Squawking points

Been a while (at least a week or so) since I delved back into this one, but why the heck not …

SfAD links to this little ditty, “Talking Points on Marriage,” though it’s more “Talking Points on Why Marriage Between the Opposite Sexes Is the Only True Marriage.” It was written by Robert Knight, who is identified as one of the drafters of the existing Federal DOMA.

Marriage is of such importance that it is uniquely protected in the law and culture. It predates the law and the Constitution, and is an anthropological and sociological reality, not primarily a legal one.

Which is why you wrote the Defense of Marriage Act, and are pushing for a Constitutional Amendment on the subject. Right.

UPDATE: Put the rest into the Extended Entry to reduce its massive footprint. Just click on the “more” below.

No civilization can survive without it, and those societies that allowed it to become irrelevant have faded into history.

Which civilizations are those?

Besides which, the issue here is not the abolition of marriage (though, arguably, the author is pushing for it being rendered irrelevant), but the expansion of marriage. So I’m not sure how this pertains.

Marriage is the union of the two sexes, not just the union of two people. It is the union of two families, and the foundation for establishing kinship patterns and family names, passing on property and providing the optimal environment for raising children.

Nothing in the second sentence necessarily follows from the restriction of the first. Indeed, it is to unite familes, establish kinship patterns and family names, to pass on property, and to provide the optimal environmnt for raising children that many gay couples want to marry.

The term “marriage” refers specifically to the joining of two people of the opposite sex. When that is lost, “marriage” becomes meaningless. You can no more leave an entire sex out of marriage and call it “marriage” than you can leave chocolate out of a “chocolate brownie” recipe. It becomes something else.
Giving non-marital relationships the same status as marriage does not expand the definition of marriage; it destroys it. For example, if you declare that, because it has similar properties, wine should be labeled identically to grape juice, you have destroyed the definitions of both “wine” and “grape juice.” The consumer would not know what he is getting.

So, you see, since marriage is defined as the union of two people of the opposite sex, if you take away the “opposite” part, what you have is no longer marriage. If you define marriage that way. Which, circularly, one does.

Conversely, one could argue the analogy that there’s little difference between grape juice made from California grapes and that made from New York grapes. But if you define grape juice as only being made from New York grapes, then there’s a difference.

Does a difference that makes no difference remain a difference?

Marriage is the union of the only type of couple capable of natural reproduction of the human race — a man and a woman. Children need both mothers and fathers, and marriage is society’s way of obtaining them.

Marriage is society’s way of establishing certain commitments from biological parents. Except, of course, we don’t require married couples to have children. Nor do we require couples having children to get married. Nor do we prevent someone from becoming the guardian of a child they are not biologically related to.

But even childless marriages are a social anchor for children, who observe adults as role models.

Which sounds like a good argument for gay marriage.

Besides, childless couples can be “surprised” by an unexpected pregnancy, …

Though we don’t require fertility tests to get married.

… and they can adopt, giving a child a mother-and-father-based family.

Which gay couples can do as well, with the exception (discussed below) of both gender-specific models within the family. Except for grandparents, of course. And friends. And uncles and aunts.

Single parents can eventually marry.

Unless they’re gay, for some reason.

And marriage is a stabilizing force for all. Even when a couple is past the age of reproduction, the marital commitment may keep an older man from fathering a child with a younger woman outside wedlock.

Sounds like a good argument for gay marriages to me.

Children learn crucial things about family life by observing our crucial relationships up close: interactions between men and women; husbands and wives, mothers and fathers, and parents to children of the same and opposite sexes. Human experience and a vast body of social science research show that children do best in married, mother-father households.

Of course, it’s hard to argue that they might do well in married, same-sex households, since those aren’t allowed. Still, to assert that children do “best,” on average, in “married, mother-father households” raises the question of whether that implies that we should forbid childbirth out of marriage, force folks who conceive children to get married, forbid divorce, etc., as well as forbidding same-sex marriage. Seems to me that, if that’s the statistic that’s going to trump this discussion, we ought to tackle the far larger population of single-parent households.

It is wrong to create fatherless or motherless families by design.

Happens every day, and more definitively, and far more frequently, in divorce court, and in out-of-wedlock conceptions.

There are probably advantages to children having two parents of the opposite sex. There are also probably advantages to children having other things (a large family income, a full-time stay-at-home parent, pre-school, pets, grandparents in the same area, social activity with children of other backgrounds); since we don’t legally mandate those things, it seems we’re being more than a bit selective here.

The effort is being driven by the desires of adults, not the needs of children.

Arguably, so is yours.

The drive for homosexual “marriage” leads to destruction of the gold standard for custody and adoption.

How?

The question should be: “What is in the best interests of the child?” The answer is: “Place children, whenever possible, in a married, mom-and-dad household.” As homosexual relationships gain status, marriage loses its place as the preferential adoption family option.

Not necessarily. If there is sufficient statistical basis for asserting that kids do “best” in opposite sex married households (all things being, conveniently, equal), then that still would provide a standard for adoption.

Of course, even if we buy that, it assumes that there are unlimited “married, mom-and-dad” households. Is it better to have a kid stay in an orphanage, or in foster care, or in a single parent family, than to have the kid adopted by (gasp) a gay couple?

Or for that matter, is it better to have a kid adopted by a gay couple who are just “shacking up,” or one that is married?

One could argue that kids in middle-upper-class households do “better” than kids in lower-class households. Does that make such households the “gold standard,” too? Does that mean we shouldn’t let any lower-class households adopt? Does that mean, for that matter, we shouldn’t let “such people” marry and procreate?

Marriage laws are not discriminatory.

Of course they are. The issue is whether that discrimination is warrented, if it is discriminating in positive fashion or a negative one, and if the state has a compelling interest in so discriminating.

Marriage is open to all adults, subject to age and blood relation limitations.

Thus there are age and blood relation limitations that discriminate between different couples that might want to wed. Those are arguably “good” discriminations. (I should note that they vary, in specifics, from state to state and nation to nation.)

As with any acquired status, the applicant must meet minimal requirements, which in terms of marriage, means finding an opposite-sex spouse. Same-sex partners do not qualify.

By your definition. The question is, should that definition hold sway?

To put it another way, clerks will not issue dog licenses to cats, and it is not out of “bigotry” toward cats.

No. But the arguable reason for licensing dogs, vs. licensing all pets, is that dogs are more particularly associated with a given household, and can do more damage as a class. There’s a reason to discrminate, legally, between dogs and cats, in terms of whether you can get a license for one. The question is, is there a reason to do so with humans and marriage, in terms of gender (not species).

Comparing current laws limiting marriage to a man and a woman with the laws in some that once limited inter-racial marriage is irrelevant and misleading.

On the contrary, it’s very relevant.

The very soul of marriage — the joining of the two sexes — was never at issue when the Supreme Court struck down laws against inter-racial marriage.

It wasn’t? The whole basis for miscegenation laws was that the races were different, that they ought not to mingle or mix, that God decreed it to be that way by putting differently-colored folks on different continents. Marriage could not take place between a white woman and a black man because that just didn’t fit the definition of what a marriage was, the joining of people of the same race to procreate their race to the greater glory of God’s creation.

Requiring citizens to sanction or subsidize homosexual relationships violates the freedom of conscience of millions of Christians, Jews, Muslims and other people who believe marriage is the union of the two sexes.

And refusing to sanction such relationships violates the fredom of conscience of those who believe that such refusal is a discrimination of a basic human right, and is displeasing to God. It cuts both ways.

Majority rules? Nuh-uh, not per the First Amendment it doesn’t, in terms of the state ruling on whether a particular action is religiously okay or not.

Besides, one could just as well argue that providing tax-exempt status to mosques violates the freedom of conscience to Christians who believe Islam is a false religion, or a religion of the devil. (Or, of course, vice-versa.) One could just as well argue that “sanctioning and subsidizing” interracial marriages violates the freedom of conscience of those who believe that is in opposition to God’s plan. You could argue that recognizing interreligious marriages is wrong for the same reason. Heck, I have problems (aesthetic, if not religious) recognizing the seriousness of marriages at Vegas wedding chapels; should I be allowed to argue that the state should not recognize them?

The fact is that the civil institution of marriage is only parallel to, not dependent on, the religious institution of marriage. The Catholic Church is under no obligation to marry gays, any more than they are obliged to marry interreligious couples or non-Catholics. But churches that want to do so should be allowed to do so, with the same societal recognition. And if two gay people want to simply go to the courthouse and get hitched by the justice of the peace, they should be allowed to do so, and have that marriage recognized by the state, as much as any other folks who choose not to get married in a church have their marriages recognized by the IRS and Customs.

Civil marriage is a public act.

As long as they don’t frighten the horses.

Homosexuals are free to have a “union” ceremony with each other privately, …

Awfully big of you to say so. Thirty years ago, it might have gotten them hauled to jail.

… but they are not free to demand that such a relationship be solemnized and subsidized under the law.

Why not? It’s a public act, like you said. A personal commitment that ties them to the same obligations, and thus privileges, as a straight couple. The author simply asserts this without basis.

Homosexual activists say they need legal status so they can visit their partners in hospitals, etc. But hospitals leave visitation up to the patient except in very rare instances.

Like when the patient is unconscious and near death, in which case only “family members” are allowed in. Some hospitals, or some staff, might allow someone identifying themselves as the person’s “partner” to visit — some might not, especially if the biological family disapproves.

So if that’s not a serious problem, let’s allow hospitals the option to deny visitation to spouses, especially if there are objections from the patient’s parents. After all, it’s so rare, nobody should mind …

This “issue” is a smokescreen …

Those crafty homosexual activists.

… to cover the fact that, using legal instruments such as power of attorney, drafting a will, etc., homosexuals can share property, designate heirs, dictate hospital visitors and give authority for medical decisions.

Of course, much of that is automatically assumed with married couples. If I don’t write up a will, Margie is assumed to inherit my community property. If it were “Marty” instead, I would be ruled to have died intestate, and the state would glom onto it.

Now, sure, it’s smart to write up a will. But how many people do? How many people have to?

Regarding power of attorney and the like, sure, such things can be written up (and better keep a copy handy to “prove” it). Married couples, on the other hand, are largely assumed to have such power, and don’t have to prove it.

The fact is, the law assumes a lot about married couples. You can cover most of it through contracts and wills and the like, but it’s definitely a greater effort, more prone to challenge, more prone to needing to be proven, and more likely to “miss” something. And, in some cases (the IRS, for example), it’s not even something that can be worked around.

So why do we force gay couples to go through this to get a facsimle of most of the privileges if they are willing to take on the obligations of marriage?

What they should not obtain is identical recognition and support for a relationship that is not equally essential to society’s survival.

I daresay I could point to any number of opposite-sex marriages that are not “essential to society’s survival.” Should they then not be recognized?

If same-sex relationships acquire marital-type status in the law, several things will occur:

Besides the end of the world as we know it?

– Businesses that decline to recognize non-marital relationships will increasingly be punished through loss of contracts and even legal action. This is already occurring in San Francisco and in Canada.

Sounds like a good reason to accord marital status to gay couples. Then you know they’ve committed to one another. I actually agree that “non-marital relationship” laws are problematic, since they make marriage less distinctive, and are usually fuzzier in scope.

– Other groups, such as bisexuals and polygamists, will demand the right to redefine marriage to suit their own proclivities. Once the standard of one-man, one-woman marriage is broken, there is no logical stopping point.

I think they argued that about interracial marriage, too.

But, frankly, bring it on. Let’s take a look at the societal costs and benefits of it. Let’s see if there’s a rational basis to discriminate, other than “We’ve always done it this way.” A difference that makes no difference is no difference.

– As society rewards homosexual behavior, more young people will be encouraged to experiment and more will be discouraged from overcoming homosexual desires.

I’m not sure that marriage is a “reward” for homosexual behavior; would you call it a “reward” for heterosexual behavior right now?

But the bottom line here, whether the point is correct or not, is that the author has demonstrated that a driving concern to him is not whether marriage is best reserved for heterosexuals or not, but whether homosexuality is a Bad Thing. Otherwise, what would be the harm in young people who might be gay following through on that?

Popular understanding of what marriage is and what it requires will undergo change.

I think not.

Homosexual relationships, which usually lack both permanence and fidelity, …

Arguably because they aren’t allowed to get married and get the societal recognition and support that supports married heterosexual relationships.

… are unlikely to change to fit the traditional model of lifelong, faithful marriage.

So you say.

I know of gay couples who have been partners for decades. I know straight people whose marriages have lasted only a few years, or months. Who is better fitting the model of lifelong, faithful marriage?

Instead, society’s expectations of marriage will change in response to the homosexual model, thus leading to a further weakening of the institution of marriage.

I disagree, since I disagree on the idea of “the homosexual model.”

Some homosexual activists have acknowledged that they intend to use marriage mainly as a way to radically shift society’s entire conception of sexual morality.

And I’ve heard the same from straight people, too, male and female alike. Does that mean we shouldn’t let them get married?

Right now, over 50% of marriages (between straight people, mind you) end in divorce. Gays are, at most, only 10% of the population. It seems to me that there are much bigger fights to be fought to preserve the traditional model of faithful, lifelong marriage than whether gay people should marry. Indeed, even if 100% of gays married and divorced (unlikely, but let’s go extreme), it would raise the national divorce rate only 10%. Hardly a trend-setter.

And etc., etc., etc. The rest of the page is the conclusion (more of the same) and an appendix. The appendix, as hinted above, consists of various homosexual activists who see gay marriage as a way of radically changing sex roles and archaic traditions in society. Ho-hum. If you assume that the radical fringe of any movement — gay rights, Christian fundamentalism, the Democratic party, gun enthusiasts, black power activists, etc. — speak for more than just a fraction of their ostensible constituency, you’re nuts. The fact is, most of the gays I know who want to marry (or who want their marriage civilly recognized) want to blend into suburbia in as innocuous a way as any straight couple that weds — much to the horror of the folks quoted in the appendix.

The fact is, the way to defeat those radicals — which I assume the author of the piece does (and which, to some degree, I want to as well) is to embrace the vast majority of gays — people who are remarkably “average” in aggregate, save for their preference in bed partners — into the mainstream. Most gays want legal recognition of their relationships not because they want to turn their neighborhoods into steaming, swinging, leather-and-latex hotbeds of orgiastic passion, but because they want to be recognized as just like everyone else.

And you know what? They are.