Althouse: "I mean, if Sue loves Joe and Tom loves Joe, Sue can marry him and Tom can't. And the difference is based upon their different sex."

April 29, 2015

"I mean, if Sue loves Joe and Tom loves Joe, Sue can marry him and Tom can't. And the difference is based upon their different sex."

So said Chief Justice Roberts, in part of yesterday's oral argument which I discussed in some detail earlier this morning.

I just wanted to write a separate post to beat you over the head with the profound accuracy of the Chief's statement.

The government, in banning same-sex marriage, does nothing to ascertain that couples are sexually attracted to each other.

The Sue that loves Joe could be a lesbian, and the Tom who loves Joe could be heterosexual.

Maybe Joe is a very desirable marriage partner for reasons that have nothing to do with a desire to have sex with him. Maybe he's rich and powerful and has a wonderful circle of friends. This Joe, perhaps, loves to cook and is a great cook, and he's got an extensive wine cellar. Maybe he loves just the kind of movies/sports that Sue/Tom loves, and he keeps up an endlessly entertaining stream of conversation, full of witty observations and howlingly funny jokes. And he's perfectly happy to allow Sue/Tom to pursue sexual adventures. Go right ahead! Have them! And come back home to Joe's delicious late-night supper and drink some of Joe's top-notch wine and you can talk about sex for hours.

The government has no idea, and the government should have no idea.

294 comments:

«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 294 of 294

Derve Swanson said...: If at the end of the night, Joe requests that Tom and Sue throw rotting fruit at his naked body, I don't think you've constructed an original hypothetical...; 4/29/15, 2:47 PM
Anonymous said...: J farmer wrote;

J. Farmer said...
@Eric:

"Exactly right. And every man I know has a dominant pattern of sexual and romantic attraction to multiple women. If this isn't polygamy, what is?"

If it isn't polygamy? Huh? You don't consider yourself or your friends to be polygamous do you, despite their sexual attraction. That's why it isn't polygamy. Polygamy has nothing to do with gender or sexuality.

You're the one who made the comparison, not me.

In your own words:

...there is compelling evidence that sexual orientation (whether hetero or homo) is probably pretty firmly established by early childhood and is relatively unwavering. There is no similar understanding of either incest or polygamy.

I'm working off your comparison. How do you now pretend not to understand your own comparison, or are you now claiming to have compared apples to oranges?

Just as homo sex is unwavering, so too is the desire for incest and polygamous relationships (IE: Relationships with multiple women).; 4/29/15, 3:01 PM
jimbino said...: @Sigivald

Because you can't actually make anyone "accept" things like that; to a Christian, e.g., "marriage" is a sacrament, and no Court can redefine it.

Marriage is a sacrament according to the RC Church. Protestants generally recognize only Baptism and Communion as sacraments.; 4/29/15, 3:02 PM
Kyzer SoSay said...: LOL. Howard, your comments are less helpful and more ignorant and hate-filled than GM can manage on his best day. Maybe you need a nap?; 4/29/15, 3:24 PM
Birches said...: In the late 1960s and early ’70s, the pro-choice side of the abortion debate frequently predicted that legal abortion would reduce single parenthood and make marriages more stable, while the pro-life side made the allegedly-counterintuitive claim that it would have roughly the opposite effect; overall, it’s fair to say that post-Roe trends were considerably kinder to Roe’s critics than to the “every child a wanted child” conceit. Conservatives (and not only conservatives) also made various “dystopian” predictions about eugenics and the commodification of human life as reproductive science advanced in the ’70s, while many liberals argued that these fears were overblown; today, from “selective reduction” to the culling of Down’s Syndrome fetuses to worldwide trends in sex-selective abortion, from our fertility industry’s “embryo glut” to the global market in paid surrogacy, the dystopian predictions are basically just the status quo. No-fault divorce was pitched as an escape hatch for the miserable and desperate that wouldn’t affect the average marriage, but of course divorce turned out to have social-contagion effects as well. Religious fears that population control would turn coercive and tyrannical were scoffed at and then vindicated. Dan Quayle was laughed at until the data suggested that basically he had it right. The fairly-ancient conservative premise that social permissiveness is better for the rich than for the poor persistently bemuses the left; it also persistently describes reality. And if you dropped some of the documentation from today’s college rape crisis through a wormhole into the 1960s-era debates over shifting to coed living arrangements on campuses, I’m pretty sure that even many of the conservatives in that era would assume that someone was pranking them, that even in their worst fears it couldn’t possibly end up like this.

Douthat nails it; 4/29/15, 3:28 PM
Alex said...: Amazing how blind conservatives are to their own bigotry.; 4/29/15, 3:47 PM
Anonymous said...: Birches,

That was a very good read.

Sometimes I think, "If I were a billionaire, what would I do with all that money?"

Reading through that article, I'd love to find old television footage of Murphy Brown and Dan Quayle, or other such incidents on TV where the conservative prophecy is mocked while the liberal progressives tell us there is no harm in the changes they are making to society.

It'd take a lot of time and money, but it'd be instructive, to say the least.

The progressives are constantly changing things and like global warming, their predictions are way off. Then they just adjust the past data.; 4/29/15, 3:58 PM
YoungHegelian said...: @Alex,

Amazing how silly gay activists are to think that just because they really like doing something, that means it must be moral.

Because, that's what moral philosophy and/or theology is all about, right? It's all about what I like to do.... I mean screw that duty & sacrifice & conscience bullshit!; 4/29/15, 3:58 PM
Birches said...: Reading through that article, I'd love to find old television footage of Murphy Brown and Dan Quayle, or other such incidents on TV where the conservative prophecy is mocked while the liberal progressives tell us there is no harm in the changes they are making to society.

I'm not Catholic. I grew up in our contraceptive society and always found the Catholic stance a little weird. I don't think they're weird now.; 4/29/15, 4:04 PM
J. Farmer said...: @jr565:

"Look at inner cities, and number of kids raised out of wedlock and you tell me."

What does that have to do with SSM? The explosion in out-of-wedlock births occurred when SSM was nowhere on the horizon, and the government was providing the same benefits to marriage then than now.

How does changing the definition of marriage to include homosexuals along with heterosexuals lead to out-of-wedlock births in the inner city?

@Eric:

"Just as homo sex is unwavering, so too is the desire for incest and polygamous relationships (IE: Relationships with multiple women)."

I assume you would agree with me that there exists such a thing as "homosexual orientation." If I used that phrase, you would instantly know what I was talking about. However, phrases such as "polygamous orientation" or "incestuous orientation" don't exist. Every polygamist I have ever heard speak or write has never alluded to any kind of notion that they were "born polygamous." It wouldn't even make any sense to say that. That was my only point.

@Birches:

I imagine that we agree more than we disagree on the importance of stable, two-parent families. Multiple people here have written numerous comments praising the family. I totally agree with them. How will changing the definition of marriage to include SSM result in any of the ills you are discussing?; 4/29/15, 4:09 PM
jr565 said...: J Farmer wrote:
What does that have to do with SSM? The explosion in out-of-wedlock births occurred when SSM was nowhere on the horizon, and the government was providing the same benefits to marriage then than now.

What it had to do with was not heeding wisdom of marriage as the means by which to raise kids. It was eroded, and look what happens.
Redefining marriage to be about love or love connections and not for its intended purpose ends up with all sorts of social ramification.
What is the state interest in banning polygamy. harm of institution to people in it and soicety, whether the argument is valid or not.

What is the state interest in keeping marriage be about kids? You have structure in place so kids are not born out of wedlock in record numbers.
if that is the state interest, then theres no reason to weaken it by making it be all about love.; 4/29/15, 4:17 PM
Anonymous said...: @J Farmer

I assume you would agree with me that there exists such a thing as "homosexual orientation." If I used that phrase, you would instantly know what I was talking about. However, phrases such as "polygamous orientation" or "incestuous orientation" don't exist. Every polygamist I have ever heard speak or write has never alluded to any kind of notion that they were "born polygamous." It wouldn't even make any sense to say that. That was my only point.

I understood that point and I was disagreeing with you.

Yes, men are born polygamous. I'm surprised you've never heard that before or find it to be difficult to fathom.

I suspect it's also true of incest, but as I said earlier, I've no experience with it.; 4/29/15, 4:18 PM
jr565 said...: and, at any rate, there are other ways to achieve said results. Namely civil unions. THe benefit of those is that it doesn't redefine marriage but gives gays righs. And keeps civil unions and marriage as separate entities. So that it doesn't intrude on religious freedom.
After all, a religios person could then say they will only make cake for traditional weddings and they wouldn't be stuck in a technicality because they say the sell wedding cakes, and all of sudden society came up with a brand new institution and called it the exact same thing.; 4/29/15, 4:21 PM
n.n said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 4/29/15, 4:21 PM
n.n said...: jr565:

Exactly. Not only would civil unions satisfy contractual interests, reduce government regulation (a la finance reform, environment protection, etc. under Democrat rule), but it would avoid creation of moral hazards through selective exclusion and avoid promoting behaviors -- not merely orientations -- antithetical to evolutionary fitness.; 4/29/15, 4:25 PM
K in Texas said...: J.Farmer, I've asked the same question here several times and have never received a straight up answer: How does two gays getting married harm a straight marriage? The closest is that "its for the children", but as you pointed out, that boat sailed decades ago with contraception.

The same for the "most gays don't want monogamous relationships", gays weren't allowed to have them. What do think would, and did, happen to the two guys that set up living together?; 4/29/15, 4:25 PM
n.n said...: Bigotry is sanctimonious hypocrisy. What principles are conservatives violating in The Constitution or grounding Judeo-Christian religion?

They recognize dignity of all individuals, irrespective of their orientation, as prescribed by the Fourteenth Amendment and as a moral axiom. However, there is no principle or precedent to treat, and certainly not normalize, behaviors or expressions equally.

The conservative doctrine is, in fact, principled tolerance, rather than selective exclusion. The latter is a principle of pro-choice or selectivity (e.g. selective-child policy) normalized by the Democrat Party and traditionally favored by the American left and like-minded individuals applied to individuals, which is a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment (science, morality, etc.).

The issue is how behaviors, not merely orientations, should be consistently and reproducibly classified. A few behaviors, typically those with a redeeming value (e.g. procreation a la evolutionary fitness), are normalized or promoted. Most behaviors are and can be tolerated, including transgender and transsexual when they do not represent a progressive condition. The remainder are rejected and proscribed by the State- established law/religion.

It's telling that trans advocates use political, economic, and social shaming and bullying to prevent trans individuals from seeking treatment for their condition. Another corruption engendered by a pro-choice or selectively principled religion -- cult, really -- that exists to create leverage, including political narratives, in order to marginalize and neutralize competing interests.

Anyway, principled tolerance, not selective exclusion. And the aggressive and vindictive nature of trans advocates (including pro-abortionists hiding in plain sight) is, at minimum, unbecoming, and in light of their support for selective exclusion, intolerable.; 4/29/15, 4:27 PM
K in Texas said...: n.n, Colorado has civil unions, which are exactly like marriage. To split up, you go through the divorce process. You cannot enter another civil union if you are married or in a civil union. Since the civil union is exactly like marriage, how would redefining it as marriage harm the institution of marriage for straights?; 4/29/15, 4:28 PM
Dave Schumann said...: So...what, Althouse opposes gay marriage now? Because this is an argument against it.; 4/29/15, 4:41 PM
Fabi said...: @K in Colorado: Gays weren't allowed to have monogamous relationships?; 4/29/15, 4:47 PM
Clayton Hennesey said...: I'll ask it again: what is this "married". Define it.

Or is it no more than, "See, those guys have this government license that lets them get this and that and so and so that other people can't have. Like club points. So we want it, too."?

But at the center of that club points solar system, is there really anything there? If so, what is it?

The Supreme Court is about to grant something to gay people after which no one in the world can any longer actually define.

Perhaps it commands the public to view the gay sex implicit in the relationship with a new dignity previously unrequired, particularly for the sake of any children legally bound to the relationship. Is that it? Once married, the public will immediately view married homosexual sex with a newly found respect.

We know several things that modern, SSM-ready marriage provides as gateway gifts, but beyond merely being a portal to those gifts unavailable to others, what is it?

Does it have any definition itself at all, any boundaries, any limits, any requirements?

What is "marriage"?; 4/29/15, 4:49 PM
Lydia said...: Jessica upthread @11:41 a.m. asked a great question:

Why do you assume that sex is part of the new definition of marriage? Why should it be? It's understandable why the assumption of a sexual relationship would be an important part of traditional marriage between a man and a woman (as has been explained above) if procreation and raising children with a mother and father was felt to be an important reason for the state to be interested in marriage.

However, if you're arguing that the new definition of marriage no longer includes anything about procreation (which is what I gather from Prof Althouse's posts), then why should considerations of sex or sexuality play into the definition at all? What possible reason could the government have to be interested in some people's sexual relationships but not others when considerations of the "best" ways to raise children is not longer relevant to society's concept of marriage?

It's interesting that the TV show Two and a Half Men has gone there with a marriage between two heterosexual men:

'Last summer, when Chuck Lorre announced there would be a same-sex marriage on the final season of his long-running CBS sitcom Two and a Half Men, a predictable uproar ensued. The problem was that the union involved two heterosexual men. ...

Many viewers felt the storyline desexualized gay love and trivialized the struggle for marriage equality—and having lesbian character Jenny voice those precise objections didn’t remove the sting. So, last week, when I had a chance to talk to Chuck Lorre during an event at the Television Critics Association winter press tour, I asked him how the creative team had decided to explore this theme.

Same-sex marriage is “now legal—and appropriately so,” he told me. “And there's nothing in the marriage contract that dictates physical love. Two people declare their love for each other; everything else is nobody's business. … They just say, ‘We love each other. We want to share our lives together. End of story.’ That seemed like a great starting point."

Lorre denied they ever intended to be disrespectful. “We all believe that people should have the freedom to marry who they love, but there is that wonderful wrinkle. ... It's a new era we're living in, and we got a chance to play with that,” he said.'; 4/29/15, 4:53 PM
jimbino said...: @Mtrobertsattorney

The facts of biology and the concern for "...our Posterity" as set out in the Preface to the Constitution make this a heavy burden.

The Preamble ("preface") to the Constitution does not carry the force of law any more than do the Ten Commandments.; 4/29/15, 5:07 PM
J. Farmer said...: @Eric:

"Yes, men are born polygamous. I'm surprised you've never heard that before or find it to be difficult to fathom."

I think you and I are operating on two different definitions of polygamous. You cannot be "born" polygamous because polygamous describes a social arrangement. If you go out tomorrow and have sex with five different women, nobody would describe that as polygamy, and polygamy is not defined by sexual attraction. People are not "born polygamous" anymore than they are born monogamous.

@Eric:

"What it had to do with was not heeding wisdom of marriage as the means by which to raise kids. It was eroded, and look what happens."

I think we have two very different understandings of the causal factors involved. When I look at the increase of out-of-wedlock births, I see things like a change in divorce laws, contraception, changes in technology and culture that have made it much easier for women to earn an independent living, etc.

But again, you really don't have an answer. You assert it will have these effects, but I still do not see any viable mechanism as to how it will happen.

"Namely civil unions."

Many of the states that banned SSM also banned marriage-like arrangements, such as civil unions and domestic partnerships. But if weakening marriage is your biggest fair, civil unions would be a catastrophe, unless you restrict heterosexuals from civil unions, by creating an alternative arrangement you will compete with traditional marriage.; 4/29/15, 5:10 PM
Sebastian said...: "Basically, the structure set up for 2 doesn't work for more than 2."

But, but, "liberty."

Gays are way ahead of you. "Trouples" were already a thing a decade ago.; 4/29/15, 5:12 PM
YoungHegelian said...: “And there's nothing in the marriage contract that dictates physical love."

Do you wonder where & how Mr. Lorre grew up that he could say something like that? Just how clueless does secularism have to be before it gets laughed out of court.

Maybe, they don't put that in the contract at the courthouse, but, in every major faith on the planet, that sure as hell is in the vows. In traditional Eastern Orthodoxy, the priest, acolytes, & families follow the bride & groom to the marriage bed, and the priest blesses it. They then leave, leaving the couple to their nuptial bed.

And what exactly do you think Orthodox Jews mean to happen by leaving the couple alone together in the Yichud during the wedding ceremony?

How did supposedly bright people like Mr Lorrie become so culturally stupid?; 4/29/15, 5:15 PM
Clayton Hennesey said...: Here is what the Supreme Court will be saying:

"We don't know what this 'married' is, but we have decided that you should have it equally and now you over there should have it equally, too, but you, you, and you should not have it equally, whatever it happens to be. Because, um..."; 4/29/15, 5:17 PM
Birches said...: I've asked the same question here several times and have never received a straight up answer: How does two gays getting married harm a straight marriage? The closest is that "its for the children", but as you pointed out, that boat sailed decades ago with contraception.

Since the cow's already out of the barn, we might as well let the horses out of the stable too?

J. Farmer:

Those words were not my own; they were of Ross Douthat. Read the linked article to understand his POV.

If you ask anyone who believes in traditional marriage, they will agree that SSM is not the first thing to wound marriage. As Douthat says in his article though, all the previous wounds were thought to be "wild and crazy" rantings of social conservatives. Here's a POV from yesteryear: How does my no-fault divorce harm your marriage? My divorce doesn't make you need a divorce!

Children deserve to be raised by their biological father and mother who are married. This is the purpose of marriage, to tie and obligate parents and children to each other---love really has little to do with it. The sanctioning of SSM further removes procreation from marriage, since there is no procreation involved in a SSM. Furthermore, the children that are born into a SSM are being explicitly denied a biological parent by design. And the State sanctions this. I have a friend who is pregnant with her second child. She is angry that her wife cannot be listed on the birth certificate, because they have a civil union and not a marriage. That's bizarro world stuff to me, but it is the situation that SSM now envelopes.

The reality of SSM is that marriage further becomes an inheritance vehicle, a statement of love and commitment, a function of adult feelings and emotion. It further ceases to be about children. Those other things might be well and good, but it is at the expense of all of society's children in the aggregate. You might disagree, that's fine. But since the 60's the traditionalists seem to have been right about the consequences of changing the functions of sex, marriage, divorce and children.; 4/29/15, 5:25 PM
GoldRush Apple said...: @ MayBee: Did they really need a ceremony to stay together? Those that "married" - are they raising any kids? Plans to, if they aren't already?; 4/29/15, 5:27 PM
GoldRush Apple said...: @ Clayton: The best and the brightest, of course!; 4/29/15, 5:28 PM
Birches said...: I think we have two very different understandings of the causal factors involved. When I look at the increase of out-of-wedlock births, I see things like a change in divorce laws, contraception, changes in technology and culture that have made it much easier for women to earn an independent living, etc.

Funny how most of the single mothers out there aren't earning an independent living.

The Elites smash tradition for the lower classes, but keep it for themselves.; 4/29/15, 5:29 PM
RecChief said...: I just wanted to write a separate post to beat you over the head with ...

A frying pan?; 4/29/15, 5:33 PM
RecChief said...: rhhardin said...
Call them civil unions and a lot of bakers and florists and photographers would find it unobjectionable, too.

Some of us have been saying for years that Civil Unions make the most sense for American governance. Let anyone who wants a civil union get one, and if you can find a church that will marry you, go for it.

Instead, Althouse and people like her want to beat everyone who thinks like I do, over the head with Gay Marriage!! Skipped right over Civil Unions, which would have been a true separation of Church and State, something I think that would appeal to an atheist. The fact that this isn't an option discussed by our hostess pulls the curtain back on her Leftism. And By the Way, you'll bake that cake too, whether you like it or not.; 4/29/15, 5:39 PM
Anonymous said...: @J Farmer,

I'm on my phone now so I can't quote you, I apologize for that.

To respond to your last response, what word would you like to use to describe a man who wants to be with multiple women? We use the word homo attached to sexual to describe a man who wants to have sex with men. Hetro to sexual wherein you want to have sex with someone of the opposite sex. What word or words could we use to mean sex with multiple partners?

Because we are born that way. Or at least, men are. Use whatever word you like, the polygamous relationship reflects how we are born. And that's what wrecks your point.

As to your second point, you don't see it because you don't want to see it.

However, our inner cities are a direct result of these progressive ideas. Someone said not too long ago that blacks had it better under slavery. They had to shut him up quickly because he had a point.

The black family unit stayed together under slavery. Now they don't. I'd argue freedom is still better than slavery, but even better is freedom wherein the family unit stays together.

Its progressive social policies that have eroded that family unit. Again, you don't see Detroit and Baltimore because you don't want to see it.

But let he has has eyes see.; 4/29/15, 5:56 PM
jr565 said...: J Farmer wrote:

I think you and I are operating on two different definitions of polygamous. You cannot be "born" polygamous because polygamous describes a social arrangement. If you go out tomorrow and have sex with five different women, nobody would describe that as polygamy, and polygamy is not defined by sexual attraction. People are not "born polygamous" anymore than they are born monogamous.

I think what Eric is saying is men are prmosicuous. They like to sow their wild oats with as many women as possible. Monogamy is the equivalent of putting on a ball and chain for guys. So, polygamy would be a marriage that rewards promiscuity.; 4/29/15, 6:05 PM
J. Farmer said...: @Birches:

"Those words were not my own; they were of Ross Douthat. Read the linked article to understand his POV."

I read Douthat's article. He makes a compelling case for stable, two-parent families. And I agree with him. If you make divorce easier, you will get more divorces. That's a pretty simple, logical assertion that is testable. Douthat, like every SSM opponent I've come across, simply asserts that it could happen but even then he cannot describe any mechanism for how it will happen. That is my point. If people have a problem with no fault divorce or contraception, then they should advocate on those issues. It seems that the argument is liberals once supported these policies that damaged the family, liberals support SSM, so SSM will also damage the family.

Take the Massachusetts example. SSM has been legal there for more than 10 years and represents about 4% of the married couples in Massachusetts? Is there any empirical evidence from Massachusetts to suggest that SSM has had effects on traditional marriage rates or illegitimacy? Or will it takes more than 10 years for this new definition to start exerting its creeping influence?

"Funny how most of the single mothers out there aren't earning an independent living. "

Well, 70% of single mothers are employed.; 4/29/15, 6:09 PM
Anonymous said...: What do you keep asking about a mechanism? The mechanism is homo sex marriage. If you mean to ask, what will happen because of it, that's already happening. Businesses being shut down, the religious being sued, and children being raised without a mother or a father. Why haven't you answered my question, btw? Which parent isn't needed, the mother or the father?

We already see what happens when children are raised without one of those two. Detroit and Baltimore are great examples.; 4/29/15, 6:17 PM
Anonymous said...: Jr,

He knows what I'm saying. He is being purposefully obtuse. Because he sees that his prior point was demolished. He wants us to acknowledge that gay men are gay from birth, but polygamous and incestous people somehow aren't.

But after making the point he wants to then pretend that there is no argument against it. That he has defined polygamous and incestous in such a way as it cannot be defined out of his circular reasoning.

But trust me, he sees the corner he has backed himself into. He ain't dumb.; 4/29/15, 6:20 PM
J. Farmer said...: @Eric:

"As to your second point, you don't see it because you don't want to see it...Again, you don't see Detroit and Baltimore because you don't want to see it."

First, I work in the homes of families involved with juvenile justice and child welfare, so I confront these issues professionally on a daily basis. I have also said here repeatedly that I support strong, stable families and believe that illegitimacy has been a major social ill. So your repeated assertion of not seeing are hollow.

If you want to claim I am puroposely blinding myself, then fine. Unblind me. Enlighten me. I have asked you repeatedly to explain to me how SSM will result in more Baltimores and Detroits. Instead, you simply assert it and then claim my inability to understand the causal relation is a result of blinders. Well, okay, explain to me the causal relationship from your elevated vision. Otherwise, you are making the exactly logical fallacy I remarked about in my last comment. You can call SSM "progressive social policies" and play guilt by all association all you want. But in fact some of the earliest, most reasoned, and most powerful arguments for SSM have come from the conservative side.

@jr565:

"I think what Eric is saying is men are prmosicuous."

Sure, and I agree. But promiscuity is not the same thing as polygamy. The decision to enter a polygamous or incestuous relationship is consciously entered into. Orientation is a much more biological, unconscious process. I brought all this up merely to illustrate that homosexuals differed from polygamists in that regard.; 4/29/15, 6:29 PM
J. Farmer said...: @Eric:

"What do you keep asking about a mechanism?"

Because if you want to assert a causal relationship between SSM and certain deleterious results, it is necessary to explain how SSM can actually cause the problems you are worried about. So yes, I am still waiting for you to explain how gays getting married will cause illegitimacy in the ghetto. Whether its no fault divorce or contraception, you can connect the dots to the social problems they cause. I have yet to see such dots drawn from SSM.

"But after making the point he wants to then pretend that there is no argument against it. That he has defined polygamous and incestous in such a way as it cannot be defined out of his circular reasoning.

But trust me, he sees the corner he has backed himself into. He ain't dumb."

I have not changed my point since I first stated it. Polygamy is a social arrangement created by society. Its as biological as marriage is. Which is to say, not at all.; 4/29/15, 6:38 PM
jr565 said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 4/29/15, 6:41 PM
jr565 said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 4/29/15, 6:49 PM
jr565 said...: J Farmer,
I already explained what purpose of marriage is/was and why there is a compelling state interest to maintain it the way it is. So the questions is why must the definition be changed to erode the function of such a valuable tradition for society to incorporate people who cannot even have kids in the relationship, absent surrogates. and which will necessarily deprive the kid of either a mother or a father.
Simply because we want to be nice?
If that's the purpose of marriage, why would you force it to be redefined if by doing so you weaken its meaning and function. Which in turn leads to people no longer viewing it as vehicle for kids. But love. And then you get people who forgo marriage but just go to hookups.

Especially when civil society can easily construct a civil uion that gives gays all those rights and doesn't erode marriage as defined.
And finally, its going to erode on religious freedom. Case in point businesses, being compelled to do things for gay weddings or face stiff penalties.
When, if you had civil unions, those Christians who would refuse could say they only do cakes for traditional weddings and it wouldn't be a gotcha as in "You say you do wedding cakes, and I'm now gay married so you have to accommodate me or govt will shut you down, nyah nyah!"
For the life of me I still don't get why you can't say you only do cakes for traditional weddings. Well I do get it. Govt was sloppy and heavy handed.; 4/29/15, 6:53 PM
n.n said...: K in Colorado:

The difference is significant. It is the difference between tolerance and normalization, and why trans advocates insist on violating civil rights in order to force selective normalization of trans orientations and behaviors.

It's the difference between abortion and murder, which required legalization of the former in order to reduce the perception of violating human and civil rights (and both scientific observation and self-evident knowledge); and obfuscate the appearance of granting women an exclusive right to terminate human life for trivial and capricious causes, for causes other than self-defense.

Semantics and labels are critical to influencing human perceptions and behaviors. That is self-evident, and it has been exploited effectively by the Left in particular, in order to marginalize their competing interests while creating political, economic, and social leverage.

That said, trans citizens are subject to the jurisdiction of The Constitution and therefore have equal rights under the Fourteenth Amendment (as well as by virtue of their individual dignity). However, their orientation and behavior/expression are separable (in fact, some individuals have sought effective treatment), and there is no legal, moral, or logical precedent to treat behaviors/expressions equally. Since trans orientations do not represent a progressive condition, it is rational and reasonable to tolerate their behaviors when they do not violate other people's rights; but, there is no legitimate cause to normalize or promote orientations and behaviors antithetical to society and humanity's fitness.

That, and the hypocrisy of the "equality", "no labels", etc. movement that is characteristic of pro-choice or selective religions/morality creates moral hazards through selective exclusion (as well as 1 in 6 human lives terminated following conception/fertilization).; 4/29/15, 6:57 PM
YoungHegelian said...: @J Farmer,

Because if you want to assert a causal relationship between SSM and certain deleterious results

In Massachusetts, because of the SSM ruling, Catholic Adoption Services had to shut down because they could not, in good conscience, place children with same-sex couples.

No group on the planet has a better record in social services than the Catholic social services. The adoption services had been active in Ma. for over 200 years.

Adoption services, by definition, deal with some of the most unfortunate individuals on the planet, i.e. children who have no parents. This unfortunate group, thanks to the gay activists, all of them middle class or better if they can afford to adopt, lost one of their best advocates. Could the gay couples have gone down the street & used another adoption agency? Sure, but all in Ma. needed to bow to their political might, and so Catholic adoption services shut down.

In Ma. now, there is one less agency to take care of orphans, and it was one of the best. So, Farmer, if that doesn't count for you as deleterious social effects, please tell us what the fuck short of a tactical nuclear exchange does.; 4/29/15, 7:10 PM
J. Farmer said...: @jr565:

"If that's the purpose of marriage, why would you force it to be redefined if by doing so you weaken its meaning and function."

I am not convinced that it does weaken the function. That's my point. Anti-SSM advocates keep saying that SSM will weaken traditional marriage, and I have only asked one question: how?

Should Massachusetts be considered illustrative in this case? They have had legal SSM for more than 10 years. Have the trends you worry about manifested themselves in Massachusetts, or will it take SSM more than 10 years to start weakening straight marriages?; 4/29/15, 7:11 PM
jr565 said...: J Farmer wrote:
I am not convinced that it does weaken the function. That's my point. Anti-SSM advocates keep saying that SSM will weaken traditional marriage, and I have only asked one question: how?

Should Massachusetts be considered illustrative in this case? They have had legal SSM for more than 10 years. Have the trends you worry about manifested themselves in Massachusetts, or will it take SSM more than 10 years to start weakening straight marriages?

and why can't Massachusets give gays marriage rights through civil unions?
Are they putting bakers out of business if they refuse to bake cakes?; 4/29/15, 7:14 PM
jr565 said...: If there is a compelling reason to define something, for millennia, a certain way, then its not up to me to defend why it needs to be changed. Its up to you to defeind why it should.
Gay marriage simply does not provide the same degree of value to society, and therefore why put in on same pedestal as man woman marriage.
But, if civil society wants to have a civil gay marriage, then more power to them.; 4/29/15, 7:16 PM
J. Farmer said...: @YoungHegelian:

"In Massachusetts, because of the SSM ruling, Catholic Adoption Services had to shut down because they could not, in good conscience, place children with same-sex couples."

Absolutely false. Massachusetts had laws on the books barring discrimination in adoption by sexual orientation since 1989. Four bishops decided to not renew their contract with the state because of a political protest. They were not forced to shut down because of the SSM ruling. This was a state function that it contracted out to various agencies, of which Catholic Charities was one.; 4/29/15, 7:24 PM
J. Farmer said...: @jr565:

"and why can't Massachusets give gays marriage rights through civil unions?
Are they putting bakers out of business if they refuse to bake cakes?"

I find this argument even more incoherent, frankly. You don't mind gay couples being allowed to live exactly like straight couples and to be treated the same way by the government, except straights will call their arrangement marriage and gays will call their civil union. And you don't, I assume, believe this will have deleterious effects on family formation. But if you keep everything the same and call them both marriage, then marriage will become "weaker" and...and...and...

By your reasoning, the definition of marriage has already been deluded in Massachusetts, so shouldn't the negative effects you say will result from SSM be showing up in Massachusetts demographically?; 4/29/15, 7:31 PM
Birches said...: Should Massachusetts be considered illustrative in this case? They have had legal SSM for more than 10 years. Have the trends you worry about manifested themselves in Massachusetts, or will it take SSM more than 10 years to start weakening straight marriages?

Ten years is hardly enough time. The Unexpected Legacy of Divorce came out in the year 2000 after 30 years of "divorce is better for everyone because they will be happier." Reviving Ophelia in 1994 was the first time I ever read any mainstream psychologist acknowledge that divorce was probably not in the best interest of children, especially girls. People still think Dan Quayle was wrong.; 4/29/15, 7:37 PM
J. Farmer said...: @Birches:

"Ten years is hardly enough time. The Unexpected Legacy of Divorce came out in the year 2000 after 30 years of "divorce is better for everyone because they will be happier."

Fair enough on the ten years point. But not on the divorce point. Regardless of where one fell on the debate, you could draw the logical points hypothetically about how individual divorces harm the children involve and how this is expressed collectively. Anti-SSM advocates are not making anything like that kind of comparison. They are arguing that by changing the definition to include homosexuals, that will weaken other unrelated marriages. I just want to know "how" the redefinition will have this impact, that's all.; 4/29/15, 7:47 PM
YoungHegelian said...: @Farmer,

Four bishops decided to not renew their contract with the state because of a political protest. They were not forced to shut down because of the SSM ruling.

And what exactly were the bishops protesting against, Farmer? They were protesting that they would have to place with same-sex couples, which was against their religious creed.

Massachusetts set permission to allow same-sex adoptions as a condition for the continued contracts, and you know it. Do you think CAS just shut down because somewhere in the Commonwealth, someone was placing with a Same-sex couple?; 4/29/15, 7:54 PM
Anonymous said...: J Farmer,

This is what I meant by not being able to see. You were given a direct response and it was the example of catholic charities in MA.

But you go back to a law passed two decades before catholic charities was shit down. One wonders what happened before they were shut down and after that law passed. Or no one noticed for 20 years?; 4/29/15, 7:59 PM
J. Farmer said...: @YoungHegelian:

"Massachusetts set permission to allow same-sex adoptions as a condition for the continued contracts, and you know it."

Massachusetts has had laws preventing discrimination against gays in adoption since 1989. These laws would be in effect regardless of SSM status. There are numerous Catholic Charities working in adoption still in Massachusetts. You're talking specifically about the Catholic Charities of the Boston Archdiocese. It decided not to renew its contract with the state after the Vatican learned that they had placed 13 children in same-sex households over two years. It was covered widely in the Catholic press.

@Eric:

"This is what I meant by not being able to see."

Well, I specifically asked about the impact of SSM on traditional marriage. Since no one can come up with an answer, we hear about a few sensational stories involving florists and bakers. As I said in a previous comment, the Washington baker was sued under an anti discrimination statue that protects gays. If gay marriage were illegal in Washington, and that baker refused to provide a cake for a gay event, the same exact action could have taken place.

Also, Catholic Charities takes state money to perform a state function. The state has a right to set conditions on that money, and like I said before, Massachusetts already had laws barring discrimination in adoption since the 1980s. If a religious organization believes that it cannot meet the conditions required by the state, then it shouldn't bid on contracts.; 4/29/15, 8:31 PM
jr565 said...: J, Farmer, in the discussions with th Supreme Court yesterday the solicitor general’s Acknowledged “it’s going to be an issue” whether religious organizations can maintain their tax exemption if they maintain their opposition to gay marriage. "

so because you want gay marriage and can't accept civil unions you are going to of rice a conflict that may lead to religious organizations being unable to maintain their tax exemptions.
Sorry, but take your marriage equality and shove it up your asshole.
There is no reason why marriage can't be exactly what it is now, and what it has been for a millennia with no gay animus.
If you can get it without requiring religious organizations to cater to your changes or lose their tax exemptions, then I have no interest in listening to you talk about how it's just a tiny change and what's the harm.
the only way I can envision all sides being happy is with civil unions, since it provides rights and doesn't force religious groups to be involved.
But that's not good enough for you.
So, then if it's a choice of maintaining a valued tradition of marriage or force religious groups to renounce their views or be deemed bigots by totalitarian leftists I'll side with tradition thanks.; 4/29/15, 8:39 PM
jr565 said...: J Farmwr wrote:
@YoungHegelian:

"Massachusetts set permission to allow same-sex adoptions as a condition for the continued contracts, and you know it."

Massachusetts has had laws preventing discrimination against gays in adoption since 1989. These laws would be in effect regardless of SSM status. There are numerous Catholic Charities working in adoption still in Massachusetts. You're talking specifically about the Catholic Charities of the Boston Archdiocese. It decided not to renew its contract with the state after the Vatican learned that they had placed 13 children in same-sex households over two years. It was covered widely in the Catholic press.

@Eric:

"This is what I meant by not being able to see."

Well, I specifically asked about the impact of SSM on traditional marriage. Since no one can come up with an answer, we hear about a few sensational stories involving florists and bakers. As I said in a previous comment, the Washington baker was sued under an anti discrimination statue that protects gays. If gay marriage were illegal in Washington, and that baker refused to provide a cake for a gay event, the same exact action could have taken place.

Also, Catholic Charities takes state money to perform a state function. The state has a right to set conditions on that money, and like I said before, Massachusetts already had laws barring discrimination in adoption since the 1980s. If a religious organization believes that it cannot meet the conditions required by the state, then it shouldn't bid on contracts.

but it could meet the conditions. You just changed the terms mid game.; 4/29/15, 8:41 PM
J. Farmer said...: @jr565:

Take the exact example of Boston and the Catholic Charities. Even if you had gay people in civil unions, that would say nothing about their rights to adopt children. The state would have to handle that through separate legislation. Calling it a "civil union" versus a "marriage" would have nothing to do with the adoption debate. This is the not seeing that Eric accuses me of.; 4/29/15, 8:46 PM
jr565 said...: j Farmer again,
in the discussions with th Supreme Court yesterday the solicitor general’s Acknowledged “it’s going to be an issue” whether religious organizations can maintain their tax exemption if they maintain their opposition to gay marriage. "

address that. Will it cause religious groups,to lose tax exemptions if they don't cow tow to new civil definition of marriage? If so, then that's not exactly neutral is it.
And so, if you ask me what's the harm, I'll tell you. That.
Find a way to get gay marriage in without requiring religious orgs to lose tax exemption (hint - civil unions) or argument is over.; 4/29/15, 8:57 PM
hombre said...: "So, then if it's a choice of maintaining a valued tradition of marriage or force religious groups to renounce their views or be deemed bigots by totalitarian leftists I'll side with tradition thanks."

It's early in the game. Totalitarian leftists cannot tolerate religion other than worship of the state. History provides the evidence. To the extent that gay activists are not intentional advocates for the totalitarian left, they are tools.; 4/29/15, 9:07 PM
Paul said...: Religion has been with us since pretty much the dawn of mankind. So has marriage.

99.9 percent of the religions prohibited marriage to anything but a man and a woman. Most take a VERY dim view of homosexuality.

And SCOTUS should see that marriage is a fundamental part of religion and not the state. Hence marriage is between man and woman.

As for 'love', many people 'love' their cars to. Marriage is far more than just some concept of love.; 4/29/15, 9:15 PM
hombre said...: "Will it cause religious groups,to lose tax exemptions if they don't cow tow to new civil definition of marriage?"

Tax exemptions for churches are just another way for lefties to buy off a potentially politically powerful group. Loss of tax exemptions will free churches to participate actively in politics. It's time.; 4/29/15, 9:16 PM
J. Farmer said...: @jr565:

"Will it cause religious groups,to lose tax exemptions if they don't cow tow to new civil definition of marriage?"

The back and forth between Alito and Verrilli was not about "religious groups" writ large. The question was specifically about colleges and universities losing tax exempt status, and he brought up Bob Jones because in Bob Jones University v. US (1983), the court held that the First Amendment did not prevent the IRS from withdrawing exemption status from the university due its opposition to interracial dating or advocacy for interracial marriage.; 4/29/15, 9:24 PM
Anonymous said...: As Tina Turner sang, What's Love Got to Do With It? Suppose a father loves his emancipated daughter in a carnal way, shouldn't they be allowed to marry? That is, if It's all about LOVE, you know.; 4/29/15, 9:34 PM
jr565 said...: J Farmer,
If it was about colleges the same rule would apply elsewhere. But again, would they lose tax exempt status in this case?; 4/29/15, 10:03 PM
Alex said...: People I talk to just think that "The Republicans are simply gross for invading peoples' bedrooms".

That's how it is Rethugs. People think you're icky and disgusting perverts.; 4/29/15, 10:31 PM
J. Farmer said...: @jr565:

The sum total of the conversation in regards to tax exemption:

JUSTICE ALITO: Well, in the Bob Jones case, the Court held that a college was not entitled to tax¬exempt status if it opposed interracial marriage or interracial dating. So would the same apply to a university or a college if it opposed same¬sex marriage?

GENERAL VERRILLI: You know, I ¬¬ I don't think I can answer that question without knowing more specifics, but it's certainly going to be an issue. I...I don't deny that. I don't deny that, Justice Alito. It is...it is going to be an issue.

If you read the exchange with Justice Roberts before it about student housing, the context becomes clear. The SG remarked that there is no federal antidiscrimination law that covers gay people like many state statutes. However, the rules regarding tax exemption and the powers given to the IRS are based in statutes, and Congress has the power to change those statutes. Tax exemption is not some fundamental right anybody is entitled to. It is a legal construction of the US tax system.

But, really, who cares? If someone gave you an ironclad promise that no religious groups would lose tax exempt status, you would be for SSM? Of course not. Despite the incessant proclamations about the threats to traditional marriage or family, no SSM opponent in this comments thread has been able to explain to me how SSM will harm traditional marriage or two-parent families beyond simply declaring that it will. After pressing repeatedly for the causal link between SSM and a deterioration of traditional marriage, I get the Archdioceses of Boston and the fact that tax exempt status for hypothetical colleges and universities that oppose same-sex marriage "will be an issue."; 4/30/15, 12:01 AM
n.n said...: Paul:

Trans orientations and behaviors (not limited to transgender and transsexual -- homosexual) were never normalized for a simple reason: evolutionary fitness, which objectively establishes trans orientations as dysfunctional and disruptive. This is an intuitive concept that people throughout the world and time have understood implicitly and recorded it in their legal/moral philosophies.

Unfortunately, evolutionary creationists rejected principles when they adopted a pro-choice religion, science, etc. This is what justifies violation of human and civil rights, and audacious conflation of the logical domains while they wallow in narcissistic indulgence.

That said, the real problem, however, is selective exclusion that generational liberals and progressives, and the Democrat Party are infamous for. Trans orientations and behaviors can be reasonably and rationally tolerated when they do not represent a progressive condition in society/humanity, and do not violate civil and human rights.

Whether it is discrimination of individuals (e.g. inference, extrapolation) based on a feature, class, etc., or casual and capricious abortion of wholly innocent human lives, their pro-choice principles have long been a cause to create moral hazards left to unplanned Posterity to reconcile.; 4/30/15, 1:08 AM
Carl said...: If we let the gays have marriage licenses, will they and their groupies shut the fuck up? That would be totally worth it.; 4/30/15, 4:55 AM
David Begley said...: Polygamy is allowed in Islam.
Muslims have First Amendment rights to practice their religion.

Polygamy will be lawful in the US in five years.; 4/30/15, 5:33 AM
Republican said...: Ourselves = 'government'

How far up our butts do we want ourselves to be ?

How far up our butts do we need ourselves to be ?; 4/30/15, 6:24 AM
CStanley said...: J Farmer- I don't think the argument is that SSM weakens or causes harm to heterosexual marriages- it's that it can cause harm to society by weakening an institution that has helped (albeit imperfectly) provide stability for the rearing of children.Gay marriage advocates will dispute that by saying that gays will be raising children too, but see Douthat's piece that Birches linked to- the consequences of social experiments are often counterintuitive and the burden of proof should be on those who advocate the change.; 4/30/15, 6:25 AM
CStanley said...: A few commenters here like J Farmer and MayBee seem to genuinely want to understand the opposition to SSM. I don't know if I can articulate it but most of the arguments resonate with me so I will try. Further, I don't have the background to know if there are good legal arguments to support my position so I am open to hearing if there are not, and why.

As discussed upthread, marriage has been unravelling for several decades now, and this feels like a final straw. While perhaps it seems unfair to try to put up a barrier to gays when they've come asking for marriage licenses-given that heterosexuals have so far done the unravelling-I think it's fair to recognize that there's a difference of kind that makes it reasonable to now question what is happening to the institution.

There's been a drip, drip, drip....no fault divorce, contraception and abortion, acceptance of cohabitation and single parenthood, sperm donation and IVF, and blurring of gender roles, all of which have dissociated marriage from a procreative function. This brings us to the point where lawyers are now unable to state a legitimate social good that would be served by excluding homosexual unions from the institution of marriage.

That is the reality, and I fully accept that we can't put the toothpaste back in the tube and the state shouldn't discriminate. However, there are two ways to fix the inequity- either offer marriage to both groups or offer it to neither. In other words, I think Prof Althouse is wrong when she says that the question of changing all state marriages to civil unions isn't and shouldn't be on the table. The very fact that the new petitioners are bringing into focus the question of the state's interest is what makes that question relevant.

Since there are other societal goods that can come of unions between two or more people, that structure should be preserved as civil unions, and offered to all.

And clearly this alternative solution avoids some of the other problems: there's much less concern about religious freedom (in fact it is probably a better separation of Church and state anyway), and civil unions could include other nontraditional structures like siblings without causing any harm (or at least, those concerns could be dealt with legislatively to decide what restrictions to impose.); 4/30/15, 6:47 AM
JamesB.BKK said...: "Again, I am dying for somebody to explain to me how two queers getting married in Kansas City will have the slightest impact on the marital plans and decision-making of the straights who also live in Kansas City, especially considering the latter outnumber the former by something like 50 to 1."

50 to 1? You sure that's the right town?; 4/30/15, 7:00 AM
MayBee said...: CStanley- thank you for the thoughtful comment. I do agree with you on the distressing nature of things right now.; 4/30/15, 7:15 AM
J. Farmer said...: @CStanley:

If a weakening of the institution of marriage is a fear, then creating a weaker, marriage-lite arrangement called "civil union" could potentially be a disaster.

The reason I reject comparisons to things like no-fault divorce or widespread access to contraception is because those were major changes that affected the entire society. Gay marriage is a miniscule issue compared to those. As I have said before, right now there are less than 100,000 married gay couples in the country but almost 60 million married straight couple. If SSM passes, heterosexuals will not experience one single change in how their marriages are handled or what benefits they derive from the state in consequence of being married. This is why I cannot, despite a good faith attempt at actually trying, to construct a logical path by which SSM impact traditional marriage.

Just look at what you wrote: "it's that it can cause harm to society by weakening an institution that has helped (albeit imperfectly) provide stability for the rearing of children."

I think if you posit that something "can cause harm," then it is not unreasonable to be asked to explain how the harm can or will occur.; 4/30/15, 8:34 AM
J. Farmer said...: @JamesB.BKK:

"50 to 1? You sure that's the right town?"

Well, if you assume a gay population of about 2%. Plus, "50 to 1" just rolls nicely off the tongue.

p.s. Are you in/from Bangkok? I used to live there in my mid-20's.; 4/30/15, 8:36 AM
CStanley said...: j Farmer- no, I don't agree that civil unions would weaken the institution of marriage because people who support marriage would continue to marry (and that would include gays, in denominations that approve SSM.) there would just be the appropriate latitude for churches and/or secular organizations) to define marriage in the more traditional way. No possible interference from govt, as the concern is with state sanctioned SSM.

I'm not saying it would be ideal- a lot of damage has been done. If SSM advocates prevail though, thre is no turning back. That is why the definition is important; we're reexamining what it means to be married and what the purpose is, and your preference is the one that severs any tie to natural procreation.; 4/30/15, 12:10 PM
CStanley said...: Also- although I stand by my assertion that the burden is on the side of those who want change, the issue I described is the indirect potential damage (what definition does society have for marriage- is it for personal fulfillment or does it's importance stem from raising children?)

A more direct possible issue is whether or not children are equally well served by having two same gendered parents as they are by complementary genders. I don't feel there is enough evidence yet, but the state would be making a judgement that the situations are equal.; 4/30/15, 12:15 PM
hombre said...: It is difficult to understand how people who are so acutely attuned to the sensibilities of gays who are asked to settle for civil unions instead of marriage or who are asked to walk down the street to get their cake from another bakery can be totally insensitive to the sensibilities of people who enter into holy matrimony as described by their religious institutions and their governments for centuries only to find it rendered less holy by an anti-religious political movement.

And despite the legal maneuvering, it is sensibilities we are considering: "But I l-o-o-o-ve him! Why can't we get married?"; 4/30/15, 1:45 PM
J. Farmer said...: @CStanley:

"(what definition does society have for marriage- is it for personal fulfillment or does it's importance stem from raising children?)"

Why can't it be both? Plenty of people get married every day who either don't want children, are infertile, or are post-menopausal. There are more than 10 times as many married couples with infertile wives as there are all same-sex marriages.

But if you agree with me that the state has an interest in promoting marriage, then we have to ask ourselves "how" does it promote it? Well, it promotes by offering various legal and financial inducements (mostly in the form of the tax code). And if SSM passes, it will keep doing all of those things.

So, while I appreciate your perspective, I still find you unresponsive. If you want to assert that SSM could lead to family breakdown, you need to explain how it potentially could. Otherwise, I could just as easily say that if SSM passes tomorrow, the world will blow up, and the burden of proof is on you to show me that SSM won't cause the world to blow up. Of course we would find that kind of reasoning absurd. But that's exactly the kind of logic the anti-SSM argument relies on.; 4/30/15, 4:18 PM
J. Farmer said...: @Hombre:

"totally insensitive to the sensibilities of people who enter into holy matrimony as described by their religious institutions and their governments for centuries only to find it rendered less holy by an anti-religious political movement."

I had no idea that the "holiness" of an institution was based on its support by a state rather than the behavior of its followers.; 4/30/15, 4:20 PM
Jason said...: If someone gave you an ironclad promise that no religious groups would lose tax exempt status, you would be for SSM? Of course not.

What do you mean, of course not? Why are you so confident in your understanding of other peoples' views?

That is not far from my own position: I am prepared to accept state-sanctioned SSM, or civil unions, which was a better idea from the start, in return for that particular ironclad promise that the religious liberties of others to not be involved be not just respected (because you can't trust libtards a lick) but protected. Further, this religious liberty is not just restricted to institutions but to individuals. And this specifically includes individuals who happen to be pizza bakers or caterers or florists or musicians who wish to choose not to be involved in SSM ceremonies... for any reason they like.

Those are my terms.

I am not throwing the essential liberties of 98 percent overboard for the right of 2 percent of the population to do something they've gotten this far without, and hadn't even really begun agitating for until just a few years ago.

If the SSM advocates are willing to protect religious liberty and freedom of association when it comes to contracting, I'm in and will support SSM.

Not before then. Indeed, if the left continues to act like meddling fascist on a crusade, they can go suck a rock.; 4/30/15, 6:07 PM
CStanley said...: Why can't it be both? Plenty of people get married every day who either don't want children, are infertile, or are post-menopausal. There are more than 10 times as many married couples with infertile wives as there are all same-sex marriages.

It's not about the numbers of people involved, it relates to the reason that the state has an interest. By broadening the definition to include a group of people whose unions cannot produce natural children, we would be acknowledging the complete erosion of the original state interest in sanctioning these unions.

As an analogy, think of other instances where the state finds a rationale to offer some special status to a group- say a special legal and tax structure for certain corporations because they produce clean energy or some such interest. Initially that is the rationale, but over time perhaps there are other intangible benefits for these companies, like good PR which encourages consumers. There would be varying degrees to which the companies really fulfill the original purpose (and each one isn't out to the test because it would waste resources to do so) and perhaps over time it gets abused more and more so that many or most are not fulfilling it. The time comes when no one even recognizes the original purpose and the designation has come to mean something else, and at that time the oil companies start petitioning to be allowed access to this structure too.

So when the question is asked- "what societal interest is served at that point by denying the structure to oil companies?"-wouldn't it make sense for us to step back and say, whoa, wait, now that we realize that the original state interest is gone, why do we even support these at all?

This gets back to my point about inequity- you can just as well tinker with one side of the scale as the other in order to correct it. And in my hypothetical as well as in the actual situation before us, it actually makes more sense to do away with the preferential treatment since it's original purpose has eroded. It makes no sense for government to grant special status to people based on how successful they are in finding a life companion, just as it would make no sense to grant favored status to companies based on selling a product that people wanted which didn't provide a societal good like a cleaner carbon footprint.; 4/30/15, 6:08 PM
CStanley said...: If someone gave you an ironclad promise that no religious groups would lose tax exempt status, you would be for SSM? Of course not.

What do you mean, of course not? Why are you so confident in your understanding of other peoples' views?

That is not far from my own position: I am prepared to accept state-sanctioned SSM, or civil unions, which was a better idea from the start, in return for that particular ironclad promise that the religious liberties of others to not be involved be not just respected (because you can't trust libtards a lick) but protected.

I agree with this and have to say that I find the assumption of bad faith offensive. Although I would greatly prefer the opportunity to endorse civil unions instead of SSM, I could compromise to the point of fully accepting SSM as long as there really is ironclad protection for religious liberty.; 4/30/15, 6:16 PM
jr565 said...: I really don't ge the issue about why civil unions are worse? If you don't have a religious wedding it's a civil union.
Now, I know the usual crowd will argue "separate but equal" as they coopt the vocabulary of th civil rights movement for the own end. But in the case of gay marriage, so what if it's separate but equal?

We all accept some degree of separate but equal already in society and it's perfectly reasonable. Example. Bathrooms. We have a men's room and a woman's room. They are separate, but they are equal. Men a sent go I tot he women's room and women can't go into the men's room. And it's perfectly reasonable.

hers another one- sports teams. We have a woman's basketball team in college and a mans basketball team in college. And the men don't play on the women's team and the women don't play on the men's teams. They are SEAPARATE, BUT EQUAL. You do t have to make all players be involved in the same sport on the same teams. We distinguish between the men's and women's divisions.

Now, how does that compare to separate but equal in segregation? There the issue was people wanted to be able to go to a public place and were denied access. And we're told they needed to have their own place where they could drink water, or eat food. And it was supposedly equal. But it had to be separated.

Is marriage more like that, or more like sports teams? Why would it matter if gay marriage were separate? There is no issue of people trying to get acces to a marriage if they are not in it.
Marriages are contracts that involve two people. And are essentially segregated. So no one can gain access to a marriage that isn't part of it.
So, if you were gay married no hetero person could be denied access to your marriage because marriage is only two people and anyone who is not one of those two people is denied access automatically.
Do you see then how there is no actual harm if you say gay marriage is separate but equal?
All marriages are separate. They are not pubic accommodations and there are no customers who want access to your marriage but are somehow denied,
The only people who it would be an issue if they were denied would be the people trying to get married. But a civil union which was separate would allow that. And it would be equal. So then, what's the problem.; 4/30/15, 11:48 PM
jr565 said...: Let me phrase civil unions as a means to provide gays marriage rights using the exact argument made by Justice Roberts:
"Tom wants to play on the same team as Joe in baseball, and Sue wants to play on the same team as Joe in baseball. One can and one can't. And it's solely due to persons sex.
Well yes, but the the issue would r be that Sue couldn't play with Joe. The issue would be that
Sue couldn't play at all. Si de we have women's teams and men's teams she will never be able to play with Joe, but she will be able to play, and there's what's important.
Why make all people play on the same division! If a woman's baseball team allows Sue to play baseball.
Gay people do not want straight marriage for themselves, they want gay marriage for themselves. So they are asking essentially for a gay league where they can play. That's separate. If they join that league, no women will be able to join it. But then again no other man will be able to join it.
There would therefore be no issue of denial of service since the only people allowed service are the ones already married.

So if civil unions are SEPARATE, but provide access to marriage , the it doesn't matter that they are separate, so long as gays are allowed to play.; 5/1/15, 12:21 AM
John Clifford said...: If your premise [that any adult should be able to marry any other adult, without regard to sexual attraction/interaction, and it's none of the government's business] is true, Althouse...

...then why can't my son marry whichever of his parents that survives the longest in order to receive their retirement benefits? Why can't two elderly women marry each other, again to ensure the survivor gets the retirement?

I don't think that very many people in America are against the idea of two adults entering into a legal agreement that provides many of the same rights and privileges that are a part of marriage. I do think that a significant number of the population is against redefining marriage into 'any two, or more, adults, without regard to gender or genetic connection, entering into a legally-recognized relationship that may or may not include sexual relationships.' Because if the government has no business looking at the sexual aspects of marriage, then how can you argue against close relatives (siblings, parents/children) 'marrying' in order to get the legal benefits? Why stop at two? Why not three or four or more? Why can't one man marry dozens of women, all of whom get to share his medical benefits from his employer at little to no cost to them? Whether or not they sleep together? Incest, bigamy... all of these disappear, don't they?

I agree with Justices Kennedy and Roberts: this is all about redefining marriage rather than extending it... and will ultimately destroy marriage as we currently know it.; 5/1/15, 1:54 AM
CStanley said...: @jr565:
The equal protection question relates to dignity. An interesting take on it here:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/04/the-dangerous-doctrine-of-dignity/391796/

I think this is the problem with finding positive rights in the Constitution. The whole concept isn't compatible with liberty.

How can there be a "right to marry" when doing so requires the consent of another person? What if we look at the example, instead of popular Joe, of unpopular and unattractive Pete? What if no one wants to marry him? How does he exercise his "right to marry"?; 5/1/15, 7:18 AM
jr565 said...: The opportunity to marry is integral to human dignity,” he began. “Excluding gay and lesbian couples from marriage demeans the dignity of these couples.”

that same standard would be applied to all restricted marriages.
Unless you are arguing thst incestual couples, for example are not entitled to human dignity, then depriving them of marriage would deny them it.; 5/1/15, 9:34 AM
jr565 said...: The opportunity to marry is integral to human dignity,” he began. “Excluding gay and lesbian couples from marriage demeans the dignity of these couples.”

that same standard would be applied to all restricted marriages.
Unless you are arguing thst incestual couples, for example are not entitled to human dignity, then depriving them of marriage would deny them it.; 5/1/15, 9:34 AM
jr565 said...: Saying we need to allow gay marriage because otherwise it deprives them of fundamental dignity is a terrible reason for legalization.
Unless you want to apply that same standard to all restricted marriages.; 5/1/15, 9:35 AM
J. Farmer said...: Interesting points made in the last several comments, and I'm interested in continuing the discussion and telling you why you're all wrong, and I'm right ;-)

Unfortunately, real life often intrudes in your ability to argue with Internet commenters. I'm currently transiting between West Florida and Southeast Asia. Typing this short entry on my phone is already infuriating me so I'll have to wait until I'm settled before responding appropriately. Stay tuned, folks. Stay cool.; 5/1/15, 10:09 AM
jr565 said...: Costa key, I agree.
After all if human dignity is the issue then you'd have to somehow argue that somehow those in incestual marriages had no Humana dignity, or the state wasn't demeaning their relationship.
Of course they are. They'll jail you if they catch you with your sister a step want to marry you.; 5/1/15, 10:36 AM