I presently pass on the issue,except I support a
the FMA amendment in lieu of John Kerry's:

" I am covering all my political positions which may change today or tomorrow depending how GWB's barking dog responds at any particular moment."

Why be politically wishy-washy.

I, for one, will _not_ be wishy-washy, not that anyone who has ever read any of my comments here or anywhere else ever expected me to be.

As one of THE PEOPLE, I, Steven Malcolm Anderson, hereby declare that NO politician who supports or votes for that FUCKing Federal Anti-Marriage Amendment will EVER get my vote or my respect, nor will I forgive any intellectual or pundit or preacher who advocates it, or any member of any organization that advocates it. It is a dishonest piece of shit deliberately designed to screw up the lives of millions of loving, faithful, hard-working, tax-paying, loyal American men and women who are envied, hated, and scapegoated solely because of their "deviant" sexual orientation.

I have made this vow some time ago on my blog, but I'll state it here:
I, Steven Malcolm Anderson, vow that, if I ever meet the woman I want to marry, and she wants to marry me, I will not marry within the United States until every man is free to marry the man he loves, until every woman is free to love the woman she loves.
I will live here, in this land of free speech and the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, but I will not ever marry here until such sacred right is recognized for every man and every woman. This I vow upon the altar of every God and of every Goddess, upon my honor as a free and just and honorable man.

I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, under the Gods and the Goddesses, indivisible, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.

As for Marilyn Musgrave and all the other sponsors of that despicable Denial And Desecration Of Marriage Amendment, as to every politician who supports or votes for it, as for the intellectuals such as Robert Bork and Robert George and all the others who drafted it and every intellectual or pundit or preacher who advocates it, and every member of every organization that advocates it, I say:
DAMN THEM ALL TO HELL.

I have had it.

I don't see why some people are all uppity about Bush supporting a marriage Amendment. In his State of the Union he warned about this. He didn't want to support it but some homosexuals pushed the issue and ignored the rule of law. That is not acceptable by any stretch of the imagination. Don't like a law? Get it changed. No one wants to change it? Suck it up and deal with it. You dan't have any more "special" status than I or anyone else has.

I am glad that there are those within the homosexual community, albiet few, who are speaking out about this. They realize that even if a sitution exists that they don't like they too must respect the rule of law. While I don't agree with the homosexual lifestyle I will respect it because the law protects it. I'm fine with that.

I will be interested in seeing how Kerry responds to this. Even he must know that the large majority of Americans oppose gay maggiage but Democrats seem to coddle the homosexual community. Will he risk offending one over the other. However, I cannot say if most homosexuals approve of what has transpired in San Francisco. It seems like they do simply because so few are speaking out against it. I could be wrong. While a rational person would think, "No way most gays approve of that!", I've learned that when it comes to many on the left rational thought is frowned upon. Everything is relative even when it's not and to have a rational, black-and-white, thought is to pass judgement on your ilk.

So, where does the majority of the homosexual community stand on this? And I don't want to hear simple opinion. Does someone have published articles or something on the matter? A public statement made by a major gay organization condemning whats developed? I'd love to read it.

Gary,

There are two issues here; one is the policy issue (Gay marriage? Y/N) and the other is the procedural issue (Who decides the Y/N?). There is disagreement on BOTH points.

Many people have hashed over the policy question, so I won't bother. I believe your point goes to the procedural question, though. Some people believe that the Constitution is sufficient as-is, and want the courts to act as a countermajoritarian influence in support of their preferred policy. Others believe that the legislatures, or failing that, the people directly, ought to determine significant questions of social policy. I imagine that there is a third group of people with a different opinion, and a fourth, possibly a fifth, but definitely not a sixth. (I mean, really, can you imagine SIX different positions on this procedural question? Come on.)

Mr. Anderson,

You write:

"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, under the Gods and the Goddesses, indivisible, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL."

Interesting that you put a spotlight on that last part but alter "under God," to fit your own adgenda. Just doing that compells me to ignore everything else you write. As I said above, don't like something? Get it changed. Don't ignore it or, in your case, alter it to fit your moral relativism.

I'm surprised you'd do something like that. I've actually come to respect your opinion a bit. Thanks for fixing that.

Gee, Steven, why don't you tell us how you really feel?

As it is, you cast far too much aspersion upon the supporters of the FMA - which include myself (presumably not so-far damned to hell, but we'll have to wait and see on that one). You fail to note that this is not as cut and dried an issue as you'd like it to be - it is possible to be humane, civilized and emphathetic, and still not think gay marriage is a good idea.

As it is, it was the gay marriage proponents who have forced my opposition - on purely constitutional grounds. As a true-blue conservative, I am sick to death of legislating from the bench...and the usurpation of the rights of Californians by the Mayor of San Francisco is, quite simply, beyond the pale of civilized society.

I'd rather have just let matters be - the people have already spoken; every time gay marriage has come up for a vote it has been resoundingly defeated. 38 State (ie, more than needed to amend the Constitution) have passed varied versions of FMA, either as State law or as amendments to State constitutions. Opposition hardly is coming from a tiny, bigoted minority as your intemperate post would imply. Would there have been gay marriage in the US eventually? Hard to say - personally, my view is that we're swinging rapidly back to a very conservative view of social matters; but as anyone who comes to Dean's World can tell, straight line predictions from current circumstances are foolhardy. But I was forced off the fence - the attempted judicial imposition of gay marriage upon the United States (and this is entirely what the Massachusettes court case is deliberately attempting to do) has forced me to campaign vigorously for the lesser of two evils - rather than have my rights as a man usurped by a few unelected judges, I'll put these judges in their place by joining with the massive majority and amending the constitution to tell them where to stick it.

Did you think that such a backlash would never occur? That anything that any small group of people demanded would forever be enacted by judges with nary a peep from the people who are the absolute masters of this land?

Gay Marriage, what's the big deal? Are we not taught that as Americans, we are all equal, that we all have the same basic rights as every other American citizen? Then why should we (homosexuals) not have the same right to marriage that heterosexuals have? Does anyone really think that if gay marriages are legal, then the entire American society and everything that it is supposed to stand for is going to crumble and fall apart? America went throught this before, sure it had a different name and a different face, but we found that denying marriage to interracial couples was unconstitutional. So it was then decided that it would no longer be against the law for people of different races to marry, GWB should think about that when he looks at his wife Laura. Okay, so race and sexuality are two different things, I won't deny that, but this is a matter of equality, as Americans we should all have the same equal rights. So to the mayor of San Fran. and to all those who are also fighting for equal rights for all Americans, I cammend you.

I'm sick of this whole argument (funny from the guy who will argue with a signpost, right?), but I think Brandon makes a common error:

Are we not taught that as Americans, we are all equal, that we all have the same basic rights as every other American citizen? Then why should we (homosexuals) not have the same right to marriage that heterosexuals have?

Actually, the right to marry is qualified by a host of restrictions. You can't marry below a certain age. You can't marry more than one person at a time. You can't marry your close relatives and, at the moment, you can't marry someone of the same sex as you. In short, Brandon and anyone else who will bother to listen - MARRIAGE IS NOT A RIGHT LIKE THE RIGHT TO VOTE!

And I'm not up on the court cases, but can anyone tell me what SCOTUS case it was that decided it was unconstitutional to prohibit interracial marriage?

Bryan,

Heck, even the right to vote is not like a right to vote - we don't allow the young, the incarcerated and the mentally incompetant (except in Berkeley and Manhattan) to vote - nor, of course ('cept when Democrats need a winning margin) do we allow non citizens to vote, even if they've lived here 50 years.

There is no absolute right to anything, anywhere at any time.

Also, we allow differential privileges to our citizens, even though we have a right to be treated equally...of course, we are all immediately cognizant of the privileges which accrue to married people, but we also allow others to shop in special stores with lower prices than available in the open market, allow some to collect pensions even if they've never worked a day in their lives, provide special ability to certain people to market certain wares to the exclusion of all others....all of these privileges are the PX for military members, social security payments and patent protections.

The long and short of it all is that the essential position of gay marriage (that its a right natural to all human beings and may not be infringed) is nonsense - it may or may not be a right (hence our debate) and even if it is a right, it may be hedged about with all manner of restrictions, just like all other rights are hedged.

...though, as an aside, I have noted with great care that the ephithet "homophobe" has not come up in the overall debate - here or elsewhere; I'm sure that some die-hards have used it the past few days, but lets observe that the overuse of this particular insult has made it lose all of its sting.

Lesson to be learned here, kiddies.

"Mr. Anderson,

You write:

"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, under the Gods and the Goddesses, indivisible, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL."

Interesting that you put a spotlight on that last part but alter "under God," to fit your own adgenda. Just doing that compells me to ignore everything else you write. As I said above, don't like something? Get it changed. Don't ignore it or, in your case, alter it to fit your moral relativism.

I'm surprised you'd do something like that. I've actually come to respect your opinion a bit. Thanks for fixing that."

First Amendment to the United States Constitution:

"Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment OF RELIGION, or prohibiting THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF, or abridging THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceeably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

I was FREELY EXERCISING MY RELIGION (i.e., I am a Polytheist), as is my inalienable right, as well as my freedom of speech. If you have a problem with the First Amendment, asshole, get it changed. Don't ignore it, or, in your case alter it to fit _your_ Politically Correct moral relativism.

I am not a moral relativist. I am an absolutist, a dogmatist, intolerant.

Bryan asked:
"And I'm not up on the court cases, but can anyone tell me what SCOTUS case it was that decided it was unconstitutional to prohibit interracial marriage?"

Loving vs. Virginia, 1967

Mr. Anderson,

But you deflate your arguement by taking something that is known, The Pledge of Allegiance, using it to defend your position but at the same time altering it to fit your own adgenda, thus changing its meaning entirely.

It's is the Judeo-Christian philosphy that grants us the rights we have and the Pledge of Allegience acknoledges that those rights come not from man but from God thus never to be taken away from man by man or government. It tells us that the United States is a nation because of God and subject to Him.

It's you who wish to apply the "Politically Correct" to the Pledge by altering the "under God" stanza to something it doesn't say, thus changing its meaning entirely.

You are correct in that you do have the freedom of speech but you are also accountable for what you say, especially if it's incorrect. I simply pointed out that by applying your "freedom of speech" to the Pledge, thus altering it and its meaning, you invalidated it and your attempt to use it in defense of your arguement.

I wrote:
"I was FREELY EXERCISING MY RELIGION (i.e., I am a Polytheist), as is my inalienable right, as well as my freedom of speech. If you have a problem with the First Amendment, asshole, get it changed. Don't ignore it, or, in your case alter it to fit _your_ Politically Correct moral relativism."

I was way too soft here. When I wrote "get it changed", I meant sarcastically. You'll get it changed over my dead body and after you've pried my gun from my cold dead hands.

The Pledge of Allegiance, written in 1892 by Francis Bellamy, did not contain the words "under God" until those words were inserted by an act of Congress in 1954.

You're free to express your beliefs and I'm just as free to express mine. I'm hanged before I'll let you or anybody else dictate my religious beliefs, nor will I censor myself to fit your beliefs or anybody else's.

My only "agenda" is to get the government off my back and to worship freely as my ancestors did for thousands of years.

A gay marriage guest post from a man in uniform. You really know how to take care of the homefolks, Dean.

Gary Utter:
"I've been keeping my mouth shut on the gay marriage issue. Not because I care, one way or the other, but because i don't understand it in the first place."

Yeah, Gary, that's my dirty little secret, too. I don't understand the reasoning that says that marriage is the most important issue facing homos today. Andrew Sullivan's thinking on the subject used to be sober and careful, but lately when I read him, I just want to shake him and be like, "Sugarpie, they are not going to make you an Honorary Heterosexual no matter how complaisant you are. Get over it!" It's not that I don't care about equal protection or hospital visitation or visa status. It's not that I'm closeted or afraid to stand up for my friends or too nice to call straight people on the incompetent arguments they sometimes make. I certainly want future generations of homosexual men and women to have an easier time coming out than we did, but I don't think screech-fests over what love and marriage and normal mean are all that helpful. I participate in these discussions because other important issues--the evolving Western family structure, the relationship between self-definition and sexuality, the erosion of etiquette--which I think do matter immensely to everyone, crop up in them frequently. But if it weren't for the entertainment value of seeing certain unnamed people flip out at each other, I'd probably tune out way earlier than I usually do.

Steven Malcolm Anderson said: "I am a Polytheist".

Which gods? Where does your religion traditionally stand on homosexual marriage?

Mr. Anderson,

When the words "under God" were added or how they were added is irrelevant. If you reject the stanza and prefer the 1892 version, good for you. But you altered the stanza to make the Pledge say what you wanted it to say and then used the last part of it to defend your position. That is wrong. Use it unaltered or don't use it at all or else you'll be guilty of revising history. Is that really so hard to grasp? It's not an issue of free speech at all. You twisted something to make it say something it doesn't and expect it to be accepted in whole. You are mistaken, sir. You have no more right to alter any part of the Pledge for your personal adgenda under the guise of "free speech" than I do to alter the First Amendment under that same guise.

As one of THE PEOPLE, I, Steven Malcolm Anderson, hereby declare that NO politician who supports or votes for that FUCKing Federal Anti-Marriage Amendment will EVER get my vote or my respect, nor will I forgive any intellectual or pundit or preacher who advocates it, or any member of any organization that advocates it. It is a dishonest piece of shit deliberately designed to screw up the lives of millions of loving, faithful, hard-working, tax-paying, loyal American men and women who are envied, hated, and scapegoated solely because of their "deviant" sexual orientation.

Dude, you should seek professional help. Really. You've got a problem there, and it's YOUR problem.

Sean,

Andrew Sullivan used to be sober and careful on this issue? It must have been a while before I started reading him. I agree with him often, but calmness and logic are not his friends when he starts on this particular rant. I've been ducking his blog lately, because I just don't want to deal with the maelstrom of angst that resides there...and then, of course, I come across Steven here...sigh....

Frankly, after the whole Iraq thing, I thought that had pegged the dial on Godwin's Law. Bouncing around the blogosphere, it seems I was wrong.

If you look at his last sentence you would think he was talking about Jews. At least, that's what occured to me, you know, until you hit that "sexual orientation" part.

Jews and homosexuals: The only people in the entire world both envied, hated and scapegoated. Well, them and America in general, depending on your point of view.

Sam, I'm talking about writing from back when I could still work the ephebe thing if the light was dim enough--in other words, a while ago. In the mid-'90's, yes, AS was much less sententious about this issue.

I think I knew about two years before Bush was elected that he would support a Constitutional amendment defining marriage. There's never been any doubt in my mind that he would, because while I don't agree with many of his policies, his behavior is stunning in its self-consistency. He's predictable, and that's a good thing.

The funniest part of all of this is that Andrew Sullivan is shocked -- *shocked* -- that he would do this. I'd pay cash money to be a fly on the wall during one of his therapy sessions. Actually, I'd pay cash money to get him into therapy :).

By the way, I think Steven Malcolm Anderson rocks. It's not fair for us to expect everyone to display the same level-headedness when talking about this issue; and just as Bush is following his conscience, Steven is following his. There are times when temperance demands un-level-headedness, and for Steven, this is it.

thank you for the information re: loving v. virginia.

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~kdown/loving.html

Interestingly, the case makes stronger bush's arguments about the full faith and credit clause and his push for an amendment if people are opposed to homosexual marriage.

Republicans did not want this issue. Like the president hoped it would be settled by state legislatures. But then the courts intervened and demanded a new law that allowed same sex marriage....come again....a court can require a legislature to pass a law? Then the mayor of SF openly defied state law, daring the governor or any one else to come and stop him. In effect, the proponents of this issue declared war on the culture....and now, war is what they will get.

John Kusch:
"The funniest part of all of this is that Andrew Sullivan is shocked -- *shocked* -- that he would do this. I'd pay cash money to be a fly on the wall during one of his therapy sessions. Actually, I'd pay cash money to get him into therapy :)."

LOL. But, um, do you really think the man divides his time between DC and Provincetown, did GAP ads, and doesn't have a therapist, if only as an accessory?

mg,

You hit the nail on the head. Bush DID NOT want a Constitutional Amendment, no matter what anyone else says. He himself said as much in his State of the Union Address. No, pro-gay marriage advocates and courts ignored the rule of law, thumbed their noses at the clear majority of Americans who oppose their opinions and it is THEY who forced the issue. THEY forced the President's hand on this and THEY are to blame if the outcome is not as favorable as they hoped it would be.

I am baffled why many in the gay community are up in arms about this. Instead of bashing the President and sounding off more irrationaly than Alec Baldwin why not do something constructive and condemn those homosexuals WHO IGNORED THE LAW AND WILL OF THE PEOPLE!!!

Dean, like Gary, I too do not understand all the hullabulloo. Although, to my thinking, it is for different reasons.

For one, gay marriage - in the absence of a constitutional amendmnet - is an inevitability. Why ? The same reason that interracial marriage is allowed. The 5th amendment to the constituion guarantees equal protection. That is what struck down the ban on interracial marriage in Loving v. Virginia, and once challenged in the SCOTUS would remove any ban on gay marriages. Oh and the 14th amendment extends "equal protection" to the states, so once it is ruled, so it shall be.

Bush and co. basically agree with this fact by the simple evidence of their seeking a further amendment. They know damn well that a ban on gay marriage cannot pass Supreme Court muster and the only way to maintain the status quo is to ammend the constitution.

Which doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of happening. A 2/3 majority of the senate is NEVER going to approve a gay marriage ban ammendment. Hell, the posturing since Bush's announcement doesn't even give him broad support by REPUBLICANS.

This is all a lot of sound and fury over nothing. I know there are a lot of emotions and good intentions on both sides, but the simple fact is, the law and the constitition are in conflict, and eventually, the constitution will prevail and equal protection will be applied to all as it should be.

Oh, and for all those chomping at the bit to throw down the "yeah, but right now ALL men are equally protected in their right to marry a woman, and vice versa". Neat idea, but the same argument "all men are equally protected in their right to marry a woman of their race" failed miserably in 1967. So give it up already.

If a civil union affords gays every benefit that heteros are afforded by marriage, than what is the big deal? Is this an argument of semantics? Would a gay person be unequal to a hetero because his or her commitment to their mate is termed a civil union instead of a marriage?

I think that everyone who argues that Bush *had* to back the Constitutional amendment in the face of pressure from gay rights activists is absolutely right: A Constitutional amendment is the only way gay marriage will be prevented in this country. Without an explicit ban against same-sex marriages or even civil unions and domestic partnerships (and don't kid yourselves: that's exactly what the FMA does), the tide is clearly on the side of people who favor legal recognition of same-sex relationships. The courts are one venue in which gay marriage supporters have gotten their way. Changing the Constitution is the only way gay marriage opponents can get their way.

I don't think the push for the amendment is necessarily based on the fear that states will be *forced* to legalize gay marriage, though that is a valid concern for constitutional scholars. I think the real push for the amendment is in response to the very real possibility that gay marriage could be legalized in our lifetimes. The mere possibility of gay marriage is enough for some people to back a Constitutional amendment, state legislatures notwithstanding. The opposition to gay marriage is such that this was inevitable. Recent events might accelerate things, but I believe that such large societal phenomenon are based on powerful cultural currents that can't simply be stopped because someone's afraid of things going too far. The buildup has been long, whether or not certain people saw it. There's nothing recent or sudden about this. A tidal wave is invisible until just before it reaches shore.

This is presented as merely "let the government bless our innocent relationship". Who could disagree.

But no one is discussing the real problem: That it is just one more step in "gender politics": The idea that female equality means that law has to make men and women the same.

Alas, men and women are NOT the same. Women have kids. And biologically women are different.

Making laws based on utopian ideas--that gender is merely a societal construct-- is a nice idea, but it is not true...will lead to furthur distortion of society that will adversely affect women and children and families.

Not to mention, of course, that the law will expand to legally prosecute churches that oppose sexual expression outside of traditional marriage...

As I wrote in my most recent blog entry, but in longer form there:

I support civil unions - if created by the legislature. I would at least accept, possibly support, 'gay marriage' if created by the legislature.

I support courts saying 'This law is unconstitutional, either change the constitution or change the law to comply with the constitution'.

A court declaring that the legislature must create a specific law, specifically demanding gay marriages (or anything else), is something I cannot support. That crosses the line between 'determining constitutionality' and 'legislating from the bench'.

For me, the only reason to actively support a Constitutional Amendment per se is to uphold Seperation of Powers and the rule of law.

I would not support a Constitutional Amendment if this (Massachusetts, Mayor Newsom) had been done by way of the Legislature. But this is as good an issue as any to start cracking down on judges abrogating the Seperation of Powers and cities declaring themselves superior to the state or federal government in a hissy-fit over legislation they don't like. (Not only Newsom, but all those cities who say 'We REFUSE to obey the PATRIOT Act, so there!')

"A Constitutional amendment is the only way gay marriage will be prevented in this country...I think the real push for the amendment is in response to the very real possibility that gay marriage could be legalized in our lifetimes."

Um, you sound kinda like a Dean supporter talking about the inevitability of Dean being elected----before the first primary. IOW, all the stuff you are hearing that leads you to believe this is just an echo chamber populated by a small number of people who are all saying the same thing.

Some other blogger captured the true facts: "If 2.5% of the people are trying to dictate terms to 97.5% of the people, they are going to get squashed like a grape."

What would lead you to think that SSM will be legalized? Every vote---EVERY VOTE---taken---even in Hawaii and California----SSM has been overwhelmingly voted down. That's the "legalized" aspect. It is opposed my the vast majority of the people.

What is happening, and the sole reason that an amendment is being proposed, is because the losers on this issue realize that they can't get what they want via the legal avenue, and are trying to get it imposed by fiat. That's not "legal" and it's not democracy.

I forget who said it:

Actually, the right to marry is qualified by a host of restrictions. You can't marry below a certain age. You can't marry more than one person at a time. You can't marry your close relatives and, at the moment, you can't marry someone of the same sex as you.

Fair point, but it falls apart under scrutiny.

Age restrictions protect the immature and vulnerable; Polygamy restrictions protect...hmmm, not sure; not marrying your close relatives...hmmm, varies from state to state and in any case no Const. Amendment.

So what again is the benefit of not allowing SSM?

I am SO glad I don't know more people like Steven Malcolm Anderson. 1 of him is more than enough. Redefines intolerance and bigotry.

I think a couple of commenters have hit the real story of this SSM thing on the head. We're talking about an incredibly small minority of people here: 1-3 percent of the population are homosexual, depending on whose study you go with. And a small percentage of those people actually want to be "married."

Given the numbers, why is this such a big deal? Why is it such a "major societal change" as John Kusch suggests?

I have my theories, but perhaps others could comment.

Bryan,

What's the big deal? Very simply, if gay marriages are allowed, what next? It opens a whole bag of worms that threaten a stable society, a society supported by the healthly and, proven, stable male/female model. Statistics have proven time and time again that the most healthy family is the one with a mother and father.

If we accept gay marriages as equal to opposite sex unions shouldn't polygamy be accepted as well? Or, what about a brother and sister who want to marry or other incestious combinations thereof? It's a life style choice, they can argue. Or, what about the man who want to marry his pet? Incest and beastiality will become legal. I'm not joking here. This is a very real issue that WILL come up. Once you let gay marriages in the tent you MUST allow everything else in. It will not stop with same sex marriages and those who disagree are naive. People would marry trees if they could. And if memory serves that did actually happen in England.

Not to mention gender confusion in children raised by said gay couples. Men can no more tell a girl how to be a woman than a woman can tell a boy how to become a man. So, we'll have a generation of children not having a clear gender identity and thinking that they're fine.

People say there is no gay adgenda to target children? I say get a reality check. Want to make an unpopular idea acceptable without bothering with pesky laws or adults? Sell it to children.

Thanks, Kevin D.

Only took a couple hours after Dean's post before someone decided that what this is really about is people marrying their dogs.

And supporters of the amendment wonder why they keep getting called bigots?

By the way, getting to original point of the essay, I agree that if this amendment does pass, then clearly it is the will of the people...A constitutional amendment can't pass without a true majority.

I will say that if it does pass, it will be the saddest day in American history. If the will of the people is truly such that this amendment can pass, then the America I thought I loved, that I would be proud to go into battle and give my life to defend, is not the America that actually exists.

Fascinating reading on the loving v. virginia case:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=388&invol=1

From what I read, it's not at all clear that the homosexual case would win based on loving v. virginia, since the *definition* of marriage would be at issue. history and precedent are on the side of one man/one woman.

Indeed, "Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race."
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=316&invol=535#541

"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival." [388 U.S. 1, 12]

I do not know how the SCOTUS would rule on SSM. What if they ruled against it? Would the SSM people agree to live by the law then?

I wish to apologise to Kevin D.

Apparently there is a serious risk of gay people marrying their pets. I just found this:

"Did you know that in ALL 50 STATES is is legal for innocent pets to be adopted by gays and lesbians? In fact, same-sex couples are legally allowed to take pets which had been abandoned by Christian homes and adopt them! Studies by leading Creation Scientists have shown that pets living in homosexual households can come down with Gender Confusion Disorder, which according to the Christian Veterenarians Association can cause distemper, mange, rabies, and inappropriate mounting behavior.

It is just shocking at a time when there are so many Christians homes who want pets that homosexuals are allowed to adopt cats and dogs. Furthermore, according to authorities such as Pastor Jebadiah Grimrustle of Our Lord and Heaven Church, owner of five dogs, homosexuals often wish to adopt puppies and kittens, proving their pedophilia tendancies.

We are calling for immediate legislation to be introduced in the Congress to ban homosexuals from adopting pets. It is not just innocent pets who are at risk. In Rome, gay men owned dogs, and look what happened to that society! We cannot put our civilization at risk. Please think of the innocent dogs and cats who are barking and meowing out for a good, Christian upbringing and stop homosexual pet adoption now! "

what to say about this that hasn't already been said a million times before by about a million different people. one thing that strikes me that no one seems to be saying, however, is that many people have problems with gay marriage because of their religious belief, and to them, marriage is a religious institution. and, i have to say, that i basically agree with that. on the other hand, i believe that every person in our country should be provided the same rights as everyone else (their own age, at least), regardless of gender, sexual orientation, race, economic standing, what-have-you. so, what to do? the answer is simple: take marriage out of the governments hands. having marriage for straights, and civil unions for gays, is a separate but equal institution. but who said we *had* to have gay marriage? why can't there just be straight civil unions? after all, forget what romeo said, a lot is invested in a name. marriage has a certain connotation, so simply change the name, avoid the problem. i think if you asked the question: "are you in favor of gay civil unions?" the weighting would be significantly shifted towards the "accept" side, versus if you asked the question: "are you in favor of gay marriage." so, then, give everyone civil unions. if they want to get married, let a church do it.

also, to everyone who thinks that gay marriage/union is going to topple the very core of our society, you know it's been fifteen years since Denmark did it, and last time i checked, Denmark is still around. sometimes looking a little bit past our own noses helps restore some context and perspective to a deeply personal issue. and that goes for both sides.

As it is, it was the gay marriage proponents who have forced my opposition - on purely constitutional grounds. As a true-blue conservative, I am sick to death of legislating from the bench...and the usurpation of the rights of Californians by the Mayor of San Francisco is, quite simply, beyond the pale of civilized society.

Well, fine. But that leaves two questions:

1. Why this issue? It's easy for any conservative to find dozens of examples of legislating from the bench (otherwise you wouldn't be sick of it), so why is it this issue and only this issue that demands such a specific and narrowly-focused Constitutional Amendment? This is why gay people are feeling singled out and attacked.

2. Why prohibit same-sex marriage completely? If the worry was just about judicial activism, then the amendment would just say, "The ability to define eligibility for or recognition of marriage shall be reserved in all cases to the State legislatures." I guarantee this amendment would have a higher probability of passing than the one that has been proposed that forbids even legislatively-created marriages. It's also worth noting that this is the amendment that actually passed in Hawaii - the citizens of Hawaii did not vote on a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, the voted on one that gave the legislature full authority to do so (which is a real difference, you know).

It's nice to see people latch onto something sarcastic and completely dump out the rest of the message. Good to see there are people here with an eye for that sort of thing. I'm a bigot? So what? I could care less what names I'm called because those who cannot engage in a rational conversation can only resort to name calling and slander. God forbid I use sarcasm while others use it without abandon. I'd like to quote you something:

"In the old days, banners declared the parades were for "Gay and Lesbian Rights." That's rather straightforward. Today, reflective of the any-perversion-is-our-perversion mentality, the banners read "Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgendered Rights." I think the only reason the words "and Women Who Love Thier Cocker Spaniels Too Much" haven't appeared yet is that the organizers simply ran out of room."

Page 90 of the book "The Death of Right and Wrong" by Tammy Bruce: former president of the L.A. chapter of N.O.W. and open lesbian. But, sinces she's a lesbian, I'm sure she's not a bigot like me and has every right to use sarcasm to prove a point. Unlike me. Go her.

But, I'll give everyone the benefit of the doubt and say that my "I'm not joking" comment was on the wrong side of a sentence. Bigot by sentence structure, woes me.

Actually, some of you should go read that entire chapter of her book that I quoted above. It's very much relevant to the "Why does it matter SSM are made legal?" question.

Can't we leave the SANCTITY of marriage to the church where it belongs? and the union of two people to the government that represents all of us CIVILIANS?
Kudos to Steven the lesbian lover, John Kusch and Sherard.
I agree.

Kevin D. You contradict yourself. First you say that altering the 'Pledge' to include the words 'under God' is irrelevant and then you chastise Steve for doing it.

A union between two people is between two consenting adults. Children are not consenting adults and animals have no way [in this system] of consenting.
Unions between siblings is barred for specific health reasons.
Polygamy? In the Judeo-Christian heritage - using history and precedent - one can read the Bible and see how many wives the sons of Abraham had. or Moses, or David, or Jacob - who married sisters. Jeesh - bringing up tradition within its religion contexts conjures up a number of problematic scenarios.

Rights are not given by the government to the people. Hence, if they would have read the constitution as I believe they should have, a woman's right to vote would not have been enumerated nor for people of color. That right already exists. By the same token, the constitution says nothing about alcohol consumption, but they had to go and mess with it and we now know how that turned out.

I don't see anything activist about the judges in Mass. Judges want laws that are constituitional. You cannot have an ERA amendment and then a law denying it. The judges didn't bring the lawsuit. They only ruled on it. They are not legislating. They have to send it back to the legislators so that they, the legislators, can craft a new law that is not in conflict with constitutional law or the ERA that they had put on the books. There are some pretty ridiculous laws still on the books in many states and unless someone files a lawsuit seeking to overturn it on some grounds, there the law sits.
The mayor of San Francisco is another story. That is activism.

Using the argument that children require both a mother and father in order to secure a safe family environment, and that gay marriage undermines this premise, I daresay that the same argument can then be used to remove children from other 'unsafe and unstable' environments such as unwed mothers, widowed mothers, widowed fathers, divorced parents, and orphaned children who live with aunts, uncles, grandparents. They too are contributing to the underming of marriage as a tool for propagating children.

If it is about insurance money for domestic partners, then insurance companies might rejoice in the fact that there are natural limits to growing families in same-sex unions.

Live and let live.

SMA,

It's posts like yours that make my day. I don't always agree with you, but in this instance, we are locked onto the same frequency.

I'm glad Gary spoke out on this issue, and I think he put it well - it's a no-brainer folks. I can't believe this is even an issue. Consenting adults should be able to marry each other regardless of sexual organs assigned at birth or reassigned during an expensive operation. If Bush was a TV character on this issue, he'd be Archie Bunker, unfortunately, we need Dr. Huxtable or Hawkeye Pierce.

BTW, Kerry's not getting my vote simply because of this issue.

Alex, it's not just this issue, but this issue is the one the press is giving air time to.

I personally am not affected one way or the other. While I can understand some people may become single-issue voters out of this (and therefore vote for Nader, since the current likely Democratic candidate opposes gay marriage also) I feel it is more important that, if your going to pick a single issue, that it be one that reflects more than just your own desires and does some good for the entire country. Hence my issue is national security, and specifically the war on terror.
Oh, and Kusch? The two versions of the FMA I have read are both fairly flawed, but the most likely one would stil allow civil unions, while the harsher one also has the unfortunate side effect of cancelling unwed child support (no legal, financial, or contractual requirements recognized from a sexual relationship that does not consist of a marriage between one man and one woman)

Unions between siblings is barred for specific health reasons.
Polygamy? In the Judeo-Christian heritage - using history and precedent - one can read the Bible and see how many wives the sons of Abraham had. or Moses, or David, or Jacob - who married sisters. Jeesh - bringing up tradition within its religion contexts conjures up a number of problematic scenarios.

For the record, unions between siblings are barred because of health reasons among offspring. If such persons were to agree to some form of sterilization, would that make their marriages okay?

As for polygamy, why are those problematic scenarios? We're talking about US law and US recognition of marriages. I thought you wanted separation of church and state.

If the state doesn't recognize your marriage, it hasn't violated a right. It hasn't done anything. If people had a "right to marriage", and this referred to obtaining government recognition of the marriage, it would be illegal for the government to NOT be in the business of recognizing marriages. Does that make any sense?

When the government tells people they can't do what they want in private, that's violating the right to privacy. But when you march into a government building and ask them to write your name in the "married" column, they can write whatever they want. If they want to define you as a Martian, why can't they?
The way I see it, I got married by doing stuff which in my religion constitutes marriage. The government agrees that I'm married, which is nice, but I figure that's their business. I don't think their decision decides whether I'm married or not. If gay people have any sense, they will get married by themselves.

Now as to the matter of money, I can see that this might be considered illegal discrimination if homosexuals don't get money for couples. However, I suspect that if it's illegal for the government to hand out money to some people and not to others, most things the government does are illegal. Maybe someone can enlighten me on this point.

Steven,
I see you don't like the status quo on gay marriage very much. But why get so upset that the president revealed that (duh) he prefers the status quo? His sentiments aren't going to change anything much. And it's the STATUS QUO he's proposing. You should have been in this rage before the president said anything, before the topic hit the media, before the various court decisions, etc. Getting upset only NOW seems a bit strange.

Bravo, observer ["b: an expert analyst and commentator...].

Kudos to Steven the lesbian lover, John Kusch, Sherard, observer and shep.

I agree.

Alex,

Because politics is the art of the possible; its more possible for me to stop judicial legislating on this issue than any other currently out there. Keep in mind that the entirety of this issue is the fault of the gay-marriage proponents; it is their asinine way of going about this which has (a) brought the issue to the forefront and (b) created a growing backlash against the entire idea of gay marriage. Had they sat down and shut up for a bit, they'd find themselves in a much better position in future years to slowly chip away at their issue - they grabbed for the whole ball of wax, and they are about to find out that the greedy routinely get burned.

I didn't single out gay people - supposed friends of gay people singled out gay people; if the gay marriage proponents hadn't done what they did, then the eventual issue we'd be using to fight out the issue of judicial activism on would probably be either gun control or the church/State issue. You got what you wanted, tiger; how's it taste?

Bryan,

"For the record, unions between siblings are barred because of health reasons among offspring. If such persons were to agree to some form of sterilization, would that make their marriages okay?"

Your point is well taken and my emotional response to marrying my own brother is a sort of 'Yuck" But as point of health for non-exsistent offspring then would it be okay? Maybe. My gut emotional reaction would be against the point of law in this case and both are in conflict with each other here.
Not much of an answer but certainly one to ponder when the basis for allowing it is on specific health reasons to offspring. Removing the ability to create offspring makes the health reason a moot point and leads us back to a moral reason.

Another point - IF I believe that nature has its own way to some extent - I have absolutely no sexual attraction to my brother, my father nor my uncles; quite the opposite, actually. Although once upon a time - there was a cousin thrice removed. Legally okay, but in familial terms - it was morally suspect.

"As for polygamy, why are those problematic scenarios? We're talking about US law and US recognition of marriages. I thought you wanted separation of church and state."

Because, when people bring up Judeo-Christian heritage as a justification for one particular type of marriage - one cannot ignore the many instances of polygamy found in its history.
I do want a separation of church and state.
I do believe that staunch Mormons want it to and will use exactly this type of argument of biblical precedent as justification - but we are not a biblical nation - hence one person at a time for marriage. That some defy US law and marry, and marry, and marry, and then have their wives and children on welfare is also in contradiction with the very separation of church and state that they use to defy state laws. Now why a woman would agree to be in a house of many wives is beyond me. But history will teach us that this is not only Judeo-Christian, but practiced the world over and in these modern times.

-and it is problematic...
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

...because Congress does.

Either US law trumps religious practice or it does not.

It is however, an interesting question. Does US law GIVE us the right to marry or does it take it away? Is it a state law that gives us this right? Otherwise we have no right to marry?

I have some family in Europe and I always found it interesting that they had to get married twice. Once in their respective churches [if they wanted a religious ceremony] and officially at the government office. It seems that the government didn't recognize their religious ceremony - whereby we [US] accept that ministers, rabbis, priests - are acting as agents of the government in marriage. and don't forget the 'ministry in a box' via the internet. :)

All in all, laws do change as social norms change - perhaps not as quickly as some might need and definitely not as smoothly as any of us might want.

Mark,

Because politics is the art of the possible; its more possible for me to stop judicial legislating on this issue than any other currently out there.

Because gays are a small group that's easy to overwhelm with a majority?

Anyway, that still doesn't answer my second question - why ban same-sex marriage completely by Constitutional Amendment? It's easy to write one that simply gives sole control over marriage to the legislature (that's what they did in Hawaii), yet the proposed amendment prohibits even legislatures from enacting gay marriage.

If this is all about "judicial activism", then why are the abilities of state legislatures being curtailed?

I think we should be able to marry our pets. Then single people who have no desire to get married can demand the tax breaks that marrieds can get (finally, the IRS can't audit me just because I claimed my 3 cats as dependents).

The only downside I can think of is that lawyers would start representing pets who want a divorce - and some uppity cats are going to want half of our assets when they decide we are not keeping them in the manner they deserve.

In IL they just actually passed a law that allows you to pass your inheritance to your dog - so don't rule it out.

"future generations of homosexual men and women"
--cognitive dissonance alert!

But other than that, I think I would really like to hang out with you, Sean Kissell. It has nothing to do with your stance on the issues, and everything to do with the thinking you display in how you approach the issues.

Seems to me that you can leave your money to anyone or anything you want. People have left their monies to the Salvation Army, to Harvard U., to churches, etc.
Seeing that one can get a tax break for repairing a house [inanimate object], why not for the care of living creatures? :)
It can get costly. Cruetly to animals is a crime, no?

The Illinois law seems silly. Of course, there has to be some reason that is less frivolous than it sounds on the face of it. Maybe the 'written out of the will' obnoxious sons and daughters contested the legality of their eccentric parent's wishes.
I'm musing. I have no idea why such a law was needed.
Time for research.

Frankly - when I heard IL passed the law - I ad to chuckle at the thought that our elected officials actually spent TAXPAYER MONEY to spend time debating and passing such a thing (inheritance for dogs). We have enough to do - inheritances for animals is pretty low on the list.

Does the estate tax apply if you give your dog an inheritance? Where does a dog get a social security number?

This was part of the news release:

"Current state law only allows people to set up trusts to benefit their human loved ones. The new bill extends that protection to any pet."

If I want to set up a trust to ensure that my pet is well cared for then why can't I? It seems that state law didn't allow for that kind of thing. But it also makes me wonder if people have been allowed to set up trusts to benefit institutions. I don't know the law, really.

How this fits into gay marriage probably plays some role in a long and convoluted way, i.e., via specific state laws that may prevent financial benefits to partners because of a lack of government paper that would 'allow' the beneficiary that which his/her partner bequeathed.
As a married person - I do know that I am afforded some things that are denied to others solely on the basis of my marital status. That alone discriminates.
Discriminate is not to be construed as a dirty word in all instances.

Neither do I... know the law. And as much as it may be fair to our dog owning very rich friends - my point is that there is only limited time for our elected officials to make laws - and inheritances for dogs seems, well, a bit silly.

As for how it realtes to Gay Marriage - someone said that this will lead to us being able to marry your dog. I am just wondering if that is a bad thing (in my own sarcastic way).

A Constitutional amendment is the only way gay marriage will be prevented in this country.

You are deceiving yourself. Gay marriage will NOT be prevented. What this Amendment does is to provide a vent to relieve some of the pressure of the situation and spread it over several years of adjustment.

Regarding the Federal Marriage Amendment proposal:

I think a better Amendment would be to establish some sort of Legislative and Executive review similar to Judicial review. Judicial Review dates back to Marbury v. Madison in 1803, and is not a Constitution power written in the Constitution. In response to that decision,Thomas Jefferson stated:

[On the] "question whether the judges are invested with exclusive authority to decide on the constitutionality of a law" ... Certainly there is not a word in the Constitution which has given that power to them more than to the Executive or Legislative branches."

[On the "ultimate arbiter" of the Constitution:] "The ultimate arbiter is the people of the Union, assembled by their deputies in convention, at the call of Congress or of two-thirds of the States. Let them decide to which they mean to give an authority claimed by two of their organs. And it has been the peculiar wisdom and felicity of our Constitution, to have provided this peaceable appeal ...

"The Constitution . . . meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch."

"To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. ... their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves."

"... our Constitution a complete felo de se [act of suicide] [if] intending to establish three departments, coordinate and independent, that they might check and balance one another, it has given, according to this opinion, to one of them alone the right to prescribe rules for the government of the others, and to that one, too, which is unelected by and independent of the nation. For experience has already shown that the impeachment it has provided is not even a scare-crow . . . The Constitution on this hypothesis is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please."

"My construction of the Constitution is . . . that each department is truly independent of the others and has an equal right to decide for itself what is the meaning of the Constitution in the cases submitted to its action; and especially where it is to act ultimately and without appeal."

So according to Jefferson, each branch has a right to say what is, and what is not Constitutional. Since Judicial Review is not actually a power of the Courts according to the Constitution, I think an amendment more clearly defining how we determine the Constitutionality of laws would be preferable to the FMA.

Obviously, Judicial Review has some merit. This need was overlooked by the founders. But if Judicial Review is going to be the practice of the courts, then it should be explicitly defined in the Constitution. In addition, since all Branches are co-equal, this amendment should include the powers of Executive Review, and Legislative review, and a mechanism for resolving Constitutionality issues when the three Branches of government disagree.

I propose an advisory panel in the Administration to advise the President, and a Legislative panel in either the Senate or the House, or perhaps both. Also, if a supermajority of the Congress is instituted to override judicial "veto", then a supermajority of the Court must also be required to overturn lawfully passed legislation.

The power to Veto legislation was given to the President, not the courts in the Constitution. And a mechanism for overriding that veto is in place. The problem is that their is no mechanism for overriding the "veto" of the Courts. This should be resolved.

Then there would be no need for the FMA. The issue in most conservatives minds is the runaway judiciary, not gay marriage. Even though I personally oppose gay marriage, if Californians, and New Englanders want it, why should I care as a citizen of another state. What I strongly oppose is the right of Californians and New Englanders to decide the issue for me without consulting me.

Remember "taxation without representation." It is the judicial oligarchy that must be overthrown. Then we are free to make our cases to the public without fear of judicial fiat. I have no need to impose my views on others, regardless of how much I disagree with them. What I cannot stand for is others imposing their views on me.

Interestingly, any time a SSM opponent brings up their worry that legalizing SSM makes it harder to stop pedophilia, close relations marrying, etc, SSM advocates always respond that it is a ridiculous assertion.
...and yet, there is more historical precedent for 8 year-olds getting married and siblings getting married than for SSM.

Discuss.

Gary Utter writes:

"You are deceiving yourself. Gay marriage will NOT be prevented. What this Amendment does is to provide a vent to relieve some of the pressure of the situation and spread it over several years of adjustment."

I think you're creating a semantic straw man with what I wrote, Gary. I never said that gay marriage could be prevented *forever*, but that a Constitutional amendment would be the only way to do so on a national scale.

Fred writes:

"Um, you sound kinda like a Dean supporter talking about the inevitability of Dean being elected----before the first primary. IOW, all the stuff you are hearing that leads you to believe this is just an echo chamber populated by a small number of people who are all saying the same thing."

I'm referring to literally decades of history here, Fred. The popular discourse about gay marriage is only 3-5 years old, but even before that there were strategies in place to prevent gay marriage should the possibility ever arise. Again, I have to agree that events in Massachusetts and San Francisco are certainly accelerating those strategies, but to argue that this is somehow the fault of gay rights activists overplaying their hand is, in my opinion, short-sighted.

bryan writes:

"We're talking about an incredibly small minority of people here: 1-3 percent of the population are homosexual, depending on whose study you go with. And a small percentage of those people actually want to be 'married.'

"Given the numbers, why is this such a big deal? Why is it such a 'major societal change' as John Kusch suggests?"

I think there are several good answers to that question:

1) The number of gay people in the country is rather hard to quanify, and gay people are often hard to identify. This makes it easy to spin same-sex relationships as a "trend" or in worst-case scenarios, a "menace".

2) People who have objections to homosexuality tend to have extremely strong objections to homosexuality.

3) Because the vast majority of straight people don't share the gay perspective on our history and our movement, the gay marriage issue often seems like something we're demanding out of the blue and for no good reason. There's little context for this issue in the mind of the average American.

In my opinion, this would not be a huge societal change, but as Dean himself and many of his commenters have made plain, the majority of Americans *do* feel this would be a huge societal change, despite the relatively small impact such a change would have on our society.

My own sneaking suspicion is that this is a war of culture. How do we get to think about and feel about our country? Are we a country that either ignores or embraces gay and lesbian people, or are we a country that makes a clear statement that gay people, though they have a right to exist, aren't particularly desirable?

You can plumb the depths of the issue easily by asking any parent, "What if your child were gay?" Their answer to that question will very likely inform their opinion on gay marriage.

Kevin D.:
"It opens a whole bag of worms that threaten a stable society, a society supported by the healthly and, proven, stable male/female model. Statistics have proven time and time again that the most healthy family is the one with a mother and father."

No, no, no, no, no. *No!* What has been proven time and again is that when biological parents stay together, even if they have a conspicuously less-than-ideal love life, children turn out better than they do when reared by single parents (not surprising) or by parent + stepparent families (more interesting, but still not all that surprising). Boys exhibit less criminal behavior...When did I start speaking in PR-ese? Yuck! I mean...Boys commit fewer crimes, and both sexes have fewer diagnosable psychological problems.

But all that tells us is that the two-generation household model that we've come to think of as a family is better than the more splintered alternatives you tend to see in our society at present. It does not tell us whether the nuclear family is an improvement over the extended-family/hometown network for children's development. That to me is a very interesting issue. I live among Japanese people and know plenty of non-American foreigners here. Most of them think our family-of-four households are unstable and will lead, eventually, to the ruin of American society. No exaggeration. Now, I'm not saying I agree; it's hard not sympathize with people who want to rear their children as they see fit (without coercion from in-laws and school officials) and who move around for some years to find the job and environment that best fits them. Free societies allow people to make their own trade-offs, but there is a trade-off being made. The idea that mom, dad, bro, and sis were doing just fine as the scientifically-proven ideal self-contained unit until Judith Butler came along and tried to ruin the party--Nancy Reyes, I'm thinking of you here, too, and if I'm misinterpreting you, please let me know--is ridiculous. Discount Blogger had a good post about this within the last few days, too, actually.

nathan:
"'future generations of homosexual men and women'
--cognitive dissonance alert!"

Hush, you; I was trying for brevity. I considered using the word cohorts to signal that I recognized that while groups of people the same age would be coming out, it hasn't escaped my noticed that we don't reproduce ourselves. Then I figured it was best to avoid putting any more hints of conspiracy into this particular mix. As for getting together: why, thank you. Just bear in mind that your wife and my boyfriend may wander off to dish about what a chore it is to live with us white guys (assuming you're white).

Actually, there's a probably a fundamentally good metric for determining whether the nuclear family works better than the extended family one.

Look at societies that created nuclear families where adultery is societally unacceptable. Compare to societies that created extended-family/networks. Look at which produced more innovation, more science, more technology, more health, longevity, less poverty, higher standard of living, etc.

Answer: the nuclear family.

Of course there are still tradeoffs here. You might not like my metric of innovation, science, health, less poverty, etc. You might think that a society that did away with anyone having more than anyone else was a better society. But if you believe my metric measures human progress, then the society that backed the nuclear family wins hands down.

The fact is people trying to retain marriage are fighting against people whose definition of a "Better society" fits a "utopia" where equality means 0=0. Nothing short of that will make them be satisfied--not until all differences have been wiped out. But humans are different, so you'd have to wipe out the humans to pull it off. Many have tried--but their societies have failed, eventually. Will that be how this one ends, too?

No one breathes with suspense over whether clanship in rural India is going to produce a better standard of living than the subdivisions of Fairfax County, foo.

I think the American trade-offs are the right ones, too, for the most part--precisely because I live in the midst of very different ones. (Have I mentioned in that last five minutes that I love Japanese people but thank Amaterasu I'm not Japanese?) But individuals with sovereignty over their own lives and parents with no interference in their childrearing have more pressure on them to know what they're doing. Being conscious of which values you're optimizing and which you're giving up with each action is more important than it is when the elders are around to keep you in line all the time. It is exceedingly dangerous to say, well, the middle-class nuclear family in its current form is better than anything else we've assessed...ergo, it's the ideal, full stop. Which problems does it avoid? Which does it make us vulnerable to so we can be prepared to deal with them? Permit me to point out that, while a lot of parents justifiably complain about the high-handedness of doctors and school psychologists and special education administrators and such, it takes two to tango. I know plenty of physicians who wish parents would stop demanding antibiotics for every sniffle and principals who wish parents would teach courteous behavior at home rather than outsourcing it to the schools and sports coaches who wish parents would simmer down and stop projecting their failed ambitions onto their teenagers. And that's not even to mention the cultural commentators who routinely look at metrics like yours and say, "Well, none of that really matters, because we're still a spiritually empty society." Those people are not all left-leaning utopianists.

foo writes:

"The fact is people trying to retain marriage are fighting against people whose definition of a "Better society" fits a "utopia" where equality means 0=0. Nothing short of that will make them be satisfied--not until all differences have been wiped out. But humans are different, so you'd have to wipe out the humans to pull it off. Many have tried--but their societies have failed, eventually. Will that be how this one ends, too?"

The most interesting part of your statement, foo, is that, like the existence of God, it's impossible to prove that it isn't true. I could tell you that *I* don't subscribe to an egalitarian utopian view of the world, or that *I* don't want to see every difference or variety in humanity wiped out, but it seems that you have a pretty solid view of where same-sex marriage advocates are coming from, any evidence to the contrary notwithstanding. I'm not trying to impugn your character, but I can tell you from first-hand experience that people who support same-sex marriage are *more* likely to value differences between people than the general population, and what you're arguing above smacks of talking points more than hard reason.

The metrics you cite regarding innovation and scientific progress and prosperity tied to the nuclear family are equally impossible to prove or disprove, as there isn't necessarily any evidence that America's success as an economic power is tied to our familial model. The familial model you're talking about -- Mom, Dad, two kids -- isn't even a century old. It was economically unsupportable before then.

I'm told often that just because I *think* same-sex couples can marry doesn't make it true. Yet when confronted with ideas like these, it's relatively plain that in a public forum with little intellectual rigor (i.e., you don't necessarily have to *prove* what you're saying), that magical thinking can easily take root in *any* argument.

Sean,
I am, indeed, white.
If you ever find yourself near Spokane, drop me an email and I'll buy you a beverage of your choice.
John,
Nice points. You've been more calm lately, and have been making some good sense. Not that you've ever been a raving lunatic, but...what happened? Did you deliberately tone it down, or has the discussion merely shifted toward areas you are less emotional about? Or am I changing somewhat? I dunno, you decide.

Almost all of the ammendments passed, since 1791, have been to expand our freedoms. Ammendments gave us the freedom of speech, freedom to own guns, certain rights in the courtroom, and end to slavery, voting rights to all races and women, and 18 year-olds. There was only one ammendment to restrict the rights of the people, and that was prohibition. It was repealed about 10 years later. The Anti-Gay-Marriage Ammendment will be the second ammendment to restrict rights, and I am all against it.

its gay

its gay