The government definitely doesn't need to be more involved with our personal relationships and lifestyles, especially in our bedrooms.

My simple argument against gay marriage is to look at tradition. There has been no
tradition of such ever. The thing about tradition is that it tells us what has worked in the past. The problem with our age is that a lot of people have decided that things can be changed without consequences. They have been wrong time and again. The problem with social changes is that they can never be tested out in advance so the only thing one can look at is what worked in the past.

Yes, I know we are all so smart we know what the consequences will be before hand. All I can say, if you really can do this your fortune is made writing software because no one else besides you can tell what software will do before hand and software is a simple problem compared to human relationships.

Eric: You and me baby on the gay marriage thing.

Why are so many gay people so hot to submit to government regulation of intimate details of their lives? And since gay marriage will lead to gay divorce, why invite the big nose and grabby hands of the State into the inevitable dissolution of their relationships, with government control over the allocation and distribution of property? It's a mystery to me why people think they need the imprimateur of the state to validate their love life.

Gay couples of America: enter into contracts for the benefits of marriage. Execute durable health care powers of attorney. Write joint and mutual wills, even if you are in your 20's. Take the good and leave behind the bad.

Rhodium Heart touches on a good point. Much of the advocacy for gay marriage does seem to earnestly desire government regulation, which seems to me a hornet's nest of unintended consequences. If we are looking for a "because," I think that gays desire (understandably) the approval of society. For liberals, the words society and government are nearly synonymous - less so for conservatives, and libertarians less still. For liberals, the government is the agency of society's goals; to live in a society that does X is to imply that the government will pressure you do X if you won't on your own. Conservatives and libertarians see the government as a distinct portion of society, not its emblem.

Eric:
"As to Andrew Sullivan, he's not sounding like a kneejerk Obama sycophant on this one."

Sweetcakes, I'd be grateful for small blessings. Sullivan never makes one's gorge rise quite so dependably as when he does take it into his head to be a sycophant.

Rhodium Heart:
"It's a mystery to me why people think they need the imprimatur of the state to validate their love life."

In this case, I think that to ask the question is to answer it. Too many advocates of state-sanctioned gay marriage see it as fulfilling a psychological need for validation; it's just part of the general entitlement mentality.

I do not find your argument quirky at all. In order to expand the current definition of marriage to include gay marriage, without an actual re-write of the law, the courts would have to declare homosexuals a distinct grievance class. There is nothing libertarian about advocating the creation of such distinctions.

Consider these two legal potential definitions of marriage

1. Only a marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in the State of wherever.

2. Only a marriage between two single adults is valid or recognized in the State of wherever.

To my mind either one passes Constitutional muster on equal protection grounds. Since they can be applied equally to all people as defined within the law (man, woman, and single adult all having valid legal definitions) regardless of any concern for their sexual preferences (or any other personal characteristic, eg. race, religion etc.)

The only way to allow same sex marriage with marriage definition one is to somehow argue that sexual preference trumps gender for purposes of equal protection claims. Not only is this a bad idea, it is also a perversion of the plain meaning of the English language.

Gender is (fairly) easily defined and identified while sexual orientation is at best a spectrum of predilection, and is known to change over time, (or as opportunities arise.) Not exactly a hill where libertarians should want to die on.

I personally would not support definition two, but would accept that it was entirely legal and valid should it be passed by legislation or by legal proposition. Conversely I cannot support its imposition by the courts as this represents Constitutional overreach and if we allow the courts to effectively re-write that which the legislature or people have written then our system of government is effectively null and void.

I do not find your argument quirky at all. In order to expand the current definition of marriage to include gay marriage, without an actual re-write of the law, the courts would have to declare sexual orientation (and not just homosexuality) a distinct grievance class. There is nothing libertarian about advocating the creation of such distinctions.

Consider these two legal potential definitions of marriage

1. Only a marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in the State of wherever.

2. Only a marriage between two single adults is valid or recognized in the State of wherever.

To my mind either one passes Constitutional muster on equal protection grounds. Since they can be applied equally to all people as defined within the law (man, woman, and single adult all having valid legal definitions) regardless of any concern for their sexual preferences (or any other personal characteristic, eg. race, religion etc.)

The only way to allow same sex marriage with marriage definition one is to somehow argue that sexual preference trumps gender for purposes of equal protection claims. Not only is this a bad idea, it is also a perversion of the plain meaning of the English language.

Gender is (fairly) easily defined and identified while sexual orientation is at best a spectrum of predilection, and is known to change over time, (or as opportunities arise.) Not exactly a hill where libertarians should want to die on.

I personally would not support definition two, but would accept that it was entirely legal and valid should it be passed by a legislature or by legal proposition of the people. Conversely I cannot support its imposition by the courts as this represents Constitutional overreach and if we allow the courts to effectively re-write that which the legislature or people have written then our system of government is effectively null and void.

Living in California (transplanted - not native) I wanted to vote "NO" on 8. I know more than a few people who would love to be married to a member of the same sex. I wish they could. Instead - I voted "YES" (I'm a white, hetero, male).

My reasons were (in no particular order):
1) The courts decided something they had no right to decide
2) Obama and the Dems were going to ride the 'Change' mantra for all it was worth - as a fiscal conservative (more like a small 'L' libertarian, who typically votes R, I needed some way to tell the pol's "F-You". I'm a citizen - hear me roar.
3) The .1% -.5% homosexual fringe tends to take any inch they get in terms of rights and stretch it as far as they can (visit zombietime.com) Marriage isn't a right - it's a legal construct. (Which is another reason why I wanted to vote 'No')

I wish I could have voted 'No'. I wanted to vote 'No'. With those three reasons - and others - I couldn't.

I have no incentive to vote honestly if the media has no incentive to cover politicians honestly. I'm forced to offset their dishonesty through my votes. I hate it.

I voted a straight Republican ticket this year because of their dishonesty - I've never done that before - and I'm ashamed that I did. Heck - I'm ready to donate to the RNC because of it- and that makes me sick.

What is even more ironic is that socons may now find a home with the Democrats.

Which would make the Republicans the Party of Liberty. Again. Thank the Maker.

2000 years ago Christ could say love your neighbor as yourself and could give us the Parable of the Good Samaritan. St. Paul could take Christianity to the Gentiles and Christianity was evangelized into all the world. No matter the challenges it was easy to see that men and women of different races were alike before God. Anyone who reaches up to God knows that he must also reach out to his brother. One can have questions about the role of judicial activism in civil rights (I think it pushed us off course) but it is hard to decry the motivations.

But the same St. Paul decried fornication and unnatural affections. He spoke of marriage as between a husband and wife. How can two thousand years of history and human progress be turned on its head in one or two generations?

We have spent millennia refining the notions of marital love and putting boundaries on acceptable expression of sexuality. Almost everyone has tendencies that would exceed these bounds and millions an even billions resist and live faithfully in marriage. But homosexuals claim that their tendencies are special. We tolerate these tendencies but we cannot formalize or legitimize them in marriage and we must do everything in our constitutional power to prevent judges from doing so.

"What does 'the pursuit of happiness' mean if you are unable to construct the major building blocks of your own life as you most desire?"

That's the libertarian argument for gay marriage.

"If you do not want to give gays a way to sanctify their long-term relationships, are you saying you are just fine with gay promiscuity. It's not nice to whipsaw people."

That's the conservative argument for gay marriage.

"Wow. It would just be like so cool."

That's the liberal argument for gay marriage.

I don't think gay marriage will go anywhere until there is a concerted gay/lesbian voice pushing the matter, similar to women on abortion rights and blacks on civil rights. Curiously, the issue seems to be being pushed more by surrogates in the media and by progressives looking for a cause.

Rhodium Heart:

Don't think the issue is so much the blessing of The State as it is the welter of laws that give privilege only to marriage, from jail/hospital visitation to inheritence and benefits sharing.

Charlie, the solution to the inheritance issue is to abolish all inheritance/estate taxes above a minimal amount appropriate to fund the probate courts. And those who manage their finances so as to keep assets owned by living trusts, thereby bypassing those courts, would only be taxed on anything they missed, that had to pass through a pourover will. Thus, these taxes become more properly understood as "user fees".

That way, the same tax is charged when one member of a heterosexual union called "marriage" passes away as is levied on a member of a same-sex union.

Eric: interestingly, cement does not hold brick or stone together. Gravity and friction do. Cement is only useful as a thin glue that transmits compression forces through the whole face area of the stones.

Perhaps that is the lesson. The Republican Party is made of stone, of economic and defense conservatism. The cement, the glue, has been born-again Christians and the old, Republican establishment moderates. If our cement breaks down, our structure can fail under high wind loads (the Democrats) that slightly push the walls out of true. (Or a high weight, as was the Iraq War.)

I saw the pro- and anti-Prop 8 ads, and they made me less surprised by the results. In the pro-, those who supported the measure (and opposed same sex marriage) were portrayed as bigot nerds, ala the PC in the famous Apple ads. Forgive me if I suggest that is no way to persuade. The anti- ads had documented instances of what could reasonably be be construed as gay indoctrination in elementary schools (field trips by first graders to lesbian weddings as a teaching exercise, instruction concerning the unquestioned value of same sex marriages with no opt-out for parents, etc.). Forgive me if I suggest non-nerd bigots might find this objectionable.

I saw the pro- and anti-Prop 8 ads, and they made me less surprised by the results. In the pro-, those who supported the measure (and opposed same sex marriage) were portrayed as bigot nerds, ala the PC in the famous Apple ads. Forgive me if I suggest that is no way to persuade. The anti- ads had documented instances of what could reasonably be be construed as gay indoctrination in elementary schools (field trips by first graders to lesbian weddings as a teaching exercise, instruction concerning the unquestioned value of same sex marriages with no opt-out for parents, etc.). Forgive me if I suggest non-nerd bigots might find this objectionable.

If you're looking for a single scapegoat here, Obama isn't it. Instead turn your eyes to the mayor's office in San Francisco.

Gavin Newsom is the reason this proposition passed, plain and simple. He flaunted and mocked the will of the people and engaged in a grand act of civil disobedience.

Then when his actions were "vindicated" by the California Supreme Court, he arrogantly declared not only that gay marriage was gonna happen "whether you like it or not", but that "where California goes, so goes the rest of the nation."

Gavin Newsom plus YouTube equals Yes On Prop 8.

I do think gay marriage is going to happen, in California, legally, someday. In that sense I think he's on the right side of the issue. But his was a tactical blunder of epic proportions and he set the movement back tremendously.

"Freedom" is the perfect theme for the next Republican iteration -- like "Contract with America," I think a platform of "Freedom for America" is a winner in 2010 or 2012. Assuming the fairness doctrine, card check, and a tax increase are passed in the next 2-4 years, the message "freedom of speech, freedom of contract, freedom of property" will resonate with voters.

For me, I'd like to strengthen traditional marriage in exchange for same sex marriage.

Many people would rather their spouse hit them then cheat on them. That suggests adultery is a real harm. Adultery makes divorce more likely. A real harm. Adultery is bad for the kids. (Ask Willie Loman.) A real harm. Just like neglecting your child in the privacy of your own home is a crime, adultery should be a crime. This false distinction that bad sexual behavior should be allowed the mantle of privacy while negligent, fraudulent and violent bad behavior should be exposed and prosecuted should be thrown under the bus where it belongs.

Lets make adultery a misdemeanor, punishable by a day in jail, and then enforce the law.

Also, let's bring back alienation of affection and let such suits be brought often enough that they are a staple of the tabloids.

And ditch no fault divorce. Mutual fault divorce is OK.

These steps will strengthen traditional marriage to the point that same sex marriage can't possibly weaken it.

That's my compromise.

Yours,
Wince

"Marriage", to the extent that it exists under the US Constitution, is but a legal contract between two equal citizens. The populace, via the federal government, has seen fit to assign special status and priviledges to citizens who obtain a contract of marriage. There is nothing wrong with this and it promotes a healthy society. But, if we do not permit ANY two citizens to enter into this beneficial contract, then we are denying them their equal rights under the Constitution.

Perhaps, rather than redefine the word "marriage", we should refer only to "civil unions" in the legal context, and leave marriage between a man and a woman to the religious sphere.

If you ask me, this is a perfect opportunity to get government out of the marriage biz altogether.

What's the history of government-issued marriage licenses? Racism and eugenics? Not too pretty.

Marriage isn't a right, nor is it a privelege. It's association, and we're supposed to be guaranteed freedom of association.

So, why not have a standardized contract, and remove all regulations regarding who can enter into such a contract? Treat it like land ownership or something. American real estate records are some of the best in the world, but there's no regulation of what group of people can record a Joint Tenancy with Right of Survivorship deed. Nobody expects the government to decide who can and who can't, or to regulate anything to make sure everyone conforms to some norm. If a dispute arise because they couldn't agree on the landscaping, oh well. They have to work it out on their own.

That seems to have worked quite well, and the (limited) government role in recording real estate ownership seems to truly add value.

Lots of people don't care for their neighbors. We don't have to like our neighbors' interpersonal relationships, either. Certainly, the government has no business forcing our neighbors to have friends, or spouses, that we like.

If we limit government's role to that which adds value (recording contracts, et al.), then that solves the problem. If you don't agree with your neighbor about who should share his/her bed, oh well. You don't have to.

Mom,

We have no contracts which result in the creation of relatively defenseless and powerless human beings who were not parties to the original contract. Marriage is unique. It creates unique rights and unique responsibilities. It is not simply a legal contract between two equal citizens.

Yours,
Wince

But, if we do not permit ANY two citizens to enter into this beneficial contract, then we are denying them their equal rights under the Constitution.

This thing equal protection, it does not mean what you think it means. Else, why stop at just any two people? As this is inherently discriminatory towards people of a polyamorous disposition.

Perhaps, rather than redefine the word "marriage", we should refer only to "civil unions" in the legal context, and leave marriage between a man and a woman to the religious sphere.

Now that is a workable, and decidedly libertarian solution. Get government out of the marriage issue entirely. Then it is simply a matter of which groups and entities the government wishes to grace with special protections.

Of course, they could then restrict those special protections only to male/female relationships under the same logic that allows for affirmative action, even though that is a true violation of equal protection.

I think mcg is right on the money. This issue will, eventually be accepted by voters at the ballot box, sooner (California) or later (Ohio, etc.). Heck, support for gay marriage ban plunged 10% from March 2000 and November 2008 in California. But trying to railroad your case through the courts can only create backlash.

In fact, had the Courts NOT intervened, gay marriage would likely have been passed by the legislature democratically. The votes to pass a gay marriage bill currently exist in the legislature and have for several years. All it would have taken was a Governor willing to sign the bill into law (Schwarzeneggar vetoed a bill in 2006) and it would be done with. But, under California law, now that the voters amended the constitution by initiative, the law can only be amended by an initiative, so a pro gay marriage legislature is now powerless to enact such a change.

I think mcg is right on the money. This issue will, eventually be accepted by voters at the ballot box, sooner (California) or later (Ohio, etc.). Heck, support for gay marriage ban plunged 10% from March 2000 and November 2008 in California. But trying to railroad your case through the courts can only create backlash.

In fact, had the Courts NOT intervened, gay marriage would likely have been passed by the legislature democratically. The votes to pass a gay marriage bill currently exist in the legislature and have for several years. All it would have taken was a Governor willing to sign the bill into law (Schwarzeneggar vetoed a bill in 2006) and it would be done with. But, under California law, now that the voters amended the constitution by initiative, the law can only be amended by an initiative, so a pro gay marriage legislature is now powerless to enact such a change.

I think mcg is right on the money. This issue will, eventually be accepted by voters at the ballot box, sooner (California) or later (Ohio, etc.). Heck, support for gay marriage ban plunged 10% from March 2000 and November 2008 in California. But trying to railroad your case through the courts can only create backlash.

In fact, had the Courts NOT intervened, gay marriage would likely have been passed by the legislature democratically. The votes to pass a gay marriage bill currently exist in the legislature and have for several years. All it would have taken was a Governor willing to sign the bill into law (Schwarzeneggar vetoed a bill in 2006) and it would be done with. But, under California law, now that the voters amended the constitution by initiative, the law can only be amended by an initiative, so a pro gay marriage legislature is now powerless to enact such a change.

I think mcg is right on the money. This issue will, eventually be accepted by voters at the ballot box, sooner (California) or later (Ohio, etc.). Heck, support for gay marriage ban plunged 10% from March 2000 and November 2008 in California. But trying to railroad your case through the courts can only create backlash.

In fact, had the Courts NOT intervened, gay marriage would likely have been passed by the legislature democratically. The votes to pass a gay marriage bill currently exist in the legislature and have for several years. All it would have taken was a Governor willing to sign the bill into law (Schwarzeneggar vetoed a bill in 2006) and it would be done with. But, under California law, now that the voters amended the constitution by initiative, the law can only be amended by an initiative, so a pro gay marriage legislature is now powerless to enact such a change.

I think mcg is right on the money. This issue will, eventually be accepted by voters at the ballot box, sooner (California) or later (Ohio, etc.). Heck, support for gay marriage ban plunged 10% from March 2000 and November 2008 in California. But trying to railroad your case through the courts can only create backlash.

In fact, had the Courts NOT intervened, gay marriage would likely have been passed by the legislature democratically. The votes to pass a gay marriage bill currently exist in the legislature and have for several years. All it would have taken was a Governor willing to sign the bill into law (Schwarzeneggar vetoed a bill in 2006) and it would be done with. But, under California law, now that the voters amended the constitution by initiative, the law can only be amended by an initiative, so a pro gay marriage legislature is now powerless to enact such a change.

I think mcg is right on the money. This issue will, eventually be accepted by voters at the ballot box, sooner (California) or later (Ohio, etc.). Heck, support for gay marriage ban plunged 10% from March 2000 and November 2008 in California. But trying to railroad your case through the courts can only create backlash.

In fact, had the Courts NOT intervened, gay marriage would likely have been passed by the legislature democratically. The votes to pass a gay marriage bill currently exist in the legislature and have for several years. All it would have taken was a Governor willing to sign the bill into law (Schwarzeneggar vetoed a bill in 2006) and it would be done with. But, under California law, now that the voters amended the constitution by initiative, the law can only be amended by an initiative, so a pro gay marriage legislature is now powerless to enact such a change.

I think mcg is right on the money. This issue will, eventually be accepted by voters at the ballot box, sooner (California) or later (Ohio, etc.). Heck, support for gay marriage ban plunged 10% from March 2000 and November 2008 in California. But trying to railroad your case through the courts can only create backlash.

In fact, had the Courts NOT intervened, gay marriage would likely have been passed by the legislature democratically. The votes to pass a gay marriage bill currently exist in the legislature and have for several years. All it would have taken was a Governor willing to sign the bill into law (Schwarzeneggar vetoed a bill in 2006) and it would be done with. But, under California law, now that the voters amended the constitution by initiative, the law can only be amended by an initiative, so a pro gay marriage legislature is now powerless to enact such a change.

I think mcg is right on the money. This issue will, eventually be accepted by voters at the ballot box, sooner (California) or later (Ohio, etc.). Heck, support for gay marriage ban plunged 10% from March 2000 and November 2008 in California. But trying to railroad your case through the courts can only create backlash.

In fact, had the Courts NOT intervened, gay marriage would likely have been passed by the legislature democratically. The votes to pass a gay marriage bill currently exist in the legislature and have for several years. All it would have taken was a Governor willing to sign the bill into law (Schwarzeneggar vetoed a bill in 2006) and it would be done with. But, under California law, now that the voters amended the constitution by initiative, the law can only be amended by an initiative, so a pro gay marriage legislature is now powerless to enact such a change.

We have no contracts which result in the creation of relatively defenseless and powerless human beings who were not parties to the original contract. Marriage is unique.

Marriage is what results in children?

That's news to me, since I was a Biology major.

It's news to Bristol Palin, too.

Since we have many means of birth control, and we no longer have laws that forbid extramarital sex, there's no legal basis for saying that entry into a marriage contract results in procreation.

I'm glad you struck that last comment -- after all, freedom IS what it's all about. Both conservatives and the Left need to have that shoved in their faces as often as possible. Never apologize for that.

As for gay activists getting tossed into the cold, well what did they expect? The Left is not, and has never been, about freedom or individual rights -- they are in fact hostile to such notions at a fundamental level. Observe the fact that Prop 8 was done precisely by means of the Left's substitute for freedom -- democracy.

"The People have Spoken", as they like to say when the majority votes *their* way, i.e. in a manner that abrogates individual rights.

Gay activists need to reconsider their traditional association with the Left, and ponder whether it is really the rights of individual gays they seek to secure -- in which case they will find themselves no longer welcome on the Left -- or whether they are willing to sacrifice that principle in the name of collective power for its own sake.

BTW we have existing laws that govern child support and responsibility, for unmarried parents.

I'm glad you struck that last comment -- after all, freedom IS what it's all about. Both conservatives and the Left need to have that shoved in their faces as often as possible. Never apologize for that.

As for gay activists getting tossed into the cold, well what did they expect? The Left is not, and has never been, about freedom or individual rights -- they are about collectivism. Their interest in gays is as a group, not as individuals; and gay marriage is about precisely that: an individual right.

Observe also the fact that Prop 8 was done precisely by means of the Left's substitute for freedom -- democracy. "The People have Spoken", as Leftists like to say when the majority votes *their* way, i.e. in a manner that abrogates individual rights. This time, however, they were on the individual rights side of an issue -- and the consequent hollow ring of their otherwise correct arguments against Prop 8 helped get it passed.

Gay activists need to reconsider their traditional association with the Left, and ponder whether it is really the rights of individual gays they seek to secure -- in which case they will find themselves in the wilderness, opposed to the Left *and* conservatism -- or whether they are willing to sacrifice that principle in the name of political expediency and power.

BarryD,

That's legal piffle and ridiculous logic chopping. For all human history (including now) marriage has resulted in children who were the responsibility of the parents to raise. The vast majority of marriages include children, even in this era of birth control. To discuss marriage without reference to children is folly, folly, folly.

Please make arguments that aren't unreasonable right out of the box.

Yours,
Wince

I mean, really. This is not an issue (like second hand smoke or global warming) where a appeal to consider children is maudlin pandering. This is a timeless issue of classical values where the principle institution of child rearing is under discussion. To act as in children were not involved is the opposite of classical values.

Yours,
Wince

Wince, it doesn't matter how you phrase it. You're the one whose logic is flawed.

Sex causes children. People have sex legally without birth control. Unmarried women get pregnant. Unmarried men are legally required to support their children.

People often do enter into marriage contracts because they intend to have children, or because they already have them together, or whatever.

Yes, children can be involved in marriage contracts -- but the lack of a marriage contract does not change parental rights and responsibilities. That's a legal reality.

We're not talking about what good people ought to do, or whatever. Can you get it out of your social con head that what honorable people ought to do is not equivalent to what is or isn't legal, in most cases? That's just not how the world works.

Your words were: contracts which result in the creation of relatively defenseless and powerless human beings who were not parties to the original contract.

That's "piffle."

The words "result in" have a pretty specific meaning in the English language.

Addendum:

Parents, or prospective parents, certainly should enter into such contracts, just as they should make sure their kids receive food, clothing and medical care. I never suggested otherwise.

But how does that imply that any two people who won't have children (like a young couple where the woman can't bear children for medical reasons like a friend of my wife, or two aging brothers like my neighbors, or two lesbians like my coworkers) shouldn't be able to enter into the same contract with mutual rights and responsibilities?

Sex results in pregnancy. The marriage contract does not. It's a contract of mutual responsibility for finances, and some mutual rights as well.

People who wish to have children should most certainly enter into such a contract!

But why should they be the only people who do or can?

They aren't, currently. There are no laws against post-menopausal marriages, sterile marriages, or marriages between people who find children loathesome and will absolutely avoid ever having any.

BarryD,

I've raised a substantive issue with your 'legal theory'. Marriage is not a contract between two people and never has been. It is an institution with a specific social purpose. Everything you have said about about marriage appears to have been written as if children are not involved.

That is a substantive point. Your points do not invalidate it in any way. Most marriages DO result in children. That's English, that's common usage and that's true. The parents would not have had any children if they weren't married. Most people I know did not have children out of wedlock.

You are making arguments which are immediately false.

Try again, and this time adress the substance of the point. Don't try nibbling around the edges with witty but false points. Argument by witty comment is a common logical fallacy that's very attractive to people with a sense of humor.

Yours,
Wince

Everything you have said about about marriage appears to have been written as if children are not involved.

Really? Like when I wrote, "Yes, children can be involved in marriage contracts -- but the lack of a marriage contract does not change parental rights and responsibilities. That's a legal reality."

Marriage is not a contract between two people and never has been.

There's no point in arguing with someone whose point requires the denial of an obvious fact.

Most people I know did not have children out of wedlock.

LOL

Now there's an example of a logical argument.

Most people driving down the road with a deer carcass are wearing bright orange hats. Therefore, the proximity of dead deer must cause one's cap to brighten in color.

I see we have cross posted, and you are addressing the substance of my point. Thank you.

For clarification, the marriage contract is the legal means by which we support the institution of marriage.

Again, I believe that same sex individuals should be able to get married. But that is yet another progressive proposal which weakens the traditional institution of marriage. I propose we roll back previous failed progressive attempts to modernize marraige and try this new same sex attempt as part of a comprehensive marriage reform.

Throw a social conservative (with libertarian leanings) who is willing to compromise a bone here!

Yours,
Wince

The state assumed the right to teach "correct" sexual behavoir to everyones children without the consent of the parents. Therefore parents want to define what "correct" means at the state level. People are alot more understanding if you dont mess with their children.

BarryD,

Sure it's logical. I just left out all the steps. I left them as an exercise for the reader. I assumed the readers would prefer to debate substance, not word wrangle.

Here goes:

For many people who are not willing to have children without getting married first, marriage is a necessary but not sufficient cause of children. Similarly, Mr. Biologist, intercourse is a necessary but not sufficient cause of children. In addition, both partners must be biologically fertile. Another necessary but not sufficient cause of children. And of course they must be biologically compatable - opposite sex, for example.

Much of this can change with new technology. Soon, two women will be able to have children. Farther on, two men will. We need to get our institutions ready for that.

Get back to me with your next substantive point.

Yours,
Wince

BarryD,

You have addressed my substantive point, but not well. Perhaps I should approach it from a different angle. Contract law is not reasonable grounds to discuss family law. Family law is different for a reason. The reason is children, who aren't equal, rational and willing partners in a contract. Get that through your libertarian idealist head.

I love Ayn Rand, but her philosophy was a miserable failure, since real life does not actually correlate with wonderfully poetic utopian novels.

Yours,
Wince

And let's not pretend that same sex couples who want to get married are only doing so for the legal benefits (although some may). They want families. And children. That's family law, not contract law.

Yours,
Wince

I'm obviously the minority here, I don't think it's the state's job to decide who can marry whom.
I would take the rules from "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress". Do not harm children and as long as everybody getting married is a consenting adult, do whatever you want.

Veeshir,

Gee, I thought the prevailing sentiment was yours. I don't think Heinlein would have seriously proposed such rules for the U.S. Sounds like frontier law, which was always loose. But we don't live on the frontier. If you can come up with a good frontier, I'm interested. What do you think of the jungle in Brazil?

Yours,
Wince

I think Sullivan might be overly emotional -- imagine that! -- but I'd be happy to give him a frame of reference.

The issue isn't about what's going on gay people's bedrooms. The problem is that gay people's bedrooms are being forced into other people's living rooms and their children's classrooms where it has no business and it isn't welcome. If gays want what they do in the bedrooms to be private, they should keep it there.

Family law is different for a reason. The reason is children, who aren't equal, rational and willing partners in a contract. Get that through your libertarian idealist head.

How does pointing out the silliness of your post (accusing me of logical fallacies while basing your argument on "most people I know do X") make me a libertarian idealist? I don't remember mentioning Ayn Rand, either. I've read exactly one of her novels.

Anyway, you are simply reinforcing my point.

Family court WRT child support and custody does not currently require any party to be married, in order to reach its decisions, some of which are a tad screwy, but that's another topic...

They want families. And children. That's family law, not contract law.

Right. Same-sex couples can and do currently form families. They can and do currently have children. If these families break down, Family Court is where they end up. RIGHT NOW. TODAY.

How does a marriage contract change that?

Look, on a personal level, I only support gay marriage if both chicks are hot.

But when it comes to making laws in a country that has strict restraints on government enforcement of religious tenets, there's just no good argument I can find that says that government should "define marriage" at all. Call it a "social institution" if you want, but that doesn't mask the religious nature of the argument for "defining marriage."

My "most people I know do X" arguments are an attempt to bring you back from idealistic notions about contracts to the real world. I keep hoping people will bring their life experience to bear when they think about politics. It is a heuristic argument. Heuristic arguments are not logical arguments. They are empirical in nature. Nevertheless, as you can see, it was a trivial exercise to convert it to a logical argument.

How does a marriage contract change that?

Because family law, tax law, inheritence law and many, many other facets of law treat married couples differently from unmarried couples, all in an effort to support the institution of marraige.

Call it a "social institution" if you want, but that doesn't mask the religious nature of the argument for "defining marriage."

Too bad the facts don't bear this out. When every society (even the ones without law as we know it, such as the tribal regions of Central Asia, Africa and New Guinea), no matter what their religion, has a form of marriage, and none of those forms of marriage are same sex marriages, that makes it a social institution, not a religious one. Maybe even a biological institiution, given it's universal character, Mr. Biology.

Just ask those notable atheists and social conservatives, Kim and Connie du Toit.

This is NOT a religious argument and you cannot dodge it by talking about religious tenets. My religion is against murder and theft. The truth is not that you can't legislate morallty. The truth is that all legislation is about morality.

Yours,
Wince

To bring things back to reality, 36.9% of births in the US are to unmarried women. The fact that you don't know many of them (neither do I) doesn't change that reality.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/FASTATS/unmarry.htm

The truth is that all legislation is about morality.

I don't even know where to start, with that one...

Have a nice weekend!

Marriage is more than two individuals who love each other and decide to commit to live together. When a man and a woman marry with the intention of forming a new family, their success in that endeavor depends on their willingness to renounce the single-minded pursuit of self-fulfillment and to sacrifice their time and means to the nurturing and rearing of their children.

Marriage is fundamentally an unselfish act: legally protected because only a male and female together can create new life, and because the rearing of children requires a life-long commitment, which marriage is intended to provide. Societal recognition of same-sex marriage cannot be justified simply on the grounds that it provides self-fulfillment to its partners, for it is not the purpose of government to provide legal protection to every possible way in which individuals may pursue fulfillment.

Father and mother each bring unique talents and abilities that compliment and strengthen each other in the nurture and raising of children that would be lacking in a same sex partnership. The vital role in the development of children played by a father fully engaged with the family is well documented. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity. By definition, all same-sex unions are infertile, and two individuals of the same gender, whatever their affections, can never form a marriage devoted to raising their own mutual offspring.

Bob,
What "Focus on The Family" episode did you get that gem from?
As a gay man who has spent 30 years in a monogamous relationship, let me clue you in about real love and commitment without children.

1. We have NEVER strayed from each other in 30 years and are HIV negative to prove it. Ask yourself how many heterosexual couples can say they never engaged in adultery, let alone never divorced. What is the divorce rate now - 50% or so?

2. We may not have had children, but we were the ones left to look after parents. For 9 years we cared for my aging mother in our home, while my brother wanted to warehouse her in a "Waiting for God" home. Please don't tell us that those 9 years of fixing meals, driving her to doctor appointments, and finally caring for her as an invalid, don't count.
Do you remember that once upon a time it was the married children that did that? And now increasingly it's the unmarried(gay) children who take the responsibility. And to boot, the married couples are usually too busy (read self-absorbed) to raise children, often not even bothering to have any.

3. While doing this, we've been denied ANY legal benefits conferred on married couples:
no joint tax filings, no head of household deductions, no spousal insurance benefits, no joint property (California)etc., & have jumped through legal hoops signing powers of attorney, fool proof wills (there's a joke for you), living trusts, business partnerships - you name it - to protect each other.

Bob, please don't tell us that our 30 years don't amount to much, when I see all around me the wreckage of heterosexual marriages, and the cavalier disregard of marriage vows.

Tell me if you can why our relationship should be denied legal standing as a marriage, when you are willing to confer that contract, time and again, on straight people who trash it repeatedly.

Is it in the interest of society to give benefits to those who by their actions don't deserve it, while denying it to those who do?

In the past I've agreed with Eric about gay marriage. I've never needed the sanction of the state for my relationship. But now that it was approved by the California Supreme Court and 36,000 of us have legally married, only to be slapped down with a plebiscite funded by the Mormon Church, I'm incensed.

Did you know that the LDS Church actually preached at Sunday services the politics of Yes on 8, demanding that their members not only vote for it, but campaign for it?
If this doesn't end their tax free status, I don't know what should.

Once again, and will it never end in this country, the ugly head of puritanical and hypocritical religion has poked itself into the matters of a secular state.

For me the battle lines are drawn. I WILL defend my relationship. The Mormons can go back to saving their ancestors by writing their names on a scroll buried deep in a cave in Salt Lake City, and can continue hiding their polygamy in little towns scattered through the back country of Utah, Idaho, & Arizona, and can stockpile all the damn food they want.

What I and other gays want now is the end of this cults tax free status. And we fully intend to see it through.

Frank

If I'm not mistaken, the anti-advocacy requirements for churches to maintain tax exempt status only applies to candidates, not issues. And since Prop 8 is an issue, I don't think the federal laws apply (though I'm not an election expert and I may be wrong).

As for the Mormon church's involvement, I am curious: would you rather have gay marriage or a culture war? Because you can't have both. Declaring war on the Mormon church may be gratifying in the short run but it will accomplish nothing. Ditto for attacks on Republicans, evangelicals, etc.

Here's the deal, a lot of religious voters (whether black or white, Catholic, Protestant or Mormon) oppose gay marriage because they fear that allowing it will open the doors to infringement on their own religious beliefs (like being forced to allow gay marriages in their church). Slamming LDS accomplishes nothing, and only reinforces the views of ALL religious yes voters (including Evangelicals, who think Mormons are just as kooky as you do) that they were right to vote like they did.

Re: Tradition:

Google "Boston Marriages" or read Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe by Boswell. It's a bit difficult arguing this when liturgies for same-sex unions have been used in the Catholic and Orthodox churches for a thousand years. Before the relatively recent purge of them from the books,

Re: Gender is (fairly) easily defined :

If only that were so! 1.7% of the population is technically Intersexed, though many don't know that - unless they visit a fertility clinic. For about 1 in 1000, it's painfully obvious. And the law is inconsistent, varying between jurisdictions, and sometimes within jurisdictions.

For example, my UK Birth Certificate says "boy", as that is what I looked like at birth. My UK Passport says "F" for Female, as a gynecological exam would prove. It's a rare condition, most such natural changes go from F to M, due to 5alpha-reductase-2 deficiency (5alpha-RD-2) or 17beta-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase-3 deficiency (17beta-HSD-3). The rate of 5ARD is 1 in 90 in the Dominican Republic by the way, but only 1 in 40,000 in the general population.

In some jurisdictions (such as Australia), a few each year are issued with birth certificates marked "X" not "M" or "F", as they genuinely are so ambiguous that no determination can be made. Such people being legally neither male nor female are now forbidden from marrying in California, *not* equally treated.

I'll quote from "Christie Lee Littleton's story" :

Christie Lee can go to Houston, Texas and legally marry a man, but if she moves back to San Antonio, Texas, her legal marriage in Houston is now illegal. She could legally marry another woman in San Antonio though, and it would be a same-gender marriage because the State of Texas administratively recognizes her current gender as female. Harris County only accepts current gender for marriage licenses, and Bexar County only accepts original birth certificate gender for marriage licenses, not current gender.

Finally, regarding the argument that Gays will be getting "special rights", allowed to marry heterosexually or homosexually - well, straights will have the same right too. And would be just as unlikely to take that option up, for obvious reasons.

The only people, whether they identify as gay, straight, or ex-gay, who think being gay is a choice are bisexuals, for whom it is. Most have a hard-wired single sexual orientation, be it gay or straight. I find that the question "So when did you decide to ignore your attraction to the same sex and decide to be straight?" a good one for clarifying the issue to those who say it's a matter of choice. In some you can almost see a lightbulb go off over their head, as they finally "get it".

James - intercourse is neither necessary nor sufficient. The only intercourse possible to me was after my change, and even then it took surgery. Yet I fathered a child - for about 3 years of my 47 pre-change, my gonads functioned well enough for genetic material to be extracted. So having two people of opposite sexes

is not necessary either. To be fair though, at the time I was both legally and medically regarded as an intersexed male, not as we found out later when changes started happening, a severely intersexed female.

FWIW my story's in COSMOS Science magazine, in "Intersex Case Studies".

"My simple argument against gay marriage is to look at tradition. There has been no
tradition of such ever."

Irrelevant. Until this country was founded, there was no tradition of liberty ever. What's relevant is whether or not gays should be treated as equals.

"Why are so many gay people so hot to submit to government regulation of intimate details of their lives? And since gay marriage will lead to gay divorce, why invite the big nose and grabby hands of the State into the inevitable dissolution of their relationships, with government control over the allocation and distribution of property? It's a mystery to me why people think they need the imprimateur of the state to validate their love life."

This is a better argument, but to me it's an argument against marriage, not against gay marriage. From a liberty standpoint, there's no reason to deny gays the same choices as straights. Very, very few people are advocating ending state regulation of ALL marriage. The more common "anti-" argument involves only denying it to gays.