tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post5502798095677446398..comments2024-03-28T20:43:56.857-05:00Comments on Althouse: "For justices in the center, I don't think they want to be on the wrong side of history" on same-sex marriage.Ann Althousehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01630636239933008807noreply@blogger.comBlogger302125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-40919271192102117362012-02-14T20:03:15.380-06:002012-02-14T20:03:15.380-06:00In the olden days before test tube conception, the...<i>In the olden days before test tube conception, there were other ways of handling proven male infertility. Hubby would go camping for a few days, and COusin Jim or Brother Bob would check on his wife to make sure everything was going well. Lo and behold, a miracle would occur when hubby got back, and she would get pregnant. It kept a genetic relationship going with the subsequent child, and would never be mentioned by anyone.</i><br /><br />Well, well; it seems the commentor WILL allow adultery under certain circumstances. But only the adultery he likes, not the adultery he doesn’t like. The adultery he doesn’t like is bad, bad, bad. Adultery for me but not for thee. <br /><br /><i>And, now if she dicovers that the guy she gets along with so well was also a product of sperm donation, they need to be DNA tested to see if they're about to commit incest...</i><br /><br />Horrors! The inconvenience! <br /><br /><i>And, there have been cases in which sperm donors have been nailed for child support. Didn't even get laid, and stuck supporting a child they'll never see and never had any intention of caring about until they're 18. I'm certain that if the donor was in a relationship with a significant other or married when it occurred that it put a bit of strain on it. And, there have been cases of lesbian couples breaking up- and the judge has agreed with the biological mother- no biological tie- no visitation rights.</i><br /><br />The commentor makes claims about dire things that have happened because of artificial insemination but offers no real-life examples. <br /><br />But what if they were true? Should we continue to disenfranchise a significant portion of the citizenry because of a few isolated incidents? <br /><br /><i>Tell me- do you actually approve of someone having 200 kids he cares absolutely nothing about?</i><br /><br />Yes, because those children will go to childless couples and receive all the love and benefit any other child would get. <br /><br /><i>Turns out no fault divorce for any reason ultimately does not make women happier- it makes them poorer, and causes more kids to be raised in less than ideal circumstances.</i><br /><br />Another pronouncement by the commentor without proof. But I guess to the commentor this rises to the level of an example, which he hasn’t yet chosen to explicitly reveal to us. But how did the subject of no fault divorce make its way into a debate about SSM? Maybe because the commentor has the habit of using irrelevant issues in order to attempt to bolster his opposition to SSM. <br /><br />There’s nothing about no fault divorce that would be true for SSM that would not also be true for straight married couples. If it’s bad it’s bad for all and can’t logically be used as a basis with which to oppose SSM.gracklehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18138997480493469444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-77028844068070034022012-02-14T17:44:23.339-06:002012-02-14T17:44:23.339-06:00(continued)
“Tell me- do you actually approve of ...(continued)<br /><br />“Tell me- do you actually approve of someone having 200 kids he cares absolutely nothing about? I think the discreet visit from a biological relative is a better way to do it. In Cheney's case, that would be a visit from Poe's brother or male cousin.”<br /><br />I certainly don’t approve of couples having more children then they can support. That applies to both same-sex and opposite-sex couples.<br /><br /><br />“Reality sometimes intrudes on perfection in relationships. My wife didn't believe it until I showed her the records. Back in the 1600-1800's both our families in the US had enourmous numbers of premature 1st births. It was frontier society. While marrying a virgin might be optimal, marrying someone you were cross-fertile with was far more important. The little belly bump and subsequent premature birth were simply overlooked.”<br /><br />Again, not sure how past heterosexual behavior should influence denying the rights of some Americans in this day and age.<br /><br /><br />“Society adopts to circumstances. major changes, however, lead to unknown changes down the road. Turns out no fault divorce for any reason ultimately does not make women happier- it makes them poorer, and causes more kids to be raised in less than ideal circumstances. But it was a BRILLIANT idea, and the genie cannot be placed back in the bottle.”<br /><br />Again, why should the failings of heterosexuals prevent people from marrying the person they are physically, emotionally, spiritually and psychologically in love with?<br /><br /><br />“The conscious decision that single motherhood was the same as widowhood was another BRILLIANT idea. See Daniel Moynihan's writing for how that turned out. If you're not intelligent enough to observe it on your own.”<br /><br />Again, you are justifying the denial of rights and privileges to a minority based on the failings of heterosexual relationships. That, in my opinion, is not reason enough.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-74963617856025806352012-02-14T17:43:42.194-06:002012-02-14T17:43:42.194-06:00Harold said...
“What they did is something that S...Harold said...<br /><br />“What they did is something that SOME, not many, opposite sex couples have done- those in which the male has proved infertile, or in one case I know of, had a vasectomy because his first GF insisted, who dumped him immediately after he had one- it was ireversible. (Turns out she did that a few times to other guys.) I don't know of ANY fertile male who would agree to it. In the case of a SSM, the couple HAS NO CHOICE. Ever.”<br /><br />You can parse the number, but what Cheney and Poe did is what opposite-sex couples have done to have children. It doesn’t mean there will be an increased risk of adultery.<br /><br /><br />“In the olden days before test tube conception, there were other ways of handling proven male infertility. Hubby would go camping for a few days, and Cousin Jim or Brother Bob would check on his wife to make sure everything was going well. Lo and behold, a miracle would occur when hubby got back, and she would get pregnant. It kept a genetic relationship going with the subsequent child, and would never be mentioned by anyone.”<br /><br />Looks like you are making the case that adultery is a bigger threat to opposite-sex marriage than same-sex marriage.<br /><br /><br />“Reproductive technology has far outstripped family law. Recently a young lady born of a sperm donor went hunting for her biological daddy hoping to establish a relationship, and was successful not only in identifying him, but in discovering that she had a few hundred half-siblings running around. Imagine the psychological impact of that. And, now if she dicovers that the guy she gets along with so well was also a product of sperm donation, they need to be DNA tested to see if they're about to commit incest...”<br /><br />What does this have to do with same-sex marriage?<br /><br /><br />“And, there have been cases in which sperm donors have been nailed for child support. Didn't even get laid, and stuck supporting a child they'll never see and never had any intention of caring about until they're 18. I'm certain that if the donor was in a relationship with a significant other or married when it occurred that it put a bit of strain on it. And, there have been cases of lesbian couples breaking up- and the judge has agreed with the biological mother- no biological tie- no visitation rights.”<br /><br />Can you cite these cases? I would be interested in reading the background of the situations involved.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-45196266246975586192012-02-14T17:39:53.145-06:002012-02-14T17:39:53.145-06:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-66515287899082055002012-02-14T17:39:14.653-06:002012-02-14T17:39:14.653-06:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-34824712513685079892012-02-14T15:20:05.117-06:002012-02-14T15:20:05.117-06:00"What Cheney and Poe did to have children is ..."What Cheney and Poe did to have children is no different than what many opposite-sex couples have done."<br /><br />What they did is something that SOME, not many, opposite sex couples have done- those in which the male has proved infertile, or in one case I know of, had a vasectomy because his first GF insisted, who dumped him immediately after he had one- it was ireversible. (Turns out she did that a few times to other guys.) I don't know of ANY fertile male who would agree to it. In the case of a SSM, the couple HAS NO CHOICE. Ever.<br /><br />In the olden days before test tube conception, there were other ways of handling proven male infertility. Hubby would go camping for a few days, and COusin Jim or Brother Bob would check on his wife to make sure everything was going well. Lo and behold, a miracle would occur when hubby got back, and she would get pregnant. It kept a genetic relationship going with the subsequent child, and would never be mentioned by anyone.<br /><br />Reproductive technology has far outstripped family law. Recently a young lady born of a sperm donor went hunting for her biological daddy hoping to establish a relationship, and was successful not only in identifying him, but in discovering that she had a few hundred half-siblings running around. Imagine the psychological impact of that. And, now if she dicovers that the guy she gets along with so well was also a product of sperm donation, they need to be DNA tested to see if they're about to commit incest...<br /><br />And, there have been cases in which sperm donors have been nailed for child support. Didn't even get laid, and stuck supporting a child they'll never see and never had any intention of caring about until they're 18. I'm certain that if the donor was in a relationship with a significant other or married when it occurred that it put a bit of strain on it. And, there have been cases of lesbian couples breaking up- and the judge has agreed with the biological mother- no biological tie- no visitation rights.<br /><br /><br />Tell me- do you actually approve of someone having 200 kids he cares absolutely nothing about? I think the discreet visit from a biological relative is a better way to do it. In Cheney's case, that would be a visit from Poe's brother or male cousin.<br /><br />Reality sometimes intrudes on perfection in relationships. My wife didn't believe it until I showed her the records. Back in the 1600-1800's both our families in the US had enourmous numbers of premature 1st births. It was frontier society. While marrying a virgin might be optimal, marrying someone you were cross-fertile with was far more important. The little belly bump and subsequent premature birth were simply overlooked.<br /><br />Society adopts to circumstances. major changes, however, lead to unknown changes down the road. Turns out no fault divorce for any reason ultimately does not make women happier- it makes them poorer, and causes more kids to be raised in less than ideal circumstances. But it was a BRILLIANT idea, and the genie cvannot be placed back in the bottle.<br /><br />The concious decision that single motherhood was the same as widowhood was another BRILLIANT idea. See Daniel Moynihan's writing for how thta turned out. If you're not intelligent enough to observe it on your own.Gospacehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04570281939230746682noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-29003938225228795932012-02-14T14:22:21.953-06:002012-02-14T14:22:21.953-06:00Harold said...
"Great. Mary Cheney has had t...Harold said...<br /><br />"Great. Mary Cheney has had two kids. Congrats to her. You are being deliberately obtuse. Heather Poe, her partner, has not had two kids.<br /><br /> An anonymous, pr perhaps non-anonymous, sperm donor has also had two kids, born to Mary Cheney. Heather Poe has not contributed to the process."<br /><br />What Cheney and Poe did to have children is no different than what many opposite-sex couples have done.<br /><br />Bottomline. Same-sex marriage isn't going to result in more adultery or polygamy. These folks just want the same rights and privileges that exist for the majority of people in this country.<br /><br />You are against it simply because you fear change.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-28345427176672351712012-02-14T13:01:02.253-06:002012-02-14T13:01:02.253-06:00I gave the example- the detractors have yet to sum...<i>I gave the example- the detractors have yet to summarize a counter-example- because they can't.</i><br /><br />We are still waiting for the commentor to post the example that the commentor claims he has given. I’ve waded through his comments and have found nothing that can be definitely labeled as an example. One of the linchpins of his argument is this mysterious example he keeps commenting about. <br /><br />He rails against us because we haven’t provided a “counter-example.” How can we do this without knowing what the example is? Come out, come out, example, wherever you are … Don’t play hide and seek …gracklehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18138997480493469444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-87549878112751339462012-02-14T12:28:53.515-06:002012-02-14T12:28:53.515-06:00They can commit adultery, and ONE of the partners ...<i>They can commit adultery, and ONE of the partners can have a child. But the idea of marriage is not to commit adultery- it is grounds for divorce. So, SSM changes the character of marriage right there. It forces acceptance of adultery. Because a SSM cannot have children w/o adultery. Perhaps mechanically assisted- the sperm was in a test tube at one point, but adultery nonetheless.</i><br /><br />What about childless straight couples who try to have children by artificial insemination from sperm donor banks? The commentor would have us believe that the women in these marriages are committing adultery and are morally deficient. Such a viewpoint seems sharia-like in it’s severity. The commentor hates sharia but seems to possess the same impulse of absolute control of the individual which is one of the foundations of the very thing he claims to hate.gracklehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18138997480493469444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-63541736255689043332012-02-14T07:19:21.091-06:002012-02-14T07:19:21.091-06:00Great. Mary Cheney has had two kids. Congrats to...Great. Mary Cheney has had two kids. Congrats to her. You are being deliberately obtuse. Heather Poe, her partner, has not had two kids.<br /><br />An anonymous, pr perhaps non-anonymous, sperm donor has also had two kids, born to Mary Cheney. Heather Poe has not contributed to the process.Gospacehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04570281939230746682noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-56881308705030090242012-02-14T04:56:13.020-06:002012-02-14T04:56:13.020-06:00Harold said...
"No, your statement is a conv...Harold said...<br /><br />"No, your statement is a convenient lie. I don't know if Mary Cheney had the child, or her partner did. Don't care, doesn't matter to the discussion. ONE of them had a child, through a sperm donor or temporary male lover (either way, the sperm came from outside the marriage- technical adultery.) The other was nothing more than an observer to the process. Which is exactly what I said before- they did not have a child.”<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Cheney#Personal_life<br /><br />From that link:<br /><br />On May 23, 2007, Mary Cheney gave birth to Samuel David Cheney in Washington, D.C. Mary Cheney delivered her second child, Sarah Lynne Cheney, November 19, 2009.<br /><br />“I issued a challenge earlier. Come up with a within the realm of legal possibility court decision that throws out all laws against SSM without being grounds for legalizing polygamy. You haven't taken me up on it. Neither has Ann, the law professor, nor anyone else. My assumption- it can't be done, which is why the challenge is being studiously ignored.”<br /><br />OK, we’re not talking about polygamy. We are talking one-on-one marriage. Why do you believe same-sex marriage will lead to polygamy? Again, we talking about lettering a person marry the one they love which is consistent with our society's beliefs, not starting harems which is not a part of the fabric of our society.<br /><br />“And on marriage being a basic human right, and we must therefore allow same SSM. Doesn't logically follow. Marriage is a right, but not a RIGHT. Anyone is allowed to marry within the rules. You are asking for a major change in the rules. One even more controversial than the DH. You are asking for the very definition of marriage to be changed because ITS NOT FAIR. There are rules, lots of rules, governing who can marry who. And they are not consistent from state to state, and certainly not from country to country. But a basic rule has always been- gotta be of the opposite sex.”<br /><br />As I pointed out up thread, the definition of marriage has changed through the years. Early marriages involved polygamy. Abraham had more than one wife. King Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines. And we have no idea about same-sex relations in the past because such relationships would have been deliberately kept out of scripture.<br /><br />“On children within a SSM- it is a well established statistical fact that people care more for children they are biologically related to. The evil stepmother is not a myth. Maybe not quite so evil. Recent Scandinavian studies show that lesbian couples divorce at twice the rate of male couples, which divorce at a slightly higher rate then opposite sex couples. But what happens to a lesbian couple when one partner has many kids and the other has only one? And the less productive member sees the more productive member favoring her own? Biology is destiny.<br /><br />Would you provide a link to those studies? I’d like to review them.<br /><br />“I am resigned to the fact that the courts, in their infinite wisdom, are going to force a redefinition of marriage upon us. I have a different idea of what people are going to say 50 years from now. Rather than, "What was all the fuss about?" the question will be, "What the fuck were they thinking?" Time will tell. Not all change is for the better.”<br /><br />I don’t think it will be a big deal. No more problem with same-sex marriage as with opposite-sex marriage based on my experience knowing a same-sex couple who are raising a child. Do you actually know any same-sex couples?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-40693948221693762272012-02-14T02:44:08.876-06:002012-02-14T02:44:08.876-06:00Me earlier: … all other marriages will stay valid ...Me earlier: … all other marriages will stay valid if the institution of marriage is granted to same-sex couples.<br /><br /><i>Because you say so?</i><br /><br />No, because common sense and past examples of inclusions are a guide. For instance, when slavery was abolished and the rights of full citizenship was granted to the former slaves, the citizenship of the white citizens remained as valid as it was before the inclusion. <br /><br />And now I’m tired and will go to bed. Looking forward to further debate tomorrow. <br /><br />BTW, to 36fsfiend – I found your last comment to be right on point and very well put.gracklehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18138997480493469444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-30302312021874323672012-02-14T02:24:33.735-06:002012-02-14T02:24:33.735-06:00My complaint was that you were avoiding the contex...<i>My complaint was that you were avoiding the context of my comment. And you are still doing that. Maybe you just don't understand. It addressed a legal point raised by the professor, to wit:</i> <br /><br />Althouse: “You are free to think anything you want about what the word "marriage" means, but the legal question is whether the government can maintain an institution that includes some associations between individuals and excludes other.”<br /><br />The commentor’s response:<br /><br /><i>If the answer is no, do all marriages become legally invalid, unless every adult is allowed to marry whomever and <b>however many other adults they want</b>? AKA "the slippery slope"? </i><br /><br />There now. The context should be perfectly clear to all. And my comment on the commentor’s response to Ann? Still the same:<br /><br />The same-sex marriage people want to be able to marry one person at a time just like the rest of society marries one person at a time.<br /><br />I don’t believe reiterating the context lessens the validity of my comment at all. <br /><br /><i>Marriage is about children. Children cannot be had by a same sex couple.</i><br /><br />Sure, one of the things marriage is about is children. I never disputed that. But marriage is about other things, too. Otherwise those who cannot have children for medical reasons or choose to not have children would not bother to get married. And I would never wish for the government to forbid marriage for childless couples. I find it astounding that the commentor bases his opposition to SSM because a SSM couple cannot conceive children. It seems so arbitrary, so short-sighted and dare I say it … so unfair. <br /><br />But fairness never concerns the commentor:<br /><br /><i>So far, every single argument I have seen here, or anywhere else, in favor of SSM boils down to screaming "IT AIN'T FAIR!" So what. Life ain't fair.</i><br /><br />– unless perhaps some form of unfairness is directed toward the commentor, that is. Then I suspect he would be whistling a different tune. <br /><br /><i>And there is no way a court decision can force SSM on the country without providing justification to allow polygamy. I gave the example - the detractors have yet to summarize a counter-example- because they can't.</i><br /><br />I hesitate to say this but I can’t figure out the “example” the commentor says he gave. Perhaps if the commentor would extract the example out of his rather plentiful output and provide it to us then we could know the example for ourselves.gracklehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18138997480493469444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-51091355261188858152012-02-14T02:22:10.337-06:002012-02-14T02:22:10.337-06:00And even though Ann is tired of hearing it, it is ...<i>And even though Ann is tired of hearing it, it is true- a gay man has exactly the same right to get married that a poor, short, fat ugly man does- to any woman who will have him.</i><br /><br />The commentor does not seem to understand that the right he describes – the right of a gay person to marry a straight person - is a hollow right. It’s like telling a person dying of thirst in a desert that they have the right to drink sand. Or maybe he does understand very well. And we know he doesn’t care a bit about fairness since he keeps reminding us at every opportunity that he does not. It’s an odd thing to brag about. <br /><br /><i> … but I don't want my granddaughters growing up in a polygamous society. Or my grandsons, but more so granddaughters. Why? Look at sharialand. Do you want the United States looking like sharialand?</i><br /><br />I too worry about creeping sharia in the West. But it’s not polygamy that makes sharia a daunting possibility. It’s all the other things, the absolute legal authority residing in the religion, the draconian punishments given for violations, the disregard for dignity and freedom, the totalitarian penchant for control over all aspects of the lives of individuals(including marriage), etc., not polygamy. But arguing against polygamy in a SSM debate is still a straw man argument. The commentor cannot know whether acceptance of SSM will inevitably result in acceptance of polygamy no matter how many times he declares it to be certain. <br /><br /><i>There is no right to SSM writ large in the Constitution of the United States.</i><br /><br />Neither is there a right to straight marriage in the Constitution. Should we abolish straight marriage just because the Constitution does not mention it? <br /><br /><i>Roe-v. Wade is the penultimate example. Even today's most enthusiastic abortion supporters in the legal community admit that Roe v. Wade has no constitutional basis.</i><br /><br />I believe there are some legal scholars who would disagree, as they do at the two URLs listed below:<br /><br />http://tinyurl.com/6w2ojx9<br /><br />http://tinyurl.com/7ktm77w<br /><br />Both scholars seem to fit the commentor’s description of “enthusiastic abortion supporters in the legal community.”gracklehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18138997480493469444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-17000359868532480632012-02-14T01:24:47.868-06:002012-02-14T01:24:47.868-06:00"Your comment that children cannot be had by ..."Your comment that children cannot be had by a same-sex couple is false. Look at Mary Cheney as an example."<br /><br />No, your statement is a convenient lie. I don't know if Mary Cheney had the child, or her partner did. Don't care, doesn't matter to the the discussion. ONE of them had a child, through a sperm donor or temporary male lover (either way, the sperm came from outside the marriage- technical adultery.) The other was nothing more than an observer to the process. Which is exactly what I said before- they did not have a child. <br /><br />I issued a challenge earlier. Come up with a within the realm of legal possibility court decision that throws out all laws against SSM without being grounds for legalizing polygamy. You haven't taken me up on it. Neither has Ann, the law professor, nor anyone else. My assumption- it can't be done, which is why the challenge is being studiously ignored.<br /><br />And on marriage being a basic human right, and we must therefore allow same SSM. Doesn't logically follow. Marriage is a right, but not a RIGHT. Anyone is allowed to marry within the rules. You are asking for a major change in the rules. One even more controversial than the DH. You are asking for the very definition of marriage to be changed because ITS NOT FAIR. There are rules, lots of rules, governing who can marry who. And they are not consistent from state to state, and certainly not from country to country. But a basic rule has always been- gotta be of the opposite sex.<br /><br />On children within a SSM- it is a well established statistical fact that people care more for children they are biologically related to. The evil stepmother is not a myth. Maybe not quite so evil. Recent Scandinavian studies show that lesbian couples divorce at twice the rate of male couples, which divorce at a slightly higher rate then opposite sex couples. But what happens to a lesbian couple when one partner has many kids and the other has only one? And the less productive member sees the more productive member favoring her own? Biology is destiny.<br /><br />I am resigned to the fact that the courts, in their infinite wisdom, are going to force a redefinition of marriage upon us. I have a different idea of what people are going to say 50 years from now. Rather than, "What was all the fuss about?" the question will be, "What the fuck were they thinking?" Time will tell. Not all change is for the better.Gospacehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04570281939230746682noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-47749525603668984772012-02-13T23:52:49.772-06:002012-02-13T23:52:49.772-06:00Harold,
Thank you for the detailed response.
Whe...Harold,<br /><br />Thank you for the detailed response.<br /><br />Where do I see fear? I believe it’s the whole basis for the resistance to accepting same-sex marriage. Homosexuality always has and always will exist. It has been observed in over 1,500 other species on this earth. You know, it was once believed, based on scripture, that the Earth was the center of the universe and that the Sun, planets and stars all revolved around the Earth. We now know that is not true. Similarly, the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association Council of Representatives both consider same-sex sexual and romantic attractions, feelings and behaviors normal and positive variations of human sexuality. As far as how same-sex marriage would be beneficial to society, it would allow two people who are in love to celebrate and express that love just as opposite-sex couples do and that is a benefit to the couple and society. I think people who oppose same-sex marriage are too hung up on the sexual aspect of the relationship and are not considering the emotional and societal benefits of marriage. Again, I think that is driven by fear which leads to hatred and oppression.<br /><br />As far as your comment that that every argument you have seen in favor of same-sex marriage boils down to screaming "IT AIN'T FAIR!", well is not fair to prevent two people from participating in one of the major events in life. Again, if marriage is considered a right in a society, then it should not be left up to a majority as to who or who cannot exercise that right. It doesn’t matter if you like it or not, it’s a right.<br /><br />As far as your point that treating same-sex couples differently doesn’t violate the Constitution, the 14th Amendment of the Constitution stipulates all shall be treated equally under the law. The argument supporting “separate but equal” is not valid. As far as the definition of marriage pre-dating our Constitution, that is true. And it was also once believed that if a woman could not prove she was a virgin on her wedding day she would be put to death and if a virgin was raped she had to marry her rapist. We are advancing and so are our definitions of marriage. Your point about a gay man having the right to marry a woman leaves out the most important reason for modern marriage – love. As far as “sharialand”, I would say that those who oppose same-sex marriage are the ones more in line with Sharia law. Take a look at the restrictions of the theocracies in the Middle East if you have any doubt.<br /><br />Regarding the point about what does the whole question of same-sex marriage revolve around and what is marriage about, you miss the major factor in all marriages – love. Your comment that children cannot be had by a same-sex couple is false. Look at Mary Cheney as an example. Additionally, from my experience in knowing a same-sex couple who is raising a child, they can do an exceptional job. I would not support breaking that relationship up. Your comment about same-sex marriage forces acceptance of adultery makes no sense. And actually, if you think about it, adultery and divorce are the real threats to opposite-sex marriage. I always wonder why there isn’t a bigger push against adultery, which is specifically prohibited by one of the Ten Commandments.<br /><br />Lastly, proponents of same-sex marriage shouldn’t have to convince enough people to vote 50% +1 in a referendum because marriage is a right and a majority should not be dictating who someone should or should not be able to marry. There is nothing in the Constitution that stipulates you have to be comfortable with someone else’s behavior or actions which is the motivation behind the opponents of same-sex marriage. They are not comfortable with same-sex marriage, i.e., they fear same-sex marriage, and so they want to prevent it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-88280834623601631902012-02-13T23:45:52.091-06:002012-02-13T23:45:52.091-06:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-87277823093743050762012-02-13T21:42:00.824-06:002012-02-13T21:42:00.824-06:00@grackle
The commentor needs to realize that he c...@grackle<br /><br /><i>The commentor needs to realize that he cannot be selective as to who may address his comments, no matter who he may have addressed in a particular comment. If he wants to have a private communication with Ann Althouse he needs to write a letter or send her an email.</i><br /><br />My complaint was that you were avoiding the context of my comment. And you are still doing that. Maybe you just don't understand. It addressed a legal point raised by the professor, to wit:<br /><br /><i>You are free to think anything you want about what the word "marriage" means, but the <b>legal question </b> is whether the government can maintain an institution that includes <b>some associations</b> between individuals and <b>excludes other</b>. "</i> (emphasis mine)<br /><br />Explain how polygamy is not included under the heading of an excluded association between individuals. <br /><br /><i>The commentor is confused. The issue under debate is same-sex marriage – not polygamy.</i><br /><br />Based on what Althouse wrote, you can't discuss one in that legal context w/o discussing the other.<br /><br /><i>And no, all other marriages will stay valid if the institution of marriage is granted to same-sex couples.</i><br /><br />Because you say so? Thanks a lot. That makes it all clear.<br /><br />Have a goodnight.Carolinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11577584676839171856noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-56574186517654594562012-02-13T20:52:11.210-06:002012-02-13T20:52:11.210-06:00Now, polygamy is a whole other matter. And there ...Now, polygamy is a whole other matter. And there is no way a court decision can force SSM on the country without providing justification to allow polygamy. I gave the example- the detractors have yet to summarize a counter-example- because they can't. I'm almost done raising my daughter, but I don't want my granddaughters growing up in a polygamous society. Or my grandsons, but moreso granddaughters. Why? Look at sharialand. Do you want the United States looking like sharialand? That's the inevitable consequence of polygamy. All polygamous societies eventually end up with women as property with no rights. The current example of sharialand is the latest historical example. If the Mormons had continued to practice polygamy, and Utah has never entered the Union, sharialand is what Utah would be like today. If you take a good look at any of the "fundamentalist" Mormon communities in AZ and UT, they resemble sharialand in many ways as regards women.<br /><br />As for my snark, it is obvious what I meant. There is no right to SSM writ large in the Constitution of the United States. To see it requires reading invisible ink between the lines. If the SC decides, it will invariably be 5-4.<br />In almost every 5-4 split, if both sides are looked at carefully, one side is making its decision on what the constitution actually says, or is silent on, and the other side is basing its decision on what it says the constitution says, without it actually being there. Roe-v. Wade is the penultimate example. Even today's most enthusiastic abortion supporters in the legal community admit that Roe v. Wade has no constitutional basis. It was decided on penumbras, shadows, and invisible ink between the lines.<br /><br />BTW, I do believe that the right of privacy is embedded in the Constitution- the ninth amendment- "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Putting abortion in the right to privacy requires a crowbar. Putting homosexual conduct in there doesn't.<br /><br />I don't care what two people (or 3 or 4 or more) do behind closed doors. Don't do it on the front lawn and scare dogs and little children.<br /><br />I point out the ninth amendment a lot to people. There were a lot of unwritten rights when the constitution was adopted. For example, you could build a house on property you owned. You could drink raw milk if you so chose. (Of course, if you drank milk, you didn't have a choice- but that's actually beside the point.) You could get high in your own home, or totally stinking drunk. But you couldn't be completely stinking drunk in public- public intoxication was frowned on from the beginning. (Not on the front lawn...)Gospacehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04570281939230746682noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-36505141920744355222012-02-13T20:51:27.135-06:002012-02-13T20:51:27.135-06:00What is my fear of gay marriage?
Where do you see...What is my fear of gay marriage?<br /><br />Where do you see fear? I'm simply opposed, simply because SSM makes absolutely no sense at all in the grand scheme of things. In another very long post on another blog, a different commenter pointed out that when something in a society has been practiced, without question, for a very long time, then anyone who wants to change it should prove it would be beneficial to society to make that change. How would SSM be beneficial?<br /><br />So far, every single argument I have seen here, or anywhere else, in favor of SSM boils down to screaming "IT AIN'T FAIR!" So what. Life ain't fair. That isn't a great argument.<br /><br />The legal point that we're treating same sex couples differently and that that somehow violates the constitution requires stretching the constitution to mean anything at all, which means it would mean nothing. No one is treated differently because only opposite sex marriage is allowed. It is and has been the definition of marriage pre-dating our constitution. To see a right to SSM enshrined in it requires reading that invisible ink between the lines emanating from the penumbras. And even though Ann is tired of hearing it, it is true- a gay man has exactly the same right to get married that a poor, short, fat ugly man does- to any woman who will have him. There is a right to get married, but there is no RIGHT to get married- the government can't (yet) force someone to marry. In sharialand, this isn't necessarily true.<br /><br />The whole question of SSM revolves around the question: What is marriage about? And here's where SSM proponents start being disingenuous. Well, one of the places. Marriage is about children. Children cannot be had by a same sex couple. They can be adopted, because some time ago the courts discovered another novel new right in that invisible ink. They can commit adultery, and ONE of the partners can have a child. But the idea of marriage is not to commit adultery- it is grounds for divorce. So, SSM changes the character of marriage right there. It forces acceptance of adultery. Because a SSM cannot have children w/o adultery. Perhaps mechanically assisted- the sperm was in a test tube at one point, but adultery nonetheless.<br /><br />But- marriage is not about children! Every, every SSM proponent says so. Even though it isn't true.<br /><br />Repeat, I don't fear SSM, it simply makes no sense. If proponents can convince enough people to vote 50% +1 in a referendum for it, then its time has come. I'm certain that in the long run, it will turn out to be a bad decision, but it will at least be an accepted one.Gospacehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04570281939230746682noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-37741359568207772412012-02-13T19:37:04.597-06:002012-02-13T19:37:04.597-06:00Me earlier: Furthermore, worrying about what some ...Me earlier: Furthermore, worrying about what some court will do or not do 25 years afterward strikes me as the intellectual version of a child worrying about the bogeyman in the closet.<br /><br /><i>If you re-read the comment and pay attention, you'll see that's a snark. The SC isn't going to say we're doing this because we can. Even though that's why they'll be doing it.</i><br /><br />But everyone knows the SCOTUS “can.” The SCOTUS doesn’t have to worry about that since it’s a given; The SCOTUS “can” make decisions, something they do all the time. And they certainly explain “why” they make decisions. Is the commentor trying to say the court will make a decision on polygamy in the future against their own legal beliefs, perhaps due to the pressure of increased public acceptance of polygamy? <br /><br /><i>We're invalidating all laws against SSM because we're enlightened and all you dumbshits against it aren't. Don't even bother bring a lawsuit to allow polygamy here because we're going to rule against it- for now. Wait 25 years or so, then we'll find an excuse...</i><br /><br />I was aware that the quote was snide, it was obvious the commentor was satirically speaking for the court but even a snark has meaning, has a point. Perhaps the commentor could explain to us what was meant.gracklehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18138997480493469444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-81926900684241414842012-02-13T19:07:31.254-06:002012-02-13T19:07:31.254-06:00Harold said...
"We're invalidating all l...Harold said...<br /><br />"We're invalidating all laws against SSM because we're enlightened and all you dumbshits against it aren't. Don't even bother bring a lawsuit to allow polygamy here because we're going to rule against it- for now. Wait 25 years or so, then we'll find an excuse..."<br /><br />Harold,<br /><br />What's your fear of gay marriage?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-24728640599404163742012-02-13T19:03:34.482-06:002012-02-13T19:03:34.482-06:00Every legal argument in favor of SSM can be used t...<i>Every legal argument in favor of SSM can be used to allow polygamy.</i><br /><br />I’ll admit that I’m not familiar with the issue of polygamy. But forbidding SSM because it might lead to acceptance of polygamy doesn’t quite make it for me. And I don’t think the commentor can claim with certainty that one will necessarily lead to the other. Should we penalize one group because another group might benefit from the acceptance of the first group? <br /><br /><i>Lawmaking bodies have already written the rules in the United States- that disallow both.</i><br /><br />Not entirely; some pesky lawmaking bodies have passed laws allowing SSM. <br /><br />http://tinyurl.com/6m8dk9egracklehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18138997480493469444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-89864569773074554362012-02-13T18:46:13.565-06:002012-02-13T18:46:13.565-06:00"Furthermore, worrying about what some court ..."Furthermore, worrying about what some court will do or not do 25 years afterward strikes me as the intellectual version of a child worrying about the bogeyman in the closet."<br /><br />If you re-read the comment and pay attention, you'll see that's a snark. The SC isn't going to say we're doing this becasue we can. Even though that's why they'll be doing it.Gospacehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04570281939230746682noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-43004647746859030822012-02-13T18:43:03.731-06:002012-02-13T18:43:03.731-06:00"I don’t see how allowing same sex couples to..."I don’t see how allowing same sex couples to marry will inevitably lead to polygamy. One involves one partner, the other involves multiple partners. The two situations are so clearly different and distinct from one another that any lawmaking body could easily craft a law that allows one and not the other. "<br /><br />ANy lawmaking body- key words. Lawmaking bodies have already written the rules in the United States- that disallow both.<br /><br />Now, we're talking about forcing the issue with a court decision. Which is how it's going to come about. Now, give me a court ruling that imposes SSM without allowing polygamy. You can't do that. And you didn't. Every legal argument in favor of SSM can be used to allow polygamy.<br /><br />I will mention here also that there is a much stronger case for polygamy- it predates the United States, Christianity, even Judaism. And exists to this day. Not so with SSM.Gospacehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04570281939230746682noreply@blogger.com