I note that the bill only has a little over 100 sponsors. Which sounds like a lot, but isn't for soemthing like this.

It needs 285 votes to pass the House. Another 60 to get through the Senate, where a filibuster would likely stop it.

I still suspect that what's going to happen with this thing is that it will languish around the Congress for a year or two just so those sponsoring it can bluster about it, and it will otherwise go nowhere.

Writing your congressman to oppose it is still a good idea though. America needs a divisive culture war like this like we need a hole in the head right now. Republicans should stop being so hypocritical: if they claim to be for states' rights, they should leave this as a state issue.

Rosemary: Fantastic letter, and thanks for writing it.

First, I don't have a position on the federal marriage amendment at this time. I haven't read it. But a couple of your statements are a bit naive, like this one:

By supporting this amendment, you are taking away the rights of States and, by default, its people to decide for themselves on the issue of Gay marriage.

Rosemary, do you really believe that individual states will be able to decide on the issue of homosexual marriage? As soon as several states begin offering civil unions, how long do you think it will be before the federal courts become involved? And how much do you think the federal courts place emphasis on "states' rights"?

State-by-state and voter-by-voter is a nice ideal to have, but how can you relate that to issues like "separate but equal" and segregation in the south in the 1960s. Many states in the south chose "state by state" to retain institutional racism. Sure, you can say that the issue of homosexual union is not the same as 60s-era racism, but then you've moved out of the civil rights realm.

If you are really so passionate about protecting "inalienable rights," then you cannot hold to states' rights with regards to gay marriage. Either they (rights) are inalienable, or they are fodder for state regulation. They cannot be both.

If they can be, perhaps you can explain it.

If you are really so passionate about protecting "inalienable rights," then you cannot hold to states' rights with regards to gay marriage. Either they (rights) are inalienable, or they are fodder for state regulation. They cannot be both. If they can be, perhaps you can explain it.

Well, I do believe that they are inalienable. At the same time they are currently not legal.

The only way for gays to be able to marry is for states to be allowed to decide. Perhaps if there is a sweeping movement of legalization more people will come to realize that it is inalienable.

To me segregation in the South is on par with the sodomy laws.

The FMA is, in my opinion, a Federal O.K. to bigotry. How different would we be if the Congress of the 60's didn't pass Civil Rights laws instead reaffirmed segregation? That is what I feel is happening here.

We must start one step at a time and once we get people to rise up - gay rights will be realized, finally.

Rosemary:

To me segregation in the South is on par with the sodomy laws.

Which makes me the equivalent of a Jim Crow supporter.

Can we at least agree that homosexuality, at the level at which the law can reach, is a behavior? Can we also agree that such behavior is within the realm of proper discussion whether it is moral or not, in a way that the "behavior" of being black is not?

I haven't read the text of the FMA, but I am wary of the courts inserting themselves into this debate just as they have into many others. If the FMA makes homosexuality, or even gay marriage, illegal, then I may be counted on to oppose it. But if it merely forbids the courts from legislating on this issue, then I am for it.

I suppose I should take Rosemary's description of the bill for granted, in which case I would join her in opposing the FMA.

Not only that but the full failth and credit claus of the constitution means that any marrage in one state makes them "leagle" in all states. The States rights issue is one that has really never been settled unless you count the civil war and then states rights lost.

Another interesting states rights and church and state case Here

We cannot allow the Federal Govenment to usurp our freedom and our right to decide these matters for ourselves, state by state and voter by voter.

Don't you think judges are already taking away those freedoms? The voters of Massachusetts didn't get any say. The rest of us may get as little consideration once the Defense of Marriage Act is taken to the U.S. Supreme Court.

And btw with all due respect I think equating sodomy with segregation is deeply disrespectful to those who hold contrary opinions in this debate.

I oppose the civil-rights argument much more than I oppose the idea of same-sex marriage or some kind of domestic partnership arrangements. The civil rights argument is, I think, dangerously sentimental and a way for the current generation to pat themselves on the back and equate themselves with previous emancipators. Call it emancipation addiction. YMMV.

Dear Rosemary: Thank you!

And btw with all due respect I think equating sodomy with segregation is deeply disrespectful to those who hold contrary opinions in this debate.

I apologize to anyone that finds that offensive. It is not my intent to offend only to point out similarity.

Being black isn't the same as being gay. Until science proves us wrong, I agree. With the exception of he who shall not be named blacks cannot change their race. Homosexuals would argue,though, that they cannot change their innate responses to the same-sex. In this country, they shouldn't have to do so.

Both laws attack freedom of a minority because of a mob mentality of the opposing majority.

Jeff:

I apologize for making you feel like a Jim Crow supporter. Perhaps I was too quick with my analogy.

How would you feel if suddenly you woke up and it was illegal to marry? Illegal to bear children if your I.Q is under 130? Illegal to attend church?

Don't you think judges are already taking away those freedoms?

Yes, I do absolutely. I've ranted about it many times. And they will continue to do so. So will Congress until We The People do something about it.

Bitching and moaning gets us nowhere. That is why I wrote the letter. That is why I posted the letter - I'm hoping for a domino effect.

If that abomination of an Amendment passes I will make it my personal mission to make sure every YEA voter is unemployed.

Way to go, Rosemary!!! Your letter is a nice reminder that real Conservatives are an admirable breed and there are still a few of 'em left. It's nice to see more and more Conservative arguments against the FMA. Frankly I think the liberals have completely failed to articulate any message so it's good to see someone is stepping up to the pplate.

Let's also note that the FMA would also disallow any of the domestic partner or civil union rights such as those established in California and Vermont, which are NOT marriages, and this another example of it superseding state's rights.

If it makes y'all feel better, I'm perfectly happy to have a "civil union" rather than a "civil marriage" to recognize my family and provide rights and responsibilities to my committed, monogamous relationship. Heck, we'd be happy to pay our "marriage penalty" on our taxes! I still don't quite understand how this takes skin off anyone else's nose....

Dear Rosemary and Dean: Once again, I just have to say this is TERRIFIC!! Thank you!! I think this is the best thing I've seen so far on this subject. Thank you! You are wonderful, and I'm deeply, deeply sorry if I ever implied otherwise.

But I do not apologize to IB Bill who wrote:
"And btw with all due respect I think equating sodomy with segregation is deeply disrespectful to those who hold contrary opinions in this debate."

And I think equating homosexuals with criminals and locking them up or fining them is deeply disrespectful to those who hold contrary opinions in this debate.

Rosemary:

I apologize for making you feel like a Jim Crow supporter. Perhaps I was too quick with my analogy.

Apology accepted, and much appreciated.

In response to the rest, I will simply agree with you, although I would support the FMA with the first sentence removed (and the rest of the wording adjusted to compensate).

Rosemary,

A better thing for you to try for is a re-write; get it to specifically enjoin the federal courts from enforcing marriage laws in contravention to State laws. Unless you do that, you're spitting in the wind - nothing but a clear, constitutional prohibition against the federal courts taking action will prevent the courts from usurping the rights of the people to decide matters such as these. This, of course, is if your intent is really to have a State's rights angle on this; I doubt heartily all current complaints about usurpation of State's rights in this matter.

As it is, since I've read long and deeply into the writings of the pro-gay marriage proponents, I have decided to unequivocally support the amendment as written. "Thus far, and no further" is my watchword for the culture wars. Homosexuality is an inborn condition, but engaging in homosexual sex is a choice - and no human being, other than those completely unhinged mentally, lacks the ability to choose behaviour. To say that one must act upon one's urges is pure idiocy - we are human beings, not animals. We choose. Choose to engage in homosexual sex all ya want, but don't come calling for me (or the society at large) to consider this right and proper.

If one is to grant, even for a moment, that the pursuit of happiness requires that society codify our urges into secured rights, then there is simply no end to it. I've had about enough of the rationalisation of desires.

I think the full faith and credit argument is a serious concern, which ought to be addressed. By preempting marriage completely, however, the proposed FMA would go too far in the opposite direction. Here's a better implementation, which I've blogged about before:

Marriage under the laws of the United States shall consist of the union of a man and a woman, or such other unions as Congress and the states may designate from time to time. No provision of this Constitution shall be construed to require the United States or any state to recognize as a marriage any union other than a union of a man and a woman.

Jeff: If you removed the first sentence, I could go along with that, though as a state law not as a federal Constitutional amendment. That's actually what Andrew Sullivan and Jonathan Rausch have been talking about: both heterosexuals and homosexuals either married or not. Yes, it may surprise some of you to hear this from me, but I think things like marriage should be left to each state to define pretty much as it sees fit, whether this is done by courts, legislatures, or, yes, popular referenda. It's a completely different issue from sodomy laws, which in my opinion are an out-and-out violation of the most basic Constitutional rights. Not recognizing a homosexual couple as married is wrong, but it's not the same as putting them in jail. Justices Kennedy and O'Connor made that distinction quite clear in their majority and concurring opinions. The Supreme Court will in all probability refuse to hear cases involving homosexual marriage, as I think they should. Leave it to the states. And, again, THANK YOU, Rosemary!

Steven:

If you removed the first sentence, I could go along with that, though as a state law not as a federal Constitutional amendment.

My reason for wanting this (or Xrlq's version) as an amendment to the Constitution is to head off the courts and place the problem squarely in the laps of the state legislatures and Congress.

If we can do that without amending the Constitution, I'm all for that. Unfortunately, there seems to be a sizeable amount of legal conjecture regarding the "full faith and credit" clause which makes me nervous.

they cannot change their innate responses to the same-sex

Yeah, except that they aren't innate responses. Try as they might, researchers have found no genetic component to homosexuality. It is simply a behavior. Presumably one that could be modified.

Gee, S3, you must be much better educated than the rest us.

As far as we knew, there is much evidence that sexual preference is (or can be) genetically determined. The jury is still very much out on this. :)

Homosexuality is an inborn condition, but engaging in homosexual sex is a choice - and no human being, other than those completely unhinged mentally, lacks the ability to choose behaviour.

If it is an inborn condition like say heterosexuality. How would you feel if a constitutional amendment were defining marriage as only between same sex and all others are forbidden?

I would be really angry if I were forbidden by law to marry Dean and have children with him, just because my urges are heterosexual in nature. Sure I could choose to be a lesbian but I would never be happy as one.

If we allow this amendment to happen we leave ourselves open to further tyranny in the future.
We will be chipping away at the Republic and turning into something else entirely.

If we allow tyrants to start getting elected, religion itself could be abolished, in theory.

We reap what we sow.

Steven:

I appreciate your heartfelt thanks but it is unnecessary. I feel honor bound to put up or shut up!

Dear Rosemary:

Thank you for taking the time to let your representatives in Congress know how you feel about governmental measures that attempt to prevent free American citizens from forming legally-protected families. If any one of us is denied justice, all of us are denied justice. I uphold and celebrate your family as something central to your life. I am thankful for the people who feel the same way about my family.

To anyone with religious or moral objections to gay marriage: I know there are a lot of you, and I doubt I can do much to change your minds. But consider this: there are already churches who recognize our relationships. There are already relatives -- mine, for instance -- who support and affirm and celebrate same-sex partnerships. There are already municipalities and states who are trying to find ways to legally protect same-sex couples who form lasting familial bonds. And there are already business who, acknowledging a changing workforce and the need to retain talent, are extending certain benefits to same-sex couples that were once reserved only for one man and one woman.

You may not like these changes. You may not agree with them. And you are still free to attend churches, choose friends and families, and work for companies who believe as you believe.

But these changes are happening. They are the expression of decades of struggle. You will have to live in this America, whose complexion and composition is not wholly up to you.

Ask yourself how you will do that.

I'd like to respond to people who focus on homosexuality as a behavior and not as a state of being. If this is true -- if homosexuality is merely a desire that can be acted upon or not, if homosexuality is merely the lust for a frictive contact of a set of genitals which has no emotional, spiritual or societal significance -- then heterosexuality is also merely a state of being. Why should the state codify anything that merely caters to a specific set of desires -- specifically, the desire of a man for a woman?

Is it because the union of a man and a woman has a special significance that practically *requires* state sanction?

I don't pretend that same-sex unions aren't a new thing. They're a very new thing -- to people who do not know our rich history and who are not as acutely aware as we are of the presence of same-sex families throughout history. But to me or any of the millions of people who see same-sex families as something completely natural and desirable, we feel that your "line in the sand" is as arbitrary and silly as you see our desire for legal recognition of our relationships.

The only difference: there might be more of you. For now. This doesn't make a compelling argument to me.

Is Homosexuality a Choice?

In the words of Dr. Joseph Wortis, Department of Psychiatry, State University of New York: 'no complex high-level behavior of the human species can be reduced to genetic endowment, not language, not house building and not sexual behavior.' Preferential and exclusive homosexuality is not naturally found in any infrahuman mammalian species and it would be odd for such behavior in humans to be genetically determined." It is Dr. Tahir's opinion that homosexuality is completely a choice as it is not possible for it to be genetically determined.

Socarides, who has been successful in reportedly curing gays of their homosexuality, also agreed with Tahir. In an excerpt taken from his article, Homosexuality: Basic Concepts and Psychodynamics, Socarides states, "Homosexuality, the choice of a partner of the same sex for orgiastic satisfaction, is not innate. There is no connection between sexual instinct and the choice of a sexual object. Such an object is learned, acquired behavior, there is no inevitable genetically inborn propensity toward the choice of a partner of either the same or opposite sex." Socarides is very blunt in his assertion that homosexuality is specifically a choice. He completely disagrees with the genetic arguments for homosexuality.

Does that mean that discrimination is okay? Of course not.

Does that mean that I am for this amendment? I don't know, I haven't made up my mind yet. I am interjecting some information into the discussion that might not have been considered.

Of course, if your mind is already made up, I won't confuse you with anymore facts.

Mary, you do sort of have a point about freedom although I don't know if I would choose this battle as the one to fight.

I choose this battle because Congress is trying to pass an Amendment to the Constitution. That is huge. They are undermining our Republic.

Here is another that is somewhat more ambivalent about the issue but does bring up a salient point:

Behavioral Genetics

As more research attempts to reveal the precise relationship between genes and behavior, scientists will be presented with a new challenge: to present and discuss their results along with the meanings and implications of such results. The study of behavioral genetics treads on delicate ethical grounds. As has happened in the past, behavioral genetics research data interpreted and usurped by bigoted people easily might be used in the future for a new wave of eugenic thought, leading to extensive discrimination and injustice. To some, reducing behavior to the molecular level may be an offensive oversimplification of human nature-a true blow to personal, religious, and societal concepts of free will and fate. In the end, those who choose to take up the search for intrinsic causes of our behavior will certainly need to evaluate the effects their work will have on society.

Mary, I applaud your effort. I do agree with Dean in his first post, i.e. this amendment is likely to go nowhere.

S3:

From the article you linked to:

The American Psychological Association takes the exact opposite view on homosexuality. In an APA statement on homosexuality by Bryant Welch, JD, Ph.D., he states, "The research on homosexuality is very clear. Homosexuality is neither mental illness nor moral depravity... Nor is homosexuality a matter of individual choice." Welch then continues to state that efforts to cure homosexuality are little more than "social prejudice garbed in psychological accouterments". He continues that research now indicates that homosexual orientation begins very early in life, perhaps before birth. He further states that there should be no reason to discriminate against gays in the slightest way as they are every bit as productive and as much of an asset as any other member of society.

The question of whether homosexuality is an innate quality or a choice is at best still up in the air. It would seem that a greater part of the scientific community is beginning to believe that homosexuality is an innate quality, however, others cite increased pressure on the scientific community from special interest groups as well as pressure from homosexual doctors and researchers within the scientific community. More research will have to be made before many will believe that homosexuality is something that many are simply born with.

Those facts don't mesh with your facts but there they are in black and white.

There was another study (I don't have the link) that prompted my initial statement. It had to do with the studies involving twins. I know that that is pretty vague, but the gist was that they could not attache the behavior to a homosexual gene. This is evidently a recent (as in last week or two) statement. When I find it, I will be glad to post it. However, I would think that those so moved might want it to remain somewhat ambiguous simply because of previous attempts at eugenics (which I am not advocating).

Of course, this is veering away from your initial post which is based on a proposed amendment and whether or not it is good for the Constitution and our country. I think the amendment idea will go away after some vigorous debate. What I meant about this not being the battle to choose is because I think it will either go away or it will become something that is very devisive. Pinning homosexuality on genetics as a causative factor could backfire, as was pointed out in the other article I linked.

In any case, I'll see if I can't come up with the other link.

While some of the quoted material S3 brings up is interesting, it misses the fact that the vast majority of researchers, including most geneticists and most psychiatrists and psychologists, do not agree with it. In point of fact we have identified genes which correlate strongly with (male) homosexuality. The complicating factor is one of heritability; while we learned in High School biology courses about recessives and dominantes, what makes blue eyes vs. brown eyes and so on, most of us missed an important, even crucial, part: just because you have the gene (or, more precisely, the allele) for a trait does not mean that trait will express itself reliably.

For example, researchers have identified a gene which determines whether you will be left-handed or right-handed. However, it has only an influence. If you have the "left handed gene," you are far more likely to be left-handed than if you don't have it. Yet most people who have that gene still don't wind up left-handed.

The gene which seems to lead to male homosexuality has, at best, a 50% heritability: that is, if you have that genie, you are about 50% likely to be gay. That may also be optimistic, since there was some problem in the sampling; it may be even lower than that.

None of this changes the fact that the overwhelming amount of research on "treating" homosexuality shows that such "treatments" usually fail. Yes, there have been some apparent successes, but the question is, why force such treatment on people who don't want it and who are otherwise not hurting anybody?

All this is separate from the question of gay unions of course. I don't entirely agree with all my wife's reasoning, and I have in the past criticized some gay marriage advocates of being rigid, binary thinkers whose tendency to brand everyone who disagrees with them as bigots and enemies (or people worthy of spitting on).

I also don't think that amending the Constitution is a threat to the Republic. The Constitution clearly has an amendment process, and if you can get supermajorities of both houses of Congress and a supermajority of state legislatures to ratify it, you've done something quite in keeping with the spirit and letter of the Constitution.

All that said: this is, and should be, a states' rights issue--and, to contradict Rick DeMent, the Supreme Court has upheld states' rights many times, including any number of times in the last ten years. It remains a thorny issue, but it is not a dead issue.

The great thing about federalism is the notion that the several states can act as hothouses for new ideas. A state may try something and, if it works out well, other states may adopt it. If it works out poorly, other states may learn from their example. In any case, citizens have more direct influence on the democratic process, and if they are truly horrified by whatever laws a state passes, they can move to a state more to their liking.

I can deal with a country which includes both Mississippi and Massachussets, both Texas and California. Yes, we are one nation, but we are quite diverse, and there's room for different localities to do things differently.

I don't think gay marriage is an "inalienable right." I do think that it's an idea that's worth persuing, both for reasons of basic fairness AND for reasons of smart social policy. But you cannot, should not, ram it down people's throats before they're ready, otherwise you'll wind up with a disastrously excessive reaction like the Federal Marriage Amendment--which, if it does pass, will be more of a reaction against decades of usurpation of the democratic process by the courts than anything else.

All that said, the proposed amendment is foolish on several grounds, and it IS a violation of the federalist principles that so many "conservatives" claim they believe in. Federalism is a philosophy I share with conservatives, although not for all the same reasons they do. They should be reminded that such an amendment is excessive.

I could live with XRLQ's amendment, though. I really could.

By the way, to S3's other point, about the "dangers" of the Eugenics movement: I'm frankly tired of this old canard. And it is a canard.

Yes, genetics has been used as an excuse for deplorable, barbaric practices. But so has the belief that genes have nothing to do with behavior. Indeed, the whole notion that there is nothing inborn or inherent in our personalities and attitudes has been used to murder literally tens of millions of people, and to torture countless others. The dangers of believing that urges, attitudes, preferences, and behaviors sometimes have a genetic basis is no more dangerous or destructive than the belief that they do not. If you don't believe that, do some research some time into what went on, and still goes on, in Marxist "re-education camps," or what happened in Cambodia under Pol Pot. The notion that all behavior is chosen and therefore mutable by proper education or therapy or whatever has been used to work horrors upon humans that are every bit as attrocious as anything the Nazis ever did.

We also have to get over this notion that just because a genetic predisposition does not automatically express itself 100% of the time, this means there's no genetic link. In point of fact, all kinds of traits, including physical traits, have a genetic basis even if they do not express themselves the same way 100% of the time. Do some research on the gentic concept of "heritability" and you'll understand this better. We already have a number of documented cases of traits which we know have a genetic correlation, wherein we can say things like this:

40% of subjects with this genetic sequence will show this trait. 60% will not. Of those without that particular sequence, however, less than 1% will show the trait.

Genetics is not the "blue eye recessive, brown eye dominant" simplism that we learned in High School biology. It's infinitely more complex than that.

Here are a couple more links. The first on the biology of it all, the second on some of the thinking behind the politics of it.

CURRENT THEORIES OF THE GENESIS OF HOMOSEXUALITY

Marriage issue must be settled

Dean wrote:

None of this changes the fact that the overwhelming amount of research on "treating" homosexuality shows that such "treatments" usually fail. Yes, there have been some apparent successes, but the question is, why force such treatment on people who don't want it and who are otherwise not hurting anybody?

Ah..if anyone thought that because I suggested that behavior could be changed that I was advocating forced treatment, nothing could be further from the truth.

I say gay marriages should be legal. I mean, why should heterosexuals be the only ones to suffer?:D

Genetics is not the "blue eye recessive, brown eye dominant" simplism that we learned in High School biology. It's infinitely more complex than that.

I know a little bit about genetics Dean. I've been breeding horses, cattle and dogs for more than 30 years.

Rosemary Esmay,

Specious argument when you try to turn it about; of course I'd be opposed to an amendment making only same-sex marriages legal; but that is not what is under discussion - I am not the person injecting the novelty into society; I'm the one saying that marriage and family have been clearly defined for a very long time in our society and its all worked pretty well. In order for a novelty to be brought it, in must show that it will accrue to the over-all benefit of marriage.

In all of the reading and discussing I've done vis a vis gay marriage I've yet to come across a compelling argument that gay marriage will strengthen or improve marriage and family. It all comes down, in the PR campaign, to a play for sympathy - no substance, just tear-jerking. Behind all of that PR, however, there is the more brute reality - the desire of some, now using the red herring of gay marriage, as a means towards an end - eg, an end to marriage and family as legal and moral concepts. To me, gay marriage is just part and parcel with no parental notification regarding abortion, passing out birth control in schools without the knoweldge of parents, campaigns for federally funded daycare, welfare payments without regard to finding the father and compelling him to support his children and other such social engineering - its all just part of an agenda designed to bit by bit destroy the family.

I once was in favor of gay marriage - in fact, in the NV DOMA, I voted against; that was in 1998. The issue, while discussed for a while, was still a bit new back in 1998. Reading the surface literature on the matter and consulting my view of law, I figured that this was a "no harm, no foul" situation. By 2000, I had two more years of research into it and a great deal of discussions with its proponents. It was in listening to the people advocating gay marriage that I determined my opposition to it - and, indeed, my firm opposition to any more of this sort of thing.

What we've done is allowed our society to be hijacked by people who despise the foundations of our society - people who rationalise each base desire and willy-nilly turn desires into supposed rights. The slow change was there - "I have a right to do what I wish in the privacy of my home" has become "I have a right to have my personal sexual choices enshrined in law".

Sorry, but nothing doing. Please note that nowhere in my arguments against will you find religion as the basis, nor will you find a distate for homosexuals or homosexual acts. This is a crucial thing for me - in my view, the very life of our society is at stake in this coming fight over gay marriage. As I said, "thus far, and no further". The envelope has been pushed as far as it may without tearing. Time to tighten it back up a bit. There is, after all, a limit.

Homosexuality May Be Issue of Brain Chemistry is an article that references the study that I mentioned but is not the same article as previously mentioned. In it is the following paragraph:

Scientists have searched for ways to determine if sexual preference is a matter of choice or biology. Still, they have failed to develop convincing evidence one way or the other. Genes once touted as prompting homosexuality, for example, have fizzled out, and studies of hormonal influences during fetal development are inconclusive.

This could be construed to mean that the study concludes that there is not a genetic basis, however the following paragraph is more correct:

Although the new University of Chicago findings suggest male sexual response is regulated in large part by genes or neurochemistry, the results are preliminary and need to be replicated in other studies. And there surely are other factors, both biological and social, that influence the sexual response. "I don't think homosexuality can easily be conceptualized as just one thing - a phenomenon that is due to one particular developmental pathway," said Heino F. L. Meyer-Bahlburg, a Columbia University professor of clinical psychology who was not involved in the research. "Like most behavior, homosexuality has multiple pathways. We're at the crude beginning to understand all of this. This (the University of Chicago study) is a promising development and a very exciting one."

But what it points to is that there are no conclusions that can be made...yet.

I think most gay marriage advocates work from the position of "fairness" and saying that people opposed are "just being mean" because it's in the American character to want fairness.

Having said that, the fact is that gay people ARE having children, and ARE NOT going to stop. Furthermore, nonmanogamous sexual activity DOES present a danger to society as a whole, since such activity IS a major vector for quite a number of very serious infectious diseases.

Thus, there ARE in fact solid reasons outside of "a play for sympathy." While it is, of course, UTTERLY IMPOSSIBLE to provide people like Mark Noonan with proof that gay marriage will strengthen marriage, it IS possible to show, with flinty-eyed clarity, that encouraging monogamy and stable relationships for childrearing are in society's best long-term interests.

People are doing this. Do you want to encourage better behavior for those who do it, or don't you? I for one think children are better off raised in stable homes, and I for one think that anything we can do to encourage responsible sexual behavior is good for society as a whole--even if you are an absolute atheist.

I'd certainly like to see Mark Noonan address those arguments without any hand-waving about needing "proof" for something that is inherently unprovable until it's tried, or changing the subject to say that it's all about "mean people vs. nice people." There are flinty-eyed, secular reasons to advocate at least trying gay marriage, or civil unions, that have nothing to do with either sympathy and fairness and everything to do with sound public policy.

I for one think children are better off raised in stable homes, and I for one think that anything we can do to encourage responsible sexual behavior is good for society as a whole--even if you are an absolute atheist.

I guess then that it might depend on what your definition of stable homes and responsible sexual behavior is. I'm not certain what being an absolute atheist has to do with it.

"Responsible sexual behavior" would mean "sexual behavior which does not promote the spread of a large number of dangerous diseases." Monogamy of any sort is the most reliable way of preventing the spread of sexually transmitted disease, bar none.

"Stable homes" would mean "two adults committed to each other."

As for what atheism has to do with it: I'm merely responding to Mark's assertions that his arguments against gay marriage are non-religious in nature. So are mine.

Dean,

I don't want proof, I want some sort of argument in which its reasonably shown that it would do so....but, its also good to keep in mind that I will always and ever hold that homosexual sex is choice, entirely un-necessary for the well-being, mental and physical, of anyone - just as heterosexual sex is un-necessary for the mental and physical well-being of anyone. Its a choice, you see? Do, don't do - choose. Either way, you'll accrue benefits and penalties but on balance neither choice is better or worse than another in this particular instance. What all this means is that if a man feels himself unfullfilled for lack of children, he can marry a woman and have children and raise them up in a recognized marital family....he just has to eschew having homosexual sex (unless his wife is waaay more open-minded than most wives about such matters).

Homosexuality is not a sin - homosexuals are not bad people; homosexual sex is entirely a non-issue in and of itself because its none of my business when its between two consenting adults. The desire to have homosexual sex is, however, insufficient reason for me to agree to a wholesale modification in what we consider a marriage to be. Lots of people have lots of desires and, guess what?, you can't always get what you want.

But even so, if you could answer my objections vis a vis the social utility of it all, you'd still have the insurmountable, for me, problem of the fact that gay marriage is being used - cruelly used by people who claim to be on homosexual's side - as a hatchet to attack the very institution of marriage and family.

Remember those "little platoons" I've spoken of elsewhere - its in our smaller social organisations, our families, churches, clubs, etc that we find our best defense against the otherwise overwhelming State. Take all content out marriage - make it an amoral entity defined any way anyone desires, and it becomes nothing...no longer a bastion of defense for the individual and the small group but, instead, a mere convenience, something of no import which goverment may freely interfere with at will...at the will of the tyrannical majority. Do gay marriage and in the name of liberty you'll take us another step towards being enslaved by an all-powerful State.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions - I recognise fully your good intentions, Dean and Rosemary (and others); you want to help out those who do have life-long committments to each other who happen to be of the same sex...especially those who do have children, either from previous marriages or via adoptions. I merely point out that they (and you) have made a fundamental error and fixing the error by making it worse doesn't commend itself to me.

Rosemary:

"Steven:

I appreciate your heartfelt thanks but it is unnecessary. I feel honor bound to put up or shut up!"

Which just shows you are a lady of honor, and, once again, I feel honor bound to say that I feel most deeply ashamed if I ever gave Dean or anyone else the impression that I ever thought otherwise.

Dean is right. This debate must not turn on the question of whether homosexuality (or heterosexuality) is genetic or otherwise. As he points out, a purely genetic view could lead to Nazi-style eugenics (as, e.g., via abortion, which is one main reason why I'm against abortion), but a "blank slate" theory could just as easily lead to Communist-style "re-education". I think there probably is a genetic component in one's attraction to the male or to the female, for much the same reason as there is in one's being male or female. But that's neither here nor there as to the morality, much less legality, of it: being Jewish is also a choice.

I think that the sticking point here is the word marriage. This arguement falls more into contract law rather than the moral acceptance of homosexuality.

It is a contract that grants rights otherwise not available. There are many justifications that a State may use to deny you a marriage licence, such as minor status, incest and so on but since there is no law against being homosexual then there seems to be little legal rational to deny a marriage licence.

There are some other issues such as freedom of religion. If gay marriage is legal can a church be sued if they refuse to perform a gay marriage?

What about the military, does a gay spouse receive military benefits? (I know that this is a Federal issue rather than a state one but it will happen if enough states grant gay marriage)

I could care less about what to adults do to each other in private. I do, however, think that 'Marriage' should stay straight and civil unions or contracts as they should be labeled are fine.

This is the article I was looking for.

S3 et al:

Gay people generally don't care whether homosexuality is a choice or not. For many of us, if we had the choice to become straight we'd take a pass. There are many things in this life that can be chosen, and some are harmful and some are helpful and some are popular and some are unpopular. By focusing on the genetic or hormonal or behavioral roots of homosexuality, you skirt the central issue: that homosexual attraction is more than a physical act. Our bonds are not merely sexual, but emotional. Our affinities are not merely physical, but familial. And as gay and lesbian Americans continue to earn a more visible, equitable place in the life of our nation, we will continue to act upon what we feel are our natural inclincations, and we will continue to form long relationships (my relationships has lasted longer than the marriages of several of my straight siblings), and we will continue to seek a legal framework in which our families can be financially protected.

I've heard many scoff that our fight is all about money. Well, I've watched many a straight divorce; and while they're all about love and god and children at the altar, in judge's chambers they're all about money. I think there's a pernicious double-standard at work, because many still believe that, whatever their benefits to the participants or to society, same-sex relationships are immoral.

What I'm working for in this country is to teach people that morality is a choice -- a choice people make for themselves. It is not always a choice we can make for others.

Let the shrill accusations of moral relativism commence.

Rosemary:

I wasn't that offended :)

Glad to see S3 and Mark Noonan holding up our ... er, end, in this debate. Laws exist to restraint many of our desires. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with that.

While I could care less about sodomy laws, one way or the other (sodomy not being essential to my sexuality), but I understand Mr. Anderson's argument. I could be wrong on this, but I don't think many homosexuals were being thrown in jail in Texas anyway for sodomy. But if they were, they shouldn't have been there unless they had been breaking another law at the time (e.g., public sex.)

And whatever was going on, dealing with non-enforced sodomy laws certainly wasn't analogous to "decades of struggle" of blacks in this and other countries. But if people want to be heroes in their own minds, who am I to puncture their heroic fantasies?

Essentially homosexuals campaigned to remove homosexuality as a listed mental illness in the DSM, and then successfully made opposition to the gay agenda "homophobia," -- using the language of mental illness (though, in fairness, this isn't listed.) They've even got laws in some countries labelling opposition to the gay agenda as 'homophobia'. I think that's called irony.

My real concerns on same sex marriage is about the debasement of language (for starters, the concept of bride and groom), the farcical notion that this involves civil rights, and the potential for litigious mischief in the form of hate speech / hostile workplace laws. (On the last, I mean merely the extension of existing trends that are designed to stifle free speech.)

"And whatever was going on, dealing with non-enforced sodomy laws certainly wasn't analogous to "decades of struggle" of blacks in this and other countries. But if people want to be heroes in their own minds, who am I to puncture their heroic fantasies?"

The only way you can write that with a straight face is by being ignorant of -- or outright ignoring -- our history. We aren't talking about just one couple being put in jail for sodomy. I'm afraid my bile is rising too quickly for me to answer in detail, but suffice it to say: the hardships and mistreatment and legally-enforced discrimination against gay and lesbian Americans is centuries old and has taken decades of struggle to undo. There historical record is there, whether you choose to read it or not.

I am sick and tired of people who know nothing about gay people, gay culture or gay history presuming to tell us how things weren't all that bad.

John, sorry. I didn't mean to upset you.

The last thing anyone needs after a long holiday weekend is someone to cause their bile to rise first thing Monday morning. That really wasn't my intention.

Hope your day picks up.

Even if those laws had never been enforced, their mere presence on the books of law, the very idea as such that any government has a right to control private sexual relations between consenting adults of whatever sex or sexual orientation, is an insult to _my_ sexuality. In most of those states, in fact, those laws also prohibited "deviant" sex by heterosexual married couples, who, in fact, _were_ sometimes imprisoned.
As to this non-issue of choice, the argument against racism is _not_ that blacks can't help being black, it is that Black is Beautiful. Same with homosexuality. By the way, I think I'd better remind anyone reading my comments and/or my blog that all of my motives in this struggle are purely aesthetic and selfish.

John Kusch,

Oh, your moral relatavism isn't a problem - its your God-given right to be as relative as you like...you still need to convince of the social utility of your desired enactment and you need to show that it wont destroy anything useful. Must help/can't destroy good - the requirements of any reform.

John:

I'd like to respond to people who focus on homosexuality as a behavior and not as a state of being.

Regarding this issue, I focus on behavior because the law focuses on behavior, which it does because it has no other choice. This is not to say that the position you hold isn't valid, or interesting, or worthy of debate; it's just not feasible at this time from a legal point of view.

Why should the state codify anything that merely caters to a specific set of desires -- specifically, the desire of a man for a woman?

I would rather that the state get out of such business entirely, myself. The state already has mechanisms for dealing with those situations where "religiosity" must be determined; if those criteria were applied to marriage registries, I would be happy.

Note that a third sentence has been added to the proposed text of the FMA since the Massachusetts decision:

"Neither the federal government nor any state shall predicate benefits, privileges, rights, or immunities on the existence, recognition, or presumption of sexual conduct or relationships."

Translation: If any state wants to offer civil unions, they can't be offered onl to cohabitating, romantically-linked couples - they must be opened up to any arbitrary pair of people (and this is a conservative amendment!?). Andrew Sullivan has pointed out that should this amendment pass, the word "sexual" will enter the Constitution for the first time.

Alex,

Makes sense to me - after all, if we start making the fact of a sexual relationship the basis for awarding rights and privileges, then we're opening up a really bizarre can of worms.