Same Sex Marriage Reached A Crescendo In The Courts

In the heady times following the Massuchusettes ruling allowing same-sex marriage, same-sex marriage activists thought the corner had been turned for their cause.  They were very much mistaken though.  The latest blow to their cause came this week when the New York courts ruled that there is not a fundamental right to same-sex marriage.  This is especially troubling for same-sex marriage advocates, because New York is a deep-blue state and the courts there are seen as “progressive.”

The New York case results from suit brought by 44 couples denied marriage licenses in various municipalities in New York.  The plaintiffs brought suit claiming that the failure to issue a marriage license to them to marry another of the same gender violated the due process clause and equal protection clause of the New York Constitution.  The clauses have been given more expansive readings than similar provisions in the U.S. Consitution, which is part of the reason suit was brought.  The New York High Court, joining Arizona, New Jersey and Indiana, rejected the claim.

At the time of this writing, twenty states have constitutional amendments explicitly barring the recognition of same-sex marriage, confining civil marriage to a legal union between a man and a woman. Forty-three states have statutes defining marriage to two persons of the opposite-sex.  Most of the constitutional amendments have been in reaction to the Massachusettes decision.  This comports with public opinion polls reflecting roughly 60-40 against recognition of same-sex marriages.

It appears that the courts will let this play out in the state legislatures from coast to coast.  I agree with the courts.  If one looks at traditional due process rights, the right to marry is fundamental.  The right to same-sex marriage is not, as even those legal scholars in favor of gay marriage will admit .  If the activists want to obtain same-sex marriage rights for same-sex couples then they must win over the public, rather than try to force feed them. 

There is only one other state in the country that might allow same-sex marriage.  The battle in the courts is largely over.  The activists jumped the gun.  As a result of running to the courts instead of winning over the public, same-sex advocates face nearly insurmountable hurdles to achieve their desired goals.  This result is a direct outccome of a belief that it is an “us against them fight”  mentality.  So much for we will break the door down tactics.

377 thoughts on “Same Sex Marriage Reached A Crescendo In The Courts

  1. “Truth often suffers more by the heat of its defenders than the arguments of its opposers.”
    —William Penn

    Sadly true in this case.  I feel the same way about the case to remove the cross from the hill overlooking San Diego.  While most people recognize the truth of cliches like “pick your battles” in everyday life, something in their brains fails to scale up properly where national issues are involved.  “Patience is a virtue” and we badly need that virtue in winning social progress.

    Never mind ‘activist judges’ – activist citizens need to be reading Dale Carnegie’s “How to win friends and influence people”.

  2. Consi, why did you post this? Maybe you do not realize it, but if you feel persecuted, going to the courts (in addition to going (in)to politics) is what you are supposed to do in a democracy.

    Also, wasn’t it Martin Luther would said (in that sense) that sitting quietly and talking sensibly was not going to / did not produce any change?

    It’s always easy to let an institutional injustice stay that way if nobody raises a fuss.

  3. Ingolfson: Maybe you do not realize it, but if you feel persecuted, going to the courts (in addition to going (in)to politics) is what you are supposed to do in a democracy.

    Exactly. I believe this outcome speaks less about the “extreme” activists than it does about the still-present bigotries and prejudices that exist in the minds of many Americans (politicians and everyday people alike).

  4. Consi, why did you post this?

    I posted it primarily for the benefit of a friend who who stops in from time to time here. 

    The point being that if one has a goal, one must co-opt support from the other side.  The obvious implication of this as to how to advance an agenda seems to be lost on most iberal/progressive activists and writers.

  5. Ing: Consi, why did you post this?

    So we’d take our eyes off this ball? LOL
    Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives (John Stuart Mill).

  6. Consi: The point being that if one has a goal, one must co-opt support from the other side.

    (We crossed in the ether.)
    I agree with you – somehow we have to spin the benefits of enlightenment, in thought and action, to the xian conservatives.
    It’s a pity most are still under the thumb, or programming, of the (ex-head of the inquisition) pope or any number of protest-ant priests, pastors and performers, many of whom still believe, but all give the same opinion, that homosexuality is a conscious choice one makes at some point in time.
    In the early 80s I had a catholic macho alpha sales rep, one of two best I ever had (who later became my boss, then later on sacked me [I woulda sacked me too]  LOL ) who hated gays and told me so.
    I often tried to enlighten him to no avail. Then he had a son.
    The son, now in his mid 20s, is gay and, I’m lead to believe, a terrific ballet dancer.
    I hope he wasn’t ex-familied.
    What goes round comes round. smile

  7. I agree with Consi on this, because I believe the power of sales and public relations are underutilized in social progress.  While it is unlikely we’ll ever convince the radical fundiecrat leaders, we can demonstrate to their followers that we’re not the devil.  In fact, we’re their neighbors and they’ve been getting along with us just fine all along.

    Of course in my case, I’m talking about atheism but I see parallels to gay rights and the same kind of cultural/religious barriers exist for both.  So I take common cause with gays in the matter of public acceptance.

    Your neighborhood fundamentalist is a lot like anyone else.  Little good is served by trying to make them the devil; homophobia and atheiophobia are cultural and we can try to open holes in the cultural barriers.

    Yes, legal barriers exist – much more for gays than for atheists.  There is a time to sue, but it should be carefully chosen, and it shouldn’t be the leading edge of strategy. Lawsuits don’t change hearts any more than military campaigns do.  We have an open society (so far) so let’s take advantage of it.

  8. It seems few people recall what has brought an end to virtually every civilization in recorded history; “1. Natural disasters like drought, tsunami’s, earthquakes, massive flooding, plagues, and so on. #2. Corruption from the highest levels of society to the lowest.
    History, as they say, always repeats itself and these “issues” are just evidence of another rise and fall of a “great society”. Nature seems to know what normal is and, of course, nature ALWAYS wins. We are witnessing what some people call, “The pussification of America” or any society; just fill in the blank. -Cactus

  9. This just just proves how bigoted many judges are.

    On a related topic,a cross was recently burned on a gay family’s front lawn and hate grafitti was painted on the house.  Cross burnings are normally investigated by the FBI and prosecuted as a hate crime.  The FBI refused to investigate this cross burning because the victims were gay.

  10. Cactus: It seems few people recall what has brought an end to virtually every civilization in recorded history

    Time. It’s only natural. Every civilization will run its course eventually—including our own. The rights and/or status of gays has nothing to do with it.

  11. Ingolfson: Cactus, I cannot even be sure what side of the fence (if any) you come down with those sentences.

    You think that was fuzzy, you should see the entry he submitted. I’ve not published it because (A) it contained the whole of a copyrighted article without attribution or a link back and (B) it did nothing to support the claim he was making which was that if Hillary Clinton were to become President there’d be armed gangs running the street in open warfare after she stripped the Constitution of the Second Amendment.

  12. Cactus: … pussification …

    I like that word; a nice little pun on pacification although a little more pacified and specified. LOL

    if Hillary Clinton were to become President there’d be armed gangs running the street in open warfare after she stripped the Constitution of the Second Amendment.

    This sounds rather right-wing bat-shit crazy nut-job-ish. LOL

  13. The article in question came on the heels of Hillary’s latest “revelation” to give criminals (broad term) the right to vote. Ironically, the “what if” happened in Sao Paulo, Brazil the same month she had made this idea public, May 2006. And as far as taking sides on the Gay Marriage thing, is it even an issue? Just a lot of time, energy, and money wasted for a non-issue. The term “the pussification of America” came to my attention while I was in the 82nd Airborne. In other words, you can’t be so goddamned liberal that everything becomes too difficult.

  14. you can’t be so goddamned liberal that everything becomes too difficult.

    Yeah, it’s so bothersome to have to stop and think before jumping into another war or executing someone who might be innocent…

  15. I’d toss the pussification word onto George Carlin, since I last heard him say it in 1999 on HBO; “You’re All Diseased”

  16. Cactus: In other words, you can’t be so goddamned liberal that everything becomes too difficult.

    First of all, a problem for whom? Second of all, why the hell not?

  17. Double-dipping: I just realized that my “first of all” point makes little sense. What I meant to type was “too difficult for whom?”

    Dammit, Cactus, your incomprehensibility is rubbing off on me!  big surprise

  18. Cactus: … to give criminals (broad term) the right to vote

    And why not?
    If you want to deny the vote to those still in gaol, I suppose that’s cool.
    But, I read many of your citizens weren’t allowed to vote in the last ‘election’ coz they had the same name as a released criminal – someone who’s done his time; paid his price.
    I learnt these people actually have to front another judge to prove they should have their right to vote reinstated.
    But if you’re wearing the wrong clothes or the wrong skin colour and front the wrong judge, you ain’t got a shit show in China of getting your right to vote back.
    I think that’s just piss-poor … and small minded.
    You’ve currently got about 1% of your population in gaol. Would it be a stretch that 5% of your population has been in goal and therefore lost voting rights for all time until …
    How little brained is that?  confused

    And as far as taking sides on the Gay Marriage thing, is it even an issue?

    I’d hazard a guess and suggest it is for gays who are denied the choice to get married.

    S-Sadie: Dammit, Cactus, your incomprehensibility is rubbing off on me!

    Me too. I understood exactly what you meant. LOL

  19. Swordsbane:

    On another thread, you predicted that the issue of gay marriage would play out in the courts.  The whole thrust of this thread was that the attempted end run around the people by going to the courts, failed.  There are a few cases in the pipeline still, but, with the possible exception of one, the result will be the same.  Legally speaking, there is no constitutional argument for gay marriage. Notice the activists are not going to the Supreme Court. They know they will lose.

  20. Consi: … there is no constitutional argument for gay marriage.

    1. I suppose there is constitutional argument against gay marriage, that’s more than 10 years old?
    2. Why is it an issue? Either civil law is defined by the needs and rights of citizens, or civil laws will be placed under the dominion of religious laws and gay marriage will remain banned.
    3. What are xians so afraid of?
    4. How can gay marriage hurt you?
    5. Why should the xian viewpoint be taken over the moral viewpoint? Please don’t assume they’re the same. Xians do not own the only moral viewpoint. In fact historically, and dare I say even currently, the xian viewpoint is rather like the Muslim one. Extreme.
    6. I thought all men (and women?) were created equal and had the right to pursue happiness.
    7. I read that all the founding fathers were not xians and never mentioned god. Do you disagree with this?

  21. LuckyJohn19: 4. How can gay marriage hurt you?

    It can’t.

    Maybe it could hurt me in my old age a little bit, and certainly it could hurt my children.  But, by and large, gay marriage won’t have any harmful effect on me.

    For that matter, abortion doesn’t hurt me.  I am comfortably past the “Age of Legal Infanticide”, and am in absolutely no personal danger of being aborted.  There is no rational, self-serving reason I can offer for opposing abortion.

    However, I believe there’s more to making ethical decisions than “What’s in it for me?  How will this hurt me?”  I oppose both gay marriage and abortion for altruistic reasons: Niether can hurt me, but both can hurt somebody.

    Abortion won’t hurt me, but it has certainly hurt the 40 million or so children who have been aborted in this country since Roe v. Wade.  So I work to end abortion, even though it will never hurt me or my family.

    Gay marriage won’t hurt me or my family either, but it certainly will hurt children brought up in gay households.

    Back in the 60’s and 70’s, we were told that the whole “lifelong, monogamous marriage” thing was pointless and anachronistic.  Children didn’t need to be raised by their mother and father: “Just Mom” was fine, or perhaps “Mom and step-Dad and weekend Dad”, or “Grandma and Mom’s boyfriend”, or maybe “Mom, a monthly check, and usually a birthday card”.  Whatever was convenient.  By “convenient”, of course I mean convenient to the adults.  The important thing was that adults should never be put out or inconvenienced merely for the sake of their children.

    So we tried an enormous social experiment, and the subject of this experiement was no less than our own children.  No-fault divorce meant that parents could abandon their children for no particular reason other than “I felt like it”.  Not to worry, experts told us, the kids will be fine with whatever parents happened to be available.

    And as it turned out, the kids were not fine.  They were more likely to abuse drugs and alchohol.  They were less likely to graduate from high school.  They were much more likely to commit suicide.  Girls were far more likely to be sexually assaulted by the parade of unrelated stepdads and boyfriends moving into and out of Mom’s house.  These kids grew up and found it very difficult to form stable, long-term relationships of their own.

    Now we’re getting the same line of bull from those on the left.  “Two Dads” or “Two Moms” or “bi-Dad plus a random assortment of boyfriends and girlfriends”… They assure us that these are all perfectly good alternate family structures.  Never mind the fact that people who enter homosexual relationships can’t even keep their own personal lives in order: Let’s “marry” them, toss a few kids into the mix, and hope for the best.

    Every time we’ve listened to the left about how family structures should be changed in the past half-century, the result has been misery and harm to the children of those families.  Now the supporters of gay marriage wonder why people won’t vote for their wacky ideas?

  22. 1. I suppose there is constitutional argument against gay marriage, that’s more than 10 years old?
    2. Why is it an issue? Either civil law is defined by the needs and rights of citizens, or civil laws will be placed under the dominion of religious laws and gay marriage will remain banned.
    3. What are xians so afraid of?
    4. How can gay marriage hurt you?
    5. Why should the xian viewpoint be taken over the moral viewpoint? Please don’t assume they’re the same. Xians do not own the only moral viewpoint. In fact historically, and dare I say even currently, the xian viewpoint is rather like the Muslim one. Extreme.
    6. I thought all men (and women?) were created equal and had the right to pursue happiness.
    7. I read that all the founding fathers were not xians and never mentioned god. Do you disagree with this?

    This post was about the fact that same-sex marriage has [past tense] lost the battle in the courts with the exception of Massachusettes and possibly one other case in New Jersey (although the right to same-sex marriage will likely not be found there either).  All other cases currently in the pipeline will find that no such right exist.

    The analysis conducted by the courts is not one against gay marriage.  It is whether the equal protection clause and/or due process clauses of the given state’s consitution provide a means for gay and lesbian individuals to invalidate current statutes defining marriage on the grounds that the statutes violate a fundamental right.  If you want the legal analysis I will give you that.  The other material you are going on about, I have no intention of addressing, because frankly it is not relevant.

    I didn’t post this to debate the pros and cons of gay marriage.  I posted it to inform some members of the current fact that the approach taken by gay activists is not going to get them to where they want to be.  You don’t have to like it.  It’s not open for debate though.

  23. Daryl, you know better than to post crap like that smile. You’ve even gone on to imply that gay couples are highly promiscuous and don’t create any supportive relationships for their children. Anything I’ve read suggests that’s it in a nutshell (and it’s something Les wrote about ages ago already); it’s how you treat the kids that counts. Gender doesn’t. If that weren’t the case, Dad would have to be working and Mom would have to be cooking and doing the laundry, cause women can’t do the same things men can and have an effective marriage, or vice-versa. You aren’t just pulling the sex, but the gender and the roles into play saying same-sex marriages don’t work.

    You really wanna occupy that position, you gotta speak out against feminists, and any women who do anything that “men are supposed to do”. Not to say you might not have an argument (I know you’re good with topics other than sex), but you’re making it sloppy.

    You might have a more legitimate attack on the idea that gay parents might raise children with stronger anti-social tendencies. Maybe. I know a woman who was raised by two lesbian mothers.. I imagine that if they’re all on the rag things get a little unpleasant in the home… c’mon, I know you can at least get more creative. I sure can.

  24. Gay marriage won’t hurt me or my family either, but it certainly will hurt children brought up in gay households.

    Bullshit. Absolute BULLSHIT. If one thing became clear during the last decade or more it is that, left to their own devices, gays are just as much upstanding bores as we all are. They simply don’t have the ‘wrong’ pinups on their walls, okay?

    Also, your rubbish ignores newer scientific research that shows homosexuality as something that is (at least in part) ‘decided’ on before birth (they found that the more brothers your mother had before you, the higher your own chances were of being gay –  (Article, LA Times)).

    Yeez, we have a saying: “Sweep before your own door, there’s enough dirt there.” Why are so many either so mean or easily blinded that they constantly have to single out other groups as ‘evil’? But what really makes me mad is that you try to sell your stuff as ‘for the higher good’!!!

  25. Sorry, should obviously say ‘simply DO have the ‘wrong’ pinups…’, obviously.

  26. Arc, without endorsing Darryl’s viewpoint, to the extent that there is an implication that a homosexual lifestyle is more promiscous than a standard heterosexual one, an earlier post is on point:

    An early study, done prior to the AIDS epidemic, reflects that more than 75% of homosexual men admitted to having sex with more than 100 different males in their lifetime: approximately 15% claimed to have had 100-249 sex partners, 17% claimed 250-499, 15% claimed 500-999 and 28% claimed more than 1,000 lifetime sexual partners. (Bell AP, Weinberg MS. Homosexualities. New York 1978).  This study has come under some criticism for the methodology used.

    A more recent study of the homosexual population in Chicago reflects:

      …a high level of promiscuity and unhealthy behavior among that city’s homosexual male population.

      According to the researchers, 42.9 percent of homosexual men in Chicago’s Shoreland area have had more than 60 sexual partners, while an additional 18.4 percent have had between 31 and 60 partners. All total, 61.3 percent of the area’s homosexual men have had more than 30 partners, and 87.8 percent have had more than 15, the research found.

      As a result, 55.1 percent of homosexual males in Shoreland—known as Chicago’s “gay center

  27. Consi: This post was … not open for debate though.

    Oh?  LOL

    Daryl: Abortion won’t hurt me, but it has certainly hurt the 40 million or so children …

    Children? A bit of a stretch dontcha think? I was under the impression it was a foetus till it was born.

    Gay marriage won’t hurt me or my family either, but it certainly will hurt children brought up in gay households.

    And you know this to be a fact how?
    Could I hazard a guess and suggest that most hurt children are from heterosexual households and always will be, whether the law changes or not?

    No-fault divorce meant that parents could abandon their children for no particular reason other than “I felt like it

  28. Daryl, misery is part of the human condition.  It happens in any family where children have to live with animosity, and very much less than where children are protected and loved.  The exact plumbing involved, not so important.

    Consi, Daryl, to the extent (unproven in my mind) that gays are more promiscuous, that could be a result of the fact that they’re not allowed to live comfortably in stable relationships.  Imagine if your only sexual outlet were considered a sin or even a crime?

    And what Ingolfson said.

  29. While I do agree with the idea that it would be better to change minds on the issue of gay marriage as opposed to trying to force it through court action, I think Consi’s declaration that the court battles are all but over may be a bit premature. California still has a pending lawsuit over the issue coming up that could go either way depending on the arguments used.

    Lastly I have to comment on this bit from Daryl:

    Gay marriage won’t hurt me or my family either, but it certainly will hurt children brought up in gay households.

    Daryl, your concern for other people’s children is very touching so I’m sure you won’t be upset when others take an interest in how you are raising yours and any potential harm you may be exposing them to through things such as, say, your insistence on raising them as Christians? We all know that children raised as Christians have a greater incidence of growing up to become extremest in the ideology. Some brought up in a Christian family with strong anti-abortion messages have gone on to murder abortion doctors in cold blood. Why in the United Kingdom two Christian sects have been beating and killing each other for decades over the simple fact that one group is Catholic and the other is Protestant. Surely children raised as either faction are at greater risk of being emotionally disturbed to the point of violence against others. Not to mention that whole “spare the rod” message means you could be abusing your kids on a regular basis.

    Surely if it’s OK for you to meddle in the affairs of how others raise their kids then the same should be fair in reverse, yes? Tell you what, we won’t let the gays raise kids so long as you agree that Christians aren’t allowed either. Don’t want any potential harm from those environments damaging the little tykes, yes?

  30. Daryl, your concern for other people’s children is very touching so I’m sure you won’t be upset when others take an interest in how you are raising yours and any potential harm you may be exposing them to

    LOL  I went to a good private Christian college in East Tennessee.  Wanna know who we had to help up the stairs, clean up, and put to bed?  The preachers’ kids. 

    I figured out it was because of the unrelenting external control with which they’d grown up.  They never had any chance to develop self-discipline or self-control; those muscles were atrophied from non-use.  It’s as if their parents did all their homework for them K-12.

    Never mind killing abortion doctors, Daryl; just make sure your kids get to make their own mistakes now and then.  You won’t always be there to exert your parental control.

  31. Bullshit. Absolute BULLSHIT. If one thing became clear during the last decade or more it is that, left to their own devices, gays are just as much upstanding bores as we all are. They simply don’t have the ‘wrong’ pinups on their walls, okay?

    We already know what happens when you introduce non-biological guardians into the family: increased rates of poverty, domestic violence, child abuse (physical and sexual), bad grades, dropping out of school, suicide, and low self-esteem. (Some reading available here). Even if we grant the theory that there is no difference between gays and straights other than the same sex attraction, we still have ample reason to oppose gay marriage. It will screw up the kids. Not all kids, there will be plenty of exceptions. But the statistical pattern of poor outcomes will nevertheless remain.

    But the hypothesis that gays are just as dull and boring as straights cannot be sustained. Daryl and I both used to be liberals. We have gone to gay bars with our gay friends and been awed at the litany of sexual partners our gay friends have had just from those in the bar at that time. I’m sure many of you have had the same experience. Of course, the plural of anecdote is not data so Daryl has pointed out in this previous discussion that gays are far more likely to have short term relationships, infidelities, and open relationships. That is fine for adults enjoying their right to privacy, but it is less than fine for the child that has no long-term father/mother figure or role model for long term relationship success. Gays also have higher rates of substance abuse and domestic violence.

    The best you can do is to maintain that once we legalize gay marriage, gays will then become just as dull and boring as straights. In other words, conduct yet another completely untested population-wide study on our nation’s children. And again, the very best that you can hope for is that gay marriage is only as bad as single motherhood, no-fault divorce and cohabitating single parents.

  32. I find it funny that the best argument anyone can come up with against gay marriage is that it might hurt children potentially raised in that marriage. We already have de facto gay marriage. Two people of the same sex are perfectly free to form a long-lasting, stable relationship- a fact that conservatives often point out when explaining that the are only opposing “a change in the definition of marriage”. They’re also free to raise children; only in the case of actually adopting children unrelated to both partners do gays tend to run up against insurmountable problems.

    So, conservatives, how exactly do you justify prohibiting gay marriage on the basis of helping children? Logic would dictate that the only outcomes of gay marriage directly pertaining to children would be that both partners could legally adopt a child who was either biologically related to only one partner, or to neither (this is, of course, assuming that full marriage equality presumes full adoption rights). I cannot fathom how anyone who claims to care about the welfare of children can think that it’s better for a child to either be raised by only one parent with legal rights to it, or to never be adopted at all. Do you know how many gay couples are raising children that no one wanted right now, who kicked around the foster care system far past the point at which children are usually adopted? Children born with HIV, or addicted to crack?

    Do conservatives seriously want to make the argument that these kids would have been better off if it had been even harder for their gay parents to adopt them? Whether or not they would have been better off with heterosexual parents is irrelevant to the point of absurdity. This is the thing I never get about the retarded anti-gay adoption argument (which has somehow become synonymous with the anti-gay marriage argument)- the notion that any kid raised by parents who want her, but happen to be gay, is likely to be worse off than parents who just happened to be biologically capable of producing her. Gay couples have to want to have kids, and frequently have to sustain that desire over a period of years- which would still be the case even if adoption were made easier. They never accidentally have unwanted kids, they typically don’t have more children than they can afford, and they never have abortions. Parenting-wise, they should be a conservative’s dream.

  33. Good post Ulfrekr, you have brought up some points that I have also been considering. The gist is that there are two different points under consideration. One is marriage/procreation. The other is adoption. To put it more explicitly:

    (A) – adopt: The circumstances under which it is ethical to allow non-biological guardians to take parental rights over a child

    and

    (P) – procreate: The circumstances under which it is ethical to procreate

    As a Christian and as someone who has looked at the scientific evidence regarding the breakdown of the married, two-parent biological family, I maintain that the (P) can only be met by traditional marriages in which both parents have recognized their obligation to unconditionally love their children. However, (A) is another matter. In these cases someone has already failed to meet (P), or there have been deaths to the parents. Necessarily, (A) has lower standards than (P).

    I think it is open question as to whether gays can meet (A). Perhaps they can, or perhaps children would be better off in foster care or orphanages. However, there is no contradiction in taking the conservative position that people in gay unions should not do (P) while still being allowed to do (A) – adopt.

  34. Gay marriage . . will hurt children brought up in gay households.

    Show me the evidence for this. You’ve made an assertion here that is absolutely not backed up by available empirical evidence.

    Arc, without endorsing Darryl’s viewpoint, to the extent that there is an implication that a homosexual lifestyle is more promiscous than a standard heterosexual one, an earlier post is on point:

    Well, there are at least two factors involved here that I can think of off the top of my head:

    1. The historical, traditional, and on-going bias against gay relationships that has made it extraordinarily difficult for gays to have and sustain monogamous relationships.

    There has never been the kind of broad acceptance of gay relationships that would foster and support monogamy. Cognitively, this leads to a situation in which sex becomes separated from intimacy for gay people—hence, lower rates of monogamy.

    Now that the gay community is asking to combine intimacy and sexuality through marriage, conservative elements are doing all they can to prevent it while simultaneously decrying promiscuity in the gay community. Odd, isn’t it?

    2. Men have the benefit of all the goodies that lots of testosterone brings with it—including an increased sex drive. With no legitimate outlet for it, is it really a big surprise that they’re more sexually and secretly active than those who have a legitimate sexual outlet? 

    No-fault divorce meant that parents could abandon their children for no particular reason other than “I felt like it

  35. Justin: I maintain that the (P) [ethical procreation] can only be met by traditional marriages in which both parents have recognized their obligation to unconditionally love their children.

    This is definitely a topic worthy of discussion, Justin, but I don’t see how it can have any bearing when we’re talking about legal rights. There’s no legal injunction regarding who can procreate, and there’s unlikely to ever be one in this country. Are you advocating that we implement one?

    However, there is no contradiction in taking the conservative position that people in gay unions should not do (P) while still being allowed to do (A) – adopt.

    Maybe not, but again, it’s irrelevant to the question of gay marriage. Not having legal recognition of their relationship isn’t going to stop any gay couple from raising a child who is biologically related to one of the parents. All it’s going to do is make the welfare of that family a little less protected.

    Here’s what I don’t understand: Let’s say, for purposes of the conversation, that the absolute best environment for a child to be raised in really is a “traditional”, two-heterosexual-parent marriage, where both parents are legally committed to each other and have recognized their obligation to unconditionally love their children. Now, let’s assume that there’s no rational way to actually prevent children from being raised in other circumstances (if I’m wrong here, please call me on it). In this scenario, in which the traditional family is the ideal, let’s assume that the quality of other household environments can be determined based on how far they deviate from the ideal. So, under these assumptions, which is better: A) a family of two parents and their children, where both parents are legally committed to each other and have recognized their obligation to unconditionally love their children, yet the parents are of the same sex and one or both of them is not biologically related to the children; or B) virtually any other permutation of family? Doesn’t the gay family come closer to the conservative ideal than a single parent family, or a foster family, or whatever?

    So how does preventing gay couples from marrying and raising children help kids, if far more kids will still be raised in families that are in a sense even further from the ideal than gay-parent families are? Blocking gay marriage does nothing to stem single-parenthood, or revolving door parenthood, or any of the myriad other family structures that are much more prevalent and which one would think conservatives would be much more concerned about.

    And this is why you conservatives so frequently get accused of just hating gay people. To most of us who really think about your arguments, even basing the logic on the same assumptions as you guys seem to, the arguments don’t ultimately seem to hold water unless there is another agenda at play.

  36. Here’s what I don’t understand: Let’s say, for purposes of the conversation, that the absolute best environment for a child to be raised in really is a “traditional

  37. Justin, you have a rather rosy view of ‘traditional’ families.  Think of them as tight containers for misery in many cases; at least all ‘dat bid’ness stays out of the news, usually.

    There are far greater variations among individuals than there are between the averages of groups.  As I said to Daryl, what children need is a supportive, loving, functioning family.  When that is the case, the children will do fine even if the parents are married and of opposite genders!  raspberry

  38. Justin writes…

    In the early 20th century, only 1% of whites were born outside of traditional marriages. That is what conservatives want to get back to.

    Is it just me? Or does the above strike anyone else as an incredibly bigoted statement even for Justin?

    As to which is worse, no-fault divorce, gay marriage, single motherhood, or cohabitating singles, that question does not need to be answered. They are all worse than the ideal.

    Everfresh Translation: If it ain’t the best situation then it shouldn’t be allowed at ALL. No shades of gray in MY world!

    [Edited to include full quote. I missed part of it on the first attempt.]

  39. Men have the benefit of all the goodies that lots of testosterone brings with it—including an increased sex drive. With no legitimate outlet for it, is it really a big surprise that they’re more sexually and secretly active than those who have a legitimate sexual outlet?

    Maybe it’s not you, but I thought you all were saying it was a hormone deficiency that resulted in homosexuality because the older brothers got all the goodies?  That aside, females, from humans to chimps, are just as driven by the desire to get laid. They are more discrete about it though. 
    ab
    The other thought amounts to nothing more than blaming me for someone else’s behavior.  Isn’t that like blaming video games for youth crime?  It is.  It doesn’t work there.  It doesn’t work here.

    Furthermore, one should have seen the floodgates open as all these committed couples in Massuchusetts rushed to get married.  On May 17, 2004 couples could began marrying up there.  The floodgates in that first year? 6,000 couples.  A full twelve thousand people.  The commonwealth has roughly 6.5 million people.  Using the gaydar from the gay community that fully 10% are gay, something that is hogwash, but let’s use their stats, that’s 650,000 gay folks. What percentage married when given this right that is so precious and which the lack of induces one to have anonymous sex in bars, oh, let’s see:  12,000/650,000=.01846 Not 1%.  Not 1/10th of one percent.  18 hundreds of one percent.  Precious indeed.

  40. Justin: In the early 20th century, only 1% of whites were born outside of traditional marriages. That is what conservatives want to get back to.

    Implicit racism aside, that doesn’t sound like an incredibly momentous goal.

  41. Shelley, I have a suspicion that in your googling you selectively visited gay and liberal websites and avoided websites that were Christian or conservative. A trip to PubMed (an online database of peer reviewed studies) shows:

    In 1994, American Psychological Association amicus briefs informed two state Supreme Courts that (a) homosexual parents are not more apt to have homosexual children; (b) lesbians “score significantly higher than heterosexual parents” on a measure of parental effectiveness; and (c) no differences between the children raised by homosexuals and nonhomosexuals had been found “regardless of the geographic region within the United States where the children were raised.” In fact, the evidence from these briefs shows to the contrary that (a) homosexual parents are more apt to have homosexual children; (b) the findings on parental effectiveness consisted of 15 fathers being less verbal than 45 mothers; and (c) the finding of no differences between homosexually and heterosexually raised children consisted of investigators visiting 11 states to test 89 offspring of 83 lesbian vs. 81 children of 69 nonlesbian volunteers.

    link

    And

    From this tentative method of counting, support was found for common sense beliefs that children of homosexuals will be more apt to become homosexual and have poorer peer relationships, while weaker support was found for some of the other predictions. As assessed in this way, the empirical evidence in the literature tended to lean against claims of “no differences” between children raised by homosexuals and heterosexuals. 

    link

    I would also add that some of the studies showing that children of homosexuals do not become homosexuals typically use the 10% figure for prevalence of homosexuality, even though in reality the number is closer to 2% to 3%.

    The fact is that research on gay parents in 2005 is about where research on single motherhood stood in the mid 1960’s when the right was losing that battle in the ongoing culture war. It took about 20 to 30 years of being called bigots before leftist sociologists started to come around to the fact that single motherhood is bad for children. Now those same sociologists who got dragged kicking and screaming into reality on single motherhood and divorce are blithely embarking on a new experiment with our nation’s children.

  42. The math is right, but my stated percentage is not.  The percentage of gays married in the first year. 1.8%.

  43. Sadie, would you like to give us some background on the author of the writer who penned the document you are referring to.  Her name is Charlotte J. Patterson of the University of Virginia.

  44. But do most same-sex couples accept the norm of sexual exclusivity? In a 1999 survey of such couples in Massachusetts, sociologist Gretchen Stiers found that only 10 percent of the men and 32 percent of the women thought that a “committed” intimate relationship entailed sexual exclusivity. An essay called “Queer Liberalism?” in the June 2000 American Political Science Review reviewed six books that discussed same-sex marriage. None of the six authors affirmed sexual exclusivity as a precondition of same-sex marriage, and most rejected the idea that sexual fidelity should be expected of “married” homosexual partners.

    Some proponents of same-sex marriage believe that its legalization will help same-sex partners be sexually faithful. The evidence, however, suggests that acceptance of the norm of sexual exclusivity is a minority view among homosexuals in the United States and elsewhere. Furthermore, because intimate relations between persons of the same sex are inherently—and not merely contingently—unconnected to procreation, there is no principled reason to limit same-sex marriage to two persons. Thus, one can reasonably predict that same-sex marriage is going to be intrinsically unstable, as Sex Panic recognized in expressing its contempt for the institution. As if to confirm these points, the first same-sex couple to receive a marriage license in Provincetown, Massachusetts, told the press that they had an “open” marriage.

    Link

  45. Implicit racism aside, that doesn’t sound like an incredibly momentous goal.

    Unlike the liberals on this board, I want for all children – black, white, and in-between – to be raised by their biological parents. And it is certainly a momentous goal for people who actually care about the wellbeing of children.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.