Uncategorized

BREAKING: California S.C. Legalizes “Gay Marriage”

The state that introduced “no-fault” divorce just kicked another leg out from under the institution of matrimony. The Supreme Court of California ruled that the state’s “one man, one woman” marriage laws violate the civil rights of same-sex couples. This is just one more piece of evidence that civil government is incompetent to manage anything of great social importance. It’s time to privatize the institution of matrimony.

44 thoughts on “BREAKING: California S.C. Legalizes “Gay Marriage”

  1. @James:

    I am not sure where “disproving a negative” came from. I didn’t ask you to disprove a negative. I simply pointed out that that your definition of marriage as exclusionary begs the question of: do gays get married! You define something by a certain aspect (gender of both persons) and then challenge people to provide examples of relationships that satisfy your definition, something impossible to do. Maybe you are really asking for a case of a society that recognizes an intimate, supportive, stable, state-sanctioned relationship tying two persons together in legal and financial sense? If you are, I am sure you would just dismiss any examples outright based on such classic rhetoric as: “but then that civilization crumbled, linked directly to the GAYS!!! See what happens!!!!” or “that was so long ago, how can you compare two vastly different societies?”, or, “that’s not the same thing as marriage as WE know it, so it doesn’t count”.

    As far as the case for allowing same sex marriage in the state’s interest, if you accept the allowance of persons who will not/cannot bear children, or even for divorce, then you have made allowances for people to be married who do not provide a compelling interest to the state, based o the whole “child rearing” argument. Hell, even allowing people to give away children or allowing people to adopt might fall into question, using that reasoning. Those persons could just form a limited liability partnership or small business to have an assignment of responsibilities to each other, with a notarized contract to enumerate them and on file with the government and in their pockets at all times, to demonstrate that they are partners. Or they could sign a marriage certificate and wear a ring on their finger.

    I still can’t find a direct explanation from you on the compelling interest to the state for marriage (including support for why it has to be 2 straight people), except vague statements (“It is important for the survival of the state, the health of the state, the rearing of children including the panoply of rules/rights/responsibilities for parents and children, for divorce, inheritance, etc. etc.). Yet these are not statements about the state’s interests so much as statements about the categories of interests the state has (its own survival, health) or statements about the laws themselves but not how the state benefits from them by regulating the activities. While I agree that marriage benefits the state and community, you have done an inadequate job of supporting that statement in a clear, concise and complete way. It makes me wonder if you are just parroting talking points to support your own bigotry.

    You say, “Bad families or the absence of families hurts the state. See the stats on persons in prison who didn’t have a father stay home. Also, look at the statistics (assuming you understand what a normal curve means etc. in basic quantitative analysis) that show the rise in alcohol abuse, drug use, crime, drop outs from school, early pregnancy, etc. etc. for families other than Mom and Dad and kids.”

    But these cases support other conclusions, such as state-approval of ALL marriage by judging the stability and child-rearing capabilities of the participants. I don’t see anyone proposing those conclusions. And they would have definite benefits to society to do, provided we could get enough agreement on the standards to use for that judgment.

    And besides, you have given gross statements of what accompanies not having a dad home, but not when there are 2 dads, or 2 moms. And I would imagine (since I can admit my own prejudice) the statistical difference between the negative outcomes of a single parent family (the case you are making) is higher than a gay couple parent family. But then again, that supports outlawing divorce, not disallowing same-sex marriage.

    You also made a statement earlier, to Eve: Nice try to equate slavery/segregation/racism with homosexual marriage. The overwhelming majority of the descendants of chattel slavery in the US disagree with such sophistry.

    I don’t believe she was equating slavery/segregation/racism to homosexual marriage. I think she was stating that intuitions (and slavery was an institution in America, and still is in other parts of the world!) change when it’s recognized that those institutions infringe on the rights of the individuals. I think the whole basis of the majority’s decision in the court case was based on the belief that the state shouldn’t deny benefits granted to some and deny those benefits to persons based entirely on sexual orientation (it may actually have been gender, I have not read enough of the actual opinions from the case). Just as slavery was a denial of freedom based entirely on heritage and financial contracts (perhaps you knew there were “white” persons who were slaves because they were 1/16 black, and inheritance laws at the times made descendents of slaves property of the slave owner?). When it was recognized that those involved were actual persons, they saw that we could not treat them as property. Of course, it was still a long time before we stopped denying persons certain rights/benefits based on race, but those institutions (i.e., voting rights, property ownership, etc) were changed.

    You also state: No one has the right to incestual (sic), bestial, homosexual, polygamous, or polyandrous marriage. It’s not in the Constitution.

    Neither is marriage, I believe. It’s defined in the laws, not the constitution.

    You also claim: by definition (check your basic biology) a man and woman are the basis of all families.

    That’s actually not true. Family may be defined a group of individuals with shared genetic material, i.e., related. Humans have always defined families to mean whatever the current society supports. That’s why a husband and wife are considered family, even though they don’t share any genetic links, the same reason adopted kids are, and that divorce removes you from the family. Family means what we agree it means. And that has changed over time, based on the changes in society.

    As for my reference to the Bible and marriage, I asked a simple question: where is the process for getting married in the Bible? I can only find (or hear at weddings) the responsibilities of the husband or wife, but not the process for HOW to get married. It seems to me that in today’s society, based on what I know so far of the Bible, that there may be people who ARE married, but are not recognized by the state or church, because they fulfill all the biblical responsibilities of marriage, and others who are “on file” with the state and church, but in the eyes of God not really married. That question wasn’t a challenge to you and your stance on this issue, it was an honest question. Where in the Bible does it say: here’s how to get married; not just, here’s what it means to be married.

    As we do agree that marriage benefits (legal, financial, and social) provide a reward to the participants, and that marriage is an interest of the state, then why would your DISCOURAGE people from getting married? Here are two people who want to form a union to provide a relationship of support, stability, and possible children raising (via adoption or surrogates, or by bringing in their own children from a previous relationship) which may provide society with the benefits of a potentially stable, productive (financial as well as law-abiding) unit, increasing the state’s socio-economic stability and growth. Yet, you would deny them that privilege (and I think we agree that state recognized marriage is a privilege, not a right) simply because it grosses you out that they have two pee-pees or two hoo-haas? Because so far, that’s all I think this really is for you.

  2. This comment is directed at JAB in response to his comment:
    Your main argument seems to be “it has always been this way so why change it” and that just isn’t an argument. If one single example of gay marriage cannot be given,it is because gay marriage has never been recognized by the state; however, there are many instances of long-term gay/lesbian unions throughout history.

    The argument that it has always been could have also been used in the fight against civil liberties. Based on your stance in this thread I can only assume that you would vote for the return of slavery, to appeal Roe vs Wade, and to deny the voting rights of women.

    To deny that gay marriage is a civil liberty is ludicrous.

    Because you keep referencing “pedophilia, incest, bestiality, polygamy, polyandry, groups, and mentally disabled” I can only assume that you have a lot of other issues and you are trying to lump perversions such as pedophilia and incest, and the fetish of bestiality into the same classification as non-perversion relationships ie polygamists and polyandrists. How these groups and the mentally disabled came to be involved in this discussion is beyond me. Also, the polygamist relations of Muslims and Fundamentalist Mormons might have been better cited as a separate thread.

    The only real target of conversation on this thread should be the celebration of the recent California ruling supporting Gay/Lesbian Marriage or the counter argument that the ruling was somehow faulty. Obviously, I support Gay/Lesbian Marriage. You do not…

    The argument that “It has always been this way throughout history” just doesn’t work for me and thank goodness that there are many more than me who see a new future for our country (since this is not just a California issue) that includes civil liberties for all.

  3. Anon/Anon: No one can disprove a negative – but you could prove it with a single example of homosexual marriage. Name one. Ever.

    In the past couple of years I’ve read world histories by McNeill, Braudel and reread Toynbee. Churchill’s History of the English Speaking Peoples covered a lot of ground, but not the whole world. None of those histories said there had been homosexual marriage.

    The promotion of homosexuality as Rome and Greece decline was interesting. Don’t recall if the Babylonians had the same issues.

    You mean why should the state STOP defining marriage as it has since 1619? To make up new definitions to give special privileges to Homosexuals begs the question – why? Why do homosexuals have to be married or have special privileges? What about persons of other sexual persuasions – what about their rights to marry?

    I’ve already written why marriage and the family are compelling interests of the state. Please read the thread.

    Marriage has been monogamous for over 2000 years in Judeo-Christian cultures and in the pagan Greek and Roman civilizations the West is built upon.

    California judges didn’t confine themselves to their Constitution. They just made it up – like Roe v Wade.

    Bad families or the absence of families hurts the state. See the stats on persons in prison who didn’t have a father stay home. Also, look at the statistics (assuming you understand what a normal curve means etc. in basic quantitative analysis) that show the rise in alcohol abuse, drug use,crime,drop outs from school, early pregnancy, etc. etc. for families other than Mom and Dad and kids.

    Your heuretics are exceptionally weak if you must see the word marriage defined in the Bible like it was a dictionary. You might check Genesis for the first marriage and family. Or, just go to any Christian wedding and listen to the Bible verses they read. The marriage feast at Cana wasn’t for Ted and Fred.

    If everyone can marry than pediophilia, incest, bestiality, polygamy, polyandry, groups, mentally disabled, etc – just everyone can marry.

    Sheer genius.

  4. Where I come up short on both sides of this issue:

    To those who state: gays have never gotten “married”, never! They just don’t!
    How can they when the very definition of marriage you use is exclusionary to their circumstance? You claim they can’t get married as proof that they shouldn’t get married, which is due to the fact that they can’t get married! How circular.

    To those who state: it’s in the state’s compelling interest to define marriage, AND marriage is defined as 1 man and 1 woman.
    You are claiming that the state defines marriage and yet now you complain about “activist” judges! The state has defined marriage via various laws and those laws have been reviewed via the appointed judges fulfilling their duty by interpretating the law within the confines of the constitution! Yes, judges (the supreme court) are part of the State! It’s not mob rule in a democratic republic, it’s a process established for some time and as those on here are so quick to accept, history knows what’s right (/sarcasm)!

    Interestingly enough, no one seems to be able to sum up how 2 people getting married somehow hurts the State…..at least in some real, measured, concrete way.

    To those who state: marriage should be opened up to any 2 people who can consent (as mature, reasonably cognizant adults): I have to agree with the counterpoint that marriage is an institution and as such, if we begin to “update” its definition in this way, what is the compelling state interest in limiting marriage to 2 unmarried persons? If 2 guys is fine, or 2 gals, then why not 2 guys AND a gal? Or 4 guys and 3 gals? That’s the ONLY legal (political, socio-economic?) reason I can see for arguing against updating the definition of marriage. Why limit it to 2 persons?

    Perhaps it’s the word marriage that bugs the….persons that it bugs (I would say conservative, but me thinks those persons are only conservative on certain issues popular with the neo-cons and not true historically-proven-time-and-time-again definition of conservative).

    So if everyone who wanted the default benefits of marriage (too numerous to mention, but includes automatic inheritance rights, visitation rights, not being compelled to testify against their spouse) had to register with the state as such, and we called it “civil union” or “domestic partnership”, and left “marriage” for the church’s to sanction, would that make you feel better? Reserve the term for people that their fellow worshippers have agreed have made a pact with each and God to obey? Let’s just hope they don’t change churches, or do something to piss off the congregation!

    But then, for the life of me, I haven’t found the scripture yet that defines a marriage, just the terms of “husband” and “wife” but actual verse that says “here’s how you get married…Step 1….” Can someone fill me in?

    One might think that if it’s in the interest of the state to encourage marriage (via rewards and benefits exclusive to married couples), then why in the world would it be in their interest to discourage it for a selected segment of the population based on entirely on gender? I mean, a guy can marry a girl, but not another guy? That’s the part that is discriminatory based on gender.

    There is no burden of proof that the guy/girl marriage provides any benefit to the state, nor none required.

    It just seems to me that “conservatives” respect a rushed, spontaneous, quickly annulled or divorced marriage in Vegas than a committed couple (of dudes or ladies) trying to form a life together! Talk about a slippery slope! Start judging the “value added” nature of marriage, and you open the door to government approved marriage for everyone. Wow, who wants that?

  5. “Every government from the tiniest tribe to the greatest civilization in the past 5000 years of history has regulated marriage. Every single one.”

    If you’re making this claim, you should have the evidence to back it up. I don’t see why any one else should do your research for you.

    Why should the state define marriage? Why can it not just define civil unions and leave marriage to religion?

  6. James,

    The sophistry comes from those, like you, who talk about “history” and “tradition” and “the state” as if they were real things.

    The only real things are individual human beings, who have rights as individuals.

    As for your continued refers to Pope Benedict, his persuasiveness as a religious leader is one thing. Political issues are, thankfully, entirely separate from religion.

  7. Doug: My point about the Pope was for your edification. You might learn from him.

    There is no compelling interest for the state to give homosexuals special privileges.

    You can leave your property to a dog or cat. Do you think you can’t leave it to your homosexual friend?

    You can make a list of visitors to the hospital to include your homosexual buddy.

    Homosexuals can get house loans together.

    Why in the world would you grant the legal weight of marriage to what isn’t marriage?

    If you think homosexuals are a class of persons as opposed to a sexual behavior then you are as confused as you are when you say that gender is arbitrary.

    If individual rights triumph then a grown man should be able to marry a 10 year old boy, right? And incest is cool. Polygamy and polyandry are the rights of that class of persons. Bestiality involves the individual rights of at least one person.

    Sophistry.

  8. James,

    What Pope Benedict says about gay marriage is irrelevant to this discussion. He is the head of the Catholic Church, not President of the United States. They are, I am sure you would agree fundamentally different roles.

    Nobody is saying that religious institutions should be forced to recognize marriages they don’t approve of. They can perform religious marriage ceremonies according to whatever rules they want.

    The problem comes when the state defines marriage to exclude an entire class of people and then confers special benefits on that status. So far, nothing you’ve said convinces me that the state has a compelling interest in this matter that trumps individual rights.

    Now a question — are you in favor of a state law that would allow homosexuals to enter into legal relationships that would allow them to receive benefits of marriage such as inheritance, rights to health care records, and the like.

    If not, why not ?

  9. RH: “Marriage is the recognition of the union of two people period.” In your imagination.

    Why only two? Father and daughter? Man and 12 year old boy?

    Doug: Men and women marry. Homosexuals have sex. They don’t marry. Ever. A man and a woman make the nucleus of a family. Two homosexuals make a homosexual couple.

    (If you wish to dispute what marriage is – in its essence – then you might want to take it up with your Pope. He just released a clear statement – not a US legal ruling but a good statement of fundamental truth).

    NR: If there is a debate about history – then provide an example of homosexual marriage. There isn’t any.

    “He never actually states clearly what he believes those reasons to be.” My opinion was expressed on the Vote4Marriage with the majority of Virginians. All of the historical reasons are cogent.

    “Is that about right?” No. I speak for myself. You can’t state what I do with sufficient clarity. Just, try to make your arguments, not make mine. I take care of my words.

    Conflating technology with human behavior is bit odd. Airplanes and electricity, etc. didn’t change the family. Only sophists who want to make it up as they go along would confuse the two – as new things that are alike.

  10. Jim Bowden writes that
    No culture – from tribe to civilization – ever had homosexual marriage. None.

    When asked what the compelling state interest is in preventing same-sex marriage, he simply repeats this rather debatable historical claim.

    He goes on to say that
    The weight of history doesn’t impute right or wrong as judgment – it shows that there are numerous, worldwide, clearly delineated reasons why marriage is the business of the state – even if you remain unaware of them.

    However, he never actually states clearly what he believes those reasons to be.

    It appears to me that Mr. Bowden believes that (1) marriage exists solely for the purpose of producing children; that (2) couples who can’t conceive a child can nonetheless adopt one, but only if the couple consists of a man and a woman; and that (3) it is the government’s business to make sure that the principles indicated in (1) and (2) above are enshrined in law.

    Is that about right? The “we’ve never seen this before” argument doesn’t take you very far; after all, until 1903, no culture had ever had an airplane, either.

  11. James,

    Should a man and a woman who have no intention of ever having or adopting, or being near for that matter, be allowed to marry, in your opinion ?

    If your answer is yes, then as far as I’m concerned the entire for-the-children argument is a sham.

  12. Gee, not sure whose definition you are using for the basis of what a marriage is…other than a union of two people…children and the ability to procreate has nothing to do with the argument…

    Marriage is the recognition of the union of two people period.

  13. RH: So are you arguing for or against incest, bestiality, polygamy or polyandry? If humans should marry as they please, then why place age limits? IQ limits?

    It is the legislature’s responsibility to make rules for the compelling interest of the state on the basis of majority rule.

    It’s why Virginia voted for the Marriage Amendment – and California likely will too. It’s the rule of law in a constitutional republic.

    Maybe some people in Virginia have forgotten that…

  14. Doug: I regret that you don’t follow. The weight of history doesn’t impute right or wrong as judgment – it shows that there are numerous, worldwide, clearly delineated reasons why marriage is the business of the state – even if you remain unaware of them.

    A state, in our culture, doesn’t stop a marriage that can’t produce children because the marriage of a man and a wife can still be the adoptive parents of a family – and whether or not they have children, by definition (check your basic biology) a man and woman are the basis of all families.

    Your comment “based upon entirely arbitrary characteristics such as gender” is illustrative. If you think gender is arbitrary, then that pretty much sums it up why you don’t understand so much that is so obvious to all of humanity for the history of humanity.

    Homosexuals can’t have children. They have to procure them. That isn’t an arbitrary aspect of biology.

    Furthermore, no society ever looked at gender as being arbitrary – only modern liberal/socialist human secularists do so.

    Gender isn’t an arbitrary aspect of marriage and families. It may come as a surprise to you but you, as all humans, were born with a mother (female) and a father (male) – that is certainly not arbitrary, but definitive biologically, psychologically, culturally, socially, historically, legally, etc.

    Gender in marriage is arbitrary? That has to be a joke.

  15. Good grief…do I even want to enter into this drama? Okay…

    Human beings should be allowed to by law marry another human being regardless of gender. And how does that not relate to civilaztion?

    And as far as the religious worries…it isn’t my place, or your place, or our governments place to regulate marriage based on gender or religious beliefs that allow for polygamy…that is why we have separation of church and state.

    Maybe some people in our country have forgotten that…

    I for one am cheering the victory in California and await the day when every state grants all humans the same equal rights…

  16. James,

    Again, appeals history are irrelevant. Just because things have been done a certain way in the past, doesn’t mean it’s the right way to do it.

    For centuries women were treated as second class citizens and non-whites as worse. The fact that it had been that way for thousands of years doesn’t make it right

    You say:

    It is important for the survival of the state, the health of the state, the rearing of children including the panoply of rules/rights/responsibilities for parents and children, for divorce,inheritance, etc. etc

    So does that mean that a law saying that people who are medically incapable of having children, or who choose not to adopt, should be forbidden from receiving the “benefits” of marriage ?

    If the state is going to give a special legal status to people on the basis of a relationship, then it does not have the right to deny that status based upon entirely arbitrary characteristics such as gender.

    You obviously disagree

  17. Doug: If you scroll back up, you will see the answers to your comments earlier.

    In your last post there was one question: What business does the state have getting involved in a private relationship and defining an historically religious affair ?

    The answer is this: For at least 5000 years every form of government (for us it is a federal republic where marriage is the state – state business) for every society has regulated marriage. Do you wish to argue that isn’t true? Name the society that had no rules on marriage – none.

    So, it has ALWAYS been the business of the state.

    Your characterization of a private relationship and religious affair – is irrelevant (except to the degree that different societies followed the rules of their consensus religion). The State has,is and will make rules on marriage.

    I’ve answered why it is compelling interest in earlier posts. It is important for the survival of the state, the health of the state, the rearing of children including the panoply of rules/rights/responsibilities for parents and children, for divorce,inheritance, etc. etc. If you look at the laws you will see what aspects they address directly. The state has those rules for the same reason we have juvenile and family courts -because the state has a compelling interest in the functioning of families.

  18. James,

    You didn’t answer either of the questions I asked my previous comment.

    Is this going to be a real debate, or am I just going to be accused of vomiting on Western Civilization ?

  19. Doug/Anon: You are heading back into a circular argument. We’ve already covered the ground you are vomiting on.

    Conflating racial integration among racial groups with special privileges for persons who practice homosexual behavior is sophistry.

    Ignoring what marriage means to every society of every civilization/culture ever – and why there are rules – is just ignoring what should be obvious to the casual observer.

    No culture – from tribe to civilization – ever had homosexual marriage. None.

    Homosexual marriage is a modern invention of Liberal/Socialist Human Secularist Western European Civilization which, ceteris paribus, will be overcome by the Muslims before the end of this century.

  20. Since we’re all just such avid history buffs can any of the frothing petals name a single society that collapsed because the gays were allowed to marry?

    Compelling state interest indeed! Vomit.

  21. James,

    There also used to be a large body of law that said that blacks and whites couldn’t intermarry. And an alleged state interest in preventing “mixture” of the races.

    Thankfully, those laws were recognized as the nonsense they were and overturned.

    What business does the state have getting involved in a private relationship and defining an historically religious affair ?

  22. Marriage is more than the right to associate.

    Again, there is a large body of law that you are ignoring about what marriage is – legally.

    It does plenty of harm for the state to pretend that two homosexuals are married. They aren’t. They aren’t husband and wife. Their relationship isn’t marriage.

  23. James,

    Rights don’t come from the state, the state exists to protect individual rights. I’d refer you to the 9th Amendment for that point.

    Yes, individual rights are limited because nobody has a right to harm the life, liberty, or property of another person.

    Allowing two men to call themselves married harms nobody’s life, liberty, or property. Which means the state has no right to prohibit it.

    The “right to marriage” is really nothing more than the exercise of an individuals right to associate with whoever they want and live their life without outside interference.

  24. The right to marriage is the right to individuality.

    One of the hardest question to come to grips with for the truly independent, is can they do more independently than otherwise? I am dependent on someone of the other sex to exercise a capacity which will likely do more to change the world than anything else I do — have children.

    Those children are then dependent on me, their parent. My responsibility to those children, who owe their existence to me, comes at a cost of independence.

    I see the call to end marriage altogether as the perfect plain paper example of forgetting that reality. On paper true independence looks great, and you can have it your way. Outside of that great white nothingness marred with black stains of ink, is a reality where people are hurt. And what makes it a state interest is that often it is the most innocent and least able to defend themselves that wind up paying the price of the independence of choosing what marriage means to them.

  25. James,

    There was a time in history when the Virginia General Assembly supported chattel slavery and a later point in history when they supported the equally offensive idea that blacks and whites shouldn’t be allowed to marry.

    Individual rights always trump the will of the majority.

    That is why we live in a republic, not a democracy.

  26. It’s not an appeal to history for the sake of history. I cite history because of the overwhelming, monumental, obvious, clear, easy to find, extensive (getting my drift here?) body of knowledge to show from whence we came and why we are here.

    If you know anything about American government and law, then you know all freedoms are limited by law. Certainly to goodness you know this.

    Individual rights are limited.

    All individuals exist in a social contract in our democratic Republic. Our rights and responsibilities are limited, shared and traded in our understanding of the Commonwealth. Surely, you know this too.

    You don’t have the right to go naked in public, have sex in public, pee in public, drink in public, take drugs, etc. etc.

    Different people decide the rules in different civilizations (or all forms of government) based on different cultures.

    In our heterogeneous, pluralistic Federal Republic we make the rules through our legislature. Been that way since 1619 for the English-speaking peoples who created Virginia and the U.S.A.

    Check out the Code of Virginia.

    We have the right and responsibility to make the rules based on our Constitution through the GA. Which is why we voted on the Marriage Amendment in Virginia.

  27. James,

    Freedoms are limited by who ?

    The state ? By what right ?

    The church ? Again, by what right ?

    If two men or two women want to create a family together, what right do you, I or anyone else have to tell them they can’t do it ?

    Appeals to history don’t interest or persuade me. And the historical authority of the clan/tribe/state is irrelevant because rights belong to individuals, not entities.

  28. Doug: You should know that all freedoms are limited. All.

    Freedom doesn’t mean license.

    You can’t be unaware of how the state(tribe/monarchy/communist dictatorship/theocracy/plutocracy/
    oligarchy/republic – of every government that ever existed) made the rules that must exist for families to exist. You are smarter than that.

    We don’t exist as individuals without a context of community – as members of families. You have individual rights, but you are not an island. Only the unabomber was such an individual.

    Eve:Nice try to equate slavery/segregation/racism with homosexual marriage. The overwhelming majority of the descendants of chattel slavery in the US disagree with such sophistry.

    No one has the right to incestual, bestial, homosexual, polygamous, or polyandrous marriage. It’s not in the Constitution.

    Homosexual marriage has never existed. Ever.

  29. James,

    I’m Polish/Slovak/Lithuanian so I’m pretty sure there’s no French blood in me.

    But I do believe in individual liberty, and I trust individuals to make the right choices for their owne lives, not the state, or the church.

  30. Thanks for your thoughts Doug. I’m glad to see that someone here is playing with a full deck. Even if you are a “direct descendant of some loon from the French Revolution.” Hee. I’m straight, and I’m not getting married until this civil rights nightmare comes to an end. It’s our responsibility, as citizens, to make sure that all people are granted equal rights, regardless of sexuality or lifestyle. Keep up the good work. If no one ever spoke up against established institution, then we would still have slaves in this country. But I guess some people have selective memory, eh?

  31. Doug: Freedom doesn’t equal making up Civilization as you go along.

    The fundamental institution in Civilization is the family.

    Every civilization that ever existed had rules/responsibilities/rights for parents and children, for husband(s) and wife(ves).

    No one, except today’s liberals as the direct descendants of some loons from the French Revolution, ever questioned social contracts for the family as an institution – as an infringement on liberty.

  32. isophorne,

    I favor getting the state out of the marriage business entirely.

    End the tax breaks.

    End the favorable default inheritance rules.

    End it all.

    Let individuals decide their fate for themselves

    That is, after all, what freedom is about, isn’t it ?

  33. The question also becomes what kind of favorable treatment do you want the state to give to the institution of marriage? As long as we have things like tax deductions and favorable inheritance treatment, then the state has to have an “official certification” mechanism. I think Jim Bowden summarizes the arguments quite well.

    So Doug, do you favor allowing polygamy? There are a LOT of current examples of how polygamy foster abuses, both of women and children. I might recommend the book “Escape” by Carolyn Jessop (about the polygamist community that has since been busted in Texas) for further reading.

  34. How is defining marriage a “compelling interest of the state” ?

    And don’t even mention children, because marriage doesn’t obligate people to have children, and there’s no law that says that people who are medically incapable of having children can’t get married.

    As I noted this afternoon, there’s really only one solution to this issue, get government out of the marriage business entirely:

    http://belowthebeltway.com/2008/05/15/theres-only-one-solution-to-the-gay-marriage-debate/

    And, as you are no doubt aware, I voted AGAINST the Virginia Marriage Amendment.

  35. Oh puh-leeeze, Anon and Doug. Just google all the arguments for the Constitutional Amendment – Virginia 4 Marriage.

    Every government from the tiniest tribe to the greatest civilization in the past 5000 years of history has regulated marriage. Every single one.

    That means discriminating for the survival of the state, the distribution of rights (not freedoms)/property/responsibilities, and the health of the state.

    Consequently, marriage here has age limits, health limits, blood relationship limits – and limits on participants.

    Even civilizations that promoted homosexuality as they declined never confused homosexual sex with marriage.

    Marriage is between a man and a woman. No one except modern Liberals are confused on this. The number of men and women is determined by the ruling consensus of the culture.

    Defining marriage is a compelling interest of the state. Name one that didn’t do so – ever.

  36. I am curious how discriminatory marriage policies are of great civil importance. Please elaborate.

Comments are closed.