New York Nixes Gay Marriage

So it looks like New York won't go the way of Massachusetts. Despite ideological similarities with Massachusetts's Supreme Judicial Court -- what NYU law professor Stephen Gillers called a similar "center of gravity" -- New York's Court of Appeals reached a very different conclusion in their ruling on gay marriage (Hernandez v. Robles).

The court worked hard to avoid sounding homophobic in its decision, acknowledging that "there has been serious injustice in the treatment of homosexuals also, a wrong that has been widely recognized only in the relatively recent past..." But the court swiftly dodged the equality arguments presented by plaintiffs and instead -- in what can only be called an act of judicial passivism -- kicked the issue to the state legislature. In his plurality opinion Judge Robert Smith concluded, "We hold that the New York Constitution does not compel recognition of marriages between members of the same sex. Whether such marriages should be recognized is a question to be addressed by the Legislature." A concurring opinion even gingerly suggested that "it may well be that the time has come for the Legislature to address the needs of same-sex couples and their families, and to consider granting these individuals additional benefits through marriage, or whatever status the Legislature deems appropriate."

Deference to state legislators, however, did not stop the court from speculating on what could be a rational basis for legislation excluding homosexuals from marriage (and by the way the legislation in question is the Domestic Relations Law of 1909). Indeed, such speculation necessarily formed the crux of the court's ruling. And here's where the court's ruling gets really gnarly:

"First, the Legislature could rationally decide that, for the welfare of children, it is more important to promote stability, and to avoid instability, in opposite-sex than in same-sex relationships. Heterosexual intercourse has a natural tendency to lead to the birth of children; homosexual intercourse does not...The Legislature could also find that such [heterosexual] relationships are all too often casual or temporary. It could find that an important function of marriage is to create more stability and permanence in the relationships that cause children to be born. It thus could choose to offer an inducement -- in the form of marriage and its attendant benefits -- to opposite-sex couples who make a solemn, long-term commitment to each other. The Legislature could find that this rationale for marriage does not apply with comparable force to same-sex couples. These couples can become parents by adoption, or by artificial insemination or other technological marvels, but they do not become parents as a result of accident or impulse. The Legislature could find that unstable relationships between people of the opposite sex present a greater danger that children will be born into or grow up in unstable homes than is the case with same-sex couples, and thus that promoting stability in opposite-sex relationships will help children more."

Need a translation? Heterosexual New Yorkers are reckless, irresponsible sluts who breed without regard. Gays, however, must dutifully and deliberately pursue adoption, artificial insemination or "other technological marvels" and are thus more likely to raise kids in stable families. Consequently, gays don't need the "inducement" of marriage. Voila! And in just a few keystrokes, the stereotype of homosexual promiscuity is reversed -- though with familiar anti-gay results.

Judge Judith Kaye eviscerated this perverse rationalization in her dissent when she wrote, "Of course, there are many ways in which the government could rationally promote procreation--for example, by giving tax breaks to couples who have children, subsidizing child care for those couples, or mandating generous family leave for parents. Any of these benefits--and many more--might convince people who would not otherwise have children to do so. But no one rationally decides to have children because gays and lesbians are excluded from marriage."

In the '80s and '90s, fears of gay promiscuity produced the now almost quaint "gay panic defense" through which gay bashers were let off the hook because they went "temporarily insane" in the face of perceived homosexual advances. That the New York Court of Appeals now invokes a kind of heterosexual panic argument in the face of stable, monogamous, marriage-minded gay couples is rich indeed. But it isn't surprising given how, as Lisa Duggan and I have argued, debates about gay marriage have become less about gay civil rights and more about the future of marriage as an institution. If marriage is the symbolic and legal foundation for household security (for childcare, healthcare, retirement, home ownership, etc.), and marriage is increasingly unpopular and unstable -- then what? Like family-values conservatives, the Court of Appeals stoked and manipulated these anxieties to produce an immediately anti-gay opinion. But the deeper and more occluded marital disorder at the heart of the issue can't be resolved by banning gay marriage. As Judge Kaye's dissent suggests, perhaps it's time for both heterosexuals and gays to debate and enact genuinely pro-family (or pro-household) policies head-on, and recognize the gay marriage question for what it is -- a rather simple matter of equality under law.

Comments (99)

1. So, if I understand this right, women past menopause and men who are sterile should not be allowed to get married, though if they have children they might be allowed to remain married.

   Posted by BruceMcF at 07/06/2006 @ 3:27pm

2. Not a good day for liberals. Same sex marriage gets thrown out in 2 states and the liberal candidate loses in Mexico.

   Posted by woodyee at 07/06/2006 @ 3:49pm

3. Well, for all of those living in New York who have judged states like ours (Oklahoma) as backwards looking homophobic states doomed for financial failure, how does it feel to live in a state that has now outlawed gay marriage? Are you planning on moving to Massachusetts or some other gay friendly state?

   Posted by Oksportsguy at 07/06/2006 @ 3:50pm

4. OK Sport

   Great Idea............Yes homosexuals, by all means, move to the midwest where you can be ridiculed and OPENLY discriminated against. Unfortunately, it seems that even the most liberal parts of the US arent ready for you to be officially "together" yet. However, be happy that you're not counted as three fifths of a person.......I hear that's next on the GWB agenda.

   Posted by jpolston at 07/06/2006 @ 4:17pm

5. Looks like Richard Kim has hit the nail on the head in defining this ruling as "gnarly". They have done everything possible to avoid the issue and thrown it back to the Legislature in a fit of nineteenth century reasoning that takes no cognizance of current social norms. Marriage as an "inducement" to long-term stability for unmarried couples that happen to conceive a child? This in a culture that now commonly uses the slang terms "baby-momma" and "baby-daddy" to identify the non-married (and usually non-cohabiting) parents of children (as opposed to the person one of these two is actually involved with?)

   The only way they managed this in the first place is that it was raised as an entirely state issue and they could decide it under New York state law rather than federal legal or constitutional auspicies. If this isn't appealed to a federal court under a fourteenth amendment objection, then someone needs to fire their lawyers.

   Oh, and just to let you know OKSPORTSGUY, New York still hasn't "outlawed" same-sex marriage, it's just reconsigned it to legal limbo (since with this ruling the law remains officially silent on the matter.) Your own state actually enshrined this ridiculous discrimination in its constitution, which seems a bit more actively anti-gay to most of us. Not that that will stand federal constitutional muster in the end either, but it says somethig about the two states and their relative regard for basic rights (or at least, that of a majority of their voting citizens at any rate.) Don't crow too soon, my friend, you might find yourself eating it next.

   Posted by Stwriley at 07/06/2006 @ 4:36pm

6. I am always puzzled by people who think that Gay Marriage/civil unions are a "threat" to the family or to the institution of marriage. It seems that if the lawmakers who constantly deny the rights of a certain group of people were truly interested in preserving the sanctity of marriage they would outlaw divorce. As to the safety of children all one has to do is listen to the news to hear how badly people who are married can treat their children. I have never read or heard on the news where a gay couple had murdered or harmed their children, but almost daily you hear stories about the abuse of children by one or both of their parents. When is our country going to stop "cherry picking" the rights that are guaranteed by our constitution to all people? Other countries have made same-sex unions (marriages) legal and there has been no moral decline or horrendous increase in crimes against the family. Our country needs to stop being hypocritical and give all people equal rights.

   Posted by awp529 at 07/06/2006 @ 5:01pm

7. "Don't crow too soon, my friend, you might find yourself eating it next."

   I wasn't "crowing" I was asking a question in terms of how it feels to be a judgmental "liberal" judging southern states for outlawing gay marriage under the assumption that liberal bastions like New York would NEVER do anything like that? I was further asking the question will people that are either gay or angry with the New York court system for not ruling in favor of gay marriage will they move out of New York to Massachusetts or some other "gay friendly" state?

   Todd

   Posted by Oksportsguy at 07/06/2006 @ 5:01pm

8. good point Riley, Todt is mistaken

   Posted by johannesrolf at 07/06/2006 @ 5:23pm

9. Yeah, OKSPORTSGUY, I'm curious about this too. Having grown up in Ohio and lived in Tennessee six years while getting my MRD (most recent degree), I'm always surprised by this bizarre notion that there are "liberal" and "conservative" states, as opposed to states with different mixes of small town and large city populations.

   However, on a side note, the NY Supreme Court neither outlawed gay marriage nor inlawed them, it just ducked and tossed it to the state legislature.

   And, of course, writing an opinion inviting the legislature to write a law that brings into question the rights of heterosexuals marrying for any purpose other than breeding.

   Posted by BruceMcF at 07/06/2006 @ 5:24pm

10. Fascinating, how a culture whose most conservative proponents will rave on endlessly about the right of the individual to this, that, and the other will draw a line in the sand as regards the very basic right to love and human commitment, or even something so minimal as sexual happiness. I don't care what state does what or tosses which to the legislature, at the end of the day, it is quite literally and positively none of anyone else's fucking business who you or I choose to become intimately involved with so long as there is mutual consent. Nor should there be any laws governing those intimate decisions. Those "Americans" who can't deal with individual freedom ought to lock themselves in their gated communities and leave the rest of us alone. Those "moral" exponents who can't deal with subjective arrangement ought to just rapture up to heaven or whatever in hell it is they're planning on doing and leave the rest of us to whatever hells find us. No hell could be any worse then the one they're creating for us on this earth.

    Posted by JRJunior at 07/06/2006 @ 6:12pm

11. I read the decision. The majority certainly did a lot of circular reasoning to conclude a rational basis test applies - and even then did not apply it correctly.

    Oh well, I guess NY will just have to wait until the bigots die off.

    Posted by Hman23 at 07/06/2006 @ 6:13pm

12. another completely weak argument on a part of the court. and bush talks about there being a preponderance of "activist judges" across the country. do people actually fall for this nonsense?

    there is simply no evidence to support the denial of equal rights that are granted under state and federal law. you cannot morally deny someone the freedom to form a legal union with their lover, on par with straights, on the basis of sexual preference.

    two dicks under the same roof does not necessarily guarantee an unstable environment for children, neither do two vaginas. and what business does the government have in examining what sexual organs married couples have in the first place?

    there is nothing "natural" about the seemingly symmetrical position of straight sex, not the seemingly asymmetrical position of gay sex. and straight and gay sex aren't necessarily diametrically opposed.

    so what the fuck are these homophobic judges doing? they are creating non-sequitur after non-sequitur, and avoiding the real issue here; equal rights under state law.

    Posted by darladoon at 07/06/2006 @ 6:20pm

13. Wonderful. Sigh of relief. For a second there I thought this Gay marriage thing might spread all across the nation and then I'd start hearing that, "Robert when are you gonna' settle down," line from my mother. Looks like, "but mom, I legally can't," is going to work a little longer. Sexual liberation and "tying the knot" doesn't seem to go together, does it?

    Posted by engels1969 at 07/06/2006 @ 7:12pm

14. "It could find that an important function of marriage is to create more stability and permanence in the relationships that cause children to be born."

    Funny thing. My wife and I decided that to maintain our stable, permanent relationship, the best thing to do would be to not cause children to be born. Funny thing, too. We find that "heterosexual intercourse has [NOT] had a natural tendency to lead to the birth of children" with only the slightest deviation from what nature tends toward.

    If we're so blasted set on following nature's course, where are the bans on all pesticides and bioengineering, where is the ban on the manufacturing of plastics and all other synthetic materials, and where is the ban on any belief that is "supernatural". I suggest for anyone working toward the promotion of equality between straights and gays that they counter "unnatural" epithets with "supernatural".

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 07/06/2006 @ 7:18pm

15. ya...ya..ya! Why don't we just give the gay mafia what it wants except we'll call it "Garriage"! Marriage for the people it was intended for ( man & woman ) and Garriage for the few people who feel discriminated against. Give them the same rights as married couples and be done with it! This way, our gov't will not be telling my children that heterosexual relationships are the same as homosexual , because they are not, yet the hijackers of marraige can be appeased also! Somehow, though, I don't think the hijackers will be satisfied with this idea/compromise! It's so funny how the same people on the left that want all relationships ( homo and hetero ) to be called the same thing, yet when we try to stop the gov't from collecting race-based data ( SEPARATING PEOPLE based on race ) they fight against it! Which is it? Do you want us all to be equal/the same, or not?

    Posted by barry25 at 07/06/2006 @ 7:51pm

16. This way, our gov't will not be telling my children that heterosexual relationships are the same as homosexual , because they are not

    Yes, you are right. They are different. Straight relationships have opposite sex pairs. Gay relationships have same sex pairs. Thus, they are different. Beyond that, though, how are they different?

    Posted by engels1969 at 07/06/2006 @ 7:59pm

17. Not a good day for liberals. Posted by WOODYEE 07/06/2006 @ 3:49pm

    WOODYEE...it wasn't that bad. Today, Tom Delay's "retirement" plan just blew up in his face. As of right now, the Texas Republicans are up a creek without a paddle, since they can't put a new candidate on the ballot in Delay's district. Oh the irony!!

    Posted by BlueTexan at 07/06/2006 @ 8:57pm

18. BARRY25 sez, "Marriage for the people it was intended for (man & woman) and Garriage for the few people who feel discriminated against. Give them the same rights as married couples and be done with it! This way, our gov't will not be telling my children that heterosexual relationships are the same as homosexual , because they are not, yet the hijackers of marriage can be appeased also!"

    Why not give unto Caesar that that which is Caesar's and give unto God that which is God's? The state recognised civil unions and our various faiths marry people.

    Then those who wish to have religious wars against those faiths that recognize gay marriage can keep it in the private sector where it belongs.

    As near as I understand it - and bear in mind I have been in Australia for a decade, so I have been spared a lot of pointless political grandstanding on this issue - the libertarian argument regards the right of someone's partner to see them and consult with the physician at the hospital when they have an accident, recognition of rights of inheritance, that sort of thing. I can't recall ever seeing any supporter with an attack on the traditional American family as the prime objective.

    Posted by BruceMcF at 07/06/2006 @ 9:05pm

19. Engels, there are few other differences, such as the ability to procreate, and sin ( if you are religious ). Since we do agree that there are some differences then we should at least acknowledge those by the differing terms, " Garriage " and Marriage "! I don't have a problem with gay marriage ( Garriage ) having the same rights and benefits that marriages have, ( although I am personally disgusted and horrified by homosexuality and will never accept it as being normal or natural ), and I don't believe that homo's should be discriminated against by our gov't! I do, however, want there to be a distinction between the two, just as our gov't distinguishes between race, gender, age, etc.!

    Posted by barry25 at 07/06/2006 @ 9:28pm

20. Barry25 - finally the real rationale for recognizing a distinction between gay and straight marriage - you are "personally disgusted and horrified by homosexuality". In other words, the fact that one man sticks his watchamacallit in the whoozis of another man repels and frightens you. Hence, your requirement for a distinction - the one flavor of marriage is great, the other is disgusting and horrifying. As with the abortion argument, when people say it's not about sex, it IS about sex.

    Posted by Fishbite at 07/06/2006 @ 9:44pm

21. It doesn't frighten me, it " disgusts and horrifies" me!

    Posted by barry25 at 07/06/2006 @ 9:58pm

22. [sorry for pedantic detour]

    One entry found for horrify.

    Entry Word: horrify

    Function: verb

    Text: to strike with fear -- see FRIGHTEN

    Posted by Fishbite at 07/06/2006 @ 10:03pm

23. OK, BARRY25, when you say, "Engels, there are few other differences, such as the ability to procreate, and sin ( if you are religious ).", you are agreeing that a heterosexual couple that cannot breed should not be allowed to get married.

    Interesting.

    Posted by BruceMcF at 07/06/2006 @ 10:07pm

24. Well, then I got to brush up on my vocab. When I say horrify, I mean like a " gag reflex". Like I want to throw up! Picture yourself unknowingly biting into a shit sandwich that I just prepared for you! You might be " horrified " at the moment you tasted and thoguht about what just happened!

    Posted by barry25 at 07/06/2006 @ 10:09pm

25. Barry - Consider the possibility that the administration decides that oral sex should be criminalized - BTW I believe that it still IS criminalized here and there. Further consider that there are those that find the practice disgusting (and possibly horrifying). Let me further suggest for the purpose of the argument, and begging forgiveness for my immodesty, that contrary to all that is decent, you and your partner enjoy this practice. What would your reaction be to learn that this behavior was illegal and that you were subject to discrimination at the least or legal charges? Or perhaps that getting a marriage license required that you swear not to engage in the practice? Kind of ridiculous example perhaps, but how would this be any different?

    Posted by Fishbite at 07/06/2006 @ 10:18pm

26. Fascinating, how a culture whose most conservative proponents will rave on endlessly about the right of the individual to this, that, and the other will draw a line in the sand as regards the very basic right to love and human commitment, or even something so minimal as sexual happiness.

    That's quite a broad statement that could even include pedophilia, polygamy, incest, etc. Nobody who opposes gay marriage sees it that way.

    I know several gay couples that are fantastic people and have long-term happy relationships. When asked, not one of them cares whether they are allowed to officially be married or not. The kind of commitment that a relationship requires is in the heart and not on a piece of paper. This reminds me of all the noise about Wal-mart...lots of people screaming about their wages and working conditions who have never worked there, while the workers themselves have never said boo about it.

    According to Y2K census data, gays comprise roughly 1.8% of our population. 4% of whom even bother to vote. Re-defining what or who traditional marriage should include for a tiny percentage of the population is ridiculous. Not to mention all the school curricula, etc.

    Posted by Sliver at 07/06/2006 @ 11:29pm

27. Yes, peculiar reasoning. According to the court it's only the genitalia of the parents that counts for making a "stable" home, and not the quality of the parenting delivered. Yep, as long as there's a penis and a vagina present everything else will be hunky dorey! Crazy! And the court took no account of gays with children by adoption or from previous relationships. Don't those children deserve stable, legally-recognized homes as well? Not to mention the right to parents who aren't being regularly traumatized by their gradual consignment to second-class citizen status by the courts, voters and state legislatures? How surreal it feels to have your sexual orientation, desire, and relationship debated on the House floor by scurrilous blowhard Republicans from Texas!

    Posted by eatraul at 07/06/2006 @ 11:47pm

28. Now that we've thrown children into it....I say Celebrate Diversity!! Give your child a Mother and a Father. There are much more differences than pure genitalia.

    Posted by Sliver at 07/07/2006 @ 12:24am

29. How surreal it feels to have your sexual orientation, desire, and relationship debated on the House floor by scurrilous blowhard Republicans from Texas!

    --That line couldn't be any more inaccurate. WHat they were debating was Marriage. Nobody's trying to outlaw homosexuality.

    Posted by Sliver at 07/07/2006 @ 12:26am

30. What a true shame.

    Firstly, OKSPORTSGUY, I'm also from Oklahoma, for the record, I'm a registered Republican (lest any liberal comments need made to my post), and I would be very proud to join gay men and lesbian women in protesting for their rights. Fact is, people are all the same, and they all deserve respect, something which is lacking when denying someone the ability to marry because of their sexuality. Good God, it's 2006, not 1835. We are all individuals, part of America's melting pot, and to deny rights to one which are extended to others is nothing short of discrimination, which is a disgusting act, no matter where in the world one happens to live.

    Secondly, Barry. Whenever I find myself humbled by the progressive society in which I live, impressed with the strides made toward human rights and equality, someone like you pops their little head in to restore my faith in the knowledge that ignorant bigots still exist and permeate our society much in the way the stench from a fungus infects everything around it.

    Finally, how amusing it is, that in this week of the 230th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, the high court of the State of New York should forget the most important words ever written:

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

    Ah yes, the pursuit of happiness, that illusive ideal which we preach in one breath while condemning in the next.

    Truly disgusting, disheartening, and appalling. Perhaps one day, the bigots will all be drown out by the screams of those who believe the ideals which our country was based on, that we are all equal, dammit, and everyone should be treated that way.

    My husband and I have no kids, and I have no intention of getting pregnant anytime soon, and anyone who would say that makes my marriage less of a marriage than those who pop out kids whenever they feel the need for swollen ankles or another welfare check can kiss my ass, and hopefully the collective asses of the gay and lesbian communities of the world who understand, as I do, that love has nothing to do with childbearing. Any fool can make sperm to produce a baby, any woman can pop out an egg, but that makes them no better nor worse than anyone else.

    Disgusted.

    Posted by jaden at 07/07/2006 @ 12:55am

31. Sorry for the double posting folks, just missed my comment to Silver. One might recommend that you look back at the recent Supreme Court cases which included, among other things, the Lawrence v. Texas ruling in 2003, brought by a homosexual couple from Houston who were charged with Sodomy and arrested in 1998, both spending the night in jail and being fined.

    Your statement "No one is trying to outlaw homosexuality" is simply because 3 years ago the US Supreme Court struck down Texas' attempt to do so, but certainly not until after they tried to do just that.

    Posted by jaden at 07/07/2006 @ 01:01am

32. Jaden,

    I'm glad you posted, I'm interesting in finding out more about your point of view, particularly since you stand up for the right for gays to marriage AND you live in a state that has already outlawed gay marriage.

    How do you feel as a gay marriage proponent living in a state that has outlawed gay marriage by amending our state constitution by 78% of the electorate?

    Do you feel like you want to stay and fight to change our states view (and our constitution) to again allow gays to marriage in Oklahoma?

    Do you feel like moving out to a more gay friendly state?

    You said:

    "My husband and I have no kids, and I have no intention of getting pregnant anytime soon, and anyone who would say that makes my marriage less of a marriage than those who pop out kids whenever they feel the need for swollen ankles or another welfare check can kiss my ass"

    I am married with four children, am successful in my line of business and my wife is a registered nurse in labor and delivery at a hospital in Tulsa, we don't need/want/take welfare (or any funding from the tax payers via the government) to support our family.

    I would suggest that there are many people who are offended by your insinuation that any family with a bunch of kids is more than likely on welfare just as you are offended by those that would value the sanctity of your marriage less than marriages that have resulted in kids.

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 07/07/2006 @ 09:03am

33. Your statement "No one is trying to outlaw homosexuality" is simply because 3 years ago the US Supreme Court struck down Texas' attempt to do so, but certainly not until after they tried to do just that.

    ..and the Court did the right thing in that case. I agree with that. There are many outdated laws on the books that are rarely enforced. In the state of Ohio, it is illegal to back out of your driveway, but it's never enforced.

    Posted by Sliver at 07/07/2006 @ 09:09am

34. But, LVLIBERTY1, the language of the decision invites the legislature to restrict marriage to breeders. At the age of myself and my wife, our marriage would be in danger of being declared null and void.

    Posted by BruceMcF at 07/07/2006 @ 10:45am

35. Firstly, to Liberty, there are almost 300 million people in the United States, and two mainstream political parties. Surely you are not suggesting that everyone must agree with every stance in order to be either Republican or Democrat. I do believe individuality goes far deeper than that, and my right, as a Republican, to disagree with a stance my party has made is lessened none by your views. I am not required to bow down and agree with everything my leaders do and say, you see, that is one of the things which is great about this nation.

    However, I will point this out. I stated:

    "Fact is, people are all the same, and they all deserve respect"

    You stated:

    "You need to re-register with a party that reflects your values-please!"

    So, by your statements, you are contending that the Republican party does not believe people deserve equality and respect? Nice, but I disagree, as a Republican who has voted that way in every election since I was able to vote, who threatened to leave the country should Gore have been elected, who believes vehemently that human rights are for all rather than the few; and that, you see, is a view you will never change with your condemnation.

    OKSPORT,

    I feel disgusted about the vote to outlaw gay marriage, and I feel it does a lot to support to view that people around here are backward rednecks. However, I also believe change has never happened by those who sat around at dinner griping about it while smiling about it in the daytime; no, change happens because people demand it. I don't think running away solves the problem, although I will be moving out of state next year for my doctorate degree, you may be assured that I will return, armed with my views of human rights and higher education, and will do my best to educate others to the idea of equality so that one day perhaps Oklahoma will be at the forefront of human rights. This is my home, and I love it, and again I will say, while I do not agree with all the elected officials have done, I believe it is my right and duty as a voting citizen to try and change things from within, rather than close my eyes to the issue.

    Secondly, regarding my comment about multiple children. I said: "those who pop out kids whenever they feel the need for swollen ankles or another welfare check can kiss my ass,"

    I by no means contend that every couple who wishes for a big family does so for welfare, therefore I included the comment about swollen ankles. Of course there are many who support their children without welfare, and I applaud them, however, according to this ruling, you and your wife, with your 4 children, are more of a married couple than my husband and I, simply because we have chosen to not have children, at least yet. I feel that is unfair to the growing number of women who are postponing childbearing for careers, and unfair to the couples who are infertile and would fall into the same distinction as homosexuals, and in general just unfair. The ruling makes it sound as though straight people are to be nothing but baby machines who need marriage to have some sort of stability, whereas gay couples are so stable, they don't need it anyway.

    My intent was not to offend, and I did (unsuccessfully, apparently) use more than one reference to those who have multiple children. As I am sure a learned man such as yourself is aware, there are those who have kids for welfare, and while I think it's a disgusting end-run around the system, I also think they are no more married than anyone else.

    Finally, to end this novel, Silver, yes, you see, those outdated laws are never enforced. The Texas Sodomy law, however, was. Therefore, the two are not comparable. When someone has spent a night in jail and had to pay a fine for backing out of their driveway, we shall talk. Until then, it must not be ignored that in this ever so progressive society in which we live, less than one decade ago, people were put in jail for being intimate with each other in the privacy of their own home. God only knows what kind of things would happen if the police had the right to judge everyone on what goes on behind closed bedroom doors; that expectation of privacy is for everyone, no matter which hole something is going into, no matter who is involved. If all are consenting adults, what they are doing is none of the law's business.

    Posted by jaden at 07/07/2006 @ 10:55am

36. Oh, sorry, forgot that you may not have read the post you are commenting on. Here is the section of the decision I am referring to:

    "Heterosexual intercourse has a natural tendency to lead to the birth of children; homosexual intercourse does not...The Legislature could also find that such [heterosexual] relationships are all too often casual or temporary. It could find that an important function of marriage is to create more stability and permanence in the relationships that cause children to be born. It thus could choose to offer an inducement -- in the form of marriage and its attendant benefits -- to opposite-sex couples who make a solemn, long-term commitment to each other. The Legislature could find that this rationale for marriage does not apply with comparable force to same-sex couples. These couples can become parents by adoption, or by artificial insemination or other technological marvels, but they do not become parents as a result of accident or impulse."

    Now, since I can only become a parent by accident or impulse if I am unfaithful to my wife, this means that the legislature could adopt a law dissolving marriages if there are no dependent children and one partner is no longer a breeder. That would then leave the greatest opportunity to marry for the good of the child should the other partner become involved in an accident or impulse that leads to said hypothetical child.

    Posted by BruceMcF at 07/07/2006 @ 10:56am

37. Up next - property rights... I won't be moving to another state in this imperial, capitalist country. I won't pay taxes that go to build detention camps on the border, that fund the salaries of crooks and liars... I am moving to a 16th century chateau in a country that is weening itself of oil and doesn't attempt to dictate what love is.

    Posted by rodneyclifton at 07/07/2006 @ 12:10pm

38. i love this, oksportsguy doesn't think he takes anything from the government! right, until his house burns to the ground, and he needs the fire department.

    or when he runs his SUV into a pot hole, and complains to the city to get out there and fix it.

    or when his kid becomes allergic to the excessive chlorine in the water, and complains to the city to fix it.

    or when a terrorist bombs the fuck out of tulsa, and he needs federal agents to rescue him.

    or when he needs to listen to local public radio for instructions on how to deal with the chemical fall out.

    and on and on and on.....

    not a single intelligent point made on this thread from the right. people, if you want to debate this issue, at least have the decency to show up with a good point.

    Posted by darladoon at 07/07/2006 @ 12:16pm

39. I might suggest that we wait for a member of the right to make a good point in the context of gay marriage before we respond to their rants. I might also suggest that this means we will never discuss this with them until they realize that they are wrong in absolutely every possible way beyond their own ignorance, hatred and religious gobbledygook. Until they are ready to move beyond such nonsense, then let them Cheney themselves.

    Oh, but isn't that nasty?

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 07/07/2006 @ 12:29pm

40. barry:

    "It's so funny how the same people on the left that want all relationships ( homo and hetero ) to be called the same thing, yet when we try to stop the gov't from collecting race-based data ( SEPARATING PEOPLE based on race ) they fight against it! Which is it? Do you want us all to be equal/the same, or not?"

    did i read this properly, or are you just intellectually-challenged?

    Posted by darladoon at 07/07/2006 @ 12:34pm

41. Wow! Now that I'm past menopause, does that mean my 32-year-old marriage is invalid? One might think after all the passion heaped on "activist" judges, that everyone would be happy this is passed back to the legislature to handle.

    Posted by jagoddess at 07/07/2006 @ 12:57pm

42. darladoon,

    All of the things that you are referring to...fire, potholes, water, area all things that I PAY for through taxes.

    I'm paying for a service, those things are not free from the government.

    I expect to get what I pay for.

    people on welfare are generally also not paying much (if anything) in the way of taxes. They do get something for nothing.

    You are comparing apples and oranges.

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 07/07/2006 @ 1:03pm

43. Wow! Now that I'm past menopause, does that mean my 32-year-old marriage is invalid? One might think after all the passion heaped on "activist" judges, that everyone would be happy this is passed back to the legislature to handle.

    Posted by JAGODDESS 07/07/2006 @ 12:57am

    Not invalid. Just useless. And don't let us catch you doing anything "creative" to keep your worn-out relationship alive. We'll not have any of that on our watch.

    I would guess that the "natural" thing to happen is for your husband, who I assume is still a productive male, to find a younger wife so that his seed can still serve a purpose. Too bad for you. I suppose there are still convents open. Or perhaps you can serve as a nanny to your husband's children with his second wife.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 07/07/2006 @ 1:11pm

44. Todd -

    Since "[you] don't need/want/take welfare (or any funding from the tax payers via the government) to support our family," I guess you will not be taking any social security when the time comes, right?

    Posted by Hman23 at 07/07/2006 @ 1:13pm

45. todd/redneck--

    sorry pal, taxes pay for all of those things. welfare included. you wingnuts fancy yourselves as independent of reality, just like bush.

    and you characterize welfare recipients as having a 'party' on the government's tab. oh yeah, i just love getting 200 a month from the government. 200 a month just reminds you of how totally FUCKED you are!

    Posted by darladoon at 07/07/2006 @ 1:14pm

46. My point is this...

    When will liberals learn that your noble notion about the sanctity of the constitution demanding that everyone is entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness stops short when those who are in positions of authority to make decisions (such as judges, and the legislature) realize that in the best interest of their personal careers, they need to make policy that is based on the will of the people or they will NEVER get re-elected. When will liberals realize that there is a balance between life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.....AND the words of Abraham Lincoln at Gettysburg when he said "that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

    This is a nation made up of the people; our government is by the people and for the people...and the PEOPLE DON'T WANT gays marrying.

    This is why 11 states have banned ALL forms of sex marriage/unions through state constitution amendments or their respective state legislatures. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:SSM_NorthAm_2006.PNG)

    This is why another 25 states have banned same sex "marriages" (although they may have some form of civil unions for gays). (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:SSM_NorthAm_2006.PNG)

    The people don't want gays marrying. Now I know that the reasoning for many people (such as me) may be religiously motivated. However there are a number of other people for a variety of reasons that don't want gays marrying. This is our country too, and we have every right to fight for our values and beliefs as those that disagree with us do.

    New Yorkers who want gay marriage, take it to the court, the fight has begun and may the best man (or gay person) win!

    You guys know I love you all don't you?

    This is so much fun!

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 07/07/2006 @ 1:19pm

47. HMAN,

    I have a 401k for retirement (heavily vested in Halliburton by the way, it's very profitable, I would highly recommend having your financial advisor look into it for you if you don't already own any stock there).

    I would be happy to give up my social security, or at least have the government allow me to choose where it sits. I know I can have my social security money growing a much more substantial rate than where the government puts it.

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 07/07/2006 @ 1:22pm

48. Well, Todd, I hope you make due on your promise when you retire.

    From some reason I do not believe you will turn down that check.

    Posted by Hman23 at 07/07/2006 @ 1:24pm

49. the sanctity of the constitution demanding that everyone is entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness

    Posted by OKSPORTSGUY 07/07/2006 @ 1:19pm

    Familiar words. Familiar document. Unfamiliar connection.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 07/07/2006 @ 1:25pm

50. Darladoon,

    "i just love getting 200 a month from the government."

    So are you saying you are on welfare and you get the $200.00 a month from the government (that comes out of my taxes) ?

    If you are, are you doing anything to better yourself so that you won't be depending on my tax money to support you for the rest of your life such as trying to get a better education, job skills, or anything else that will help you in the long run financially?

    In other words, is my family going to have to support you for ever or is this situation just temporary?

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 07/07/2006 @ 1:28pm

51. FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll. June 13-14, 2006. N=900 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 3.

    "Do you believe gays and lesbians should be allowed to get legally married, allowed a legal partnership similar to but not called marriage, or should there be no legal recognition given to gay and lesbian relationships?"

    June 13-14, 2006

    Legally Married, 27% Legal Partnership, 25% No legal partnership, 39% Unsure, 8%

    The numbers of "no legal" have remained constant in recent years. What is slowing shifting is an increase in the number of "legally married" and a decrease in "legal partnership". Note the source--Fox News.

    It would appear that "the people" are not opposed to legal partnership, Todd.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 07/07/2006 @ 1:33pm

52. it's ironic that redneck cites abraham lincoln, who went against the will of WHITE PEOPLE when he made slaves free men and women.

    hey, mr corporate joe: over half of fortune 500 companies over domestic partner benefits. 10 years ago it was only 96 companies. the tide is turning, and gays are almost there.

    in just 5 years, oklahoma will be in the dark ages. hell, they're already there.

    why do you care if gays marry or not? it'll make ABSOLUTELY no difference to you. men will still fuck man like stallions, women will still dildo each other passionately.

    Posted by darladoon at 07/07/2006 @ 1:35pm

53. i love how redneck says, "i know my intolerance is based on religion"......in other words, HE HAS NO ARGUMENT. it's just a "gut feeling" he has about men fucking men. read: gag reflex.

    in other word, red neck has no gay friends. not a single gay friend! it's unbelievable, isn't it?

    you can't deny someone freedom to marry just cuz YOU FEEL LIKE IT.

    the anti-gay crowd is losing steam, big time. even bush doesn't seem up for the push. he just seems pretty tired. i guess government is just too much work for the fool. hell, he doesn't like government anyway. none of these right wingers do.

    so whey the fuck are they running the country?!

    Posted by darladoon at 07/07/2006 @ 1:40pm

54. Darladoon,

    "so whey the fuck are they running the country?!"

    Because it's the will of the people....

    read my post above.

    And hey you didn't answer my questions about the $200.00 yet.

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 07/07/2006 @ 1:45pm

55. well, then if we're running on the 'will of the people', then we should be out of iraq, bush should be fired, and cheney should be in prison. shall i continue?

    and i'm gainfully self-employed as an herbalist, thank you very much.

    i received 3 months of unemployment back in '99. and that's it for so-called 'hand outs'.

    in any case, i earned the unemployment from years of hard work anyway.

    Posted by darladoon at 07/07/2006 @ 1:50pm

56. I know it's frustrating Darla, but like I said earlier, in some corners we just have to wait for the bigots to die off.

    Posted by Hman23 at 07/07/2006 @ 2:04pm

57. Posted by DARLADOON 07/07/2006 @ 1:35pm

    That was some post, I do declare. Whew. I'm flushed. Might have to cut out and start happy hour an hour early. My personal version of cutting and running I suppose. I promise to toast both the troops and Oklahoman gaybashers.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 07/07/2006 @ 2:09pm

58. The moron Christian homophobes will die off eventually...

    Posted by rmjlattanzi at 07/07/2006 @ 2:59pm

59. Just a few things here:

    1. Lincoln didn't free the slaves, read the emancipation proclomation, in essence, it stated that only slaves in states which were already free states were freed...it did not impact slave states in any way in which Lincoln could enforce it, but it sure did make him sound good, which is why he was a good politician, he knew how to do absolutely nothing and get credit for changing the world for the better. I do always find it so amusing when I hear people purport to be the keepers of wisdom and come out with talk about Lincoln freeing the slaves.

    2. This country was established for religious freedom, that means your religion has no right to tell me whom I can and can not love and have sex with and marry. If religion is the only reason you object, well, then you have no objection, as the separation of church and state takes care of that.

    3. There's no way anyone has no gay friends, unless they have no friends. They may well have friends who are not out to them because they are aware of their bigotry, but that doesn't mean they don't go home and fuck someone of the same sex like bunnies.

    and finally, 4. Someone please tell me, in making these anti-gay marriage arguments, just what the fuck business of yours is it? Will you be attending the wedding, asked to buy gifts, etc? No? Then how in the hell is it going to impact you? When you're out with your kids at McDonald's, and you see two men kissing, do you honestly believe your children will think, well, they can't marry, so they don't count? Please. You won't know if they are married or not, and it won't make one little tiny bit of a difference to how you will react. You will be accepting or ignorant and prejudiced, and a piece of paper they may or may not share won't change that.

    Just a side note, for all of this talk of politics and liberals and such, I'd just like to point out that the last Democratic Liberal president this country had signed into law the Defense of Marriage act, stating that no state was bound to recognize the marriage of gay couples married in another state. Had it not been for that Act, people could marry in Mass. and that marriage would have to be recognized everywhere. So you see, the ignorance knows no political boundaries, it's just ignorance.

    Posted by jaden at 07/07/2006 @ 3:04pm

60. Jaden,

    "If religion is the only reason you object, well, then you have no objection, as the separation of church and state takes care of that."

    Obviously, you are wrong, as we currently have over 35 states that have outlawed, either through amendment to their state constitution or through legislation, gay marriage.

    You may "think" that the separation of church and state (which these words by the way do not appear anywhere in the constitution) protects you from what is happening, but again.....you are wrong.

    If you weren't wrong, then these states would not have already outlawed gay marriage.

    I liken your argument to that of someone who is an alcoholic demanding that they aren't addicted and don't have a problem, while the evidence around them shows otherwise such as the drunken driving violations and the many hidden bottles of booze the drunk has hidden around the house.

    Demand your side's protection under the auspice of "separation of church and state" all you want, I won't believe it until the evidence supports your notion.

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 07/07/2006 @ 3:20pm

61. Ok...See, it's a shame, because at first I thought we could get along. Clearly, however, I was mistaken.

    I said if religion is your ONLY reason. Certainly you are not claiming that those 35 states passed their respective bills based SOLELY on religion, now are you? Come on, church attendence is down all over the country, even here in the good old bible belt, and there are far fewer than 35 states within that belt. Outside of this small area, religion has much less to do with what goes on than it does here.

    Please, read what I have said before you make an asinine comment on it. I was speaking to your personal motivation for objecting to gay marriage, which you have listed to be merely religion, ie, the way in which you individually interpret your personal relationship with God. One would think a Christian such as yourself would realize that judgement is not yours to have, it will be had on us all by someone, I promise you, with far more experience and knowledge than any of us have. In the meantime, try living by the word of God, rather than trying to be him.

    Posted by jaden at 07/07/2006 @ 3:31pm

62. Jaden,

    "Ok...See, it's a shame, because at first I thought we could get along."

    We can get along....

    And on that note, I have nothing against you personally. I rather enjoy our exchanges back and forth.

    As someone in the sports once said...I believe it was Shaq...

    Don't hate the player, hate the game.

    There is no reason to take out your anger on the fact that 35 states have created laws that don't allow gays to marry on me.

    You are trying to shoot the messenger.

    I simply represent one vote amongst millions across the country. I am not the cause of the 35 states outlawing gay marriage, although my one vote did count in Oklahoma.

    So...don't hate me because we are winning the culture war. Perhaps your side needs bigger guns and better ammunition.

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 07/07/2006 @ 3:38pm

63. I think the fundamental difference between us is why we will never get along. You see, I don't have a /side/, and likewise, I don't hate your /side/. I, unlike you, see people as equal, and believe they should all be treated as such. I will never see eye to eye with, nor will I have any respect for, those who stand on ceremony and believe themselves to be better than anyone else for any reason, race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, whatever the cause may be, the fundamental difference between you and me, OK, is that I believe I am just one of millions, who are all as good as everyone else, whereas you believe you are one of millions who is entitled because you are better than others for whatever reason you are chosing to use this week.

    I'm not a fan of prejudice and bigotry, and I do not blame you for being the messenger, I blame you for providing the ink with which the message was written. You are one of the message authors; not the messenger. The message is one of bigotry, and the authors are ignorant fools.

    Posted by jaden at 07/07/2006 @ 3:58pm

64. Jaden,

    "The message is one of bigotry, and the authors are ignorant fools."

    I love it! We are really having fun now!! is it my turn to throw out ad-hominems now?

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 07/07/2006 @ 4:02pm

65. Wow Liberty, then you live in a fantasy land full of others who share your bigotry. Good for you. I think you're full of crap, but hey, you already know that, since you think the only homosexual people are those who can be changed by prayer. What utter crap.

    I have a dear friend who was happily married to a woman for 38 years until her passing, all the while sleeping with men on the side. After her death, he had a sex change operation, and hides his sexuality from everyone with whom he does not feel close.

    Even some liberals are divided on the issue of gay marriage, and many gay people feel the debate draws away from more important things like hate crimes. That doesn't mean they are not gay, however. If you have never, in the span of your lifetime, had within your circle of friends at least one homosexual, then you have lived in a bubble, as about 8% of US adults describe themselves as exclusively homosexual, which means about 1 of every 12 people you have ever met in your lifetime. Perhaps you've only ever met about 50 people, but somehow, I doubt it.

    I know it makes ya wanna cringe, I know the mere thought makes your skin crawl, but you might as well own up to the fact that at several points in your life you have likely shaken the hand of a man who just the night before was using that same hand to gently caress his lovers balls.

    Deal with it.

    Posted by jaden at 07/07/2006 @ 4:30pm

66. You have NO way of knowing that anyone you have ever considered a friend was not gay, you only know they did not tell you. That's not the same thing.

    And yes, I did answer your question, if you had read it. There are almost 300m Americans out there, and two mainstream political parties, therefore, there will be differing opinions. NO, I do not support 100% of the views of the Republican party, but I do support much more of their views than I do the Democratic party, therefore, I am registered, and vote, Republican. Believe it or not, homosexuality is not the only issue out there, there are things like defense, taxes, abortion, international relations, etc. As I have also stated, even our last Democratic president signed into law a bill which bitch-slapped gay marriage, so using your logic, I should vote for no one as both parties presidents over the last 2 decades have objected to gay marriage. That's asinine.

    Posted by jaden at 07/07/2006 @ 4:50pm

67. In reading your posts to my husband, Liberty, I realized I left something out.

    Yes, there are people out there who engage in bad behavior. You, and several others in this conversation come to mind, as bigotry, prejudice and discrimination is some of the worst behavior so called "moral" people engage in. I don't condone it, I am taking a moral stand, against such ignorance and hatred. My morals dictate that all people are equal, your morals dictate that only those you deem equal are. Those aren't morals, they are prejudices.

    Posted by jaden at 07/07/2006 @ 4:54pm

68. It is entirely possible that I have unknowingly met a homosexual in my life. It is also possible that I have met murderers, thiefs, rapists, child molesters, and even more probable, adulterers. So what, none are in my circle of friends and business associates.

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 07/07/2006 @ 4:39pm

    I think I just heard a creaking. What is that? The pearly gates closing as you rush forward for your wings and halo?

    And that new sound. What is it? Jesus crying? Look at that, LL, you made Jesus cry.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 07/07/2006 @ 5:10pm

69. LOL TJ.

    In the church I was raised in, a Baptist church here in the bible belt state of Oklahoma, my preacher always said that "God is love". He never once said "God creates men whom he hates". Funny, that.

    This hatred expressed on moral and/or religious grounds is just so sad. Perhaps God will have enough love to forgive the ignorance which breeds hatred, unfortunately, I'm just not as noble as God.

    With that in mind, it is time to return to my GRE studies and leave the ignorant to enjoy their blindness.

    Posted by jaden at 07/07/2006 @ 5:16pm

70. time to permanently ignore:

    sportsguy redneck lvliberty nacl maasch sliver

    these people are straight outta 1950.....norman rockwell.....barefoot/pregnant wife in kitchen...

    Posted by darladoon at 07/07/2006 @ 6:28pm

71. 1950

    If only we could go back to a time when women were in the kitchen, gays were in the closet, blacks were in the back of the bus, and everybody looked like an enemy of democracy.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 07/07/2006 @ 6:55pm

72. Christ has promised that the ungodly, the sexually immoral who are unrepentant will perish

    Christ said this? Where? And if he said this, why would you follow him? This is just stupid talk and lazy thinking, unless rationalizing one's hatred of a perfectly fine thing to do. Where on earth is the harm in two people enjoying the physical pleasures of each other's company?

    Warning! You are rapidly approaching CPT's level of stupidity.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 07/07/2006 @ 10:50pm

73. "God never made people homosexuals. They do so out of either their own lust or yielding to demonic temptation. Just as everyone of us has temptations, we are marked by how we respond to them."

    this pretty much sums up the psychological disorder of lvliberty. there are so many problems with this line of reasoning, i don't have the time to go into them.

    earth is nothing more than a gaseous ball of energy, of which we are part and parcel. within this madness, there are countless examples of homosexual acts committed amongst animals. over 300 examples, as a matter of fact.

    do you actually think that animals (and we are animals too) aren't "natural"? are you saying that animals like the bonobo are succumbing to "demonic temptation"?

    lvliberty, you are one of the primary reasons why many europeans deliberately avoid going to anywhere else but new york or california. you are mentally disabled.

    Posted by darladoon at 07/07/2006 @ 10:52pm

74. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 07/07/2006 @ 4:03pm

    Who are you to comment on diversity? Looks like you choose to live in an echo chamber.

    Posted by Hman23 at 07/07/2006 @ 11:29pm

75. No no, now, let's be fair here folks. Liberty has enlightened us. He said, and I quote with the biggest shit-eating grin on my face you could possibly imagine:

    "God never made people homosexuals. They do so out of either their own lust or yielding to demonic temptation. Just as everyone of us has temptations, we are marked by how we respond to them."

    So then, you've had the urge to sleep with a man, have you? No no, now, before you deny such urges and temptations, I would refer you again to your passage.

    "They do so out of either their own lust or yielding to demonic temptation. Just as everyone of us has temptations, we are marked by how we respond to them."

    So your temptations are the same as everyone else, meaning, according to your reasoning, everyone has homosexual urges and temptations, INCLUDING YOU. Nice to know that. So your problem, then, it would seem, is merely that you have denied the lust in your heart to be with a man. Therefore, you are sexually frustrated. No wonder you're such an asshole.

    Finally:

    "God doesn't hate people, He hates sin. It doesn't matter what else you or anyone else may think about it. The unrepentant sinner would be consumed in the presence of God's glory."

    Fine. Ok then. I shall concede that you are entitled to your religious beliefs. Just one little thing to point out here. How in the fuck did you elevate yourself to the status of God? Cause according to you, the unrepentant sinner will be punished by God. That means you have no say. I'm quite sure God is grateful, but I believe he can handle it without your help, wouldn't you agree? Therefore, but the fuck out and quit trying to cast the judgement even you agree is God's to have.

    God's creatures are his. He makes them how he wishes, and the scientific evidence on the role of nature in homosexuality is irrefutable, therefore, no matter what bigots such as you may think, there IS a biological (read: natural, caused by nature, made by God) basis for homosexuality.

    Now, I shall go resume my laughing my ass off at your admittance of your homosexual inclinations, you homophobe.

    Posted by jaden at 07/07/2006 @ 11:45pm

76. Posted by JADEN 07/07/2006 @ 3:04pm

    1. Lincoln didn't free the slaves, read the emancipation proclomation, in essence, it stated that only slaves in states which were already free states were freed...it did not impact slave states in any way in which Lincoln could enforce it, but it sure did make him sound good, which is why he was a good politician, he knew how to do absolutely nothing and get credit for changing the world for the better. I do always find it so amusing when I hear people purport to be the keepers of wisdom and come out with talk about Lincoln freeing the slaves.

    Jaden,

    Slight quibble here, though in general I whole-heartedly agree with what you've been saying to Todd and Lvliberty on the subject of gay marriage and gay rights in general.

    The quibble is that Lincoln's reputation for ending slavery is not just based on the Emancipation Proclamation, but much more on his intense advocacy for the Thirteenth Amendment. He helped to propose it in the first place and, when it was rejected by the House in 1864, insisted that it be placed in the Republican Party platform for the election that year (despite the fact that at the time he was in a terrible political situation and thought that he would lose the election.) When the House took back up the measure, he was personally involved in pushing it through. So I must say that Lincoln is the man most singly responsible for the abolition of slavery. I know it's a minor point, but it needs to be made.

    Posted by Stwriley at 07/08/2006 @ 03:17am

77. nobody can prove that jesus existed

    and yet people walk around claiming that they act and speak in his name

    Posted by darladoon at 07/08/2006 @ 11:18am

78. Dang:

    Jaden, you shameless thang! You got LL started and he's doing his best impersonation of Rese......the jesus conspiracy shyte again. How timely, I say. Haven't seen that in a while. Kinda missed the laughs.

    Darla,

    Right on with the "natural world" overview...for which LL, of course has no rebuttal except to quote dark age mindset.

    To all: an interesting thread. It is truly unfortunate that this country lags soooo far behind in basic acceptance of what has been in existence throughout the course of human history.

    Way to go Todd. I expected nothing different from you. Do you know for sure...you and LL, that your "sons" are straight?

    Posted by doumer at 07/08/2006 @ 6:11pm

79. Todd:

    In other words, is my family going to have to support you for ever or is this situation just temporary?

    Todd

    Posted by OKSPORTSGUY 07/07/2006 @ 1:28pm

    Kinda caught my eye after the fact old buddy.

    Posted by doumer at 07/08/2006 @ 6:33pm

80. Wow, lots to cover here. How fun. :)

    He helped to propose it in the first place and, when it was rejected by the House in 1864, insisted that it be placed in the Republican Party platform for the election that year (despite the fact that at the time he was in a terrible political situation and thought that he would lose the election.)

    I absolutely agree that Lincoln was an advocate for the abolition of slavery, however, many people (wrongly) believe that the Emancipation Proclomation ebolished slavery, which it did not. Yes, Lincoln supported the 13th amendment, but it was not passed by congress until early 1865, not ratified until December of that year, several months after Lincoln was assasinated. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying he wasn't a proponent of the anti-slavery movement, much as MLK was for the Civil Rights Movement. However, you never hear people say King created Civil Rights, but he did have a lot to do with getting the ball rolling, as did Lincoln with slavery abolition.

    Jaden,

    Are you stupid or do you just write like you are?

    My statement was exactly as it stated, a general statement about temptations of any kind, adultery, lying, fornication, murder, stealing, jealousy, etc. These are moral failings that people are tempted into acting out. But we have the capability of choosing not to act out those temptations.

    If this concept doesn't register with you, it makes it quite clear that you are either being willfully ignorant or you are just stupid.

    Aww Liberty. I know your homosexual tendencies scare you, but that really is no reason to lash out at me. I quoted you, nothing more. You said your temptations and urges were just the same as homosexuals. Now you're including even more under your umbrella, like murder, which really makes me wonder about what kind of sadistic fantasies you have. The point I am making, which was so clearly missed on someone such as yourself with so little intelligence was: straight people don't have homosexual fantasies. There are varying degrees of sexuality, 7, to be exact, ranging from exclusively homosexual to exclusively heterosexual. I have no doubt you probably fall around level 3, with slightly more than incidental homosexual activity. However, I shall leave my psychobabble out of this, as it would clearly be over your head.

    For you to state that you have the same urges as homosexuals and murderers, you are stating you have sinned in your heart, and lusted after men. Try and turn that around on me all you wish, fact is you are stating you have the same urges as homosexuals, MEANING YOU HAVE THE URGE TO TAKE IT UP THE ASS.

    Now, clearly this revelation has troubled you, but that is not my fault. What you do, or wish to do, is up to you.

    Which is rather the point of this whole thing. You may spout all of the religious dogma you wish, but you see, it doesn't matter. The Bible is a book written by humans, containing hearsay which is not legal information. Yet, those without a clear sense of self cling to it like it is the be all and end all of the world. Thing here is, until God himself comes to have lunch and a philosophical conversation with you, YOU CAN NOT PURPORT TO BE SPEAKING ON HIS BEHALF. Posting quotations from the Bible is nothing more than posting what some men, who, cooincedentally were neither God nor Jesus, wrote hundreds of years ago. I could post quotes from the writings of Freud, that don't make it the word of God.

    You aren't God, and you are trying to be, by telling others what they may and may not do with their lives. As long as no one is being hurt and everyone is concentual, YOU HAVE NO FUCKING RIGHT. You don't have to like it, you don't have to agree with the behavior, and you have every right in this world to cling desperately to your outdated, idiotic, ignorant opinions, but you have no right to force them upon me. I have no right to force you to support homosexual relationships, now do I? No, just as you have no right to force others to subscribe to your dogma.

    It's none of your business. Until you are ready to build a glass house and put it in Times Square where you fuck your wife for everyone to see, you have no right to judge others on what they do in their private lives. No one is asking you to join, hell, I don't think you'd be accepted if you tried. No one is hurting you, no one is doing anything to you, therefore, and, I can't stress this enough, IT'S NONE OF YOUR FUCKING BUSINESS. Butt the fuck out. You aren't God, you don't get to make the call on who can do what. You don't get to stand in judgement of people, that's not your right. Jump your homophobic ass off your high horse, go get laid, cause you obviously need it, and SHUT THE FUCK UP!

    It's none of your business. What I do, what anyone does, if it doesn't involve you, don't butt in. I know it's a startling revelation for you, but you don't get to decide. Marriage or not, your approval or not, gay people will keep on fucking each other till the end of time, just as they have since the dawn of time, and THERE'S NOT A DAMN THING YOU CAN DO TO STOP IT.

    People like you are the reason so many homosexuals commit suicide, because the bigots out there make their lives such hell over something they have no choice about. It's not a choice, it's a natural variation. Just as much as you could never be a practicing homosexual, they could never be heterosexuals. Only, that doesn't count for you, does it? No no, I forget, truth doesn't matter to you, only dogma. Pardon my interruption into your fantasy land with some actual factual information.

    Although, I must admit an incredible amount of sadistic pleasure at the thought of just how fucking bothered you are over it. It's great. You'll probably worry yourself into an early grave from a heart attack brought on by the stress you put yourself under being consumed with hatred and thoughts of what people you don't even know might be doing in private. All I can say is, when that happens, the world will be that much better off to be without your asshole, bigotted, outdated, ignorant views based on nothing more than the recording of fables which were passed down for hundreds of years. Most times those are called Fairy Tales, unless you're Christian, then it's the Bible.

    Posted by jaden at 07/08/2006 @ 6:57pm

81. Angst about your "tax dollars" going to support Darla's "welfare" status? I think she gave you the organic answer you were hoping against.

    Any angst Todd about your "tax dollars" paying for 500 pounders in our guerre-du-jour? Entire families collectively fricasse'd with wood, dirt and concrete? How much does one 500 pounder cost and how many have been dropped? Wanna look at the cost of the YTD social assistance bill versus what squirrelnuts has spent on ammo "in the sandbox"? You might be surprised. To what end? Make you feel safer...or keep you scared shitless. Methinks the latter.

    But that's ok. Just keep reading your stories with LL and all will be well. In the meantime, just make sure you tell your kids that their liability for payment of the national debt has increased about ten fold over the last 5 years. You all can perhaps pray your way out of that!

    Posted by doumer at 07/08/2006 @ 7:01pm

82. LOL...gee I'm heartbroken that Liberty has ignored me, whatever will I do without such condemnation and ignorance? Hmmmm...methinks I will survive. :)

    I'd like to thank all who chatted here with any sense, and now that the ignorant have either shut up or become 2 year olds, I have no further need to participate, though it has been fun. :)

    Take care all.

    Posted by jaden at 07/08/2006 @ 8:01pm

83. no WONDER oksportsguy and lvliberty1 are just completely insane:

    they're fundamentalist christians!

    Posted by darladoon at 07/08/2006 @ 8:01pm

84. JAGODDESS asks, "Wow! Now that I'm past menopause, does that mean my 32-year-old marriage is invalid? One might think after all the passion heaped on "activist" judges, that everyone would be happy this is passed back to the legislature to handle.".

    No, that part of court decision invited the legislature to consider privilaging marriage as being between a man and a woman based on the possibility that a man and a woman engaged in an intimate partnership might start a family by accident.

    SO it depends on whether the legislature agrees that marriage is privilaged on that basis.

    Or maybe it would depend on whether both parties were fertile when the marriage contract was entered into, so that the nulification of existing marriages would fall mostly on second and third marriages.

    I'm sorry if I can't get up a good lather about imposing my religious views on society as a whole, but while some people are happy to subordinate Patriotism to Religion, I myself am an American Patriot about all four of the Four Freedoms.

    Posted by BruceMcF at 07/08/2006 @ 11:07pm

85. if probability of reproduction is the common denominator here, then shouldn't judges have to present a convincing set of data to support the necessity for a certain level of reproduction species-wide?

    in other words, what is our rate of population growth, and how does 10% of the population (queers) figure into it?

    Posted by darladoon at 07/09/2006 @ 12:25am

86. and even if population size were a determining factor, does it somehow absolve us of the question of equal rights?

    the answer: of course not

    if we were to continue to engage the debate in such abstract terms, wouldn't we ultimately feel guilty? i mean, let's face it, we pride ourselves as being the greatest country on earth, but yet we systematically demonstrate a wilful ignorance in the face of such simple questions as justice, freedom and equality.

    Posted by darladoon at 07/09/2006 @ 12:28am

87. First, there is the personal, life-long commitment two people make to each other. Second, there is the religious ceremony or sacrament. Third, there is the legal contract a state issues to spouses. The courts' and legislatures' jurisdiction is only able to affect the third....

    All right, TJ (and Jaden, Darla, Hman, etc.), this doesn't qualify as a rant, but I await your response.

    Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 07/09/2006 @ 12:52am

    Your first two are irrelevant because we are talking about the role that the government plays in sanctioning the union of two adults. In terms of the third, you actually fail to argue this. You mention thousands of years of tradition, which begs the question: what tradition? There are thousands of traditions within these thousands of years. You are plucking one from them and saying, "See? This is it." And you mention children, which begs the question: what children? No one asked my wife and me about kids when we went to the county courthouse. The only time the government seems to have an interest in children is when we fill out our 1040. Not to mention that if children are in anyway a consideration in terms of legal marriage, then I would assume that all women producing bastards are violating a law of some kind. Wouldn't that just delight Orrin Hatch and his bunch of withered dick friends in the Senate to be able to lock up those trashy whores?

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 07/09/2006 @ 10:26pm

88. Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 07/09/2006 @ 1:26pm

    But here's the point I wanted to make about the Constitution: It says in the preamble:

    We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

    Do you know what "Posterity" means? It means our children, and their children, and their children, etc. Children are mentioned in the Constitution, and marriage is not. That's why I think the NY SC ruling has shifted the debate to the proper frame. Children, not spouses.

    Yes, it's true that the meaning of "posterity" in this regard is decendents (though not just children, but we'll let that pass.) The problem is, Mary, that you disregard the the equally important word only two before posterity; "ourselves". The idea that the preamble to the Constitution would enshrine the kind of unequal idea you're advancing is unsupportable. The words of the document itself deny the validity of your reading.

    The simple fact is that the purpose of modern contractual marriage (and that is what we're talking about here, as even the New York statute originally in question makes clear when it declares in Article 3 section 10:

    "Marriage a civil contract. Marriage, so far as its validity in law is concerned, continues to be a civil contract, to which the consent of parties capable in law of making a contract is essential."

    The law takes into account the two parties to the marriage in this regard. What about that legal relationship demands the power or ability to produce offspring? The simple answer is, nothing. It is about the sharing of legal responsibility between two consenting adults. Why does such sharing threaten that exercised by any other two consenting adults who also have a seperate but identical contract? Once again, the simple and direct answer is, it does not.

    Posted by Stwriley at 07/09/2006 @ 10:41pm

89. MBB:

    STWRiley is correct. If you look back at the 6000 year tradition on marriage most of those deal with the religious aspect of marriage - which you admit is irrelevant. If you look at the civil/legal history of marriage, however, you will see that it came about as a way for society to recognize/define the contractual nature of the commitment and a way to deal with property rights in the event of a dissolution as well - producing children has never had anything to do with the reasons civil society got involved.

    Posted by Hman23 at 07/09/2006 @ 11:33pm

90. Wow, Liberty becomes even more dillusional as this goes on. Perhaps he should seek some professional help.

    But, Liberty is not why I am here, Mary is.

    Mary, your logic is so flawed, I'm trying to figure out where to begin.

    Firstly, to compare gay marriage to not educating children is, well, stupid. Not educating children puts the future of our country in ill-educated hands. That has nothing at all to do with who's doing what with whom in their bedroom, the two are not even comparable.

    Just silly.

    Now, although my counterparts have already done a fabulous job in discussing the flaws of your arguments, I shall add a few points here.

    1. Gay people have kids all the time. If marriage is to be, as you claim, for "cultivating healthy, emotionally well-adjusted, productive offspring," then gay marriage being legal is way overdue, as there have been offspring from gay marriages for some time now. Sure, it doesn't happen as easily as it does for heterosexual couples, but for gay men they can hire surrogates, gay women can use artificial insemination or sperm banks (something even some straight women use), and both parties can adopt, although it is harder for them than it is heterosexual couples, it does happen. Therefore, for the sake of children being reared in two-parent households, gay marriage should be legal.

    2. As you state, the only place the law should have any say is in the legal contract. For many gay people, this is all this debate is about. Pesky little things like family leave, health and other forms of insurance, Social Security, all of the legal benefits the spouse enjoys by being married, which no one can give any real argument against. I ask again, who will it hurt for this to be legal? It's a piece of paper, and it's bothering none. Problem is that big corporations like insurance would be able to bilk less money out of a significant group of the population whom they are currently overcharging greatly, and with money goes influence and power. Their money influences how politicians vote and how judges rule.

    3. You speak of the "rule" in societies. Ok then, never mind it's been a rule which only recently has had any real legal ramifications, let's stick to the point here. The US is falling desperately behind the times. Many other developed countries have already legalized gay marriage, many more have at the very least allowed civil ceremony with equal legal protection. The US is falling behind, and by clinging desperately to outdated and discriminatory views, the US will soon find they are isolating themselves from friendly nations the world over, the more and more that we prove ourselves to be anti-human rights and equality.

    4. Finally, while I will say you have a nice grasp of the law, you don't do well with the interpretation. The equal protection clause of the 14th amendment is what this is all about. Segregation was illegal, even though it provided equal education, because it didn't provide the SAME education. Sure, one can chose not to marry, however, one can NOT chose to marry someone of the same sex, therefore they are being denied equal protection; it really is that simple. To grant a right to one group while excluding another is a denial of equal protection under the law, therefore all state denials of the opportunity and recognition of gay marriages are, indeed, unconstitutional.

    Posted by jaden at 07/10/2006 @ 03:10am

91. I have made the same arguments as Kim and Duggan and Kim in The Trouble with Nature: Sex in Science and Popular Culture (University of California Press, 2003): culture war is the degree zero of politics under neoliberalism.

    As the state sheds its historic responsibilities for the common good, economic conservatives view the family not as a sort of state within the state (which was the antecedent model) but as the one private institution capable of providing welfare, social security, and other socially stabilizing functions. Their allies on the religious right arrive at a similar position by other means: religious conservatives long for a restoration of traditional (pre-1960s) forms of sexual and moral authority. Meanwhile, in a badly deteriorated public sphere, all-too-expressible nervousness about sex, marriage, and the condition of the family serve as substitutes for pervasive and less-expressible economic anxieties. Indeed, to the extent that a person's economic security is tethered to marriage, questions about marriage become economic questions.

    Instead of advocating for genuine alternatives, the mainstream gay rights organizations essentially ask for inclusion in this truncated, privatized view of public good. But why should one's economic wellbeing be tied to marriage? Why not struggle instead for an expansion of the present alternatives to civil or religious marriage?

    Roger N. Lancaster

    Posted by R Lancaster at 07/10/2006 @ 09:44am

92. I have made the same arguments as Kim and Duggan and Kim in The Trouble with Nature: Sex in Science and Popular Culture (University of California Press, 2003): culture war is the degree zero of politics under neoliberalism.

    As the state sheds its historic responsibilities for the common good, economic conservatives view the family not as a sort of state within the state (which was the antecedent model) but as the one private institution capable of providing welfare, social security, and other socially stabilizing functions. Their allies on the religious right arrive at a similar position by other means: religious conservatives long for a restoration of traditional (pre-1960s) forms of sexual and moral authority. Meanwhile, in a badly deteriorated public sphere, all-too-expressible nervousness about sex, marriage, and the condition of the family serve as substitutes for pervasive and less-expressible economic anxieties. Indeed, to the extent that a person's economic security is tethered to marriage, questions about marriage become economic questions.

    Instead of advocating for genuine alternatives, the mainstream gay rights organizations essentially ask for inclusion in this truncated, privatized view of public good. But why should one's economic wellbeing be tied to marriage? Why not struggle instead for an expansion of the present alternatives to civil or religious marriage?

    Roger N. Lancaster

    Posted by R Lancaster at 07/10/2006 @ 09:46am

93. Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 07/10/2006 @ 10:31am

    Many on this board said what too people do is none of my/government/etc. business. I agree. I'm trying to clarify that the legal contract (type 3) is the government's business, not the relationship (type 1) or religious connotations (type 2).

    No argument here, this is indeed what the debate is really about, the Religious Right's insertion of other issues not withstanding.

    My point is that the 1M1W tradition has affected billions of people whereas harems, polygamy, etc have affected at most millions (three orders of magnitude smaller.) Statutory marriage is set up to address the rule (the vast majority of all people), not the exception.

    That only proves that you don't have a very good sense of history. While it is true that formal familial contracts between same-sex couples are rare (though not unknown) in history, that does not equate to a historical endorsement of "one man + one woman." Indeed, the most common form of formal marriage historically has been polygamy (whether secular or religious) including within some of the root cultures of western civilization but extending far beyond them, most notablty to Chinese culture. Your contention that multiple marriage is less common is belied by the historical record. It has been far more common in legal terms throughout history and has been a part of the legal landscape for many billions of people (even when for economic or class reasons they could not participate in it.)

    If you had children, you'd know the government cares if they have been immunized, where they go to school, if they are receiving proper nutrition and medical attention, whether they need to be in foster care, what are their best interest in cases of divorce, local government would like to see you enroll them in city sports leagues, etc. These things, along with stable family environments produce better children, and thus better adults.

    But none of these are arguments for a specifically heterosexual definition of marriage, only justifications for sets of legal rights attached to the marriage contract. The genders of the two parties to the contract are still immaterial to the desired benefits pursued by the state, of a stable family environment to promote the better fulfillment of these other ends. Nor are these state interests tied only to marriage, as any unwed mother or father or guardian (of whatever sexual orientation or genetic relationship to the child in question) could tell you. This only proves the point made by Jaden above, in her response to your previous post, where she points out the since gay and lesbian couples are having children (by whatever means) then it makes just as much legal and social sense to extend them these same sets of rights in order to achieve the purposes you have outlined for us.

    I'm not about to support TJ on the adultery or bastard children argument, since you're quite right about the dead-letter status of these kinds of laws. They were long since deemed unconstitutional along with the more recent striking down of sodomy laws, etc. Many are still on the books, but cannot be enforced.

    Posted by Stwriley at 07/10/2006 @ 11:47am

94. MBB -

    You say one of the purposes of marriage "is to benefit children." Because gay people can have children either by adoption or if one person is part of conception (even if they cannot conceive a child together), wouldn't it further that purpose in the same way to allow two gay people raising a child to marry? If so, then allowing only straight people to marry while excluding gays does not further the interest you speak of (it actually hinders it for those excluded).

    Your example of child support and alimony to the primary caregiver would be similarly applicable to gay marriage.

    Posted by Hman23 at 07/10/2006 @ 11:56am

95. "Marriage is a privileged because it is unique in that it is likely (but not mandatory) to produce offspring. Healthy offspring are good for society. That is why the state governments take a special interest in it. Durable powers of attorney, trusts, buy-sell business arrangements, these are all contract with no particular interest to the government. Marriage is of particular interest."

    Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 07/10/2006 @ 10:46am

    You keep saying this with nothing to support it. Where in the law is marriage granted its peculiar status because of children? Aren't you conceding an extraordinary role for the government in impacting our most personal decisions?

    Repetition of a flawed argument is not proof. Repetition of a flawed argument is not proof. Repetition of a flawed argument is not proof.

    "I'm not about to support TJ on the adultery or bastard children argument, since you're quite right about the dead-letter status of these kinds of laws. They were long since deemed unconstitutional along with the more recent striking down of sodomy laws, etc. Many are still on the books, but cannot be enforced."

    Posted by STWRILEY 07/10/2006 @ 11:47am

    Please know that I was countering MBB's ludicrous arguments with an extension leading to its obviously flawed conclusion. That he and you took my ridiculous comment at face value is a clear demonstration of how intellectually bankrupt this debate is when someone like MBB or LL is involved.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 07/10/2006 @ 12:00pm

96. Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 07/10/2006 @ 10:46am

    Our difference is on fairness. I think "ourselves" are being treated fairly and equally. (Any unmarried man, irrespective of sexual orientation, is eligible to marry an unmarried woman, of majority age, not a blood relative.) My point was that children are in the Constitution and marriage is not.

    But that is where most of us on the other side disagree. What we see is an arbitrary limitation on the marriage contract that is no different than the old legal restrictions on inter-racial. Both are based on inherent genetic characteristics (i.e., something that cannot be changed easily, or in a genetic sense at all) and present barriers to marriage with the person freely chosen by an individual. The does not equate to equality unless you wish to imply that it is equal because everyone is equally discriminated against (which was an argument used to support the inter-racial mariage bans.)

    As for the enshrining of children in the Constitution, I was going to let that go but now I'll have to go into it. The term "posterity" in that context is only partially about children. It refers to all decendents of the founder's generation whether related or not (including immigrants not yet in the United States, for instance, who by your definition would be implicitly excluded.) You stretch the meaning greatly to argue that the founding fathers meant a specific support of children here. If you follow your logic to its end, you come to the conclusion that contractual marriage is unconstitutional but child welfare laws are not. That seems a bit of a stretch, and I seriously doubt you'd argue that, but that's where that line of reasoning goes. The point is that the Constitution is silent on this point as on many others and you cannot look to it as providing special provisions to support the idea that children come first in, or are the only constitutional justification for, the idea of contractual marriage.

    Your grammar is screwed up. You say the simple fact is that the purpose of marriage is… and then never say what the purpose is. You classify civil marriage as a contract, which is a point I made in my original post. I further say the purpose of marriage is to benefit children. You don't ever say what you believe the purpose is.

    Well, things get dropped sometimes. The full sentence should have read: "The simple fact is that the purpose of modern contractual marriage is to provide clear legal partnership responsibility between two consenting adults." That is a definition that includes the idea of responsibility for and benefit to children, but is far from limited to it. That is the problem with your definition and contention about the nature of contractual marriage, it ignores the vast number of conveyed legal rights and responsibilities that have nothing to do with children and yet are still part of marriage. It is too limited to represent what marriage actually is in a legal sense. The most fundamental purpose is to create clear trains of legal responsibility between two individuals in order to promote a stable legal environment for a host of social decision issues. To promote this stability (which includes but goes beyond stability for childrens sake, since many do not require children to exist at all) the state grants a large number of benefits in return to the contracting couple. That is why marriage is privileged, not because of it's possibility of producing children since this is often impossible for many heterosexual couples but does not deny them the right to marry.

    Any two people are able to enter into any contractual financial relationship they want (provided it's for legal purpose and age of majority.) Marriage is a privileged because it is unique in that it is likely (but not mandatory) to produce offspring. Healthy offspring are good for society. That is why the state governments take a special interest in it. Durable powers of attorney, trusts, buy-sell business arrangements, these are all contract with no particular interest to the government. Marriage is of particular interest.

    As above, I contend that you have mistaken the state's interest in marriage and the nature of the contract and its advantages. The state makes special contractual provisions all the time in order to gain better or clearer legal responsibility. S corporations are a fine example, where the number of stockholders is limited in order to achieve clarity and simplicity and the benefit provided for the limitation is a freer ability to distribute corporate benefits. Nor are your examples of contracts the government has no interest in correct, since contracts like durable powers of attorney do have important legal effects the state is interested in (for the disposition of property, for instance, a clear state interest.) The reason so many favor extending marriage to same-sex couples is that they have no ready (and sometimes no possible) substitute for this form of contractual relationship, yet the legal climate in which they exist puts them at a disadvantage under the law without it. If that doesn't meet the criteria of the Fourteenth Amendment, then I don't know what does.

    Posted by Stwriley at 07/10/2006 @ 12:28pm

97. Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 07/10/2006 @ 11:17am

    Who will it hurt? It will hurt the children of parents who get married thinking they are going to "scam the system" rather than getting married with the understanding that marriage is about sacrifice and altruistic benevolence to your partner and children.

    Oh come now, that's a strawman. Any parents who are getting married to "scam the system" are perfectly able to do so now if your definition of marriage is accepted. Indeed, it is an argument that implies (though perhaps you did not mean it this way) that any married couple without children is scamming the system because they are not fulfilling its purpose. The only saving grace in your statement is that you included "partner" in it, which of course would call the whole original definition into question, since that kind of altruism is exactly what the rest of us have been trying to show you is the point of extending marriage to same-sex couples and that you have been ignoring.

    You mean nations like The Netherlands? Where out-of-wedlock-births are far greater than 50%?

    This is a disproved argument. See this article [europebyphoto.com] that provides a solid, statistically based view on that idea. The basic conclusion is that a host of demographic and social trends are reducing marriage rates and increasing out-of-wedlock births across the spectrum of developed nations (including the US) and there is no correlation of this trend to the ability of same-sex couples to marry or register at all.

    What if I want to marry a goat? Are my rights to marriage being violated. What if I want to marry Brooke Shields? Are my rights being violated if she won't marry me? What if I want to marry my 10 year old sister and my grandpa at the same time? If I want it, it must be my right to have it. This seems to be your argument.

    And if I want heroin, that must be my right, too if others are permitted aspirin and alcohol.

    A lovely little net of red herrings this is. As I've said in my previous reply to you, this is about establishing clear contractual partner relationships for legal purposes that the state has interest in promoting. Thus this whole "but then I could marry anything or anyone or ones" argument is fallacious. You cannot enter into a legal contract with an animal, it is non-human and thus has no legal standing to enter into any contract. You cannot enter into a contract with anyone who does not consent to it (a legal idea so basic you should have been embarrassed even to write those sentences about Brooke Shields and children, etc.) You are off burning strawmen again. Jaden no more made the "you should be able to do whatever you want" argument than I have. Stick to the topic and the application of the Fourteenth Amendment to contracts between consenting adults, please. Oh, and the quip about heroin is misplaced too. If you really want to have a discussion about what adults do to themselves I won't say we shouldn't, but this is not the place for it, where marriage is the topic.

    That might make perfect sense to you, and your understanding of fairness, but you are quite simply wrong which is why the courts (the honest ones) have laughed it out of court. The group is men. Irrespective of their sexual orientation, men are permitted to marry one woman at a time. Women are permitted to marry one man at a time. This arrangement does not discriminate. In order to conclude it does discriminate, you must take into account desire. You say that some men don't desire any women, so they must be permitted to marry men. That may be "unfair" but it is not discrimination.

    But as I and others have already pointed out, these are the identical arguments made to block inter-racial marriage. Simply substitute "white" for "men" (or "black" or whatever else you like, the terms are immaterial in this context.) It is not about desire but about the freedom of association as it relates to contractual relationships. It is no different than saying you can only enter into an S corporation with people of the same gender. Is that not discrimination? If so, why not? You are trying very hard to get around the basic legal point here, but you won't do it be repeating the same arguments we've shot down already.

    Posted by Stwriley at 07/10/2006 @ 1:04pm

98. Posted by TJBEHRENS1 07/10/2006 @ 12:00am

    Please know that I was countering MBB's ludicrous arguments with an extension leading to its obviously flawed conclusion. That he and you took my ridiculous comment at face value is a clear demonstration of how intellectually bankrupt this debate is when someone like MBB or LL is involved.

    Sorry, TJ, I should have looked closer at the original post, not just Mary's response. You are, of course, quite right that her line of reasoning does imply that since children are paramount (to her) in marriage, that all kinds of other legal stupidities could be logically justified from that starting point. I apologize for not looking harder and seeing where you'd come from on that one.

    Posted by Stwriley at 07/10/2006 @ 1:08pm

99. Mary,

    You seem quite determined to provide false examples to support your flawed logic, but the fact is it is still flawed logic. Marrying Brooke Shields, if she will marry you, is entirely your right. Your extention of "Are my rights being violated if she won't marry me?" is just asinine. Two people have a right to chose whom they will marry, and one chosing they will not marry another has nothing at all to do with rights, but rather personal preference.

    Now, I know you have brought up arranged marriage, and I will still contend that is a choice. By culture and upbringing, the participants in the arranged marriage are chosing to be married. In all cases short of an iminent threat to one's safety, there is choice involved. The funadmanetal flaw with a denial of ability to marry anyone based on sex is the same as was pointed out above, the ban on inter-racial marriages; that it removes personal choice from the equation, and gives the power to decide whom one may marry to the government, which is just not right.

    You can compare it to a generation without education, but the fact is you are just pulling things from the air. There is nothing to support such a claim. Gay and Lesbian couples will continue to live together, to raise children, and a piece of paper will not impact the way in which their relationships impact the next generation. As for the assumption that healthy, happy, well-adjusted children could not possibly come from homosexual relationships, again, there is nothing to support such a claim, so it's just made, one must presume, for the purpose of being inflamatory, in which case, it deserves no response.

    Posted by jaden at 07/10/2006 @ 3:00pm