|
 |
 |
 Saturday, April 10, 2004
CONSTITUTIONAL RESTRAINT: Matt Taylor replies to Mark Barton
On the MA civil union proposal, Mark Barton writes: "a near-majority of [anti-gay] legislators ... have voted for it--as a second choice. ... So the remaining issues are, did any significant number of the moderates have a genuinely neutral intent...?" Matt T: In Mark's opinion, civil union is intended as a slap at gays, and he may be right, but this is a hunch, not a demonstrable fact. There exist good faith arguments for civil union that don't rely on anti-gay bias, therefore animus is not the only reasonable explanation for the proposal. Mark B: "...the court found, I think correctly, that civil marriage didn't reflect any of the things that the state claimed were distinctive and important about traditional marriage..." Matt T: Maybe the state made a poor argument in favor of the civil union proposal, but cases shouldn't be decided on the skill of each sides' lawyers. There are legitimate reasons to prefer civil union over SSM, whether or not the state made reference to those reasons. Mark B: "...some people in the South got some really severe cognitive dissonance following Loving v. Virginia. Why should I even care? ... why should I be magnanimous? ... why should the [SJC] presume to be magnanimous on my behalf?" Matt T: It's understandable that we would resent the majority straight culture which for so long has marginalized and oppressed gays. Yet dwelling on that resentment may be a barrier to greater acceptance. No straight person alive today invented anti-gay bias; they inherited it from prior generations, and for them to change their attitude requires effort on their part for which they see little reward. Anything gays can do to make straights' attitude change easier is ultimately in our own interest.
DOES HISTORY MATTER?: R.K. Becker replies to Mark Miller and Arturo Fernandez
Mark asks what I mean by "devastating." In a broad sense, by "devastating" I mean cultural collapse, which can take place in a number of different ways. But I perceive a belief among many SSM proponents (though certainly not all) that the very idea of "cultural collapse" is merely a chimera; a meaningless scare tactic cooked up by anyone who is resistant to change. Human culture is resilient and malleable by any new thing that comes along. And even if there is such a thing as cultural collapse, it's not the worst thing in the world, certainly not like nuclear war or anything like that. I'll be glad to give examples of what cultural collapse entails, but rather than do that now, I'll ask Mark what he thinks it entails. I know that he doesn't believe SSM will lead to it, but I'll save that argument for later. I'm just asking--does he believe there is such a thing as cultural collapse? And if so, what is it? Mark asks me to give specifics as to how SSM might have such a devastating effect on culture. And I will examine some of the possibilities in a longer post shortly. But is he saying that if I do give him examples of some serious possible negative effects of SSM, he will then consider the idea of waiting to see what happens in countries that have already adopted it before advocating it be adopted everywhere? Or will his response be "Nothing but speculation. Prove it!" Well, nothing cause-and-effect related can be proved without a test, can it? The inherent problem with Mark's approach to the whole issue of change and burden-of-proof is that it assumes we know so much more than we do. Mark also argues: "One of the issues in this debate is *whether* same-sex marriage does indeed go against the universal definition of marriage. The reality is that it does not change the rules for opposite-sex partners in any way. It does allow for other relationships that were previously not legitimized by law to be included." The problem, as I see it, is that it does more than just that. It doesn't just extend marriage, it androgynizes it. This does indeed change the rules, though not as much for those currently married as for those growing up in the future. If Gabriel Rosenberg is right (and I believe he is) that allowing sibling marriage would weaken or damage sibling relationships, by the same token couldn't SSM weaken or damage other very important cultural relationships, especially for the young? And I'm not talking just about business contacts as Gabriel was--that's where I believe he was wrong. More on this later. Arturo Fernandez's argument is essentially that SSM should be adopted without a test period because 1) we know it's fair and right, and 2) because we are the first enlightened generation in human history, all previous ones being just stupid and bigoted. This generation-centric view of human history ignores not only the intelligence of past generations but also the great variation among cultures of the past in their attitudes toward homosexuality, with many quite tolerant or approving of it, yet none going so far as to androgynize the concept of marriage, at least not for any long-term period. Given the diversity of human cultures, this absence is puzzling indeed and suggests something more than such a simplistic explanation.
SSM AND PARENTING: Ben Bateman replies to Lucia Liljegren
Lucia Liljegren has commented on a thread that started with Gabriel Rosenberg's syllogism on SSM: Parents ought to be married. Gays are parents. Therefore gays ought to be married. I objected to the way he used the word "parents." My objection was confusing to him, so I attempted to clarify it. In his responses to me and Mary Catelli, he has started using the clearer term "adoptive parents," which I appreciate. Lucia has proposed a revised version of the syllogism: 1 Parents who take on the legal responsibility to care and raise children ought to be married. 2 Some gays have taken on the legal responsibility to care for and raise children. 3 Therefore, some gays ought to be married. In this much clearer revised form, I have two substantive objections to it: First, it restricts gay marriage to those couples who have adopted the same child. That form of SSM would certainly be far less objectionable than what is being proposed, but I doubt that SSM supporters would agree with it. Mr. Rosenberg doesn't. Second, the first premise is still ambiguous. It could mean either: a) if two people jointly adopt a child and the law allows them to marry, then as a moral matter they should marry, or b) the law should be changed to permit marriage among all those who jointly adopt the same child. Option (a) is unobjectionable, but (b) produces some weird results. If marriage should be open to everyone who jointly adopts a child, then a single mother should be able to marry anyone who will help with the child's care and support: her sister, or her mother--or her brother! And if her sister, mother and brother are all willing to commit to raising the child, then the whole family should be able to marry as a group. Encouraging people to commit to childraising isn't a bad idea. And perhaps there should be some legal recognition of a "joint committed childraiser" status. But that's not marriage. Marriage is properly about procreation--the making of babies. A woman can't marry her sister or her mother because they can't produce a child together. She can't marry her brother because they shouldn't produce a child together. We limit marriage to two people because that's the minimum number our species needs to make a child. Marriage brings exclusivity: You can only marry one person at a time, and you're supposed to have sex only with that person. That way, the father can be confident that his wife's children are genetically his, and the mother can become pregnant knowing that she and her children will have his financial and emotional support during her pregnancy and while the children grow up. But if we shift the point of marriage from procreation to childraising, then none of those features of marriage make any sense: If the point of marriage is childraising, then we should prefer that single mothers marry their parents and siblings, as their genetic bond with the child may impel them to provide better care. If the point of marriage is childraising, then we should encourage marriages of the largest groups possible. The more people who join in the marriage, the better collective job they'll do in caring and providing for the child. If the point of marriage is childraising, then there is no reason for sexual fidelity. The child won't really care who is having sex with whom. And there is no reason to require one marriage at a time. Bill Gates could afford to adopt hundreds of children. If he chose to do that, why wouldn't he be entitled to marry the natural or adoptive parents of all those children? Encouraging adults to commit the raising of children seems like a noble goal, and perhaps we should lobby our legislatures to better reward those who do it. But why call it marriage when it's so completely unlike what we've always understood marriage to be?
SSM AND PARENTING: David Barnes replies to Gabriel Rosenberg
Gabriel's Syllogism (1) Parents ought to be married. (2) Gays are parents. (3) Therefore, gays ought to be married. This is clearly a valid argument, because (3) follows from (1) and (2). However, I think that looking at the different uses of the term "parent" will lead people to reject (1). (1) is not even obvious when you think that a "parent" is a biological parent, as Lucia pointed out here. "Parent" also cannot mean anyone who wants to care for a child. For example, if a father dies and the mother's mother moves in with her to care for her daughter's children, the grandmother and mother should not get married. I believe that is uncontroversial. Furthermore, sometimes a nanny will take on a lot of the childrearing duties. Should a nanny/live-in housekeeper marry a single mother? I think it's safe to say "no." Therefore, unless you can find some way of explaining how a child's grandmother who lives with a single mother is not just as much a parent as a cohabitating boyfriend or girlfriend, then (1) is false. We can try to save Gabriel's syllogism and replace (1) with this: (4) Parents who sleep together or plan to eventually sleep together ought be married. However, I think that using (4) would be extremely difficult, because it's pretty close to saying "people who sleep together ought to be married" and I seriously doubt that most SSM supporters would endorse that principle.
SSM AND PARENTING: Mary Catelli replies to Lucia Liljegren
Lucia Liljegren offers: "'These critics would disagree with: "Genetic parents ought to be married to each other." They would agree only with: "Parents who take on the legal responsibility to raise and care for children ought to be married.' "Imagine! Now, I find I do not agree my statement 1! I agree in a statistical sense. However, in some cases, I disagree vehemently. For instance, suppose a 14-year old-girl were to be raped and impregnated by an unmarried male neighbor. These two genetic parents ought not to be married to each other. I would, in fact, support laws forbidding the marriage of any 14 year old girl to anyone!" Actually, let us amplify her first interpretation of "Parents ought to be married." How about, "People who conceive children ought to be married"? This, of course, means, "People who are not married -- and especially those who ought not to get married -- should not conceive children." Whereupon one looks at her case, and sees it is not a counter-example to "Parents ought to be married," but an example of it. Raping and impregnating a fourteen-year-old is not just fine as long as the rapist and the victim don't marry. The act that conceived the child ought not to have happened. And a part of the crime he committed was fathering a child who must be provided for while being kept from him. Lucia states that she supports laws forbidding the marriage of fourteen-year-olds. I would be a little surprised if she supported decreasing the age-of-consent laws simultaneously. Because a homosexual couple can not, of course, conceive a child, this interpretation can not apply to them. Which leads into Mr. Rosenberg, who states, "First, marriage make this legal responsibility automatic and immediate for children born into the marriage." Basic biology shows that children are not, in fact, born into any homosexual marriages. A person in such a union could use artificial reproductive techniques to conceive a child and, unlike someone married to a heterosexual, would have to use donor gametes, or could adopt. Which leads to three points. First, "Gay people are parents" is not exactly "Homosexuals might, theoretically, use reproductive technologies or adopt." Second, homosexuals in couples are not the only people who might, theoretically, use reproductive technologies or adopt. Literally anyone could. Should anyone who wishes to do that someday and would like to secure another parent now be permitted to marry? In Anne of Green Gables, to offer a fictional example of a real-life happening, a brother and sister adopt Anne from an orphanage. Should siblings be allowed to marry on that grounds? Any siblings, not just those who intend to adopt right now. In real life, the Shakers adopted children -- as a community, not as individuals. Should polygamous marriage be allowed on that grounds? After all, if one other parent is good, would not two, or three, or four be better? He informs us, "the child may benefit immensely by being covered by her parent's health insurance," and the more parents you have the less likely it is that none of them will have insurance. He also tells us of "its immense value in helping a family to raise children," and I have heard of an polygamously married woman telling that it is of immense value to her career, because her co-wives look after her children when she is too busy -- real-life nannies who will not walk away. I should add that some homosexuals have formed foursomes, in which the men in one couple have donated sperm to inseminate the women in the other. Polygamous marriage may be the next demand. Third, the children that Mr. Rosenberg later describes as "brought into the marriage" presuppose that heterosexuals will be irresponsible. Even gamete donation --sperm donors are not chiefly young men because their sperm contains fewer defects; it is also because young men do not think seriously about many things, from beer to cars to sperm donation. This is not a random jab; when sperm donors were surveyed decades, many who had grown up and, especially, married and fathered children, regarded their own actions as foolish. But artificial reproduction for homosexuals relies on men who will be willing to walk away, and women who will be willing to donate eggs and, as surrogates, carry the child to term (even if the egg donor and the surrogate are not the same woman, there must be both functions filled), and walk away.
MORE POLLAGE: SSM, CIVIL UNIONS, AND FMA
[Polling Company poll, commissioned by the Home Schoolers Legal Defense Association, of 800 registered voters. Lots of questions, including different versions of a federal marriage amendment.] ...Question: "Traditional marriage between a man and a woman should be protected because it is a cornerstone of our society." (PROBE: And do you strongly or only somewhat agree/disagree?) 81% TOTAL AGREE (NET) 69% STRONGLY AGREE 12% SOMEWHAT AGREE 16% TOTAL DISAGREE (NET) 6% SOMEWHAT DISAGREE 10% STRONGLY DISAGREE 2% DON'T KNOW/DEPENDS/UNSURE (VOLUNTEERED) 1% NEITHER (VOLUNTEERED) * BOTH (VOLUNTEERED) * REFUSED (VOLUNTEERED) ... In fact, a majority of nearly every demographic and psychographic group was opposed to allowing same-sex marriage in their state, including unmarried people (61%), political Independents (59%), Democrats (57%), those who know gay people (64%), and Blacks (78%). Remarkably, very few people (roughly 4%) volunteered that they are still undecided or ambivalent on this issue, and more than three-quarters of those who did respond (77%) held their opinion "strongly." ... ...Voters in the survey, however, were wary of the civil union "solution." When read descriptions of the California domestic partnership law and the Vermont civil union law, a majority of respondents said in each instance that they would not support the creation of such laws in their own state. ... It appears that a fair amount of American voters intuit that the issue of marriage is of such commonality, if not importance, that within the current environment, it cannot be handled on a state-by-state basis. In fact, a majority of those surveyed (52%) believe the issue must be addressed at the national level, as opposed to 31% who feel that each state should be free to decide for its own citizenry. ... A solid majority of voters currently support a federal marriage amendment that simply defines marriage in traditional terms (61% total support/35% total oppose). As demonstrated below, the intensity is remarkable. Twice the number of people strongly support FMA (54%) than strongly oppose it (26%). more
REVIEW OF JONATHAN RAUCH'S NEW BOOK: Christopher Caldwell
...Some people may support same-sex marriage only as a roundabout means to recognition for gays. Not Rauch. Gay himself, he seeks it because he wants to get married, and thinks everyone should. His idea of marriage is old-school, even sentimental. (''I mean two souls bonded in each other's eyes and together clasped to their community's bosom.'') Of those gays who fear that marriage will force them to trade in a libertine lifestyle for a bourgeois heterosexual one, Rauch says, ''I believe that they are largely right, and that gay integration into the mainstream would be, on balance, a good thing.'' Marriage has a ''special power'' to bind people into communities and into other families, Rauch thinks. Its two primary purposes are settling young adults into a web of commitments and providing caregivers to the old and infirm. Since homosexuals can and do carry out the responsibilities of marriage, they deserve to accede to its rights. ... So while traditionalists complain that marriage is embattled, and while gay activists complain that marriage is unfair, Rauch insists that marriage is embattled because it's unfair. When gays can marry, they will appear in a new light -- as allies, not interlopers; relations between gays and straights will improve, because what makes homosexuals appear most ''grotesque and threatening'' is not their sexual orientation but the outlawry against convention to which the unavailability of marriage consigns them. For Rauch, the best way to defend marriage is by letting gays in, not keeping them out. ... And yet he commits an important error of emphasis, which is not fatal to his case for gay marriage but damages his case that gay marriage can be traditional marriage. It concerns the importance of childbearing. ''I hope I won't be accused of saying that children are a trivial reason for marriage,'' he says early in the book. ''They just cannot be the only reason.'' It is true that marriage has historically served many purposes. But alongside that of providing a nonanarchic context for producing children, they all look like moons against Jupiter. Rauch hates this argument. He finds it ''incoherent, incorrect and antimarriage.'' He is happy to speak of the welfare of children, but skirts the production of children, dismissing it as a ''sex-centered view.'' ... ... Traditional society never had any reason to marry gays, even in periods of relative tolerance, because it never had any need for homosexual sex. Nor does it today. What has happened to render gay marriage suddenly more logical is society's waning need for married people's sex. Sex, childbearing and childrearing -- which marriage once bound as tightly as an atomic nucleus -- have been disaggregated. This has happened partly through law (on divorce and adoption), partly through technology (contraception, abortion and artificial insemination), partly through convention (cohabitation) and partly through knowledge (on the innateness of homosexuality, for instance). Rauch may have too high an opinion of the sort of marital club that would have gays as members. It seems unlikely that marriage could simultaneously be flexible enough to admit homosexuals and rigid enough to offer them the same protection and rights (and discipline) it offered heterosexuals in the old days. But it seems even less likely that, as Rauch hopes, the gay-marriage movement will be able to shore up an institution that has for decades been undermined legally, socially, medically, theologically, philosophically, psychologically and politically. Gays will soon accede to marriage, but only because marriage is losing its old set of purposes and is becoming, irrevocably, something else. more
NEW POLL ON SSM, GAY RIGHTS: From the Associated Press
Most Americans oppose gay marriage and many believe homosexuality is "against God's will" but otherwise consider themselves tolerant of gays, according to a Los Angeles Times poll published Saturday. By a margin of 55 to 41 percent, those surveyed agreed with the statement that "if gays are allowed to marry, the institution of marriage will be degraded." About half favored a U.S. constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union between a man and a woman, while 42 percent were opposed, according to the poll published on the newspaper's Web site. ... Only about a quarter of those polled felt that homosexuals should be allowed to legally marry, although another 38 percent believed they should be allowed to form civil unions. About a third said that neither type of union should be permitted. While about six in 10 people felt that homosexual relationships are "against God's will," a similar percentage felt that legal recognition of same-sex marriages was inevitable. At 42 percent each, people were split over whether, in general, they approved or disapproved of homosexual rights. At the same time, 72 percent favored laws to protect gays against job discrimination and 74 percent favored protections against housing discrimination. ... On the other hand, six in 10 said they would be upset to learn their child was gay. About six in 10 also felt that a gay person can be a good role model for a child, but people were split over whether they would permit a homosexual to baby-sit and more than half opposed allowing gay couples to adopt. ... The telephone poll of 1,616 adults was conducted from March 27-30. The margin of error was plus or minus 3 percentage points. more
RECALL EFFORT IN SAN JOSE: From the San Jose Mercury News
Bowing to a new political reality, San Jose Mayor Ron Gonzales said Friday that he is taking ''very seriously'' a possible recall attempt spurred by his support of same-sex marriage rights, and is prepared to meet the challenge head-on. ... Gonzales cast the possible recall effort as a narrow referendum on the city council's March decision to extend benefits to same-sex couples who work for the city and were married elsewhere. Recall proponents, however, contend their fledgling campaign is being constructed on a much broader political foundation. ''It's always been about more than same-sex,'' said former San Jose Councilman Larry Pegram, who is helping organize the recall effort. ''Frankly, people are trying to characterize it as a one-issue deal, but that's not the case -- same sex was the catalyst.'' Recall supporters have opened a Santa Teresa headquarters and have raised more than $40,000 in contributions, Pegram said. The group has hired GOP political consultant Sal Russo, who helped drum up support for the Davis recall. ... To recall Gonzales, organizers would have to serve a written notice of intent. They then would have 160 days to collect about 46,000 signatures -- or 12 percent of the city's 382,494 registered voters -- to qualify the recall for the ballot. ... Political consultants and some council members said that with faith-based, grass-roots support, it's possible that recall proponents could gather enough signatures to qualify for the ballot. ''There's a strong current out there,'' said Councilman Forrest Williams, whose South San Jose district encompasses several so-called ''mega-churches'' with several thousand members each. On Sunday, about 2,000 Evangelical Christians gathered at a South San Jose church to rally against the same-sex decision, and a larger demonstration is being planned for later this month. The city's decision to recognize same-sex marriage has affected only one city employee so far, but religious leaders say the move struck at the definition of marriage and has affected every city resident. more
STUFF TO DO IN D.C.: Jonathan Rauch et al.
1) DATE: April 15, 2004 ORGANIZATION: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research (AEI) holds a discussion on "Should Conservatives Favor Same-Sex Marriage?" TIME: 3 p.m. LOCATION: AEI, 1150 17th Street NW, Wohlstetter Conference Center, 12th Floor, Washington, D.C. CONTACT: Veronique Rodman, 202-862-4871; e-mail, vrodman@aei.org; http://www.aei.org PARTICIPANTS: Jonathan Rauch, National Journal; Michael Novak, Charles Murray and Christopher DeMuth, AEI TYPE: Discussion 2) DATE: April 15, 2004 ORGANIZATION: Politics and Prose Bookstore holds a book discussion on "Gay Marriage." TIME: 7 p.m. LOCATION: Politics and Prose Bookstore, 5015 Connecticut Avenue NW, Washington, D.C. CONTACT: 202-364-1919, books@politics-prose.com, or http://www.politics-prose.com PARTICIPANTS: Jonathan Rauch, National Journal and author TYPE: Book discussion Thursday, April 08, 2004
CONSTITUTIONAL RESTRAINT: Mark Barton replies to Matt Taylor
Matt Taylor: "But as I already said, someone who doesn't want gays to have prestige (Family Research Council et al.) is most likely against civil union too." Mark B.: And as I believe I allowed, I'm sure they would vote against it--as a first choice. At the same time, it appears that in Massachusetts, a near-majority of legislators of that mindset have voted for it--as a second choice. The fact that they'd have preferred something even more punitive doesn't subtract from their contribution to the "intent" of the legislature being strongly deprecatory--it adds to it. So the remaining issues are, did any significant number of the moderates have a genuinely neutral intent, and how neutral (or positive) would it have to have been cancel the large initial negative? I suggest the answers are, respectively, hardly any and quite a lot. Taylor: "A more likely reason to prefer 'civil union' is simply that a committed same-sex relationship and a straight marriage aren't the same thing." Mark B.: But the court found, I think correctly, that civil marriage didn't reflect any of the things that the state claimed were distinctive and important about traditional marriage. If nobody took the differences seriously enough to implement in the substance before there was a challenge, why should we suddenly start taking them seriously now that there's a last-ditch effort to at least keep the name? Taylor: "For many people (especially straights) the term 'gay marriage' creates cognitive dissonance, since they are so used to taking for granted that 'marriage' means a male-female union." Mark B.: I'm sure it does. I'm equally sure that some people in the South got some really severe cognitive dissonance following Loving v. Virginia. Why should I even care? To the extent I care, why should I be magnanimous? And to the extent I'm magnanimous for myself, why should the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court presume to be magnanimous on my behalf?
SSM AND PARENTING: Lucia Liljegren
Recently, we have seen complaints that Gabriel Rosenberg's syllogism regarding gay marriage is logically flawed and lacks clarity. I am writing to suggest two possible alternative syllogisms. Here is Gabriel's syllogism: 1 Parents ought to be married. 2 Gays are parents. 3 Therefore, gays ought to be married. The syllogism has obviously upset those who oppose SSM. It is my impression that those opposed to gay marriage might prefer the following, aka "Lucia's syllogism": 1 Parents ought to marry. 2 If gays marry, the fraction of fertile heterosexual couples who copulate outside marriage will increase. Some will procreate. Because gay marriage is legal, some fraction of these couples who might otherwise have married will not marry. So it is a "fact" that legal gay marriage will prevent the marriage of some genetic parents to each other. 3 Therefore, gay marriage ought to be prohibited. Many supporters and opponents of SSM agree with my major premise, #1, in some sense. However, many supporters of SSM would deny my minor premise, #2; the existence of legal gay marriage will not inhibit the marriage of any genetic parents. The other criticism might be that I snuck the adjective "genetic" and inserted the words "to each other" into statement #2, thus narrowing the definition. These critics would disagree with: "Genetic parents ought to be married to each other." They would agree only with: "Parents who take on the legal responsibility to raise and care for children ought to be married." Imagine! Now, I find I do not agree my statement 1! I agree in a statistical sense. However, in some cases, I disagree vehemently. For instance, suppose a 14-year old-girl were to be raped and impregnated by an unmarried male neighbor. These two genetic parents ought not to be married to each other. I would, in fact, support laws forbidding the marriage of any 14 year old girl to anyone! Let me now examine the statement my pro-SSM critics tell me they thought I meant: "Parents who raise children ought to be married." I always agree with this! (However, to be clear, I mean "ought to" in the sense of "are advised to.") Having evaluated "Lucia's syllogism," I conclude that it is pitifully flawed. May I suggest this revision to Gabriel Rosenberg's syllogism, which unfortunately, lacks the brevity of the original: 1 Parents who take on the legal responsibility to care and raise children ought to be married. 2 Some gays have taken on the legal responsibility to care for and raise children. 3 Therefore, some gays ought to be married.
PARENTS AND PROCREATORS: Mark Barton replies to Mary Catelli
Mary Catelli: "The current treatment of heterosexual vs. homosexual couples is indeed rather broadbrush. That is not proof that it should not be made. Consider three men, all twenty when World War II broke out. [...] This is because the effort of sorting out the deserving vs. the undeserving -- once you've defined who is who -- would be many times the cost of providing for all veterans, but the effort of sorting out the veterans from the non-veterans is much simpler." Mark B.: Certainly it can be defensible to adopt a crude but bureaucratically practical criterion over a fairer but impractical one. However the case of veterans benefits is not a good example of this principle, or a good analogy to the case of SSM. The problem is that veterans benefits are only partly a reward for serving. As much or more, they're an inducement to enlist. All enlistees are making the same dangerous gamble: they may get a cushy desk job, but they may get sent to the most dangerous of combat zones and they have little or no choice in the matter. If enlistees got to unilaterally opt out of that risk, one wouldn't be so generous with the benefits in retirement of those who did. According to statistics, of order 40% of couples are childless, and at a guess, probably half are readily identifiable as permanently so, either through lack of interest or fertility. If marriage is such a costly reward in terms of resources or symbolism that it's worth amending the constitution to avoid wasting it on the 3-5% of couples who will never be breeding pairs because they're same-sex, it smacks of hypocrisy (not to mention homophobia) not to be lifting a finger against a rather larger population of almost as readily identifiable non-breeding couples. And of course, the above allows for the sake of argument that marriage is a reward for being a breeding pair, but that's not true either. Nobody in their right mind thinks things like (it's hard to find a non-ridiculous example), "It would be good to be able to visit someone in the hospital, let me go and marry someone, so I can visit them." Rather they think things like "It would be good to be able to visit N. in the hospital...", where N. is their particular, already chosen, significant other. Marriage used to be a reward because people would think, "It would be good to have sex; let me go and marry someone, so I can have sex with them." As I was suggesting, I'm coming more and more to suspect that whether it's consciously articulated or not, Elizabeth and others are necessarily more for stigmatizing the sexually active unmarried than for rewarding the married. To the extent the problem they see with SSM is really that it somehow gets in the way of punishing the unmarried, they might want to have a go at formulating the argument explicitly in those terms because it's falling between two stools at the moment.
DOES HISTORY MATTER?: Arturo Fernandez replies to R.K. Becker
R.K. Becker writes that the idea of marriage between opposite sexes is universal over all time and all cultures. The reason for that is that in every culture in history those attracted to the opposite sex have been a vast majority of the population. How can a tiny minority, two percent (let's say), contend with what 98 percent of the population decides? Until today, when we've learned to respect individual freedom and minority rights, it's been impossible. One of the things that 98 percent of males can do is, well, whatever they want, including denying rights to those they feel don't meet their standard of masculinity. Becker says he agrees that culture is complex but states that "a complex system depends on all its component parts." One of the parts that have contributed to the "traditional" idea of marriage is prejudice. That is a part that is not needed. A good marriage doesn't depend on it, because it's a merely a product of a vast majority's "natural" tendency to discriminate against a small minority, in this case a tendency to discriminate that evolves from heterosexuals' insecurities about themselves. That is why waiting 30 years is no good. It's discrimination now.
STRUCTURING THE DISCUSSION: Ben Bateman replies to Gabriel Rosenberg
Mr. Rosenberg asks several interesting questions in responding to me and points out several important areas I did not discuss. In this post I'd like to address a more important topic: the structure of the SSM discussion itself. In discussing SSM here and elsewhere, I've been amazed at how far apart the two sides are. A hypothetical contributor (let's call him Ted) might say "X and Y, therefore SSM." (Or not-SSM. It doesn't matter for this discussion.) Ted thinks about X and Y quite a lot, and he is thoroughly convinced of their truth. In fact, he doesn't see how any reasonable person could dispute the truth of X and Y. So he assumes X and Y in his post, and then explains why they combine to support his view on SSM. What Ted doesn't expect is that those on the other side don't agree with X or Y as premises, and certain aren't interested in whether they combine to form some SSM conclusion. The other side may not even understand what Ted means by X and Y, because he didn't take the time to explain them, or didn't have room to do so. Or the other side may interpret X and Y to mean something completely different from what Ted intended. In any case, confusion results. After Ted's post has been read and responded to, the two sides are just as far apart as before--perhaps even farther. Ted's mistake is in trying to end each argument with a direct conclusion about SSM. The sides are too far apart for that. They don't share enough premises. Instead of trying to convince the other side on SSM generally, Ted's time would be better spent trying to convince the other side of the premises X and Y, or even discussing the vocabulary and sub-premises that go into demonstrating the truth of X and Y. He should move backwards this way to smaller premises and more basic definitions until he finds common ground with the other side, and then build up from there. He should focus on small areas of agreement, rather than large areas of disagreement. So I suggest that we put the big SSM issue to one side for now. We know we disagree on that. Let's look at smaller related questions on which we might agree, or at least understand each other. In the current conversation, I think we've agreed that the word "parents" has two possible meanings: genetic parents and upbringing parents. I've also proposed a distinction between the single-mother Fantine situation and the egg or sperm donor situation. In both cases, Mr. Rosenberg isn't sure what the purpose of such a distinction is, but perhaps we've agreed that one could draw such a distinction, and he is aware now that I consider it important. We may also agree that in general genetic parents should marry before they produce children, though that may require further discussion in egg/sperm donor situations. If we keep building sub-premises and clarifying definitions like this, if we strive for small agreements rather than repeating large disagreements, then we may actually accomplish something in the SSM debate.
MORE ON PARENTS AND ADOPTION: Gabriel Rosenberg
A syllogism I proposed here has sparked an ongoing discussion over whether aoptive parents are parents in the sense that "parents ought to be married". If the answer is "yes", then my syllogism "Parents ought to be married; Gays are parents; Gays ought to be married." holds. ... The latest response in this discussion came from Mary Catelli at MarriageDebate.com. ... Unlike the previous paragraph, in this one Ms. Catelli does seem to acknowledge here that adoption does make some difference, just not enough to justify marriage. Her reason is that the marriage itself does not secure any responsibility towards the child that adoption does not already secure. This misses two important points, though. First, marriage make this legal responsibillity automatic and immediate for children born into the marriage. In addition to saving parents thousands of dollars in adoption fees that could better be spent on the child's health and education, the immediacy can be extremely important for the child in those early critical months. To give just one example, the child may benefit immensely by being covered by her parent's health insurance. More importantly, marriage does much more than just establish the legal responsibiliities of a parent. If that were the only benefit of marriage to children, it wouldn't matter if parents remained married. Once paterninty was established the marriage would have served "its purpose". This view of marriage ignores its immense value in helping a family to raise children. And of course, if marriage only mattered for children it wouldn't matter if a couple without children--or whose children were raised--remained married. So no, I wouldn't require someone in a same-sex couple to adopt their stepchildren as a condition of marriage, just as we don't require this of oppoiste-sex couples. I would expect that both parents would take legal responsiblity for any children brought into the marriage, though. And as we have seen, a same-sex couple does not necessarily consist of a parent and stepparent. So I respectfully submit that my argument does indeed still stand. more
GAY COUPLES SUE NY: From Reuters
Thirteen same-sex couples sued New York State on Wednesday for the right to obtain marriage licenses, opening another front in the politically charged battle over gay marriage during a U.S. presidential election year. Denying marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples "deprives us of due process and equal protection" under the New York state constitution, said state Assemblyman Daniel J. O'Donnell, a Manhattan Democrat who is the brother of comedian Rosie O'Donnell. ... New York has a domestic partner law that grants some rights to same-sex couples, but they lack "more than 700" rights married couples enjoy, according to the complaint filed at the state Supreme Court in Albany by the American Civil Liberties Union and its New York chapter. more
KIDS RAISED BY SAME-SEX COUPLES SAY SSM WOULD MAKE THEIR FAMILIES OFFICIAL: From the St. Louis Post-Dispatch
Like many children of divorce, Erin and Muriel have a mom and a stepmother. But in their case, the two women live together. "I think it's cool," says bubbly fifth-grader Erin. "There's always a mom there." ... Patrick Fitzhugh, whose parents divorced when he was very young, feels lucky that he was rarely teased as a child for being raised by two lesbians. Yet, he said he always felt that people viewed his family as incomplete because his mom and her partner of 15 years weren't married. "Without the marriage, you're not understood in society to have a family that loves one another completely," said the Kansas State University sophomore. Fitzhugh, 21, said he didn't realize how deeply he cared about what other people thought until his mother's marriage ceremony two weeks ago at a very public event in Kirkwood. That the marriage is not considered legal in Missouri makes no difference to Fitzhugh, who has waited nearly all his life for such an event. more
"CIVIL UNIONS FOR ALL, MARRIAGE FOR NONE" BILL TO BE INTRODUCED IN NY ASSEMBLY: From the Gay City News
Civil marriage in New York would be abolished, and replaced by civil unions for all, whether gay or straight couples, under a bill to be introduced shortly by New York Assembymember Deborah Glick (D-Greenwich Village). Some advocates working for marriage equality are troubled by the measure and call it "confusing." Others, however, see it as just one more option for protecting lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered families. "Marriage comes with a whole lot of baggage and has a negative history for women in particular," said Glick, the first out gay or lesbian person elected to the New York State Legislature (in 1991). ... Glick said many of her friends "don't want to ape a heterosexual cultural model, but they want the rights and responsibilities." She also said she is concerned that "the line is being blurred between church and state" in the current debate over same-sex marriage. Religious agents would play no role in legalizing civil unions under her bill, but could continue to perform religious marriages for their congregants as they always have. At present, certified religious leaders are among those who can marry couples after they have obtained a license from the state. Some couples just have civil marriage ceremonies. Glick's bill would go through the domestic relations law, striking the word "marriage," and substituting "civil union" in every instance. If passed, it would be the only option for same-sex and straight couples to unite. "To some extent," she said, "it is a little bit more radical" than fighting for same-sex marriage, "telling the straight community that the state is going to get out of marriage and into civil unions." Glick's proposal is not novel and has been floated by newspaper columnists and activists around the country. But she is the first legislator in the nation to introduce such a measure. ... As radical as Glick's proposal may sound, those who obtain civil unions will be bound by all the rights and responsibilities currently in the marriage law. Is it just a change in the name? "Lots of things start in one place," she said. "It eliminates the religious connotations in the law. Lots of things we do legally in legislation have other ramifications that take time to percolate." Doesn't it continue to privilege couples over singles? "Some suggest that," she said. "I'm approaching it from the point of view that same-sex couples are disadvantaged in a number of ways." more
SHOULD MARRIAGE BE A SOCIAL NORM?: Rob Hunter
Tuesday at the Union, authors Jonathan Rauch and Maggie Gallagher squared off in an exchange that mirrored what will likely be one of the defining national debates of our time. Rauch, a journalist, prominent free-speech advocate and proponent of gay marriage, is the author of books ("Kindly Inquisitors" and "Gay Marriage") on both topics and is an opinion writer for the National Journal. In supporting gay marriage he has not been shy about his belief that "same-sex marriage [would] work for gay and straight Americans alike." Gallagher, the president of the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy and co-author of "The Case for Marriage," is a leading opponent of gay marriage and maintains the Web site www.marriagedebate.com. The debate was surprisingly cordial, informed and cogent. Both debaters acquitted themselves admirably in front of a packed house, particularly Gallagher, who faced a largely unsympathetic audience. Nevertheless, both of them were wrong, which is particularly unfortunate given that their impassioned but reasoned exchange was probably the best serious discussion of marriage policy we'll hear in Madison for some time. ... Both speakers did agree on one main area, though: Rauch stated that states should be allowed to take their own stands on gay marriage where they see fit, whereas Gallagher stressed resisting what she characterized as a concerted effort by "legal elites" (the federal courts) to foist gay marriage upon America -- but in essence, they both agreed that marriage is a social norm that should be reinforced through acts of legislation. And this is where both of them got it wrong. To suggest that marriage is a social norm that should send "messages" to couples about desirable behavior implies that Americans as lovers and families are unable to make family decisions on their own. The central question in the gay-marriage debate is not how government should determine the nature of committed relationships but whether the government will extend the same liberties, responsibilities and privileges to one class of citizens that another already receives. It is in the spirit of civil rights (and responsibilities) that we should extend the right to marry to same-sex couples, and not in the spirit of incremental change proposed by Rauch, in which states adopt same-sex marriage in order to strengthen a norm. We should recognize the commitment of same-sex couples by celebrating their freedom to choose that commitment, rather than adopt same-sex marriage through the logic of social coercion. True advancement for the cause of gay marriage should come about through a broad consensus for the recognition of the rights of same-sex couples, and not the piecemeal implementation of norm-strengthening legislation. more
SSM DEBATE AT THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN: From the University of Wisconsin Badger Herald
...Jonathan Rauch, author of "Gay Marriage: Why It Is Good for Gays, Good for Straights and Good for America," spoke on behalf of same-sex-marriage proponents. He argued prohibiting gays from marriage excludes them from fully participating in the cultural norm of adulthood that links sex, love and commitment into a formal, societal institution. "My name is Jonathan Rauch, and it is illegal for me to marry anyone I love," he said, telling the audience it is a "scalding deprivation" for him, and for the nine to 15 million other gay Americans, to be kept from marrying. ... Maggie Gallagher, president of the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy, presented the other side of the debate. "Marriage is about giving children mothers and fathers," she said. "This is not about homosexuality. This is about marriage." In particular, she focused on the prevalence of "fatherlessness" as a reason why alternative families in any form are detrimental to families and children. "I think lesbian mothers can be very good mothers," Gallagher said. "I don't think they can be fathers for their children." Although she acknowledged the high regard many gay couples have for marriage and family, Gallagher said society must keep traditional marriage intact because it serves as the basic social institution, linking mothers and fathers together for the sake of their children. ... Rauch, however, argued that allowing same-sex couples, several thousand of which are parents, to marry could never be construed as an attack on marriage. more
SAME-SEX CUSTODY CASE IS DECIDED: From the Portland Press-Herald
[You can read the court decision here.] A gay woman from Freeport is a "de facto parent" of her former partner's biological child and has full parental rights and responsibilities, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court decided Tuesday. The court ruled that "adults who have fully and completely undertaken a permanent, unequivocal, committed and responsible parental role in the child's life" can in some cases be recognized as legal parents, regardless of their sexual orientation or family relationship. Their role in raising children can last, the court said, even if the adults' relationship ends. ... [The decision] puts Maine in a small group of states whose courts recognize a bond between an adult and a child that does not result from a biological relationship or legal adoption. ... According to the decision, the two women started living together in 1992 and agreed that C.E.W.'s partner would conceive a child through artificial insemination. The women took each other's last names and signed a joint parenting agreement. The boy was born in 1994. In February 1999, the couple separated when the biological mother left their home. They signed a second parenting agreement sharing the parental costs and decisions, and agreed that the boy's primary residence and visitations would be determined by the courts. In November 2000, the biological mother filed a complaint in Superior Court arguing that C.E.W. should not be considered a parent. ... A group of professional organizations and child welfare providers, including the Maine Psychological Association, the National Association of Social Workers and the Maine Children's Alliance, filed a brief in support of C.E.W. They said research showed that children in families with a non-biological parent form the same kind of bonds they have with a birth parent. "Families with same-sex parents function virtually identically to families with opposite sex parents," the brief said. "Children of same-sex parents fare as well as children of heterosexual parents in mental health, psychological and social adjustment, and all other measures of adjustment and well-being." more Tuesday, April 06, 2004
OKLA. AGREES TO ISSUE JOINT-ADOPTION BIRTH CERTIFICATE: From 365Gay.com
Two-year-old Vivian is like most kids her age, curious, active and loving. That love is directed at her two dads. The tot has lived with her parents, Gregory Hampel and Edmund Swaya, in Seattle, Washington since shortly after she was born in Oklahoma. To ensure Vivian is cared for properly should anything happen to either of her dads, Hampel and Swaya requested a vital birth record showing the couple as joint parents. Despite a legal direction which permits co-adoption the Oklahoma Health Department refused. After nearly two years in a legal tug of war, Hampel and Swaya turned to Lambda Legal which today released a letter to the department urging it to follow the law. "The Health Department does not have authority to decide who gets a birth certificate or who is a legal parent," said Brian Chase, Staff Attorney for Lambda Legal. Within hours the department said it had begun issuing the birth certificates to same-gender couples in other states who adopt children in Oklahoma. "Because same-sex adoption is illegal in Oklahoma, we were uncertain how to address an out-of-state adoption," said Timothy Tardibono, assistant general counsel for the Health Department. But that is disputed by Lambda Legal, which points to an advisory issued by Oklahoma State Attorney General, W.A. Drew Edmonson, at the request of the former health commissioner. The advisory states that under the federal Constitution and Oklahoma laws, the state is required to issue accurate birth certificates for children legally adopted outside of Oklahoma including to children adopted by same-sex couples. Tardibono said because the format used for birth certificates has not been changed, the document will list Hampel as the father and Swaya as the mother. But the decision has upset some Republican lawmakers. Rep. Thad Balkman (R-Norman) said he is working on legislation to block same-sex couples from jointly adopting. link
RAMESH, MAGGIE, HATCH, FMA: Ramesh Ponnuru replies
It is very hard to debate someone who persists in making comments such as the following: "I think (Ramesh disagrees) that if marriage really is a key social institution, defining it in the Constitution is no more anomalous than the many property guarantees, and the guarantee of democratic government, already in the document. (Ramesh must be one of the few Constitutional observers not to see property and other economic guarantees in the Constitution)." I have never said that it would be "anomalous," or in any way improper, to define marriage in the Constitution. I have never said word one about the existence of economic guarantees in the Constitution (unless Gallagher is counting one column last year on the abuse of eminent-domain powers). The rest of her attempted refutation of me is similarly off-point. I'm open to the idea that my arguments are incorrect. But that has to be demonstrated through attention to the arguments I've actually made, not ones of Gallagher's imagining. link
"TAKING AWAY RIGHTS": Mark Barton replies to David Benkof
David Benkof: 1) SSM isn't a "right," it's a redefinition of an institution in society. Mark B.: It could easily be both. In Massachussetts SSM was found to be a radical change from tradition and a right by the institution whose job it was to make such findings. The Georgia legislature apparently feared that it might be found to be a right in Georgia or it wouldn't have acted. David Benkof: 2) Even if there was a such thing as a right to marry a same-sex partner, the Georgia constitutional amendment wouldn't be taking it away from any Georgians because that state has never had SSM. Mark B.: Even if people had been successfully intimidated from attempting to exercise it by unconstitutional acts of the Georgia legislature that purported to make marriage opposite-sex only, it could still have been a right. David Benkof: 4) If Smyre indeed supports keeping the present definition of marriage, what does he propose to do if not amend state and federal constitutions? Mark B.: Very possibly he proposes to do nothing. He's probably for bringing murderers to justice as well, but against amending the constitution to allow police to torture suspects, even though that would undoubtedly lead to more well-deserved convictions. Sometimes one principle trumps another. David Benkof: The gay community's leadership made a tactical decision in the mid-1990s (and there were dissenters) to sue for marriage through the courts. They knew at the time (I know, because I was there) that they were risking a constitutional amendment if they lost. This is how the game is played, you can't cry "unfair" halfway through. Mark B.: If this is just a big game of political chess then of course it's not unfair. A supreme court challenge is one perfectly legal gambit--a constitutional amendment is another. But this is about people. Gay and lesbian people can't get government facilitation of their relationships of the sort that's taken for granted by the majority. That's transparently unfair, not only according to common sense but according to high-sounding principles that people have seen fit to write into constitutions and that many courts have upheld. Not all the tradition and all the sincere religious conviction in the world can make it fair.
CONSTITUTIONAL RESTRAINT: Matt Taylor replies to Mark Barton
Mark Barton writes: "If an explicit attempt to lower the prestige of civil unions without changing the substance is actionable, so surely is a thinly disguised intent to lower them without changing the substance....the only alternative possibility I can see is that it's just terminological variation for precision's sake" Some people may prefer the term "civil union" to "same-sex marriage" because they believe it implies less prestige. But as I already said, someone who doesn't want gays to have prestige (Family Research Council et al.) is most likely against civil union too. A more likely reason to prefer "civil union" is simply that a committed same-sex relationship and a straight marriage aren't the same thing. That doesn't mean one is better than the other; they're just different, and for some it makes sense to call them different things. For many people (especially straights) the term "gay marriage" creates cognitive dissonance, since they are so used to taking for granted that "marriage" means a male-female union. Admittedly, this cognitive dissonance is a temporary phenomenon. Even if civil union laws stay on the books indefinitely, people will likely start using the same words for same-sex and opposite-sex couples as they learn that the similarities outnumber the differences, at which point this discussion will be moot.
DOES HISTORY MATTER?: Mark Miller replies to R.K. Becker
R.K. Becker accuses me of dismissing the possibility of the devastating effect same-sex marriage could cause. To an extent, he is correct. So I will ask him to clarify what he means by "devastating." What are the potential effects of same-sex marriage that would result in the poisoning of or the collapse of our culture? My argument is that while I can understand concerns over the advent of same-sex marriage, I do not understand how it is "something which aims directly at the root or foundation of a universal institution." One of the issues in this debate is *whether* same-sex marriage does indeed go against the universal definition of marriage. The reality is that it does not change the rules for opposite-sex partners in any way. It does allow for other relationships that were previously not legitimized by law to be included. As I've said, there is a legitimate debate about whether this inclusion is appropriate and also whether this inclusion should fall under the word 'marriage' or some other term. Yet I believe in order for R.K. to use the what I call the 'sky-is-falling' argument--that same-sex marriage may result in devastating, poisonous, or the total ollapse of culture--then I'd like to hear some specifics on that harm done since that is a rather serious accusation. R.K. writes: "And I'm sorry if you think that my saying that means that there's 'no use even furthering the debat | ||||||||||
