2012 @ 12:33 pm - February 11, 2012

  133. Pat,

    Keep in mind that the Roman Empire grew strong, permitted the death of Christ, and grew weak and decayed by first adopting the words of Christ and then ignoring the message. You may throw the papacy into that as well.

    Our founding fathers had the whole age of reason to impel them and they were one bunch of well-read and very smart people. They also profoundly believed in what we now refer to as the Judeo-Christian ethic.

    Our 2012 problem is that we are confronted by a strong liberalization of our moral codes and that liberalization is not because God has told us to lighten up, but because we are all too happy to go it alone without God.

    Ask Nancy Pelosi, the modern interpreter of Catholicism for What’s Happening Now and What Ought to Be.

    Comment by Heliotrope — February 11, 2012 @ 12:46 pm - February 11, 2012

  134. Again, the advocates of gay marriage have to point to ways in which the traditional model of marriage… divorce rates, pre-nups, quickie weddings… are falling apart in order to make their care.

    It raises a legitimate question: Why do they want to be a part of an institution they claim is falling apart all around them?

    My guess is that if marriage weren’t falling apart, if it still carried with it the responsibility of lifelong commitment, monogamy, and mutual support, gays would want nothing to do with it. But since it means benefits without commitment or responsibility, and a bonus in yer face to evangelicals, they not only want it, it’s the single most important issue in the United States today.

    We all know how well it works when you provide a benefit without a responsibility. Just look at how well that worked with our welfare systems.

    Comment by V the K — February 11, 2012 @ 1:40 pm - February 11, 2012

  135. Again, the advocates of gay marriage have to point to ways in which the traditional model of marriage… divorce rates, pre-nups, quickie weddings… are falling apart in order to make their care.

    It raises a legitimate question: Why do they want to be a part of an institution they claim is falling apart all around them?

    Once again you are wrong. NDT asserts that you should not get married unless you plan to make it a lifelong commitment. His assertion is that heterosexuals do this. His claim is bogus, as the Pre-nup shows.

    Have to go do stuff now and have fun.

    Comment by sonicfrog — February 11, 2012 @ 1:46 pm - February 11, 2012

  136. Me:

    Why shouldn’t a single person have a right to visit himself in the hospital, and to inherit his own property in the event that he dies without a will?

    Livewire:

    And when asked a question, Thorbert resorts to non-sequetors.

    Since the two examples given are covered by POA and wills, I assume that Thorbert is now conceeding there’s no ‘need’ for SSM in his view.

    Oh bloody hell.

    Livewire, my response wasn’t a simple non-sequitur; it was an absurd joke, which was my polite way of saying that I thought your “Can a single person marry himself?” question was incredibly f*cking retarded a logical absurdity.

    I assumed that my silly scenarios of a person visiting himself in the hospital and inheriting his own property after he dies would have tipped you off to the possibility that I was poking fun at your question. But since you seem to have missed my point, let me walk you through it.

    Marriage, at least in the modern American sense, is a reciprocal and mutual contract, and therefore requires the consent of more than one party. When a man marries a woman, he does not acquire her as property, as when he purchases a car, a sofa, or a dog. Similarly, a woman marrying a man does not acquire him as property. Rather, marriage in any definition ALWAYS involves the voluntary agreement of (at least) two consenting parties.

    Thus, “Can a single person marry himself?” belongs to the same category of pathetic airheadedness logical absurdity as “Should a man be allowed to marry a three-year-old boy, or a goat, or a toaster?”

    The latter question is self-evidently feebleminded logically absurd because toddlers, animals, and kitchen appliances are unable to give consent to the mutual contract. (Of course, if one is a troglodyte who assumes that “marriage” involves a male acquiring a female as a slave/chattel/property, without the necessity of her legal consent, THEN, and only then, does “Should a man be allowed to marry a goat?” become a logically admissible scenario.)

    And the former question, about a person marrying himself, is equally silly because there is no second party to enter into the contract.

    Hope this clears things up!

    Comment by Throbert McGee — February 11, 2012 @ 2:57 pm - February 11, 2012

  137. @Pat,

    And eventually society will work out Marriage, Fred or something. There’s a difference between civil disagreements and what we see from all sides at times.

    @Heliotrope, actually I chose those words for just that reason. They also elaborate on my comment that Levi only considers something settled when he whens. Part of a dynamic surviving culture is change. The Constitution (when followed) gives up a stable framework to built change around. 30 years ago the idea of SSM was unheard of. 60 years ago, laws like Virginia’s were still on the books. And 600 years ago I might have been burned at the stake for being left handed.

    There comes a point where people, singluar or plural, have to decide if what society is changing into is something that can’t be saved and needs to be left behind. To use my lovely Godkids for example if California did roll the age of consent back to 10, in accordance with the 9th circus’ ‘logic’ then I’d teach them that I don’t care what the state says, they’re not dating an adult. IF the state reaches the point where they’re going to force me to step aside, then I would need to leave.

    That’s what people of faith are facing from the current administration. That’s what people fighting for SSM are facing (and people fighting against are facing, per your location.)
    You and I, and Pat, and Dan, and Seana and most sane people, know that drugging a 12 year old and sodomizing her are criminal, and would never associate with them. Hollywood seems to have lost this. So to us it’s evil to them it’s “eh, not so bad, he makes awesome movies.” So to our ‘society’ it’s evil. To the acting ‘elite’ it’s not.

    Hope that makes it clearer.

    Comment by The_Livewire — February 11, 2012 @ 3:16 pm - February 11, 2012

  138. Livewire, I merely took the words and fleshed them out. I never figured they were a motto emblazoned on your chest. If you sensed that I was questioning the arrangement of your marbles, rest assured I was not. (And even I were, I am at least crediting you with more than one marble. Some others who post here, not so much.)

    We really have dumbed down the society to the point where people feel perfectly comfortable arguing about attracting the Aurora Borealis by putting peanut butter under the floor mats of the car. And they will stick to it and shift to honey at the while they are claiming that you said WD-40.

    That is the beauty of constructing the world from the image of your own conceits and claiming a consensus.

    Comment by Heliotrope — February 11, 2012 @ 4:17 pm - February 11, 2012

  139. Well it was something I was thinking of, and thought I’d elaborate.

    We like to think of things as ‘over with’ but there’s nothing to stop us from repealing the 13th amendment, or the 19th, like we did the 18th.

    Nothing that is, except us.

    Comment by The_Livewire — February 11, 2012 @ 5:17 pm - February 11, 2012

  140. Thorbert continues to dig, now finding insults the only arrow in his quiver.

    He again misses the point. He asked “What exactly is greedy or grasping about a group of people wanting access to a fee-based government service that is already available to another group of people?”

    To which I replied with a question of my own. Would he have an issue with giving a single person the ‘benefits’ of marriage or a healthy active working 35 year old the benefits of Medicare or SSI.

    Now most rational people would say “Of course not! Those programs are for specific groups!” since that leaves Thorbert out. Whether we like Medicare and SSI or not, we understand those are for specific people, and the hypothetical 35 year old doesn’t qualify.

    Thorbert however doesn’t care if things are reserved for certain people. To him, they’re out there and he wants them for himself. Much like Daffy Duck in Ali Baba’s cave. it doesn’t matter who he takes it from, or who it belongs to. It’s all his.

    Now I’ve said before I’d be happy with the creation of ‘Fred’. I’d live with state by state recognition of SSM, But the ends do not justify the means.

    Comment by The_Livewire — February 11, 2012 @ 5:29 pm - February 11, 2012

  141. Once again you are wrong. NDT asserts that you should not get married unless you plan to make it a lifelong commitment. His assertion is that heterosexuals do this. His claim is bogus, as the Pre-nup shows.

    Comment by sonicfrog — February 11, 2012 @ 1:46 pm – February 11, 2012

    Once again, V the K is right.

    Sonicfrog, you’re just making the point. You and yours are so desperate to legitimize your whiny want for gay-sex marriage that your only hope is to drag down and delegitimize heterosexual marriage.

    There are several valid reasons other than planning for a breakup to have prenuptial agreements. The fact that you and David are not familiar with them, nor are inclined to be because it would ruin your argument, does not invalidate them.

    Moreover, you’re completely hypocritical. You advocate for no-fault divorce while simultaneously complaining about the divorce rate. To follow your own logic, your support of no-fault divorce proves that you’re lying when you say anything about monogamy and commitment.

    Meanwhile, I think V the K sums up you and your fellow gay-sex marriage supporters quite nicely.

    My guess is that if marriage weren’t falling apart, if it still carried with it the responsibility of lifelong commitment, monogamy, and mutual support, gays would want nothing to do with it. But since it means benefits without commitment or responsibility, and a bonus in yer face to evangelicals, they not only want it, it’s the single most important issue in the United States today.

    And that’s really the lesson here. You want gay-sex marriage, so you’re going to rationalize anything to get it, even tearing down heterosexual marriage.

    Again, just like I said to Pat:

    You don’t have any concept of WHY society gives these things to heterosexual relationships. All you see is that someone else is getting something you’re not, and like a bratty teenage girl, you start bawling and screaming that you’re being made to feel “inferior”, and that Mommy and Daddy are mean because they won’t buy you the BMW that someone else is driving.

    Grow up.

    Nobody cares that you choose to have sex with the same gender. Nobody particularly cares that you enter into whatever legal arrangements are needed with it. But don’t delude yourself into thinking that your choice warrants the same level of public trust, support, and subsidy that is given to the very relationship that made your existence possible in the first place.

    Heterosexuals are treated differently because their activities have the greatest impact on the most helpless humans on the planet — babies and children. It is strongly in society’s interest to encourage, support, and yes FORCE, heterosexuals to do the right thing for the children their activities produce.

    You do everything in your power to avoid that basic fact. You and yours blather on endlessly about childless and infertile heterosexuals and insist that these exceptions mean that you should be able to cash in. You whine and complain about Britney Spears and Kim Kardashian. But all that shows is that you don’t even understand or conceptualize the basic reason that marriage exists in the first place. You just want fatter welfare checks and a piece of paper from the government to force people to like you more.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 11, 2012 @ 5:41 pm - February 11, 2012

  142. Our 2012 problem is that we are confronted by a strong liberalization of our moral codes and that liberalization is not because God has told us to lighten up, but because we are all too happy to go it alone without God.

    Heliotrope, I just want to ask a question and I hope the answer will clear something up.

    I don’t have an ounce of spirituality in my body. However, I do have a consistent set of principles and morals that, to me, are logical. That set of principles and morals, in many ways, is consistent with Christian morality. However, it is not perfectly aligned with Christianity. I try to abide by my principles and morals, but I sometimes fail. I do not justify my failures with moral relativism; they leave me remorseful.

    So, my question is, do you (or does anyone who wishes to respond) believe that it is possible to have a consistent set of principles and morals without the spirituality to reinforce it? My motive in asking this question is that, if the answer to my question is “no,” it is contrary to my beliefs and I just want to know if that is what is being said in what I quoted above.

    I think there is a lot of wisdom in the Bible. And, although I can’t be sure, I am guessing that Christians who actually follow what the Bible says are, in general, more moral than people that don’t. And I think my morals and principles are rational; they have served me well and I’m sure I would be in a much worse place than I am had I not adhered to them. And I am sure that is the case for many, if not most, people. So, perhaps is what I quoted above a generalization that allows for exceptions like me? Or am I necessarily morally inferior because I am secular?

    Please do not read any disrespect into my inquiry; I am just unclear on what specifically is being said and I would appreciate a clarification.

    Comment by Rattlesnake — February 11, 2012 @ 5:53 pm - February 11, 2012

  143. NDT,

    I want to echo your sentiments about how much many of us heterosexuals care about what goes on in the lives of homosexuals.

    In the mid-1970′s, my kids were in pre-school day care and later on in after school day care. The couple who ran the business sold it to a man in his thirties who carried it on with great success. One day when I picking my kids up, he asked me if I could come by in the evening to talk with him about something. It turned out that several parents were on his case about being gay. I asked him if he had a “thing” for children that could be construed as deviant.

    This was in a time when gays were largely in the closet. I asked him to consider coming out and to permit me to stand with him and to meet with all of the parents. Long story short, no one much cared. They appreciated his terrific abilities and nearly all of the parents were perfectly comfortable standing with him as well. We put our phone numbers on a reference paper for him to pass out to prospective clients. On the few occasions when someone would ask if he way gay, I would say that I really thought he was, but that there was nothing to indicate that there was any aspect of his personal business that would impact negatively on the children.

    This little melodrama is my snapshot of reality. Certainly, people often lead with their worries and prejudices, especially when their kids are involved. But this fellow was not flaunting some counter-culture mission statement and crying “victim” when somebody rebuffed him.

    In my experience, being comfortable in your own skin is the best antidote to being “different.” I am, to this day, very uncomfortable with what I will call “militant” gays. Their problems are not my fault and I am not required to cut them a millimeter of slack because they have problems. And the same medicine goes for me, as well.

    In my ancient world, we had a saying: “Screw you and the mule you rode in on.” This whole “pity me” business is self defeating and it raises issues of personal accommodation that more often than not compromise the situation being addressed.

    I have no inkling of the pressures one faces in being made to feel abnormal. I guess I see being gay as a “handicap” that you have to learn to live with. As an opponent of gay marriage, I fully realize that I am holding a line that is arguably damaging to some very fine individuals I respect who are gay. That line divides us on very personal grounds and I sincerely appreciate their understanding.

    To play Levi’s silly games, if gay were an evolutionary option, gay would be be extinct. To play my religious game, I love the sinner in every way I can, but I pray for him to be released from the sin. If he isn’t released, it is not because either of us didn’t try hard enough. We can still be men of goodwill in a world of mystery where we do not let our differences divide us.

    Comment by Heliotrope — February 11, 2012 @ 6:33 pm - February 11, 2012

  144. Rattlesnake,

    To really blow the lid off of this thing, I do not believe any liberal in the United States who says he is religious, unless it is Joe Lieberman. (I wish he would change to Leiberman and get the lie out of his name.)

    That said, you are not required to study the Bible or go to church or temple. Like ethics in general, the Judeo-Christian ethic is not above the common man, it is for the common man.

    I don’t quote scripture, because it becomes an interpretation game and soon enough it devolves into a battle of wits that is witless.

    Here is the deal. We all do “evil” because it is attractive and feels good and mostly, you can sleep it off. Most of us have no ambition to be Mother Teresa and hang around crap up to our ears 24/7. Nor do we flock to the corner scold who will rat out every single thing we did during the week that made us hypocrites.

    The crowd that pees on religion are scared of their own conscience. They hate standards because it holds them to account. Religion, you understand, is a constant replaying and explaining of the guardrails that keep society civil.

    There is one amazing private museum, the Larco Museum, in Lima Peru which houses the 45,000 piece collection of Moche, Nazca, Chimú, and Inca pieces of pre-columbian pottery. The “erotic collection” is something to behold. Pre-columbian means: before Judeo-Christian ethics. There is an amazing museum, The Guarnacci Museum, in Volterra, Italy that houses Etruscan pots and kylix works that are purely pornographic by diminishing US standards. These pre-Judeo-Christian ethic museums show us the world of hedonism and religion when “Ba’al” was worshiped as the god of fertility, rain, agriculture, growth, etc.

    The Old Testament is full of warnings against “false idols” and worshiping many gods and “Ba’al” in particular. The warnings boil down to avoiding evil. Good never comes from evil. When you argue that killing Terry Shiavo creates good, you are arguing to justify evil.

    This type of argument is always a call to examine “hypocrisy.” How can there be a “good” war? St. Augustine battled with this. The result was that he outlined the difference between war in general and a “just” war. This is where the concept of “righteousness” comes in. There is “holy” righteousness and there is “prideful” (ego driven) righteousness. The lesson here is that we must be very careful what we do in the name of God. We must examine “just” causes in the light of divine morality.

    To bring this around to your questions, you may act with Judeo-Christian principle without being deeply grounded in what underlies it. If being deeply grounded were a requirement, young or poorly educated people would be left out of the game.

    I adore the history of the humble workmen who toiled on building the great cathedral at Chartres. Supposedly, they backed their way home in other not to turn their backs on the grandeur of the work they were dedicating to a just, loving God. Uneducated, hand to mouth serfs who understood moral justice over the realities of greed, caprice and expediency. Were they fools? What has man created since that rivals Chartres?

    The issue boils down to being able to recognize the intelligence of praising the ideal over settling for lame, transient and temporary moments of climax. Hedonism is a cheap, demeaning game of diminishing returns. What dope addict is ever satisfied or strengthened by his addiction? Compare him to the simple, barefoot rice farmer who is crippled from stoop labor, but is empowered by the strength of self reliance and the obligation of helping those in need.

    Our offerings at the temple are not a monument to our personal ability to outshine others, but a tribute to the understanding that working in harmony we can cause great mountains to get out of our way.

    If you have no church or particular religion, you are not a lost soul. Perhaps the meanest politics break out in congregations that cannot begin to see their own folly. What begins in glory ends up as the victim of being vain inglorious.

    Know your principles. Test them. Question them. Then stick to them. Strangely, you do not have to find God in this process. You just have to recognize that the endless universe in harder to understand than the concept of divine order.

    Comment by Heliotrope — February 11, 2012 @ 7:56 pm - February 11, 2012

  145. 134.Again, the advocates of gay marriage have to point to ways in which the traditional model of marriage… divorce rates, pre-nups, quickie weddings… are falling apart in order to make their care.

    V the K, speaking for myself, the only time I’ve ever made that argument (and I hardly do it any more), is to counter one of the arguments of SSM opponents. This argument is that gay persons don’t get marriage, because they are promiscuous, wouldn’t take marriage seriously, would cheat, etc. Then SSM proponents would argue that there are plenty of such examples in heterosexual marriage, but no one is advocating getting rid of marriage for straight persons. If your point is that supporters of SSM shouldn’t shoot for the types of marriages in the examples cited, I agree totally.

    Comment by Pat — February 11, 2012 @ 9:58 pm - February 11, 2012

  146. Our 2012 problem is that we are confronted by a strong liberalization of our moral codes and that liberalization is not because God has told us to lighten up, but because we are all too happy to go it alone without God.

    Heliotrope, this is a discussion that could go on forever, and I admit that it’s hard to organize my thoughts around this, but I’ll try to get some of them out there.

    I see this as a big dilemma with no easy solution. Yes, this country was founded and continues to value a Judeo-Christian moral code. But there are and have been many conflicts regarding this. Many people came to America because of this. But many different (mostly) Christian groups came to this country, and to relieve some of the conflicts, we built freedom of religion into our Constitution. This seemed to work for most Christian groups. But then, and even today, some people for example, don’t believe that “Judeo” belongs, or that Mormons, or even Catholics, are not Christians, etc. We have seen these conflicts lessen gradually. Since the founding of our country, we’ve seen the end of slavery and the belief that all men (and women) are created equal, and not just a statement written on the Declaration of Independence. Women were eventually given the right to be part of the political process, and have become more empowered. And today, we see the increased acceptance of homosexuality, as most people do not regard it as sinful.

    I don’t know if this is an example of the liberalization of the moral code that you are talking about. But I do see this as something that is definitely positive. The hatred and exclusionary policies that existed from some groups against, for example, Blacks, Jewish persons, Catholics, etc., weren’t simply moral lapses, but seemed to be part of the moral code of many.

    Getting back to homosexuality, as I said, we’ve seen increased acceptance in the past 40 or so years. Today, a nun (a colleague of mine) asked me about my partner. A few other nuns and a priest have met my partner and still view me with the same respect that they have for others. I doubt that would have been the case 40 years ago. Is this an example of the liberalization of the moral code? Is this a good thing or a bad thing? Despite NDT’s unwarranted demonization of me, I believe I have a strong moral code, conduct myself quite responsibly, including acting on my sexuality very responsibly. Is this okay, or should my acting on my homosexuality in any way be considered a moral failing? Or is the fact that a majority of people would find my behavior acceptable part of or an example of moral decline?

    But getting back to things more generally, how do we respect the difference amongst us, even with persons who do have strong moral codes, and do this without continuing moral decline?

    Anyway, these are all the thoughts I have for now. I’m sure I’ll think of more later, and probably wished I expressed what I wrote better. Feel free to respond with any questions, and understand you may not want to answer some (or all) of them.

    Comment by Pat — February 11, 2012 @ 11:00 pm - February 11, 2012

  147. Thanks for the response, Heliotrope.

    I’m not sure where Judeo-Christian based Western Civilization ranks among the longest lived civilizations, but it must be up there. And when that is combined with the advancements made under Western Civilization (in technology, human rights, and other things), it becomes evident that the Judeo-Christian ethic is a good one. It would be a shame if it undermined itself like so many other once mighty civilizations have before it by abandoning its principles.

    Comment by Rattlesnake — February 12, 2012 @ 12:17 am - February 12, 2012

  148. The moral failing, Pat, is that our society does not value someone who manages their sexuality responsibly above someone who uses theirs promiscuously. Indeed, among our cultural elites, it’s seen as a failing not to indulge every urge for gratification, without consequences. Indeed, those of us who believe some behaviors are right and some are wrong are denounced as “judgmental” and “intolerant.”

    There’s no willingness to separate “good gay” from “bad gay” and to hold one up as a model while stigmatizing the other. So the next question, why is this so? Are gays just, by and large, an immoral/amoral people? Or is there some other reason gay culture seems unable to distinguish good behavior from bad?

    Comment by V the K — February 12, 2012 @ 12:52 am - February 12, 2012

  149. Pat,

    You have to cross the word “liberal” off your list in order to understand what confuses. The reason for this is that the 2012 version of “liberal” and the 1776/1789 version of “liberal” are almost polar opposites.

    Our country was the most liberal concept since the attempts in the Golden Age of Greece at democracy and the Republic in ancient Rome. Both of those failed because they had no written Constitution and no orderly plan for succession. And both of them went straight into dictatorship.

    The Constitution created the longest, continuous government in the history of the world. It was and is a document that strictly limits the power of the government and leaves all residual power with the people. The people can cede this power to the government and they can take it back. What we have is an incredibly “liberal” form of government in that the governing is done by “we the people” through our representatives. That was the meaning of “liberal” in 1776/1789.

    Your list of “epiphanies” through the years is the growth in the minds of people that “white only” and the exclusion of “female suffrage” are, in fact, exclusionary and morally wrong. Nothing in the Constitution had to change to accept this growth in understanding in the public square. But, the public square decided to encode it in the Constitution because the public square felt that the difficult process of amending the beliefs into the Constitution was of primary importance. It told the government, that women and blacks could not be excluded from participating in the government.

    Progressives have looked at the restrictive Constitution and found it to be negative and confining. It prevents the government from fundamentally transforming America and it prevents the government from doing social justice work before the public square wakes up and demands it.

    Progressives do not respect limited government. Progressives favor a powerful government that dictates the needs of a scruffy, not too reliable and often dull populace. The curly lightbulb is the worthy symbol of such thinking. Smacking Catholics a good one for their contraception stuff is another. Killing the health industry and replacing it with government controlled health care is another.

    The 2012 Progressive model is a highly intrusive government that sticks its nose into transfats, sugar, full U.S. civil rights for Somali pirates, inane bickering over the disposition of terrorists and on and on.

    Ben Franklin told the old lady who asked about the new government: “A republic, madam, if you can keep it.” We have to want the public square to decide. That allows the public to improve at governing itself. We have to want to keep the government limited and focused on what it does and does well. (Defense, interstate highways, weights and measures, uniform rules for purity, sanitation, etc.)

    Since the discovery under FDR that the treasury can be robbed by the people, we have gone on a spending spree that pits the regions of the country against one another and has bankrupted the government and the economy for probably a century into the future. Franklin was dead right.

    Now for the “gay” problem. In my view, “gays” have been largely accepted in the public square not so much because of legal pressure exerted by the government, but because the public square is empathetic and wants gays in the public square.

    We are engaged in the fundamental question of gay marriage. That is a huge game changer in the public square. It first and foremost calls into debate what the purpose and value of marriage is. It asks the basic question of whether there is any compelling reason for the state to have any interest whatsoever in licensing marriage. This is not a problem for big, intrusive, dictatorial government. This is working out a very fundamental societal set of differences. Over the last 40 years, the society has done very well without big government intrusion in the acceptance of gays.. It may be slow, but cultural shifts usually are.

    Progressives have demanded that a woman has the “right to choose” if she wants to kill the life in her womb. If you want to win that debate, you must follow the Dred Scott logic and insist (as Roe v Wade did) that the life is “chattel” which seems to gain more rights as it matures within the womb. (Late-term abortions and letting the critter that survives abortion die from neglect seems to confuse the already confused Roe decision.)

    If the government can decide when life is “worth saving” in the womb, it can surely decided when to stop paying for pacemakers in its universal healthcare for only those it deems useful and worth saving.

    How do you get from the 1776/1789 liberal concept of highly limited government to the 2012 progressive “liberal” concept that government must be involved in availability of contraception, lighting your book, monitoring your body fat index and teaching your kids that Heather has two mommies?

    You get there by creating a socialist nanny state where the public square is occupied by big government.

    Don’t you find it strange that the TEA Party buys permits, rents port-a-johns and cleans up after itself and OWS gets limitless police protection as it defiantly ignores everything the TEA Party had to do in order to peacefully assemble? Which “side” were the progressives on? Which side showed civil restraint, cooperation, ethical standards, service ideals, the advancement of understanding, and goodwill?

    Comment by Heliotrope — February 12, 2012 @ 10:34 am - February 12, 2012

  150. Rattlesnake,

    In 1820, Napoleon was exiled on St. Helena. He asked Count Montholon who had been his General Bertrand to tell him who Jesus Christ was. Betrand, apparently did not answer, but Napoleon said this:

    “You speak of Caesar, of Alexander, of their conquests and of the enthusiasm which they enkindled in the hearts of their soldiers; but can you conceive of a dead man making conquests, with an army faithful and entirely devoted to his memory? My armies have forgotten me even while living, as the Carthaginian army forgot Hannibal. Such is our power.”

    “I know men and I tell you, Jesus Christ is no mere man. Between him and every other person in the world there is no possible term of comparison. Alexander, Caesar, Charlemagne, and I have founded empires. But on what did we rest the creations of our genius? Upon force. Jesus Christ founded his empire upon love; and at this hour, millions would die for him.”

    “I search in vain history to find similar to Jesus Christ, or anything which can approach the gospel. Neither history nor humanity, nor ages, nor nature, offer me anything with which I am able to compare it or to explain it. Here everything is extraordinary.”

    Comment by Heliotrope — February 12, 2012 @ 11:03 am - February 12, 2012

  151. In recent years, many conservatives have begun to acknowledge the inevitability of gay marriage, even as they continue to strongly oppose it. In March 2011, Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, said on a Christian radio program that “it is clear that something like same-sex marriage … is going to become normalized, legalized and recognized in the culture.”

    “It’s time,” he continued, “for Christians to start thinking about how we’re going to deal with that.”

    That a particular social change may be inevitable, given certain background conditions, does not mean that opponents will cease fighting it. White Southerners continued to massively resist Brown long after most of them came to believe that school desegregation was inevitable.

    Similarly, those who believe that gay marriage contravenes God’s will are not likely to stop fighting it simply because their prospects of success are diminishing. Moreover, because religious conservatives are both intensely opposed to gay marriage and highly mobilized politically, they are likely for the next several years to continue exerting significant influence over Republican politicians who need their support to win primary elections.

    Although the ultimate outcome of the contest over gay marriage no longer seems in doubt, plenty of fighting remains until that battle is over.

    Michael J. Klarman is a professor at Harvard Law School and the author of “Same-Sex Marriage Litigation and Political Backlash,” to be published this fall.

    Comment by rusty — February 12, 2012 @ 11:57 am - February 12, 2012

  152. Why is gay marriage inevitable? First, the basic insight of the gay rights movement over the last four decades has proved powerfully correct: As more gays and lesbians have come out of the closet, the social environment has become more gay friendly. In turn, as the social environment has become more hospitable, more gays and lesbians have felt free to come out of the closet. This social dynamic is powerfully reinforcing and unlikely to be reversed.

    One factor that most strongly predicts support for gay equality is knowing someone who is gay. As more gays and lesbians come out of the closet, more parents, children, siblings, friends, neighbors and co-workers know or love someone who is gay. Because few people favor discrimination against those they know and love, every gay person coming out of the closet creates more supporters of gay equality.

    Michael J. Klarman is a professor at Harvard Law School and the author of “Same-Sex Marriage Litigation and Political Backlash,” to be published this fall.

    Comment by rusty — February 12, 2012 @ 11:59 am - February 12, 2012

  153. Rusty,

    The marriage certificate is a piece of paper. You can probably download one and sign it up. But why?

    Clearly, gays have no trouble finding a church to marry them. Religion is not the stumbling block.

    The state is the problem in gay marriage. Gay couples can’t get the marriage specific stuff the state administers.

    But your two comments are all about the public square. You expect people to celebrate the union of two men or two women as “normal” everyday marriage.

    That is where the propagation of the species and the orderly state codified process of separating the family from random birthing and abandonment comes in.

    Let’s see your wit and wisdom on elevating sticking things in non-reproductive holes as being of value to the state on the same level as is the propagation/creating of the posterity.

    That is the fundamental flaw in gay marriage. It is a dead end for the society if same sex marriage were all that is allowed. Of course, no one is suggesting that in any remote way. But the “utility” of gay marriage is nil and leaves gay marriage as a leech on the productive aspects of continuing the species.

    Comment by Heliotrope — February 12, 2012 @ 12:36 pm - February 12, 2012

  154. “We should draw a circle and include everbody rather than draw a circle and keep everyone out.” My kindergarten teacher.

    smooches Heliotrope

    http://i1124.photobucket.com/albums/l569/rusty98119/smooch.jpg

    Comment by rusty — February 12, 2012 @ 1:38 pm - February 12, 2012

  155. We should draw a circle and include everbody rather than draw a circle and keep everyone out.” My kindergarten teacher.

    Comment by rusty — February 12, 2012 @ 1:38 pm – February 12, 2012

    In that case, we should repeal laws against incestuous marriage, child marriage, bestial marriage, and any type of law that prevents you from marrying whatever you please, whenever you please — since they “draw a circle” that doesn’t “include everybody”.

    And before you start objecting, rusty, remember the ground rules you and your fellow gay-sex marriage supporters have established:

    1) The Constitution grants an absolute right to privacy, including whatever you want to have sex with and under whatever circumstances

    2) If the government gives it to one group, the Fourteenth Amendment means it has to be given to every group

    3) Laws enacted against a majority that discriminate against a minority are always unconstitutional

    4) Your personal moral values cannot be invoked

    5) Shared moral values cannot be invoked

    6) You must show how your relationship, personally, would be negatively affected by allowing any of these groups to marry.

    7) You must publicly rationalize how you would feel if you were not allowed to marry or if your relationship was stripped of recognition, like you deny these groups marriage

    8) You are not allowed in any way to judge or cast doubt on the social value of relationships. All relationships are equal and add the same value to society.

    Which is why you, when confronted with the last by Heliotrope, started blathering about discrimination and exclusion.

    And why you are being called on it.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 12, 2012 @ 2:58 pm - February 12, 2012

  156. Smooches to you miss Rita beads. . . Thought you had put your alter (alternative personality) aside for a while. But thanks NDT

    Smooches

    Comment by rusty — February 12, 2012 @ 3:21 pm - February 12, 2012

  157. Sonicfrog, you’re just making the point. You and yours are so desperate to legitimize your whiny want for gay-sex marriage that your only hope is to drag down and delegitimize heterosexual marriage.

    Again… Delegitimize heterosexual marriage? Really???? That’s the angle you’re going with??? If that’s the case, then you’ve already lost this argument.

    Moreover, you’re completely hypocritical. You advocate for no-fault divorce while simultaneously complaining about the divorce rate.

    Um… Do you like to make stuff up??? You may want to re-scan the comments. I did not bring up the divorce rate at all. Someone else did, saying the divorce rate was over 50%, which I refuted.

    Comment by sonicfrog — February 12, 2012 @ 3:37 pm - February 12, 2012

  158. Oh, and just in case you don’t know how to research something that contradicts your make believe world, here is the definition of a Prenuptial agreement:

    The content of a prenuptial agreement can vary widely, but commonly includes provisions for division of property and spousal support in the event of divorce or breakup of marriage. They may also include terms for the forfeiture of assets as a result of divorce on the grounds of adultery; further conditions of guardianship may be included as well.

    And here:

    A contract made in anticipation of marriage that specifies the rights and obligations of the parties. Such an agreement typically includes terms for property distribution in the event the marriage terminates.”

    And here is the site PrenuptualAgreements.Org.

    So, are you against the concept of a prenup, as it is an indication that this agreement indicates that people are not planning to be committed in matrimony for life?

    Actually, don’t bother answering, because I don’t find you to be an honest person to converse with when it comes to this subject.

    Comment by sonicfrog — February 12, 2012 @ 3:51 pm - February 12, 2012

  159. And you just proved my point, Sonic.

    “Typically” and “commonly” do not equal “always”. There are reasons other than planning to divorce to enter a pre-nup.

    Also, if you read virtually ANY contract, there are terms involving how the items or services covered are to be managed in the event of dissolution or violation of the contract. Would you now like to argue that including those terms and conditions mean you enter a contract intending to break it?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 12, 2012 @ 5:10 pm - February 12, 2012

  160. No, you don’t need a state sanction to get married is the title of this thread.

    I am underwhelmed when the “gay marriage” argument drifts toward the shabby aspects of traditional marriage. I suppose that is because at my core I believe gay marriage to be an immoral intrusion on one the most important institutions man has developed.

    I can not speak positively about pre-nups, divorce, abandonment, abuse, alienation of affection, infidelity, etc.

    The argument that old people can’t have children is a pretty good one and if that needs to be addressed by society as something that damages the institution of marriage, then perhaps those who have a thing about an 80 year old widow or widower wedding up again ought to put a stop to it.

    Comment by Heliotrope — February 12, 2012 @ 6:00 pm - February 12, 2012

  161. So the next question, why is this so? Are gays just, by and large, an immoral/amoral people?

    V the K, my answer is no. First of all, there are many of us here that are in committed relationships. In fact, I recall in some thread a few months ago, that you, I, and I think one other poster talking about our once (or current) long distance relationships. We all agreed that there were plenty of opportunities to cheat on our partner, but also agreed that it was also easy for us to not give in to that temptation, despite the stereotypes that are out there.

    Sure, there is a higher percentage of gay persons who are irresponsible with their sexuality. So the question is, why is that? I think a good part is that most gay persons today grew up in an environment that was hostile to homosexuals. This included parents, friends, schools, and/or churches. What can you expect when a child is told by his parents that he is going to hell, can’t amount to anything, must man up and marry someone from the opposite sex, told he is a d0uc&e or a turd sandwich, etc., while the siblings get the star treatment. Yes, I know this comes across as some feel-good, liberal crapola, but we know that strong parenting is important. Otherwise, why do we still value it?

    Yes, many gay persons get over it and thrived in spite of it. Many don’t. I surmise that most go through a tough transition period before leading a full, productive life. This transition includes promiscuity. Someone who has been told that homosexuality is wrong, but then concludes that it is not, can understandably question what else they’ve been told. Sexual promiscuity, while emotional empty in the long term, can provide comfort in the short term. Personally, I did the opposite, and avoided relationships, sexual and otherwise. In terms of other types of behavior, some become radical in an overreaction of their being rejected by others, and engage in other behaviors they were taught were wrong. Some do the opposite, and kiss up their oppressors. And you would think that gays who were persecuted as teens would not do the same to others. But all too often, I see that happen.

    Perhaps with greater acceptance, we will see parents instill the same values with their gay children that they do with their straight children. Encourage them to have stable relationships with the gender they are attracted to, instead of suppressing it. And instill the same expectations for all their children. It may take a couple of generations, but I think we will see improvement in sexual responsibility.

    You had another point I want to address, but it will have to wait until later, or tomorrow morning.

    Comment by Pat — February 12, 2012 @ 8:42 pm - February 12, 2012

  162. NDT:

    “Typically” and “commonly” do not equal “always”. There are reasons other than planning to divorce to enter a pre-nup.

    Yes, and you can also use olive oil to loosen a rusty bolt or maybe even in the bedroom, if your tastes run in that direction, but that doesn’t change the fact that it’s main purpose, its main use, is for cooking!

    Comment by sonicfrog — February 13, 2012 @ 12:38 am - February 13, 2012

  163. 148.The moral failing, Pat, is that our society does not value someone who manages their sexuality responsibly above someone who uses theirs promiscuously.

    V the K, I’m not sure that’s the case. I think we still do value stable relationships, and I still think most of us have a problem with people who sleep around, especially when it leads to unwanted pregnancies, spread of diseases, etc. I think the problem is more about what to do about this. Personally, I think promiscuity is terrible for a lot of reasons, including, but not limited to moral reasons. But I’m not sure what to do about it. I’m loathe to have laws making such activity illegal. But all too often we pay for those whose behavior leads them to illness, etc. But the same is true for smoking. At this day and age we know that smoking is terrible as well, but as many as a quarter (maybe it’s less now) still do it. And we pay for it as well when it leads to inevitable premature illness. But I am loathe to make it illegal. We’re my liberal big government kicks in, is I do support laws that ban smoking in most public places, since the rest of us don’t want to smell it, and get sick from it. Just as I support laws that ban people having sex in most public places, since the rest of us don’t want to see it.

    The only partial answer I have is that we have to find such a way to discourage promiscuity and encourage stable relationships, heterosexual and homosexual.

    Comment by Pat — February 13, 2012 @ 7:53 am - February 13, 2012

  164. Heliotrope, thanks for your response in #149. I wish I had more time for discussion of your excellent points. But I also really need to reflect on what you said in order to have a full discussion on it anyway.

    One thing comes to mind, which may be one of the reasons we have the problem as you see it today.

    The Constitution, as you say, does provide for limited power of the federal government, and when possible, gives power to the states, and more importantly, to the people. The perception, and reality, has been that this power has been given to those with means. And I suppose for many years, the majority of people have accepted that. I agree that the light bulb is a trivial matter and something that government should have no role in. But there is a bigger matter here that I believe government should play a role. We really need to have an energy policy for the future. Forget about pollution and/or global warming. To me this may be minor than what we’ll have to deal with, perhaps even in the near future. We depend on foreign oil way too much. We don’t know how long it will be the supply will dry up either because the natural resources will disappear, or suppliers simply stop importing oil to us, or some other problem we haven’t anticipated. Sure, we can drill for more domestic oil, and I support that, but that is only a temporary bandaid solution. The problem, as I see it, is that the oil companies are impeding such research, since they stand to lose if that happens. So, to get back on track, we may have a situation where the majority wants something, but a small minority can impede it. Now if you believe my perception of the above example is incorrect, fair enough. But there are other situations where a small rich minority can simply throw their money at the right politicians, and they get there way, subverting the will of the people.

    Anyway, thanks for the discussion. It has given me more to think about. Good stuff.

    Comment by Pat — February 13, 2012 @ 8:18 am - February 13, 2012

  165. Pat,

    Think about this: All the best minds in the world are NOT controlled by the rich American oil companies.

    The whole world appreciates the necessity of finding cheap, renewable energy.

    China is literally choking itself in the smog of coal fired energy. China is gobbling up oil and minerals all over the planet and they have no environmental ethic that can be detected.

    This is a global problem and to believe that a band of rich guys in the US is behind preventing a solution is not reasonable thinking.

    Comment by Heliotrope — February 13, 2012 @ 8:30 am - February 13, 2012

  166. Heliotrope,

    I would say more impeding than preventing. Heck, I believe Exxon on other oil companies are working on it as well. But I do believe that they are working on it in a way that serves their own best interests, and impeding progress elsewhere. Unreasonable thinking? Maybe so.

    Anyway, it is just an example of one way in which a minority of rich people can impede the common good.

    Comment by Pat — February 13, 2012 @ 9:03 am - February 13, 2012

  167. This is a global problem and to believe that a band of rich guys in the US is behind preventing a solution is not reasonable thinking.

    Especially when you consider how enormously profitable a new energy source would be.

    The only vested interests that are blocking energy development are the Democrats in Congress, the courts, and the White House.

    Comment by V the K — February 13, 2012 @ 10:07 am - February 13, 2012

  168. Heliotrope, I thought about this more. Because it is a global issue, the success (or failure) of alternative energy will happen in spite of the impedence from Big Oil, as well as (as V the K suggests), politicians and the courts. So this example is probably not a good one. Generally, the problem is the money has corrupted the political process, and it has left a climate where we let self-serving people determine policy. Again, my reasoning may be flawed, or flat out wrong. That’s why I like these civil discussions. It allows me, and others, think or re-think about an issue.

    Comment by Pat — February 13, 2012 @ 11:03 am - February 13, 2012

  169. Sure, there is a higher percentage of gay persons who are irresponsible with their sexuality. So the question is, why is that? I think a good part is that most gay persons today grew up in an environment that was hostile to homosexuals.

    Of course. It’s not the fault of gays and lesbians. It has nothing to do with their choices. It’s always someone else’s fault — and isn’t it convenient how that someone else is always someone who Pat hates?

    And you know what, Pat? We’ve seen this game before. Every time liberals like yourself are confronted with examples of bad behavior, you make excuses. You blame other people. You insist that if society just gives you more Happy Meals, you’ll behave yourself and be responsible.

    Which is utterly hilarious and hypocritical given your insistence on banning Happy Meals because people have proven they can’t be responsible with it.

    And you know what’s even more funny? Isn’t it amazing how parents with religious and conservative views are always responsible for promiscuity….but liberal parents, especially ones that belong to Obama-voting minority groups, are NEVER responsible for their children’s promiscuity?

    It’s almost as if Pat and his Obama-supporting ilk are applying rules to others that they would never deign to apply to themselves.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 13, 2012 @ 11:13 am - February 13, 2012

  170. Heliotrope, I thought about this more. Because it is a global issue, the success (or failure) of alternative energy will happen in spite of the impedence from Big Oil, as well as (as V the K suggests), politicians and the courts.

    Oh really, Pat?

    And what are your examples of “impedance”?

    Come on. This ought to be good. Show us how “Big Oil” impedes development. Put up some links. Do some research.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 13, 2012 @ 11:17 am - February 13, 2012

  171. It’s always someone else’s fault — and isn’t it convenient how that someone else is always someone who Pat hates?

    And you know what, Pat? We’ve seen this game before. Every time liberals like yourself are confronted with examples of bad behavior, you make excuses. You blame other people.

    And you know what’s even more funny? Isn’t it amazing how parents with religious and conservative views are always responsible for promiscuity….but liberal parents, especially ones that belong to Obama-voting minority groups, are NEVER responsible for their children’s promiscuity?

    It’s almost as if Pat and his Obama-supporting ilk are applying rules to others that they would never deign to apply to themselves.

    Your assumptions here have no basis in reality, so I can’t respond to them. Sorry, and have another blessed day. Thanks.

    Comment by Pat — February 13, 2012 @ 11:38 am - February 13, 2012

  172. Which is utterly hilarious and hypocritical given your insistence on banning Happy Meals because people have proven they can’t be responsible with it.

    Oops. I forgot about this. For the benefit of those reading this, I want to make clear that I have never supported banning Happy Meals either. Thanks.

    Comment by Pat — February 13, 2012 @ 11:51 am - February 13, 2012

  173. Pat,

    The US has a gross domestic product which is our GDP. As government spending approaches 50% of GDP, the government is far more powerful any other special interest you can conger up.

    As government workers become unionized, they (think California) become the tail that wags the government. General Motors became a union retirement plan with a failing automobile enterprise running up hill trying to fund it.

    We the People were the “sovereign power” outside of government which controlled the government. (Read Madison’s Federalist 63) The Progressives have figured out that the government can take the “sovereign power” away from We the People and keep it locked up in the hands of the permanent government bureaucracy.

    The auto unions control the “Big 3″ and teacher unions control pubic education and the airline unions control the aviation industry and “Progressives” are all over Wal-Mart because it has no union controlling it. The unions together buy access to power through their control of “Progressive” candidates and the “Progressive” agenda. They buy their access and they own the Democrat Party.

    Greece is in flames because “the people” have promised themselves more entitlements than their money pot (the government of Greece) can pony up. The whole economy credit card is over spent to the tune of many times the productivity of the economy. In short, Greece has exceeded the possibility of surviving. And the Greeks are rioting and insisting that other people’s money from outside of Greece be heaped on them to keep on keeping on.

    That is the road Progressive America is heading down. Right now, we are at the stage where we wipe out the rich, because we have no real Progressive plan for responsibility.

    Obamacare in a bankrupt country can not be better health care for anybody. It can only be worse health care for everybody.

    The Progressives can only look around to find who to demonize and blame for the lack of funds. What they will not do is to examine their own profligacy and their stubborn insistence that they can tax and spend their way out of the mess they created.

    Comment by Heliotrope — February 13, 2012 @ 12:05 pm - February 13, 2012

  174. Your assumptions here have no basis in reality, so I can’t respond to them.

    Comment by Pat — February 13, 2012 @ 11:38 am – February 13, 2012

    Of course; they’re based on a direct quote of yours.

    Sure, there is a higher percentage of gay persons who are irresponsible with their sexuality. So the question is, why is that? I think a good part is that most gay persons today grew up in an environment that was hostile to homosexuals.

    Comment by Pat — February 12, 2012 @ 8:42 pm – February 12, 2012

    The problem with “reality”, Pat, is that you and your fellow gay-sex marriage supporters don’t dwell in it. You prefer to live somewhere in which you are not responsible for what you do, can blame all of your choices and consequences on heterosexuals, and can demand that heterosexuals do your bidding, all by dint of your sexual orientation.

    I think the more likely answer is exactly as V the K put it: gays and lesbians like yourself mock and attack people who call out gay promiscuity.

    And society sees that. And they find it particularly hypocritical when you and your fellow gay-sex marriage supporters then start screaming and pointing fingers about Britney Spears and Kim Kardashian — or when you attack and revile people like Bill Cosby for calling out bad parenting among Obama Party plantation groups.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 13, 2012 @ 1:15 pm - February 13, 2012

  175. You prefer to live somewhere in which you are not responsible for what you do

    Which is a funny and ironic statement, because, with out marriage, we have much less responsibility if we separate and move on. Getting married to our partner, which is what we advocate, actually, in a legal sense and otherwise, makes us by it’s very nature more responsible for what wed do.

    And society sees that. And they find it particularly hypocritical when you and your fellow gay-sex marriage supporters then start screaming and pointing fingers about Britney Spears and Kim Kardashian — or when you attack and revile people like Bill Cosby for calling out bad parenting among Obama Party plantation groups..

    Funny that the one person who has mention Spears and Kardashian more than anyone else on this thread is non other than you. Has anyone brought up

    And still you haven’t answered my question. Given that you assert that two people should “Marry only if you’re planning to spend the rest of your life with this person”, and given that prenups are a specific legal vehicle to protect assets specifically in case of divorce, are you against using them, as it shows that the couple in question are not honoring what you demand that marriage must be?

    The funniest thing about this entire exchange is that the guy who is so violently offended by the prospect of “redefining” the term marriage has absolutely no problem trying (failing, but trying) to redefine the term prenuptial agreement to suite his needs!

    Comment by sonicfrog — February 13, 2012 @ 1:52 pm - February 13, 2012

  176. Sure, there is a higher percentage of gay persons who are irresponsible with their sexuality. So the question is, why is that? I think a good part is that most gay persons today grew up in an environment that was hostile to homosexuals.

    Pat, isn’t this the ‘nature vs. nurture’ argument? I grew up in Rural SE Ohio. Our school wasn’t stellar, heck it was one of the examples used in the school funding lawsuit. My class though produced a long list of varied outcomes, from a child molestor to lawyers and professors. Liberal and Conservative from a ‘guns, G_d, and trucks set.’

    For me, it’s a matter of ‘suck it up’. You can’t blame everything on the environment you come from.

    Comment by The Livewire — February 13, 2012 @ 2:05 pm - February 13, 2012

  177. Which is a funny and ironic statement, because, with out marriage, we have much less responsibility if we separate and move on.

    Not really. Without marriage, you haven’t cost the state anything and you don’t require courts to oversee your breakup. The only people you’re directly harming or influencing are you and your partner.

    The reason marriage is important for heterosexuals is because their interactions result in third parties — their children — being produced and affected. Marriage exists because heterosexual sex produces children, and those children need a legal structure and protection.

    That’s what you’re fundamentally not getting, Sonic. Marriage exists, not to make heterosexuals procreate, but because heterosexuals procreate. In order to encourage heterosexuals to procreate responsibly and to take care of what they produce, we have marriage to provide a legal framework for doing so and some degree of state subsidy to make up for the cost of doing so.

    You don’t. It’s just that simple. The state has no reason to spend the money on you, nor does it need to create the legal complications of doing so. You are free to do as you like.

    Your arguments are thus reduced to two: one, that marriage will make gays and lesbians more responsible, which is neatly contradicted by the gay and lesbian community’s constant bringing up of examples like Britney Spears and Kim Kardashian; and two, that unless the government pays for something, it is discriminating against you, which you should theoretically oppose on libertarian grounds.

    And still you haven’t answered my question. Given that you assert that two people should “Marry only if you’re planning to spend the rest of your life with this person”, and given that prenups are a specific legal vehicle to protect assets specifically in case of divorce, are you against using them, as it shows that the couple in question are not honoring what you demand that marriage must be?

    Actually, I have, with two points:

    1) Prenuptial agreements exist for reasons other than divorce
    2) If you read virtually ANY contract, there are terms involving how the items or services covered are to be managed in the event of dissolution or violation of the contract; are you now willing to argue that including those terms and conditions means you enter a contract intending to break it?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 13, 2012 @ 2:19 pm - February 13, 2012

  178. NDT, once again, your comments have no basis in reality, despite your links, which do not come even close to support your assumptions. Thanks, and continue to have a blessed day.

    Comment by Pat — February 13, 2012 @ 2:22 pm - February 13, 2012

  179. Livewire, excellent point. I want to explore this, and comment about it later when I have more time. We may still disagree, but I look forward to a civil exchange.

    Comment by Pat — February 13, 2012 @ 2:24 pm - February 13, 2012

  180. NDT, once again, your comments have no basis in reality, despite your links, which do not come even close to support your assumptions.

    Comment by Pat — February 13, 2012 @ 2:22 pm – February 13, 2012

    Ofr course not, Pat. That’s because you’re not used to living in an environment in which someone judges you by your character instead of your sexual orientation.

    In the heterosexual world, like Livewire points out, blaming your parents and your environment for your promiscuity is foolish. But for gays and lesbians like yourself, it’s all you do.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 13, 2012 @ 3:57 pm - February 13, 2012

  181. 1) Prenuptial agreements exist for reasons other than divorce

    No. They don’t.

    2) If you read virtually ANY contract, there are terms involving how the items or services covered are to be managed in the event of dissolution or violation of the contract…

    Which in this case, is divorce! I’ve provided at least 7 links that state specifically prenuptial agreement are entered into to lay out the financial dealings between a couple in the even of divorce. You’ve offered… Let me count them…. Zero to bolster your case. Just because you say it, and think it, doesn’t mean it’s correct. As David also pointed out, for the other items you listed, there is other legal documents to be filed.

    Pre-nups are exactly what you say they are Sonic. NDT is not correct. Declarations of separate property or separate property agreements are used in the examples he cited, not pre-nups.

    The law is a very specific thing. The courts do not honor documents if they are not entered for the specific purpose for which they are designed. i sincerely hope you never have to go to court for anything without proper representation, since you don’t understand the legal system, you will be screwed.

    Your inability to honestly

    Comment by sonicfrog — February 13, 2012 @ 4:08 pm - February 13, 2012

  182. That’s what you’re fundamentally not getting, Sonic. Marriage exists, not to make heterosexuals procreate, but because heterosexuals procreate. In order to encourage heterosexuals to procreate responsibly and to take care of what they produce, we have marriage to provide a legal framework for doing so and some degree of state subsidy to make up for the cost of doing so.

    But, if marriage includes those of same sex couples, does that mean that regular same sex ones go away or are void or diminished in any way???????

    Of course not!

    And what of couples who can not, or chose not to procreate? If the reason that gays cannot marry is because they don’t and cannot have children, the, by your logic, it stands to reason that sterile heterosexual people should also not be allowed to marry, as they will never be able to procreate either. Once again, your definition for the reason for marriage leaves them out in the cold.

    Comment by sonicfrog — February 13, 2012 @ 4:16 pm - February 13, 2012

  183. My suggestion, Sonic: Read your links next time.

    Premarital agreements can cover a variety of topics. The most common include property and financial support rights during and after marriage, personal rights and obligations of the couple during marriage, and the education and rearing of children to be born to the couple. A typical premarital agreement is used by one spouse or both spouses to keep Personal Property and income separate during the marriage or to protect certain property before one spouse embarks on a risky investment or new career…..

    Courts in all states recognize that marriage is, in part, a business relationship and that couples should be free to remain autonomous within a marriage.

    Pre-nups certainly can deal with divorce, but the better definition for them is anything that is entered into prior or during the marriage that specifies the rights and obligations of the parties. They don’t HAVE to be specifically about divorce.

    Next:

    But, if marriage includes those of same sex couples, does that mean that regular same sex ones go away or are void or diminished in any way???????

    Of course not!

    So how does allowing child marriage, plural marriage, animal marriage, incestuous marriage, or anything else mean that regular opposite-sex consenting adult marriages go away or are void or diminished in any way?

    And what of couples who can not, or chose not to procreate? If the reason that gays cannot marry is because they don’t and cannot have children, the, by your logic, it stands to reason that sterile heterosexual people should also not be allowed to marry, as they will never be able to procreate either. Once again, your definition for the reason for marriage leaves them out in the cold.

    Comment by sonicfrog — February 13, 2012 @ 4:16 pm – February 13, 2012

    Actually, there are quite a few examples of so-called “sterile” couples managing to procreate, or people who were choosing not to having babies having babies accidentally.

    Hence why society takes the tack that, even if it is highly unlikely, it is not worth the risk of a child being born without that protection for their welfare in place.

    Same-sex couples? Never gonna happen. Hasn’t ever happened, ain’t ever gonna happen. Not a chance.

    Once again, Sonic, you miss the point. Marriage exists, not to make heterosexuals procreate, but because heterosexuals procreate. In order to encourage heterosexuals to procreate responsibly and to take care of what they produce, we have marriage to provide a legal framework for doing so and some degree of state subsidy to make up for the cost of doing so.

    You don’t. It’s just that simple. The state has no reason to spend the money on you, nor does it need to create the legal complications of doing so, especially when there’s not a social benefit of any type to be gained from it.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 13, 2012 @ 5:58 pm - February 13, 2012

  184. NDT, please refer to my last two comments. Thanks.

    As government spending approaches 50% of GDP, the government is far more powerful any other special interest you can conger up.

    Heliotrope, spending is way too high. Agreed. But who controls the spending? It’s politicians who are largely elected as a result big money corrupting the system even further.

    Comment by Pat — February 13, 2012 @ 6:00 pm - February 13, 2012

  185. For me, it’s a matter of ‘suck it up’. You can’t blame everything on the environment you come from.

    Livewire, I absolutely agree with you here. Once you are an adult, you are responsible for your actions, and have to pay the consequences. If a young adult comes up to me, states they had a crappy childhood, and they are thinking of making poor choices, such as taking drugs, engaging in promiscuity, etc., I would tell them that making poor choices will only make a bad situation worse, and is not an excuse for poor choices. But it shouldn’t stop there.

    The parents are adults as well and are responsible for their actions. Furthermore, when their children are teens, these parents are at least in their 30s, so we are not talking about wet behind the ears adults. If we are going to hold children with bad parents when they become adults responsible for any poor choices they made, it seems that we should also do the same for the parents. But yet, it seems like some want to excuse their actions.

    I think we agree that good parenting is important, and certainly should be encouraged. There is a reason why we value it, because we know that children from such homes will have a greater likelihood of making better choices as adults.

    Comment by Pat — February 13, 2012 @ 6:23 pm - February 13, 2012

  186. I an always amused when dishonest people try to redefine things to mach their agenda. The very first line of that link reads:

    A contract made in anticipation of marriage that specifies the rights and obligations of the parties. Such an agreement typically includes terms for property distribution in the event the marriage terminates.

    A premarital agreement, also known as a prenuptial or antenuptial agreement, is a contract between two persons who intend to marry. All states recognize premarital agreements through statutes or court decisions.

    A premarital agreement is an unusual contract. It is an agreement between marrying persons that, at least in part, contemplates the breakup of the marriage.

    Which means that, although it can serve to do more, at the very least, it ALWAYS deals with the advent of divorce.

    So how does allowing child marriage, plural marriage, animal marriage, incestuous marriage, or anything else mean that regular opposite-sex consenting adult marriages go away or are void or diminished in any way?

    Irrelevant, since allowing same sex marriage does not mean those things occur. If you want any of those, you will have to advocate for it.

    Comment by sonicfrog — February 13, 2012 @ 6:30 pm - February 13, 2012

  187. Heliotrope, one additional note. I don’t put the whole blame on big corporations, lobbyists, etc. Ultimately, the responsibility is the voters who let themselves be influenced by the money. One example that comes to mind is a senate election from several years ago. The incumbent was apparently popular, but then a majority of voters got tired of him. So, the incumbent begins falling in the polls by as much as 10% with less than a month before the election. The national committee, who saw this as a crucial election pumps in millions of dollars into the campaign, and lo and behold, the incumbent pulls it out. I can’t imagine what this money did to change the voters minds, but it did.

    Comment by Pat — February 13, 2012 @ 6:44 pm - February 13, 2012

  188. Quick on oil companies.

    People don’t realize that oil isn’t the only thing they do. They pay for quite a bit of non-fossil fuel related work, such as mineral exploration. Since almost everything in our cars, houses, medicines have mineral components to them, from the kaolite in kaopectine, to the silicates and germainium in transistors and IC chips, to the phosphorus in… well half of everything around us, we owe them more than most people realize

    Signed Sonicfrog

    Former Geology / Seismology student.

    Comment by sonicfrog — February 13, 2012 @ 8:23 pm - February 13, 2012

  189. Okay, Sonicfrog. I’ll be nicer to oil companies. :-)

    Comment by Pat — February 13, 2012 @ 8:36 pm - February 13, 2012

  190. :-)

    Comment by sonicfrog — February 13, 2012 @ 9:02 pm - February 13, 2012

  191. Sonic, I share your amusement. Estate planning is a subject on which I could hold forth till the cows come home and a Pre-nup is used with a mind toward the dissolution of marriage. A person contemplating using it for any other purpose is on the receiving end of woefully poor counsel.

    Comment by David in N.O. — February 13, 2012 @ 9:42 pm - February 13, 2012

  192. Yeah David, from the terminology you used, I figured you were more than the average WikiJockey. i included you in my blog post talking about this useless back and forth. hope you don’t mind.

    Comment by sonicfrog — February 14, 2012 @ 1:02 am - February 14, 2012

  193. I an always amused when dishonest people try to redefine things to mach their agenda.

    Actually, Sonic, I’ve not had to redefine anything.

    No; I’m simply going to point out that there are reasons to have a pre-nup other than divorce. What happens in the event of death comes immediately to mind; a pre-nup allows you to distribute property or assets differently than the standard marital “default”. A pre-nup in common-property states like California allows one person to shield another from the effect of bankruptcy — such as when one is a sole proprietor of a business and wants to make sure any negative business judgments don’t take out the other spouse.

    Hence your statement is incorrect. There are many more reasons than divorce to have a pre-nup, and in fact, more and more counselors are advising it, especially in examples of disparate income like I just noted.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 11, 2012 @ 10:10 am – February 11, 2012

    Then again, I don’t need the definition of a prenuptial agreement to be that heterosexuals are evil, so I’m not as limited as you are. You can’t acknowledge that prenuptial agreements are useful for things other than divorce because you need them to always be about divorce to prove that heterosexuals aren’t serious about marriage.

    Which brings us to this:

    Sonic, I share your amusement. Estate planning is a subject on which I could hold forth till the cows come home and a Pre-nup is used with a mind toward the dissolution of marriage. A person contemplating using it for any other purpose is on the receiving end of woefully poor counsel.

    Comment by David in N.O. — February 13, 2012 @ 9:42 pm – February 13, 2012

    Again, same problem. When one needs prenuptial agreements to prove that all heterosexuals are evil, one misses several other relevant uses.

    As before, I think V the K said it best:

    Again, the advocates of gay marriage have to point to ways in which the traditional model of marriage… divorce rates, pre-nups, quickie weddings… are falling apart in order to make their care.

    It raises a legitimate question: Why do they want to be a part of an institution they claim is falling apart all around them?

    My guess is that if marriage weren’t falling apart, if it still carried with it the responsibility of lifelong commitment, monogamy, and mutual support, gays would want nothing to do with it. But since it means benefits without commitment or responsibility, and a bonus in yer face to evangelicals, they not only want it, it’s the single most important issue in the United States today.

    We all know how well it works when you provide a benefit without a responsibility. Just look at how well that worked with our welfare systems.

    Comment by V the K — February 11, 2012 @ 1:40 pm – February 11, 2012

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 14, 2012 @ 1:08 am - February 14, 2012

  194. Irrelevant, since allowing same sex marriage does not mean those things occur.

    Comment by sonicfrog — February 13, 2012 @ 6:30 pm – February 13, 2012

    That wasn’t the question, Sonic.

    The question was: so how does allowing child marriage, plural marriage, animal marriage, incestuous marriage, or anything else mean that regular opposite-sex consenting adult marriages go away or are void or diminished in any way?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 14, 2012 @ 1:10 am - February 14, 2012

  195. Meanwhile, Sonic, I found this statement from your post amusing.

    He thinks that homosexuals are not capable of having life long relationships.

    Nothing could be farther from the truth. If I believed that, I wouldn’t bother being in one.

    Meanwhile:

    Seeing that there are now several states that allow same sex marriage, and he offers no statistics showing that the divorce rate is higher among gay married couple does not help his case.

    I thought you would have seen this already, but OK, knock yourself out.

    Let me point you to a few salient statements in the study itself:

    An introductory model without further explanatory variables (Raw model) shows that the divorce risk in partnerships of men appears 50 percent higher than the corresponding risk in heterosexual marriages, and that the divorce risk in partnerships of women is about the double of that of men.

    And farther down:

    It turns out that a control for the demographic characteristics at hand (Extended model) does not alter the basic relation we found between divorce risks in different types of families.

    Don’t read much farther. You won’t like the next part.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 14, 2012 @ 1:28 am - February 14, 2012

  196. Not a bad study… But it’s ONE study. You never EVER base any kind of scientific certainty on ONE study!… Unless you’re a climate scientist). And that study only studies two out of the six countries listed at the time as having some kind of legal union for same sex couples. Further, I asked about studies on same sex unions here “in the states”. Last time I checked Norway and Sweden are not in the United States. So lets see what a more comprehensive look at the data says., for the heck of it, lets include other countries.

    In Demarks, after 8 years of legal gay unions, the divorce rate of gays was much lower than heterosexual couples. (though, interesting enough, the separation rate of lesbians was also higher).

    The most current data in the UK seems to indicate the separation rate between state recognized gay and straight couples are about even. (note the official page for data in th UK is a mess, and seeing that time is short, I’ve not yet looked at the numbers myself).

    As of 2008, in the US, the divorce rates for gays in Civil Unions

    Quote.

    “A limited number of states have tracked dissolutions
    of legal relationships of same-sex couples. Those
    data reveal that the percentage of same-sex couples
    dissolving their relationships is slightly lower on
    average than the percentage of married differentsex who divorce.”

    In the state with the longest record of same sex marriage.

    Massachusetts is one state that performs same-sex marriage and also enjoys a low divorce rate. Between 2004 (the year same-sex marriage became legal in the Bay State) and 2009, the divorce rate has remained relatively constant, with 2.2 divorces for every 1,000 people.

    And finally, for what its worth, according to the US CDC Census numbers, the divorce rates have been DECREASING in states that allow some form of civil union or marriage for gays. So it would appear that once again, your attempt to show that gays can’t stay together wilts in the presence of the majority of data on the subject (unless you want to continue to cherry-pick your data like a climate scientists) and the argument that allowing gay marriage hurts traditional marriage just doesn’t hold water.

    Plus, you said this

    When one needs prenuptial agreements to prove that all heterosexuals are evil…

    If you can find one sentence in this thread, or in my entire seven years of blogging where I say or even hint that I’m trying to show that heterosexual marriage is EVIL… Please, be my guest. And you STILL have avoided answering my question, relying instead on ignoring the purpose of a prenup, which, by way of that dishonesty, answers the question.

    PS. You say on the last comment:

    The question was: so how does allowing child marriage, plural marriage, animal marriage, incestuous marriage, or anything else mean that regular opposite-sex consenting adult marriages go away or are void or diminished in any way?

    The question is irrelevant and a red herring, as same sex marriage does not include the advent of any of those options. It’s the same type of flawed logic used to try and forestall the legalization of biracial marriage. But, unlike you, I am not afraid to answer a hypothetical question, and without the need to redefine the terms to suit my needs, I’ll answer with the same answer that I gave to on gay marriage… Of course it wouldn’t. If any state in the union were to allow those things, it would not affect anyone’s marriage, unless there was a specific provision in the statute that stipulates that the inclusion of any of those varieties of relationships would hereby dissolve the unions of heterosexual marriages. This little distraction of yours has been discussed to death, so I won’t go into the reasons why each of your variations are flawed. But, since you bring these up over and over and over again when the topic of SSM comes up, if you want any of those things, feel free to advocate for them.

    .

    Comment by sonicfrog — February 14, 2012 @ 1:07 pm - February 14, 2012

  197. spam… filter

    Comment by sonicfrog — February 14, 2012 @ 1:50 pm - February 14, 2012

  198. Happy happy Valentine’s Day.

    Kudos SF

    Smooches. http://i1124.photobucket.com/albums/l569/rusty98119/smooch.jpg

    Comment by rusty — February 14, 2012 @ 2:08 pm - February 14, 2012

  199. Even if pre-nups might be of some use in other facets of estate planning, the primary purpose is for dissolution of a marriage. The best example I can think of is my own sister when she married a man who had been married once before and from that marriage had a child. She made a declaration of separate property to keep her her own assets, which were substantial and included shares of our families holdings, from becoming part of the marital community. In a nutshell, the primary objective was maintain family control over thoses shares in the event that she and her husband lost their lives at the same time to prevent his child from his first marriage from inheriting those assets.

    Now my sister could have used a pre-nup, but because that particular legal agreement contains language regarding a future dissolution of marriage, i.e. divorce, it was for her an innappropriate legal solution and certainly no way to start a marriage.

    So even though technically NDT is right, there can be other uses for a pre-nup, the primary intent is essentially to settle property in advance of divorce. Period. A pre-nup is never created for any other reason. Some lawyer might want to dress it up and call it an estate planning vehicle, but that is poppycock. No matter what else it may do, it is created and exists with a mind toward divorce. And that is all there is to it.

    Comment by David in N.O. — February 14, 2012 @ 2:09 pm - February 14, 2012

  200. I mean, seriously. I use my drivers license to get into bars, which is a legitimate use for that ID. But that doesn’t mean that card in my wallet has nothing to do with driving and is instead magically transformed by law into a “get into a bar” ID. It’s still a drivers license, issued for the primary purpose to show that I’m legally allowed to be behind the wheel of a car in the state in which I live….

    OK… I don’t go to bars much anymore, and when I do I don’t get carded much because of my age. And if I go to a bar, it’s usually because I’m playing in the band that night. But the point still stands.

    Comment by sonicfrog — February 14, 2012 @ 2:39 pm - February 14, 2012

  201. Even if, after gaining my drivers license at the age of 16, I had never driven again for all these almost 30 years, and only used it as my ID to get beer, liqueur, or as an ID for admission to whatever, it would still be a drivers license.

    Comment by sonicfrog — February 14, 2012 @ 2:48 pm - February 14, 2012

  202. And finally, for what its worth, according to the US CDC Census numbers, the divorce rates have been DECREASING in states that allow some form of civil union or marriage for gays.

    Well, let’s see what the authors say.

    The differences are highly statistically significant. Nevertheless, they do not necessarily imply causation. The decision to ban same-sex marriage does not occur randomly throughout the states, but instead is strongly correlated with other factors, such as religiosity and political ideology, which we have made no attempt to account for. Nor do we know in which way the causal arrow might point.

    Not even the authors of the study try to make the same conclusion you did, Sonic.

    And then for the Williams one:

    “A limited number of states have tracked dissolutions of legal relationships of same-sex couples. Those data reveal that the percentage of same-sex couples dissolving their relationships is slightly lower on average than the percentage of married differentsex who divorce.”

    A commonly-quoted statistic. However, it always leaves out this little gem on page 4:

    This variation in state law recognizing same-sex relationships poses challenges for same-sex couples not encountered by married different-sex couples, such as for those wishing to end their relationship. As a general matter, states only entertain requests for a divorce from their own residents. For instance, New Jersey requires one or both members of a couple wishing to dissolve their civil union to have been a resident of New Jersey for at least 12 months prior to filing for dissolution. For couples who entered a marriage or civil union but do not currently live in a state that will recognize their legal status, one member of the couple may have to move and establish residency in a state that does recognize the status in order to obtain a divorce or dissolution order.

    Thus, the divorce comparisons across states are essentially apples to kumquats, for several reasons.

    Of course, all those justify ignoring an actual scientific study, using common laws and verifiable statistics, such as I quoted.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 14, 2012 @ 4:52 pm - February 14, 2012

  203. A couple more posts by either Dan or Bruce and this post and comments with be pushed onto the next GP page.

    This is a fun Valentine’s Day story:

    http://gothamist.com/2012/02/14/same-sex_couple_weds_atop_empire_st.php#photo-6

    Comment by rusty — February 14, 2012 @ 5:19 pm - February 14, 2012

  204. NDT, the causation issue is why I said “for what it’s worth” in that sentence.

    On the “gem on page 4″, yes, that is one of the difficulties in measuring this statistic. Yet, it would take a pretty sizable number of gay people who move out of state and into a non-SSM state to make the numbers change dramatically. It will be interesting to see what the numbers are when this is taken into account. That said, the trends in both England and in Denmark do not show anything that suggests that gays who marry separate at a much higher rate than heterosexuals.

    And no, it’s not comparing apples to kumquats. Divorce is Divorce. It’s just measuring the rate of same sex divorces is a bit more difficult than measuring the rate of opposite sex divorces.

    Comment by sonicfrog — February 14, 2012 @ 7:02 pm - February 14, 2012

  205. I also find it interesting that, while you delved into one of the studies I provided to try and show a limit or weakness in the study (fair enough), you didn’t bother to do the same in the one you presented. Here is a note of caution from that study:

    In our study, we have provided an overview of the demographic characteristics and
    patterns in union dynamics of the first cohorts of registered partnerships in Norway and
    Sweden. The data on these pioneering cohorts of same-sex spouses provide information on
    a family type that at present is introduced in a wider circle of countries. Since this still is
    a recent family type, we are in no position to say much about any long-term patterns or
    developments
    .

    Which is probably the best advise at this point in the game.

    Comment by sonicfrog — February 14, 2012 @ 7:56 pm - February 14, 2012

  206. Sonic,you’re being so stubborn! Don’t you realize that not allowing SSM willbring the divorce rate back to the rates pre-no fault status. It’s just that simple.:)

    Comment by rusty — February 14, 2012 @ 8:44 pm - February 14, 2012

Leave a comment

Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

**Note: Your first comment is held for moderation. Avoid profanity, avoid personal attacks on fellow commenters, and avoid complaining about personal attacks (even on you). Feel free to disagree with anyone, but focus on their ideas; give us the information that you think they overlooked.**


Live preview of comment

Close this window.

0.659 Powered by Wordpress