Family Foundation: Marriage Campaign Well Underway

Sophie,

Now there you go again. We all know who is putting out rubbish on this issue and it is not the pro-marriage equality side. Any time you or any of your friends want to have a serious discussion on this topic, we will be glad to participate.

I tried to talk with the Vote Yes folks at the Fairfax Fair but they did not want to "debate" with me. Apparently their script did not explain how to respond to challeneges to the lies in their literature.

Come on Terry, let’s be honest here.

First, please don’t use the term “pro-marriage equality” here. It’s dishonest and misleading… after all every legal adult in Virginia already has “marriage equality.” We all have equal access to marriage and are equally subject to its restrictions… namely the 5 criteria that define marriage:

1) Cannot already be married (i.e. marriage is a monogamous relationship)
2) Be an adult and marry and adult (i.e. between those of legal age to give full consent)
3) Cannot marry a close family member (i.e. no incest)
4) Must marry a human (needs no explanation)
5) Spouse must be of the opposite sex (i.e. the union of the two complementary parts of humanity)

What we are talking about is not WHO can marry (since we all have equal access to marriage as it is defined in law, history, and biological reality) but WHAT marriage is. You are advocating the fundamental redefinition of marriage, which has always been about joining the sexes through the union of a man and a woman, into something completely different. I do not believe we should use misleading spin such as the term “marriage equality” when you really mean “same-sex marriage”. You are proving my point in regards to the existence of an aggressive misinformation campaign among the Marriage Amendment opponents whenever you use this term designed to gloss over the reality of what we are discussing.

This bait and switch tactic reminds me of how pro-abortion forces decided it hurt their cause when they use the word “abortion” (i.e. clearly discussing the issue at hand) so they removed it from any talking points (instead using “Reproductive Choice”) and NARAL (formerly the National Abortion Rights Action League) changed their name to “NARAL Pro-Choice America” and sent out a press release stating NARAL was no longer an acronym. Let’s use up-front language when discussing marriage, not meaningless buzz-words like “marriage equality”.

As to the rest of your comments, I too was at Celebrate Fairfax (helping primarily with the Allen-Davis booth) but I spent some time at the Marriage Amendment booth as well (maybe we met? What were you wearing… did you have a “Human Rights Campaign” hat on?)

Anyways, your comments again were less than accurate. I saw first hand that the Pro-Marriage Amendment volunteers were A) not using a script, and B) responding very eloquently to a wide range of challenges from various opponents (some who were civil, some not so much). Meanwhile I saw the organization immediately to the right of the Pro-Marriage Amendment employ the real disingenuous talking points. They were saying that the Marriage Amendment would invalidate contracts, hospital visitation rights, domestic violence laws, and wills for everyone who was not married. All of these claims are patently false and when confronted about them and asked for details or examples the only thing anyone could do was say something like “well in Ohio a judge ruled domestic violence laws only affected married couples after they passed a similar amendment… so you’re for domestic violence!” (The fact is this single case was rejected by two appeals courts in Ohio and even if the Ohio decision somehow stands Ohio is unique because its domestic violence laws are based on marriage (cited in the statute) and Virginia’s are based on households… thus any argument based on the Ohio case is not remotely legally credible or applicable).

The bottom line is this disinformation strategy (what I called “rubbish”) is clearly spelled out by Seth Kilbourn who heads the Marriage Project for the pro same-sex “marriage” Human Rights Campaign. He said their strategy in states has been to claim “that amendments go too far, that the effects are unknown, that you should be careful what you put in the constitution” despite the fact that there is no credibility to such an argument.

The fact is 20 states have passed similar amendments, many with the language prohibiting the creation of same-sex “marriage” under another name (thus approximating the same benefits). None of the Marriage Amendment opponent’s claims have been realized. Meanwhile the argument for the protection of marriage as it is now defined and has been understood for millennium is based on tangible examples such as the loss of some religious liberty in Massachusetts (i.e. Catholic Charities being run out of the adoption business because they will not abandon their mainstream religious principles) and the decline in marriage and explosion of childbirth out of wedlock in places where marriage has been radically redefined (i.e. Scandinavia)… not to mention studies demonstrating that children do best when not willfully denied a mother or a father and their parents are committed to each other in marriage.

The bottom line (and the point of my brief comment in the initial post) is your side’s approach to this entire debate has been devoid of substance or intellectual honestly… rather it is often an emotional appeal, scare tactics (see all of the above), or an attempt to silence via an accusation of “bigotry” (which I saw a few times at Celebrate Fairfax once the typical “you’ll destroy contract rights, Power of Attorney, etc” arguments had been exhausted.

We here on this site are always willing to engage in a fact-based discussion on the Virginia Marriage Amendment and why children should not be willfully denied a mom or a dad. As always we invite you and anyone else interested to join in on the open discussion of this issue (and all others… NOVA Town Hall covers a broad spectrum… you should check out some of Joe’s EXCELLENT posts on the illegal immigration crisis).

I’ll even help by starting things off with a question. You said that you (or someone else) challenged the Pro-Marriage Amendment volunteers regarding the “lies in their literature.” I’d appreciate it if you could expand on this accusation and tell us what these “lies” were.

I have a few questions for you Sophrosene.

You write: "What we are talking about is not WHO can marry (since we all have equal access to marriage as it is defined in law, history, and biological reality) but WHAT marriage is."

So what you're saying is that gay people are free to marry, they just aren't free to marry their partners. How is that freedom? What if you weren't free to marry your partner? Before 1967 when the Loving v. Virginia case was decided you couldn't marry your partner if they were of a different race. For all the talk of "traditional marriage" they idea that you could choose your own partner is a relatively modern one. For centuries "traditional" marriage was a business contract and marriage partners were usually chosen by the parents. The laughable idea that you are free to marry anyone you want as long as its not the person you are in love with, which is what you are essentially telling gay people, is a Hobson's choice, that is, it isn't really a choice at all.

I wonder also how exactly does gay marriage threaten marriage more than, say, divorce? It would seem to me that something that ends marriages would be more threatening than something that creates marriages. Why not support an anti-divorce law? And how exactly does two gay people threaten or even affect your marriage in any way?

You ask "why children should not be willfully denied a mom or a dad." In that case, why not take children away from single parents and put them in foster homes if you think it is so critical that they have a mother and a father? Again, why not ban divorce?

I don't really get how gay marriage affects you in any way. What specifically will be different in your life? What rights will you personally lose? What is so important to you about the intimate relationships of other people that you must expend so much energy into making sure they don't gain certain rights and their lives are not made better?

Whoa, Soph, you really have been immersing yourself in this - congrats and thanks. For the moment I'm going to have to let you fight this battle, though (although we do need to talk before the weekend of the 23rd).

After a few rounds with Zimzo and Stay Puft you'll have your arguments honed like a razor - although it won't be easy on either the brain or the blood pressure.

Gee Sophie,
Guess I hit a nerve today! But marriage equality is exactly what this issue is about, so I will continue to use it. We never asked to change the definition of marriage, that is your side's spin. Marriage will always be between a man and a woman and usually part of a religious wedding ceremony. We AGREE on that Sophie.

Rather, we are fighting for the right to enjoy an equal and parallel level of legal recognition and protection of our same-sex relationships and families. Call it a domestic partnership, a civil union, gay union, whatever, we just want to feel secure in our homes and lives with the person we love just like you.

Surely that can not be seen as rubbish or a threat to children or the foundation of marriage.

The amendment is a serious attack on us because of the risk of intervention it opens in our lives if passed. With that amendment and the existing VA law it would protect, we are put at risk if an activist judge (we fear them as much as you do) should be presented with a challenge to our wills or power of attorney or mortgage right of surviorship by a distant or hostile blood relative. Yes it might never happen but why open the door to that possiblity?? Money and medical emergencies does weird things to people...just look at the Schiavo case.

As I've asked you before, why can't we all co-exist with equal respect and protection? Why shouldn't we be free to enjoy the same automatic financial benefits like social security and pension benefits that are awarded to married spouses?Afterall, we pay the same taxes as you and have earned those benefits through employment.

Thank you for accepting my posts. And yes we may have met at the fair, were you the young man or the older man? It would be nice to put a face to a name.

Don’t worry Joe, I wont let Soph fight this one alone.
Zimzo, I often hear this question from people who support gay marriage “how does if personally effect your life” I find that question to be ridiculous. The fact is that there are a lot of behaviors that people do inside the walls of their own home that may not negatively affect me personally. If my neighbor down the street is using his wife as a punching bag that may not negatively affect my life, but it does not mean I should not intervene to help.
Moreover the question assumes that I don’t think gay marriage does negatively affect my life. I am one who does believe in the concept of society as an intertwined village and what harms society as a whole harms me as an individual. `Your point on divorce is well taken. The divorce rate being 50% is very disturbing; however the answer is not to enact another device that will serve to further break down the family. That is like telling your child “well son since you’re failing history you just as well fail math too”. We should be looking for reasons for and answers to the divorce rate not throwing up or hands and saying “oh well, why even try”. I think the only difference between me and Soph on this issue is that it should be decided at the state level and not the federal level.

I personally think we have the best discussions on this issue on the internet. Soph and Moderate (minus the federalism issue) sums up how I feel on the issue pretty well.

I simply differ from Moderate because the legal community is still dominated by liberals and that's why we need federal legislation and probably a constitutional amendment.

Well, Moderate (an ironic choice for a nickname) how exactly is gay marriage like wife beating? I don't immediately see the parallel. A woman getting beaten is being physically harmed. How does a relationship between two adults of the same sex harm anyone? How does it harm society?

I mentioned this in a comment on another post on this blog: The well-being of The Children keeps coming up as a reason for outlawing same-sex marriage. If proponents of this legislation are so worried about a child being raised by two gay/lesbian parents, why not take measures to establish legislation that will ban or restrict a gay/lesbian couple's ability to adopt, have a surrogate mother, or become pregnant through a sperm donor?

I also see proponents of this legislation saying "studies" have shown that a hetero couple make the best parents. In the interest (according to Soph) of getting the facts on the table, could someone provide a link(s) to some of those studies? And is there any evidence that being raised by a homosexual couple is any better/worse than a hetero couple or single parent?

And to add to what Zimzo has already asked, how does gay marriage adversely affect the heterosexual person/couple? If a homosexual couple wants to commit themselves to each other in a monogamous relationship, why can't their love be for each other get the same respect as a heterosexual couple's love?

And here are a couple studies that say children of same-sex parents are as well-adjusted as children of opposite-sex parents:

A UVA study:
http://www.virginia.edu/insideuva/2004/21/same_sex.html

A Tufts study:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/12/health/webmd/main938234.shtml

I just tried commenting but apparently my post was too long... so I'll do it in sections, here we go!

I am thrilled to see folks engaging in a rational debate on this crucial issue here on our blog- thanks to all who are participating. I think we are rapidly becoming the leaders in the Virginia blogosphere on the marriage issue in part because we welcome everyone to share and argue their perspective in the “arena of ideas.” The beauty of the Marriage Amendment that will be on the ballot this November is that ultimately the people will have the opportunity to become informed and decide for themselves how Virginia defines marriage… not some unelected judge. Now on to the comments, please bear with me if my post is rather long….

Zizmo-

You said: “So what you're saying is that gay people are free to marry, they just aren't free to marry their partners. How is that freedom? What if you weren't free to marry your partner?”

What I said was that we all have equal access to marriage and are equally subject to its restrictions… namely the 5 criteria that compose its definition (see my earlier comment for details). This should not be in dispute. You are correct in stating that I lack the “freedom” to enter a marriage that does not conform with the actual definition of marriage… this is fairly self-evident and is comparable to not having the “freedom” to be granted a Masters degree after only taking 3 credits (having not met the criteria for the degree as it is defined by X number of credits) or I lack the “freedom” to be given another form of license, my drivers license, if I haven’t met the criteria of passing a drivers exam. I don’t think it makes sense to argue that someone lacks freedom simply because they can’t have what they want b/c they do not meet the defining criteria- under such logic we always lack freedom unless every legal boundary or meaning is stripped away and then we would have no law/order whatsoever. Again, I contend the real issue here is not the freedom to marry WHO you want but WHAT marriage is (i.e. the 5 criteria). It is as much a debate over the “freedom” to marry who you want as a debate over the “freedom” of a man to marry 3 wives (currently defined as a monogamous relationship between 2 people). Both are counter to what marriage IS as defined in law. It is improper to call my position a “Hobson’s Choice” unless you characterize any other law or restriction that creates any requirement or boundary as such… and that would make you an anarchist I suppose.

The predictable reply (to the above point) from same-sex “marriage” advocates is to mention the horrific bans on interracial marriage in the earlier part of the 20th century and somehow try to link it to efforts to maintain marriage as the union of the two complementary parts of humanity (man and woman)... I see you already lapsing into this angle of attack. Those discriminatory laws never addressed the definition of marriage (as this debate does now)… rather they were horrible restrictions on who would be granted a license to marriage. Nobody was claiming that an interracial marriage (such as Mildred Jeter and Richard Loving’s) was not a marriage (because it met the obvious 5 criteria as defined in law)… they simply were claiming that it was bad for the races to marry due to their racist segregationalist views (one only has to read Judge Leon Bazile’s horrible opinion to see this point) and thus it was banned. These bans were designed to oppress and separate various races (although it is interesting to note that race itself is completely subjective as a concept and indefinable in law… but I digress) while marriage is designed to unite and bring together the sexes (creating the full human organism through humanity’s two complementary parts). You will find no widespread historical viewpoint rejecting the fact that interracial marriage WAS marriage… only racist arguments that it was a bad form of marriage. Again, that debate was over WHO could marry and not WHAT constitutes marriage (as this debate is).

The VA4marriage site has a great section up that explains that “African Americans understand more than any group in America what it means to have civil rights violated. Most African Americans, however, strongly oppose same-sex marriage. Well-known civil rights leaders of the 1960s reject the idea that the battle for same-sex unions has any moral equivalence to the struggle for basic human rights.” And they proceed to offer a few quotes, here are some:

The comparison with slavery is a stretch in that some slave masters were gay, in that gays were never called three-fifths human in the Constitution and in that they did not require the Voting Rights Act to have the right to vote.
Rev. Jesse Jackson
Remarks in an address at Harvard Law School

What happens in my heart is that I know the difference. Don't confuse my people, who have been the victims of deliberate family destruction, by giving them another definition of marriage.
Walter Fauntroy
Former DC Delegate to Congress
Founding member of the Congressional Black Caucus
Coordinator for Martin Luther King, Jr.'s march on DC
Family in Focus 2/27/04

The defense of marriage is not about discrimination. As an African-American, I know something about discrimination. The institution of slavery was about the oppression of an entire people. The institution of segregation was about discrimination. The institution of Jim Crow laws, including laws against interracial marriage, was about discrimination.

The traditional institution of marriage is not discrimination. And I find it offensive to call it that. Marriage was not created to oppress people. It was created for children. It boggles my mind that people would compare the traditional institution of marriage to slavery.
Senate Testimony of Reverend Richard Richardson
St. Paul African Methodist Episcopal (AME) Church
The Black Ministerial Alliance of Greater Boston
Children's Services of Roxbury, Inc. Boston, MA

You say that you “wonder also how exactly does gay marriage threaten marriage more than, say, divorce?” Who said it did? I am a HUGE fan of the new and innovative concept of Covenant Marriage (currently in place in Louisiana, Arizona, and one other state I believe) where a man and a woman can enter into a “Covenant Marriage” where no-fault divorce laws will not apply, thus it is harder to terminate the marriage. This is a good return to the concept of valuing marriage as a lifelong relationship and I am eager to learn more about its impact in those states.

Then you ask “how exactly does two gay people threaten or even affect your marriage in any way? I think I’ve hit on this topic before and I see Moderate 5-19 jumped in with an excellent response to the topic. I think we can see the tangible loss of religious liberty (for which thousands of children will suffer) with Catholic Charities in Boston as just one immediate example. While I intend to examine this further in detailed posts, I’ll let my existing work (search “Marriage and Family” on the NOVA TownHall main page) serve as a response since I am already getting way too verbose.

Terry-

I again ask you to explain what the “lies in their literature” were at the Pro-Marriage Amendment booth at Celebrate Fairfax. If you’re going to accuse someone of spreading lies I think the least you could do is say what these supposed lies were. I explained what I viewed as “rubbish” and why… I hope you’re willing to explain your point and that we don’t regress into empty name-calling.

I was pleased to see that you agree that “Marriage will always be between a man and a woman and usually part of a religious wedding ceremony.” I didn’t know we agreed on that… and maybe we still don’t… I see NO difference in creating an “equal and parallel level of legal recognition and protection” for a same-sex couple and marriage… it’s just playing with semantics. As I have said before: when looking at civil unions vs marriage it is good to examine the Goodridge decision in Massachusetts that made same-sex "marriage" legal via judicial decree. After the initial ruling many thought creating Vermont-esque civil unions would solve the issue and prevent same-sex "marriage" (by creating it under a different name) Well when they asked the court to weigh in on this they said that wouldn’t fly:

"the history of our nation has demonstrated that separate is seldom, if ever, equal"

Assuming other courts would share this logic, civil unions thus provide a vehicle for same-sex "marriage" advocates to establish the legal benefits of marriage under a different name and then use the "separate but equal" segregation style argument to then achieve the redefinition of marriage itself... a very strategic move to achieve the desired redefinition through a 2 step process. Granted the existing precedent in Massachusetts I’d be very skeptical of civil unions even if I did not believe they posed the same social impact as same-sex “marriage”… because I believe they would lead to same-sex “marriage” regardless.

As to your fears that the Marriage Amendment (elevating existing law) would open the door for judicial activism (glad to hear you too fear them… we all should given the way they have been behaving), I don’t buy it. Sure it is possible, but so is anything really. I believe that in order to have a legitimate fear that an activist judge will create new law (and thus drift from the legislative intent of a statute or amendment) you need to see some sort of trend or rulings that verify your concern… and frankly I see NONE for the concern you have. 20 states have similar amendments and nearly every state has the language in statute and we have not once seen a challenge “to our wills or power of attorney or mortgage right of survivorship by a distant or hostile blood relative” because of it. However, as I’ve touched on before, we HAVE seen the trend of a judge making law and redefining marriage by judicial decree (what the Marriage Amendment is designed to prevent)… just look at Massachusetts! And with the Supreme Court finding what Justice Scalia sarcastically referred to as the "sweet-mystery-of-life passage" proclaiming: "Intimate and Personal choices, central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the 14th Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life” there is a real possibility of this mushy relativistic judicial thinking occurring on the federal level (this is why I reluctantly support the federal Marriage Protection Amendment, unlike Moderate 5-19.)

I agree we all should co-exist with equal respect and protection as individuals, but that does not mean we should necessarily have equal tolerance of all behaviors or equally encourage or sanction all forms of relationships. There is a huge difference between a man-woman relationship and a man-man, woman-woman relationship. As I have said before we all have equal access to marriage and are equally subject to its restriction & definition.

To your comment “yes we may have met at the fair, were you the young man or the older man? It would be nice to put a face to a name”… who said I was a man!

Gnossis & Zimzo-

I agree we should look at the facts involved in relationships where a child is denied either a mother or a father as this is a huge part of this issue (although not all of it). If there is no evidence that children do as well when denied a mom or a dad and raised with two moms or two dads as they do when raised by a mom and a dad we shouldn’t risk children’s wellbeing by putting them into such relationships via a creation of same-sex “marriage” (which undeniably would result in many more children being adopted or artificially inseminated into these relationships). Basically I believe the burden of proof falls onto the same-sex “marriage” proponents.

There are thousands of studies demonstrating (which I often have referred to) that children do best when they are raised by a mom and a dad (ideally their biological parents). Here are some of the MANY I quickly pulled from some sources (and I can’t pull/link to most of them without Lexus-Nexis access which I don’t have here in my office but can get to later- that will be coming soon):

Robert Rector, Kirk Johnson , America Peterson, The Positive Effects of Marriage: A Book of Charts, The Heritage Foundation, April 2002: 36. (Taken from the National Longitudinal Survey of Adolescent Health Wave II, 1996.) ww.heritage.org/Research/Features/Marriage/index.cfm

Amato, Paul & Allan Booth, A Generation at Risk: Growing Up In an Era of Family Upheaval. ( Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1997).

Kristin Anderson Moore, Susan M. Jekielek, and Carol Emig, 2002. "Marriage from a Child's Perspective: How Does Family Structure Affect Children, and What Can be Done about It?" Research Brief, June 2002. Washington, DC: Child Trends. p. 6.

Patrick F. Fagan, How Broken Families Rob Children of Their Chances for Future Prosperity, Backgrounder #1283, J une 11, 1999. http://www.heritage.org/Research/Family/BG1283ES.cfm

Patrick F. Fagan, Robert E. Rector, and Lauren R. Noyes, Why Congress Should Ignore Radical Feminist Opposition to Marriage, The Heritage Foundation, Backgrounder #1662, June 16, 2003
http://www.heritage.org/research/family/bg1662es.cfm

Maggie Gallagher and Linda Waite, The Case for Marriage: Why Married People are Happier, Healthier and Better off Financially, New York : Doubleday, October 2000.

Jill Kirby, Broken Hearts: Family Decline and the Consequences for Society, Center for Policy Studies, 57 Tufton Street , London SWIP 3 QL.

James Q. Wilson, The Marriage Problem: How Our Culture Weakened Families, New York : Harper Collins, 2002
Steven Nock. “Marriage as a Public Issue”
http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/future_of_children/toc/foc15.2.html

Robert E. Rector, Patrick F. Fagan, and Kirk A. Johnson. “Marriage: Still the Safest Place For Women and Children”
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Family/bg1732.cfm

Patrick F. Fagan and Robert Rector, The Effects of Divorce on America, The Heritage Foundation, Backgrounder #1373, June 5, 2000. http://www.heritage.org/Research/Family/BG1373.cfm

Now it is fair to point out that these don’t necessarily compare two married parents and a same-sex couple… that is what Zimzo tried to do with the studies he linked to below. Unfortunately Zimzo’s studies attempting to do so are extremely weak… and don’t take my word for it (which I am sure you won’t). Dr. Stephen Nock (I cite one of his articles above) is a scholar of marriage at UVA and is agnostic on the issue of same-sex “marriage” (i.e. he is neutral)… and he writes that every study on the subject of gay parenting "contained at least one fatal flaw," and "not a single one was conducted according to generally accepted standards of scientific research." Here is a reference to his work from one academic review:

“Perhaps the most thorough review was prepared by Steven Nock, a sociologist at the University of Virginia who was asked to review several hundred studies as an expert witness for the Attorney General of Canada. Nock concluded: [T]hrough this analysis I draw my conclusions that 1) all of the articles I reviewed contained at least one fatal flaw of design or execution; and 2) not a single one of those studies was conducted according to general accepted standards of scientific research. A 1995 review expressed similar concerns, as prominent Berkeley sociologist Diana Baumrind reviewed various parenting studies, including the work of Charlotte Patterson and David Flaks. In her review, Professor Baumrind evaluated, among other things, the claim that children of homosexual parents suffered no adverse outcomes and were no more likely to develop a homosexual sexual orientation than were children not raised in such homes. Baumrind found problems with the research she reviewed including the use of small, self-selected convenience samples, reliance on self-report instruments, and biased study populations consisting of disproportionately privileged, educated, and well-off parents. Due to these flaws, Baumrind questioned the conclusions on both “theoretical and empirical grounds.” Another review, prepared by Robert Lerner and Althea Nagai in 2001, looked at forty-nine separate parenting studies before concluding that “the methods used in these studies are so flawed that the studies prove nothing.”

What are some of the design flaws pointed out in these reviews? For example:

a. No nationally representative sample: Even scholars enthusiastic about unisex parenting, such as Stacey and Biblarz, acknowledge that “there are no studies of child development based on random, representative samples of [same-sex couple headed] families.”

b. Limited access to children:. Because children of lesbian parents are a small demographic group, access to these children is often filtered through groups with an ideological interest in the outcome of the research.

c. Limited outcome measures: Many of the outcomes measured by the research are unrelated to standard measures of child well-being used by family sociologists (perhaps because most of the researchers are developmental psychologists, not sociologists).

d. No long-term studies: All of the studies conducted to date focus on static or short-term measures of child development. None follow children of unisex parents to adulthood.

The most serious methodological critique of these studies, at least with reference to the family structure debate, is that the vast majority of these studies compare single lesbian mothers to single heterosexual mothers. As Charlotte Patterson, a leading researcher on gay and lesbian parenting, recently summed up, “[M]ost studies have compared children in divorced lesbian mother-headed families with children in divorced heterosexual mother-headed families.”82 In comparing children in families headed by a lesbian mother with children in families headed by a divorced heterosexual mother, these studies compare children in some fatherless families to children in other fatherless family forms. While the findings of these studies may be relevant for some legal policy debates (such as custody disputes), they do not shed light on family structure per se. The question is significant, and credible new research needs to be done comparing outcomes of children of same-sex couples and children of married mothers and fathers. Studies comparing children of single lesbian mothers with children of single heterosexual mothers cannot credibly be used to contradict the weight of social science evidence in general on the benefits of the married, intact biological family over alternative family forms.83

You’ll note that they specifically cite the author of one of the two articles provided which compares “divorced lesbian mother-headed families with children in divorced heterosexual mother-headed families”… not exactly what we’re talking about here. The bottom line is research is extremely preliminary and just as much of it demonstrates the opposite of what Zizmo’s articles are claiming, see:

Judith Stacey and Timothy Biblarz, "(How) Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter?" American Sociological Review 66: 159-183. See especially 168-171.

Ellis, Bruce J., et al., "Does Father Absence Place Daughters at Special Risk for Early Sexual Activity and Teenage Pregnancy?" Child Development, 74:801-821.

Basically we KNOW that children are best off with a married mother and a father… is it possible that some GOOD study (by that I mean methodologically sound) may demonstrate that when a child is denied a mother or a father and raised by same-sex parents that they will have comparable results… sure, but I doubt it. Men and women are different and I think it is logical to expect (and infer from what studies we have on the amazing impact of a married mother and a father) that there will be different results. The bottom line is that this is not exactly the kind of social scientific evidence you would want to undertake at the expense of children. But I digress…

The POINT of this original post (in addition to showing what the VA4marriage campaign is starting to do statewide) is to examine the disinformation strategy of the amendment opponents. Unfortunately opponents of the amendment have chosen not to engage in a fact based debate as we are starting to do here, rather they are using the strategy explained by Seth Kilbourn (who heads the Marriage Project for the pro same-sex “marriage” Human Rights Campaign) which is to claim “that amendments go too far, that the effects are unknown, that you should be careful what you put in the constitution” despite the fact that there is no credibility to such an argument. I would really like to examine this misinformation, particularly given the fact that 20 states have passed similar amendments, many with the language prohibiting the creation of same-sex “marriage” under another name (thus approximating the same benefits) and none of the Marriage Amendment opponent’s claims have been realized. Very telling in my view…

If opponents of the Marriage Amendment are so certain that they want to fundamentally redefine marriage and that sanctioning relationships that willfully deny a child a mom or a dad will not harm children… then why the need to engage in illogical scare tactics. Why not come out and admit the real agenda and put your reasons on the table?
I hope you could keep up with this LONG and sometimes rambling comment, as you can see we have much to cover in the months ahead!

PS: For the record my comment wasn't too long. I learned halfway through posting it in sections that it wasn't allowing me to post it b/c it had HTML links in it, not due to size. Once the HTML links were removed there was no problem.

You write: "What I said was that we all have equal access to marriage and are equally subject to its restrictions… namely the 5 criteria that compose its definition (see my earlier comment for details). This should not be in dispute. You are correct in stating that I lack the “freedom” to enter a marriage that does not conform with the actual definition of marriage."

What makes your five criteria immutable? Before Loving v. Virginia there were six criteria for marriage in Virginia, the sixth being "Must be of the same race (if you are white)" (in fact other races were free to intermarry; only white people were not free to marry someone of a different race. In 1792, in addition to forbidding white people to marry someone of a different race, people of different religions could only be married if they had the permission of ministers from both parishes. In addition to forbidding marriages between blood relatives, a marriage between a son and stepmother, his uncle's wife, a father his son's wife, etc. Girls as young as 12 were permitted to marry with permission of their parents. A person who was married could remarry if their spouse was "beyond the seas by the space of seven years."

In other words the criteria for marriage has changed in some instances so why do you insist that your criteria are not subject to change. The definitions of three of your criteria (what constitutes an adult, what constitutes a relative, what constitutes bigamy) have already changed. What makes you believe that your fifth criterion cannot be changed?

Your comments on Loving v. Virginia are incorrect when you say "Nobody was claiming that an interracial marriage (such as Mildred Jeter and Richard Loving’s) was not a marriage." In fact, under Virginia law at that time it was not a marriage. You may believe it was a marriage along with most other sensible people but according to the law of Virginia it was not a marriage.

If you want to play duelling Civil Rights leaders on the issue of gay marriage, I can do that, too:

Julian Bond:
"I think the black community is going to become more accepting, more tolerant. I can't place a timetable on it, but I'll tell you one thing: It depends on the degree to which black gays and lesbians begin to stand up in their churches, in their organizations, and say, 'This is me you're talking about.' That's a powerful, powerful message."

Coretta Scott King:
"Gay and lesbian people have families, and their families should have legal protection, whether by marriage or civil union. A constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages is a form of gay bashing and it would do nothing at all to protect traditional marriages."

Bayard Rustin, Martin Luther King's closest advisor and the man who put together the March on Washington, was, in fact, gay, and King knew about it and it didn't matter to him, so I doubt of King were alive today he would be joining you in your crusade to deny rights to gay people.

It always seems to be difficult for anti-gay crusaders to come up with actual harm that will come from gay marriage. They either bring up the "slippery slope" argument (that gay marriage will lead to polygamy and people marrying their pets), which is an argument that actually concedes that there is nothing wrong per se with gay marriage itself, only what it will lead to (as if laws don't already exist and couldn't be strengthened to prevent this) or they bring up the religious liberty argument, which basically presupposes that there is no such thing as a First Amendment.

The Catholic Charities situation is a perfect example of this fear-mongering false argument. Here's what actually happened: The Catholic Charities of Boston had placed children in gay households without incident. Then some bishops, under orders of the new Pope, decided to order that the charity deny adoptions to gay parents. The board of Catholic Charities voted unanimously to keep gay adoptions but the bishops overruled them. No government agency had ordered Catholic Charities to do anything. The Bishops then went to the governor to ask for an exemption he didn't have the power to give. Then they shut down adoptions believing grandstanding on this issue was more important than the lives of these children. No government agency had actually ordered them to allow gay parents to adopt. It was the board of Catholic Charities that had decided on its own to do that. They apparently believed that it would be better for children to have a home with loving gay parents than no home at all. The Catholic Bishops apparently believed the opposite. This is not an example of the extremism of gay activists or a warning of what might happen if gay marriage were allowed, it is actually and example of the extremism of anti-gay forces and the lengths they will go in their anti-gay fanaticism, even to the point of harming children they purportedly want to pretect.

No one can force a religious group to perform, sanctify or recognize a gay marriage. No one is asking for that. All that gay people are asking for is that they be accorded legal rights that married couples have. You have not been able to answer the question of what harm this will do to your marriage but I can certainly tell you about the harm caused by denying gay people these rights. Gay people can be and have been denied the right to visit their partners in the hospital, kicked out of their homes if their partner dies, be forcibly separated from their immigrant partner if he or she is deported because of immigrant status, denied inheritance when a will is challenged by a family member, denied certain tax breaks married couples enjoy, have their children taken away from them, be forbidden from adopting children, etc. etc.

You can say until you are blue in the face that you are not anti-gay and that gay people have the same rights as anyone else and that this effort is not targeted at gay people but in the end you are attempting to enshrine in your constitution the idea that gay people are second-class citizens and you are singling them out to deny them certain rights by fiat (rights they haven't even attained) because of fears that have no basis in fact whatsoever.

"There is a huge difference between a man-woman relationship and a man-man, woman-woman relationship." What exactly are those differences besides the obvious gender difference. I would really like to know.

(I had some links in here but I removed them because it wouldn't post, but you can find the quotes I used in Google)

Whew. Soph is traveling but she (or is it "he") will be back later on, and asked me to jump in here. Glad to do it!

The problem with posting comments with links is that more than one link will invoke the comment-spam filter, which believe me, we need. We get 300 pieces of comment spam a day, so without that filter, well let's just say you'd never again have to ask "Where in tarnation can I find some phentermine?!"

I will try to find a better filter but just have not put the time in.

If a post does not go up right away, it simply goes into a holding are waiting for one of us to open up Movable Type and approve it. So it's not really a big deal, it just means you have to wait a little to see your post. I do it all the time when I comment with links.

Well, I hope this has been helpful. Sometimes, after such a long and strenuous debate, a fresh perspective can actually move things forward. I hope my contribution, in at least some small way, has accomplished just that.

is it a "he" or a "she"? I've been assuming it's an answering machine.

"I don’t think it makes sense to argue that someone lacks freedom simply because they can’t have what they want b/c they do not meet the defining criteria-"

Who defines the defining criteria? should the majority always get IT's way? If so, what purpose does the bill of rights serve?

what does freedom mean to you? here's what it means to websters:

"1 : the quality or state of being free: as a : the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action"

For anyone who's keeping score, So Frozen has contributed:

1 weekly standard article
4 heritage foundation articles
1 quote from va4marriage.org
1 article from by one Steve Nock, professor of soc. and president of the "Marriage Matters Project" which is researching the "legal policy innovation known as Covenant Marriage"

http://www.okmarriage.org/Research/MarriageResearch.asp

then he goes on to say, "is it possible that some GOOD study (by that I mean methodologically sound)..."

Soft Rosin, you have forfeited your "right" to determine what is methodologically sound.

as far as the gays = wife beaters goes: clearly this is an absurd argument. but "i'll bite"
the difference is in the consent. let's say, for the sake of argument, that the wife consented to being beaten, because she's just kinky like that. that's the only way such a comparison could work. in such an (unlikely) case, it's no one's business.

moderate:

"I am one who does believe in the concept of society as an intertwined village and what harms society as a whole harms me as an individual."

conservatives who put society about the individual are not conservatives. moderate? you're statements are so far right they're extreme left. In your determination to rationalize your gut reaction to gays you have argued yourself into absurdity.

by this logic, you could argue for the banning of hang-gliders, motorcycles, beer, potato chips, divorce, guns, tobacco, reggae, tattoos, sharp sticks, scuba diving, electricity...

TATTOOS, that's what I really can't stand. I'd like to see a ban on people with tattoos getting married. surely, people with tattoos are more "free-spirited" and therefore more likely to get divorced after having children. Don't believe me? you don't have to. just read this methodologically sound article at:

http://www.godhatespeoplewithtattoos.com/savethechildren.html

was out of town at a family event, so I missed that past two days of great talk. Back now so I’ll answer some of the question asked of me.

1. Zimzo the nickname Moderate is because that is exactly what I am. I agree with the right on some issues and with the left on others. I NEVER care about party name calling (RINO or DINO) and I think people should vote on the issues and the person not the letter behind a name.
2. Zimzo again. You very well know that I was responding to your question “how does gay marriage negatively affect me personally”, when I gave the analogy of a man beating his wife. There are things that may not affect me ‘personally’ but, at times should still intervene. I don’t always agree with you, but I realize you are an intelligent person, thus trying to act as if you don’t understand the analogy does not work.
3. Singleton, I hade this discussion of amending the constitution with Soph a few week back on the issue this issue. The fact is that this is (among other things) a political issue and I don’t think you change the constitution for political issues. It is a sacred document and should not be amended when “we the people” don’t have the “institutional fortitude” to do the right thing. In the coming weeks we are going to have a debate on rather we should amend the constitution to ban flag burning. I have also heard talk of amending the constitution to disallow children of illegal’s from being legal citizens when born on American soil. Where will this end? It’s the darn CONSTITUTION; it should not be a ‘work in progress” for every political issue.

I’ll respond to other things later when I have a chance to read all the comments.

Lots of people are prohibited from marrying the people they love. Only when that person loves them back do they get to be "married".

The idea that marriage is primarily about love is a modern construction, one that has damaged the fabric of society. Popular culture has contributed greatly to the confusion. When marriage became defined by a "love" that was primarily physical attraction, it greatly increase divorce, because as soon as physical "love" became stale, people were encouraged by society to move on. Falling out of love is easy, and with marriage tied to that love, divorce became the norm.

Governor McGreevey was married to a woman for many years. They had children, and by all accounts had everything you would expect in a true partnership -- except that he wasn't physically attracted to her.

Well, I've got news for you -- a LOT of people who are married aren't "attracted" to their spouses, but have true marriages. The idea that physical attraction to the same sex requires marriage to the same sex is just one more false conclusion derived from the same false assumption that marriage is all about physical love.

Women marry men in prison who they never get to touch. People who are incapable of having sex still marry.

Now, for sure many people who marry are physically attracted to one another. But a true marriage is not beholden to that physical attraction.

We often talk about "being attracted to one's mind". A partner might become physically scarred, and truly grotesque, but the one who "loves" truly (which has nothing to do with physical attraction) will say "I still love you and am attracted to you. But it doesn't mean physically.

In fact, men and women who are NOT gay can have a strong love for one another. Men, and women, can be lifelong companions and not have a physical attraction.

So I don't find the particular notion of people being physically attracted to one another to be a compelling argument to change the definition of marriage which has existed since the dawn of recorded time.

And I won't start with the "5 points of marriage". There is one point of marriage. For a man shall leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.

Maybe later I'll deal with Government recognition of things. This post did NOT deal with that, just with the concept of marriage.

I'm sure I could have said this better had it been something I was writing for a while.

Sidebar: "Don't ask, Don't tell" -- a logical reason to ban gays and lesbians from the military, or from leadership of boys and girls organizations.

This is a logical construct, which people who are experiential or emotional will find both unsatisfying and probably angering.

If you want to ensure there is no sexual tension in a group, you need only to assure that no member of the group is sexually attracted to, or attracted by, any other member.

But the only groups which meet that criteria is a group of straight males, and a group of straight females.

As soon as you introduce a lesbian and gay people, the largest your group can be without having attractions is TWO. One gay man can be with one lesbian woman. But if you add another gay man, the two men are attracted. If you ad a straight man, the gay man is attracted to the straight man, and the straight man is attracted to the gay woman. Likewise for adding another lesbian, or a straight woman.

So a boys group can only be led by a straight man -- who will not be attracted to any of the boys. A gay man will find the boys physically attractive (I'm obviously discussing post-pubescent boys here).

And a girls group can only be led by a straight woman, for the same reason.

Note that if you have a group of gay girls, you already have the same problem as you would if you combined the straight boys and the straight girls.

Logically speaking, men and women who are by nature physically attracted by the sight of the same sex cannot be in groups that have no sexual tension. It's a simple fact of logic.

"Moderate" I understood your analogy perfectly. I just didn't think it was a very good analogy.

Charles, I don't even know where to begin. I could start with your belief that "the idea that marriage is primarily about love is a modern construction, one that has damaged the fabric of society" or I could go right to your idea that it's the government's responsibility to prevent "sexual tension" in groups (I take it you're retired and don't work in, say, an office--just guessing). But, instead, I think I'll just ask our generous hosts Joe and Sophrosyne (whom I've known from the beginning is a woman because her prose has that undefinable woman's touch) if indeed they agree that love and marriage do NOT go together like a horse and carriage and if they think a gay marriage amendment will help in the eradication of the sexual tension that plagues our society.

Government recognition and special treatment of marriage should be considered with the premise that it should be ended for ALL relationships, unless it is clear that there is a compelling government interest in recognition and reward for a particular set of relationships.

Government recognition is not some "right" of the people, government handouts in the forms of special benefits are not some expected payoff for being in certain relationships. Thinking that government by nature must reward relationships, and therefore by fairness must reward all relationships equally, is a logical fallacy born of the philosophical fallacy of government as provider and enabler, rather than the proper view of government as society's method of maintaining civil order.

Once we put government largesse in its place, the issues of "equal rights" for gay couples is exposed for as a false premise based on a false view of the role of government.

So, if we have a government that is neutral on the role of relationships, each person is free to practice any religion they wish, with some religions honoring same-sex marriage, and others only opposite-sex marriage. Some might only allow marriage of people in the same religion, others might not care.

OK, now what role should government provide? Well, it turns out that we have a long history (just about all of recorded history) of evidence that our form of society functions best when organized at multiple levels, with the lowest level being individuals, and the next step being family groups made up of two adults with the ability to procreate.

But we also know that the children of that unit are much better served when their biological parents raise them to the exclusion even of their own "well-being". Therefore, government serves society if it provides a method of encouraging those units who can produce children to then remain together to raise those children.

So we have a "civil union", which we also call marriage. Further, we might ensure that our units aren't punished for being together (marriage tax penalty) and that, in order for them to be able to function as a unit, special treatment in terms of one's earnings going to the other, social security supporting the surviving member of the unit, and other perks.

But these benefits are not confered as a right because they got married, but as an incentive because the particular unit is one that is most favorable for society.

Now, it turns out that as a result of imperfection in laws, some people can earn these benefits without truly contributing to the good of society. It's the nature of government to be incapable of precisely targetting advantages.

But it would make sense to only provide social security inheritance benefits to families with children, for example -- if there are no children, there is no reason for both members not to have worked (note much of the "issues" with marriage come from the ability to gain these special benefits without children, like young women marrying really old men to get their benefits, etc.)

Note that government doesn't have to confer special rights in order for people to enter relationships with each other. Government's special recognition of units of society that reproduce does make things easier for those who choose it, but that was the point, to encourage it.

I see no reason for government to ENCOURAGE the union of two people whose only defining characteristic is physical attraction for each other, but whose pairing provides no compelling societal advantage.

BTW, I believe that much, but not all, of what gay people SAY they fear are not really "benefits", but are simply short-cuts, like a single contract covering multiple aspects of life.

For example, there is no true "societal benefit" conferred by giving one person the right to make medical decisions for another person. Therefore, there is no reason even under the VA constitutional amendment why the legislature couldn't define a contract that covered the breadth of the standard "contractual" aspects desired by gay couples (automatic inheritance without a will, default beneficiary status, homestead protections, visitation/power of attorney rights, etc.

This would not include treatment as "spouses" by social security, since as I said before that is a true benefit conferred not by right but in exchange for entering into the preferred societal reproductive unit.

Note that there is no discrimination -- a gay person can enter into the same societal reproductive unit as any other -- and many gay men and "lesbian" women do just that, for whatever reason.

Now, if you want to argue that a gay unit is a preferred societal unit, you have to first show that it is better than a reproductive unit, and then show that other pairings and even triplings and other types of "units" are not equally beneficial to society as same-sex units.

And I haven't heard the argument yet that shows that two people of the same sex in a unit is better for society than the pairing of a man and his sister, or a man and two women, or a communal arrangement with multiple men and women.

So to summarize: Government recognition of marriage is not a civil right, it is a benefit conferred to a preferential (to society) pairing of reproductive units. same-sex units must prove benefits equal to reproducing units to earn the privilege of special treatment, and then show that their same-sex units have a benefit to society greater than a myriad of other arrangements.

The VA amendment states that, as a matter of common law, OUR society in this state has concluded that only the reproductive unit should be granted special treatment.

Zimzo, perhaps I need to communicate more clearly. As I said in the first sentence of that post, it was not about gay marriage, or about what government needed to do in society.

It was simply setting up a logical base which I may be able to build off of at a later time. Specifically, that prohibition of gay men from leading boy scout troops makes perfect sense because one premise of that societal unit is to form a group without sexual tension or fear of sexual attraction.

It's why we have separate organizations for boys and girls.

I also explained why not having openly gay people in the military made sense logically, for the same reason that adding women to combat units is a wrong decision. But at least if you wanted to, you could make combat units consisting SOLELY of women if you wanted to avoid the problem.

Let me make it plainer. As a society, we have determined that we do not have individuals who would be sexually attracted to each other shower in the same units. So we give men their own shower, and women their own shower.

But if you introduce a gay man to the male shower, you now have a person who is physically attracted to those they are showering with. And just as we wouldn't make women put up with a man in their shower,we wish as a society to avoid this as well.

That's simple in normal life, as we put showers in stalls and the problem is mostly solved.

But in the military, the logistics of providing separate shower and sleep facilities for each and every gay man would be impossible. But you couldn't put the gay men in with the straight men OR with each other, any more than you would force a woman to sleep and shower with the men, or force the women to accept a man sleeping and showering with them.

As I said, I don't expect everybody to appreciate having a logical, passionless argument in the middle of their marriage debate. But it is important to understand certain logical difficulties inherent in attraction to the same sex which do not exist in groups where there is only opposite-sex attraction.

I don't think most people think about it logically enough to see how it is imposssible to build a group of more than two that include a gay or lesbian and don't have sexual tension.

You could say it's the beginning of understanding that homosexuality isn't simply another lifestyle "choice", it is a nature that is at odds with much of the structure we assume in building our society.

Zimro, regarding marriage and love -- I'll be interested in seeing how the others here react to what I realise is a rather contrarian position in today's society.

But another person already mentioned how many marriages were arranged and had nothing to do with being "in love".

"Fiddler on the Roof" deals wonderfully with that concept, although it also illustrates the modern push to redefine marriage around "falling in love".

Successful marriages are not measured by how physically attracted the couple was when they first met, but how hard they work to understand and respect each other, and how much they will sacrifice for the sake of the family unit.

People who break up their marriages because they are "no longer in love" are mostly selfish people who never learned to sacrifice their own pleasure for the good of something bigger.

Seeking that "one person who you love more than anything in the world" is largely a fools errand. But oddly, talk to people married for decades, and the almost to a couple say they are married to the person they love more than anything in the world.

But that's because of their nature, not because they managed to get lucky and, out of 5 billion people in the world, managed to run into the person they would be most attracted to.

People with that true marriage "contract" don't worry about people their spoouses meet, because they know the relationship exists BECAUSE of the relationship, and therefore is not threatened by some physical or other attraction to other people.

wait a second, all those heritage foundation articles are about children in divorces. and I especially lie the one that says women need marriage for protection. you've been telling me for a week that you were going to post links to "peer-reviewed" studies of the negative effects of gay marriage on society (because that's the arguement you keep making) and after a week you come back with som stuff from heritage foundation about DIVORCE?? and MARRIAGE AS PROTECTION FOR WOMEN??? come on.

hold on, I'll find my own information about the damaging effects of gay marriage. I'm sure they're out there.

Lord have mercy on the mariner, I cannot come back to this thread without finding it's gone nine steps beyond what I was prepared to say.

Stay Puft, I wanted that godhatespeoplewithtatoos.com site to be real, I really did. You should be writing for Jay Leno.

I still can't jump in because Charles has so complicated the playing field. I'll read and then I'll be back...

Joe,I'm sorry.

Looking back, I see that my arguments were in an entirely different direction, and do indeed complicate things.

If I could do it over, I'd wait until this discussion ended, and see about starting a new one in a new thread.

Charles,

No, this is the mother of all threads and we might as well continue the discussion here. It's just that Sophie, bless her heart, is traveling and I've got domestic obligations, so our responses will be a little delayed.

Charles,

I am now just reading in detail this stuff you wrote and I am blown away: This is exactly the rational formulation I've been looking for. This will eventually become a new post on the main page later this weekend. Thank you, sir!

Joe, thanks for the kind words. I imagine some of your guests will have a different opinion :-)

Hey M 5-19,

Are you interested in making a difference? Contact me with a real email at: joe -at- novatownhall -dot- com.

I'll repeat this in the other thread. If you're in VA you might me interested.

Gosh, Joe, I was sure you would want to distance yourself from Charles' ideas and that I wouldn't even have to say anything. I was doing you a favor by giving you the chance to explain why Charles' ideas do not represent your own. But now I see that indeed he is expressing thoughts that many moderate people fear might be behind this Marriage Amendment and I must say I thank him for bringing them to the light of day.

When people talk about the anti-gay Marriage Amendments defending "traditional" marriage, it always makes me laugh. Real traditional marriage as Charles has pointed out was not about love. It was a business contract between two families and spouses were usually chosen by parents. The idea of love forming the basis of marriage is indeed a modern concept. Now maybe Charles sides with Fiddler on the Roof's Tevye on the question of who gets to decide who to marry, but I suspect most Virginians would be apalled by the idea of going back to a time when you couldn't choose your own spouse. I suspect if for one moment they could put themselves in the shoes of gay people they would realize that not being able to marry the person that you love and want to share your life with would be a terrible thing.

When Charles claims that gay relationships are based solely on physical attraction, he shows that he has never has taken a moment to put himself in the shoes of gay people and think of them as human beings who are in fact just like he is except that they are attracted to the same sex. The fact is most heterosexual relationships do start out with physical attraction. That they evolve into something else is human nature. What makes him think that gay relationships are any different? Most of them also start out with physical attraction and evolve into something else just like heterosexual relationships. If Charles had ever had a conversation with a gay person about their lives he would know that. If Charles is correct in saying that being able to marry the person you love "has damaged the fabric of society" (an idea that most Virginians I can guarantee you don't subscribe to), if marriage should be based not on physical attraction but on an attraction between "minds" and if straight people of the same sex are often "attracted" to each other in this way, then I wonder why Charles is not fighting for the right to marry his best (male) friend. I bet they would have a wonderful relationship and they wouldn't have to worry about their physical attraction destroying society. That would be the logical conclusion to draw from what Charles says.

Charles assumes that the only reason gay people want to have relationships with someone of the same sex is because of physical attraction. He also assumes that physical attraction is less important in heterosexual relationships. Well, he is wrong on both counts. If a straight person wants to understand why a gay person is gay and why they want to be in a relationship with someone of the same sex, all they have to do is look at why they are straight and want to be in a relationship with someone of the opposite sex. Because, Charles, gay people are actually human beings and they have exactly the same human feelings as you do. Like straight people most of their relationships begin with physical attraction, but not always. There are plenty of really ugly gay people in relationships just as there are plenty of really ugly straight people in relationships (do you need me to name names or send you some pictures to prove this?). The human mystery of attraction is a mystery for everyone, gay and straight. So when you say "I see no reason for government to ENCOURAGE the union of two people whose only defining characteristic is physical attraction for each other" I must point out that you are simply wrong in your characterization gay relationships, that you are assuming that gay people are not human and don't have human feelings, when in fact, aside from their sexual orientation they are exactly like straight people.

By the way, as a side note, your thoughts about love are pretty cynical and depressing. I know plenty of people--gay and straight--who have found love and I suspect that many people reading your words--even those opposed to gay marriage--would disagree with what you have said vehemently.

I also believe that even many proponents of the anti-gay Marriage Amendment might also disagree with your conception of marriage. You write: "So to summarize: Government recognition of marriage is not a civil right, it is a benefit conferred to a preferential (to society) pairing of reproductive units." All I can say is Wow! That description of marriage sounds like something out of a distopian science fiction story. So, therefore, do you believe that a married couple who choose not to have children are not really married? Should a couple where one partner is infertile be allowed to stay married? Do you think it would be "preferential to society" if the partner who was not infertile found someone who was fertile? Wouldn't it be even more "preferential to society" if the government chose good genetic matches for everyone and if certain people (say, as an example, Britney Spears and Kevin Federline) were not allowed to marry because of what their "reproductive unit" might produce. Again, this is the logical extension of your "argument."

You also state: "But we also know that the children of that unit are much better served when their biological parents raise them to the exclusion even of their own "well-being." So, in other words, children of adopted parents are not as "well-served" as children who live with their bilogical parents. And if their biological parents are child abusers, drunks, or drug addicts would they still be better off with them than with adoptive parents? Or with a gay couple.

I must say I'm especially impressed with your discourse on "sexual tension." If you really wanted to reduce the menace of "sexual tension," which by the way exists in virtually every office in the country and in the military as well now that women are there (even though they don't shower together) and most likely in your local gym as well (don't drop the soap!). But if you are so worried about sexual tension (and you haven't really explained why it's such a danger) then perhaps you would have us do what they do in some Islamic countries. In places like Saudi Arabia, Iran and Afghanistan women wear burkas to cover their bodies to prevent the men from feeling any sexual tension and women are forbidden from socializing or working with men. That may sound like paradise to you, Charles, but I would be willing to bet that most Virginians would not be in favor of this idea.

And just a word to Sophrosyne, which Stay Puft has already pointed out. You couldn't come up with one study that shows that the children of gay and lesbian parents are worse off than the children of heterosexual parents. All those links were not to studies but to policy arguments. And the burden of proof is not on those who want to prove that there is no difference because families with gay and lesbian parents already exist. The burden of proof is on you to show why they should not be allowed to exist.

Finally, I think many of my fellow Virginians (because I still feel like a Virginian at heart) will realize after reading all this that the forces behind the anti-gay Marriage Amendment are not as reasonable as they claim to be. I suspect many have family members and friends who are gay and they reject the radical fear-mongering of the anti-gay forces. Although this amendment may still pass, as it has already in many states, ten years ago I couldn't even imagine that we would even be discussing this issue at all. Gay people are more and more a part of mainstream American society and I don't think that trend is going to be reversed no matter how much misinformation and fear is spewed by the other side.

Whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa! I was thanking Charles for his essay about society's rationale for rewarding male/female units with the incentives that comprise "marriage benefits." There arfe a few paragraphs there which state very clearly exactly the type of wording I've been trying to put together.

I can't say whether I agree or disagree on "love" because I only skimmed to get to the part on marriage. I haven't given any thought to the nature of love in many years. I guess you have the difference between "eros" and "agape" and all that, blah blah blah... Sorry, I just can't build up any interest right now. I'm not going to anywhere NEAR the contention that people of the same sex can't get into a relationship in which the "love" between them is as noble as any other.

For a conservative, I tend toward libertarian on this issue, I think if you want to change people's behavior you do it best via persuasion not damnation.

Regarding sexual tension, I think it's a side issue here, having to do with scouts and the military...Again, I'm not going to get into a debate on that point because I'm trying to help get this question about changing the definition of marriage answered. I've only thought about it to the extent I don't think gay men should be allowed to lead scout troops. I never thought about it in terms of sexual tension, just that it seems like a really, really bad idea.

Zimzo, buddy, let's please take a step back regarding your revelation we're not as reasonable as we claim to be. This may indeed turn out to be the case (you haven't heard my personal view on this topic yet), but not because of the things you just discussed.

That one section by Charles was very well stated; I'll make this point more clearly later on, and then I think we will be back on track. I have a busy day today and have to run.

ok, everyone who's doing the slippery slope,"gay marriage hurts the children" thing is an armature. Check out my mad skills on the slippery half-pipe! :

marriage should only be encouraged for the sake of procreation, and the government should limit marriage in the interest of creating the best possible environment for children, which is being raised by biological, married parents.

Gays should not marry because of the possibility that someone else's child might be harmed as a result. post-menopausal women should not marry as they are no longer capable of procreation and therefore such a union would be purely based on physical attraction, no minority groups should be allowed to marry, or have children, because the environment they could create for their children would be sub-optimal due to the possible stress their children might experience as a result of racism. These minorities include non-christians, because of the potential for confusion of a muslim of jewish child who is living in a christian nation. Also, poor people or urban dwellers should not marry, because poverty and urban living conditions may induce certain stresses in children, and adoption should be banned because the optimal situation is to be raised by biological parents.

Given the ideal environment for raising children, and the government's interest in encouraging the creation of that environment, only heterosexual, christian, married, middle- and upper- class whites who live in sub-urban or rural communities (in other words, REPUBLICANS) should have the legal right to marry and reproduce.

ha! and don't even think about using the old liberal "race card" trick.
but seriously...

at the risk of shooting myself in the foot, I'm posting this NON-Heritage Foundation article about how gays harm society:

http://www.geocities.com/two_oclock/hjlpp29394932.htm

but not without also posting this article which, I believe, is the ONLY article posted here so far which directly deals with the issue of gay marriage and children. It’s thoughtful, well-written, and I approve of this article:

http://www.geocities.com/two_oclock/15.2meezan.pdf

I assume the reason sophisticated soph posted articles about children and divorce was to make the point that the best situation is with a mother and a father. It isn't scientific, though, to use those heritage foundation articles to argue that gay marriage harms children. Divorce in and of itself can be traumatizing to children, so it's inaccurate to compare children of divorced parents to children being raised by gay couples.

As the above article so aptly points out, it’s also difficult to compare children of gay couples to children of married couples for the simple fact that married couples have an advantage in their legally-recognized union. If children of married couples are better off than children of gay couples because hetero couples have legal recognition, than saying that gay couples aren’t the best things for kids is like saying, “it’s illegal because it’s against the law.” At that point, it’s no longer a logical argument but a rationalization for a point of view.

First, Joe, I presumed that was what you found interesting. Although if I can correct the misconceptions, you might find agreement with the structure of marriage as well.

Now, for zimzo , June 17, 2006 09:52 AM. This isn’t going to be easy, because almost every interpretation of my response was at odds with my beliefs. So I’m going to go point-by-point and see if I can explain myself better. It is good when people repeat back what they think you have said, it allows us to correct our interpretations.

The first misconception was that my argument in post one about the defining characteristics of marriage was only a precursor to discussing the marriage amendment, and was not itself an argument why we need a marriage amendment. We have a LOT more problems with marriage today than simply that same-sex couples want government to recognize them as “married”. In fact, some of those problems are more serious (but the failing is not governments, but ourselves, and I don’t want government trying to fix it, but rather education and common sense).

In fact, I do not generally argue for the marriage amendment based on a “defense of traditional marriage”. I don’t fault those that do, but that isn’t my primary motivation. I argue it from a “government benefit” perspective – because that is where my involvement as a taxpayer and citizen is directly involved. On the other hand, if someone wants to set up a church that recognizes “gay marriage”, and wants to “get married” and form a family and live their lives in happy monogamy as a gay or lesbian couple, the marriage amendment does not prevent that. It only prevents those family units from getting special, preferential treatment from the government.

That is a one-paragraph summary of my last post, the one that Joe found compelling.

In my NEXT post, I’ll do a point-by-point regarding my first post based on zimzo’s interpretation of it, to clear things up.

So this is what you found so "rational," Joe?

Charles writes: "Now, if you want to argue that a gay unit is a preferred societal unit, you have to first show that it is better than a reproductive unit, and then show that other pairings and even triplings and other types of "units" are not equally beneficial to society as same-sex units. And I haven't heard the argument yet that shows that two people of the same sex in a unit is better for society than the pairing of a man and his sister, or a man and two women, or a communal arrangement with multiple men and women."

First of all, Charles let me say I love how you refer to marriages as "societal reproductive units." I really hope this phraseology catches on.

However, you might be surprised to learn, Charles, that most people don't think of their marriages as "reproductive units" and that the only reason society let's them pair up at all is that society in its great wisdom has decided it is "beneficial." Clearly, if that were true, "society" would have "incentives" to prevent marriages that don't produce children since these marriages wouldn't be "beneficial."

I'm also a bit perplexed at your notion that gay people must prove that same-sex marriages are "a preferred societal unit." Uh, nobody is saying that gay marriages should replace heterosexual marriages or that they are "better for society" or that they deserve "special treatment." Gay people just want equal treatment. They would like to be able to file joint tax returns, visit their spouse in the hospital, be able to sign on to their spouse's health insurance, not have to worry about their immigrant spouse being deported, not be kicked out of their homes if their same-sex spouse dies, etc. etc. These are rights and benefits that opposite-sex married couples have that same-sex couples do not have. They don't want a single right more than straight people have, just the same rights. The burden of proof is not on each married couple to prove that their marriage is beneficial to society. If that were true then Anna Nicole Smith would have lost her case in the Supreme Court because I think it would be difficult to prove how her marriage benefited society. In fact, it should be society's burden to prove why this one particular relationship, that is, between people of the same sex, is in fact bad for society and why it would be bad for society to let gay couples file joint tax returns, visit their spouse in the hospital, be able to sign on to their spouse's health insurance, prevent their immigrant spouse being deported, have protection from being kicked out of their homes if their same-sex spouse dies. Please explain to me why any of these things would be bad for society.

CHARLES:

How does gay marriage harm society? for all your posting, you still haven't moved past stating your opinion.

SOPHMORE:

Here is how I understand your argument:

A.) gay marriage => people being disillusioned with marriage => having kids out of wedlock

B.) children of divorced parents have been shown to have certain difficulties later in life, therefore gay marriage would also be harmful.

is this interpretation of your argument inaccurate?

EVERYONE ELSE WHO IS OPPOSED TO GAY MARRIAGE:

Can someone please give a nice, step-by-step break down of how gay marriage harms society?

thanks

OK, here’s the follow-up post for zimzo’s June 17, 2006 09:52 AM post. If I do this right, zimzo’s words will be italicized.

Real traditional marriage as Charles has pointed out was not about love. It was a business contract between two families and spouses were usually chosen by parents. The idea of love forming the basis of marriage is indeed a modern concept.

How people chose who to marry varies by culture. Getting married is an act, marriage is a relationship. Loveless marriage existed and exists, but is not the norm, nor desired state. My point was that choosing WHO to marry was not exclusively done by falling in love.
Now maybe Charles sides with Fiddler on the Roof's Tevye on the question of who gets to decide who to marry, but I suspect most Virginians would be apalled by the idea of going back to a time when you couldn't choose your own spouse.
The illustration was to counter the concept that a necessary attribute of marriage is that you do so with “the” person you love. This to counter the argument that not allowing gays who “love” each other to “marry” debases the meaning of “marriage”.

I suspect if for one moment they could put themselves in the shoes of gay people they would realize that not being able to marry the person that you love and want to share your life with would be a terrible thing.
Most people experience not being able to “marry” a person they love. A vast majority of “loves” never get to be married. And since those couples can still commit to one another, live together, love, and spend their lives together, it seems less “terrible” than the implication that we are trying to physically break up same-sex couples. We are only talking about government-granted special treatment.

When Charles claims that gay relationships are based solely on physical attraction, he shows that he has never has taken a moment to put himself in the shoes of gay people and think of them as human beings who are in fact just like he is except that they are attracted to the same sex. The fact is most heterosexual relationships do start out with physical attraction. That they evolve into something else is human nature. What makes him think that gay relationships are any different? Most of them also start out with physical attraction and evolve into something else just like heterosexual relationships. If Charles had ever had a conversation with a gay person about their lives he would know that.

I was just defining what makes a relationship “gay”. The only difference between a gay and straight relationship is the physical attraction to the same sex. It may be that most modern relationships, and maybe even marriages, start out with physical attraction, but that is not necessary for marriage – many good marriages start with people who are friends first.

If Charles is correct in saying that being able to marry the person you love "has damaged the fabric of society" (an idea that most Virginians I can guarantee you don't subscribe to)
I didn’t say that. I said that basing marriage on a physical, romantic love is damaging, because that love doesn’t last and people that think that’s what marriage is will divorce and re-marry looking for that shallow tie. A good marriage needs a LOT more than simple romantic love, but doesn’t NEED romantic love. Just as a good marriage can’t be built simply on physical attraction, and further does NOT NEED physical attraction to succeed.

, if marriage should be based not on physical attraction but on an attraction between "minds" and if straight people of the same sex are often "attracted" to each other in this way, then I wonder why Charles is not fighting for the right to marry his best (male) friend. I bet they would have a wonderful relationship and they wouldn't have to worry about their physical attraction destroying society. That would be the logical conclusion to draw from what Charles says.
You seem to understand the argument. I am NOT fighting for that right, even though it would make as much sense as fighting for government recognition of gay marriage – because NEITHER gay marriage, nor the relationship defined above, benefits society in a way that justifies special treatment. My support for the M.A. is not based on “physical attraction destroying society”. My point is as always that people can enter into personal relationships as they see fit, but government should only recognize those pairings if that recognition benefits society.

Charles assumes that the only reason gay people want to have relationships with someone of the same sex is because of physical attraction.,
I do not, any more than I think men only want relationships with women for that reason. I prefer relationships with women because they are easier to talk to.

He also assumes that physical attraction is less important in heterosexual relationships.
No, I do not, and I didn’t say that. My focus on “physical attraction” was only because it’s the ONLY distiniguishing characteristic of a “gay” relationship.

…Because, Charles, gay people are actually human beings and they have exactly the same human feelings as you do. Of course they do, and I never said otherwise.
Like straight people most of their relationships begin with physical attraction, but not always. I didn’t argue a difference, but I disagree that “most” straight relationships start with physical attraction, most relationships start with friendship, or at least that was true traditionally, and if it is changing it is a bad thing (in movies and TV you are correct).

… So when you say "I see no reason for government to ENCOURAGE the union of two people whose only defining characteristic is physical attraction for each other" I must point out that you are simply wrong in your characterization gay relationships,.
I was not characterizing the relationship, I was characterizing what makes the relationship unique from other relationships that people are NOT fighting to have recognized as marriage. If you remove “physical attraction”, there is no reason why any people of the same sex who are sharing living quarters couldn’t “get married” and receive special government benefits. Or even people of the opposite sex. I’ll expound on this in another post.

By the way, as a side note, your thoughts about love are pretty cynical and depressing. I know plenty of people--gay and straight--who have found love and I suspect that many people reading your words--even those opposed to gay marriage--would disagree with what you have said vehemently.
“Finding love” is generally a far cry from the “romantic love” or base physical attraction that many relationships these days are based on – and the way culture sells that attraction as the foundation for relationships is depressing. I never said people don’t find a deeper, relational love. I remind once again that the discussion of “romantic love” regarded how people enter into relationships.

I also believe that even many proponents of the anti-gay Marriage Amendment might also disagree with your conception of marriage. You write: "So to summarize: Government recognition of marriage is not a civil right, it is a benefit conferred to a preferential (to society) pairing of reproductive units." All I can say is Wow! That description of marriage sounds like something out of a distopian science fiction story.

I reject the notion that marriage is defined by government. Each person defines their own relationships. Many straight couples have what they consider “marriages” without a certificate of government approval. As my quote above clearly says – “government RECOGNITION of marriage” – NOT “description of marriage”.

So, therefore, do you believe that a married couple who choose not to have children are not really married? Should a couple where one partner is infertile be allowed to stay married? Do you think it would be "preferential to society" if the partner who was not infertile found someone who was fertile? Wouldn't it be even more "preferential to society" if the government chose good genetic matches for everyone and if certain people (say, as an example, Britney Spears and Kevin Federline) were not allowed to marry because of what their "reproductive unit" might produce. Again, this is the logical extension of your "argument."
No, it is not. As I said, government policy is a “coarse” tool, not given to “fine-tuning”. Government makes rules broadly to benefit society. If a move was made to restrict government recognition of marriage, others I’m sure could argue here about whether society benefits from these other relationships. I don’t preclude that, I simply don’t have to argue the relative merits of gay or straight relationships to defend the Marriage Amendment, since it does not seek to further restrict marriage.

You also state: "But we also know that the children of that unit are much better served when their biological parents raise them to the exclusion even of their own "well-being." So, in other words, children of adopted parents are not as "well-served" as children who live with their bilogical parents. And if their biological parents are child abusers, drunks, or drug addicts would they still be better off with them than with adoptive parents? Or with a gay couple.
Again, government policy is a coarse tool. We let all people get drivers licenses, and then revoke those who individually are found unworthy. Biological parents ARE better than adoptive parents, except when on an individual basis they show otherwise. You won’t find support for the notion that removing children from biological parents and putting them with adoptive parents would be “best” for children in other than exceptional conditions. In a later post I’ll expand this.

That’s it for the discussion of “love” and “marriage”. I’ll put a short post about sexual tension since that was a distraction from the current argument (although the logic leads to a societal harm of recognizing same-sex marriage).

Here’s the third part of response to zimzo:

I must say I'm especially impressed with your discourse on "sexual tension." If you really wanted to reduce the menace of "sexual tension," which by the way exists in virtually every office in the country and in the military as well now that women are there (even though they don't shower together) and most likely in your local gym as well (don't drop the soap!). But if you are so worried about sexual tension (and you haven't really explained why it's such a danger) then perhaps you would have us do what they do in some Islamic countries. In places like Saudi Arabia, Iran and Afghanistan women wear burkas to cover their bodies to prevent the men from feeling any sexual tension and women are forbidden from socializing or working with men. That may sound like paradise to you, Charles, but I would be willing to bet that most Virginians would not be in favor of this idea.

Nowhere to I argue that in general we need to separate people to avoid sexual tensions. I have identified two SPECIFIC INSTANCES where we HAVE specifically attempted to remove sexual attraction from groups – the military, and teenage boys and girls organizations. You keep wanting to expand that to the entire society knowing that would be impossible, as if that makes the entire idea moot. But it is clear society sees a BENEFIT to having same-sex groups. And gay participation in those groups destroys the benefit society seeks FOR THOSE GROUPS.

That was my logical argument, and nothing you say above refutes the logic of my argument. But I’d like to see you try rather than making straw-man arguments – Can you give me a reason why a taking a group of gay teen boys on a camping trip and having them sleep together in tents and shower together is different than taking a mixed group of straight boys and girls on a camping trip and having them sleep together in tents and shower together?

I also have to make my own comment about your last paragraph:

I suspect many have family members and friends who are gay and they reject the radical fear-mongering of the anti-gay forces
Absolutely NOTHING I said has anything to do with fear And your repeated presumptions not just here but in many of your previous responses to me about me “not knowing gay people”, not “understanding”, “thinking gays aren’t human”, all come across as an attempt to “dehumanize” the opposition to your position rather than dealing with the arguments in front of you.

I can assure you that I’ve known many gay people in my life, many of whom were friends. My interest in preventing gay marriage is not based on a “fear” of gay people, but a sound belief that society benefits from government encouraging marriage as it exists today, and providing special treatment for any other type of relationship will be detrimental to society, both directly, and also over time since gay relationships cannot be distinguished from ANY other definable relationship except in the specific physical characteristic of attraction to the same sex.

Whereas the existing definition of marriage is easily distinguishable from other relationships. We just want to keep it that way, for the good of society.

At the risk of cross-threading, I will repeat something I actually answered in a previous post, to ensure the application to zimzo's more recent post:

First of all, Charles let me say I love how you refer to marriages as "societal reproductive units." I really hope this phraseology catches on.
I do not refer to marriages as "societal reproductive units". I refer to the purpose of government's preferential treatment being based on THAT aspect of relationships, which in no way suggests that this defines those relationships.

However, you might be surprised to learn, Charles, that most people don't think of their marriages as "reproductive units" and that the only reason society let's them pair up at all is tha