What do Clint Eastwood, Dick Cheney, Ted Olson and John Bolton have in common? All are strong, lifelong conservatives. Each has fought on behalf of smaller government. And all support the freedom of same-sex couples to marry.
As voters in Maine consider the issue in this election, right-leaning voters like myself should consider why these prominent conservatives believe the freedom to marry is consistent with our values.
Conservatives have built a broad coalition, united around a single goal: more freedom, less government. It’s key to our heritage and inherent to our DNA.
Freedom of Americans across all races is why the Republican Party was founded. And our most important accomplishments, from the economic growth unleashed when we’ve lowered taxes and reduced regulation to the fall of the Berlin Wall, have resulted when we promoted freedom.
Our concept of freedom is based in the Declaration of Independence, where every American was provided by their creator, not government, with the right to pursue happiness.
As former Vice President Dick Cheney noted in explaining why he supports civil marriage for all same-gender couples, “freedom means freedom for everyone.” He’s right.
What freedom is more basic and personal than the right to marry the person you love?
If we are serious in our belief that every citizen is endowed by his or her creator with the right to pursue happiness, then how can this not include the freedom to marry? What could be more central to a person’s happiness? And alternatively, if we want a smaller, less obtrusive government, shouldn’t individuals and not politicians decide who they can marry?
Maximizing freedom isn’t the only conservative value enhanced by allowing civil marriage for same-gender couples. It will promote stability, responsibility, commitment — family values that we often encourage in public policy.
Marriage encourages people to think beyond their own needs, to create loving households, to build a support network so people can be cared for in sickness, old age and hard times.
Shouldn’t we want these conservative values to be available to all families? As Ted Olson, solicitor general for President George W. Bush, who has successfully argued some of the most important conservative cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, recently wrote: “The fact that individuals who happen to be gay want to share in this vital social institution is evidence that conservative ideals enjoy widespread acceptance. Conservatives should celebrate this.”
Finally, the proposed citizens initiative in Maine adds new protections that strengthen religious liberty, while advancing other critical values shared by so many Americans of faith.
The initiative permits same-gender couples to obtain a civil marriage license. It does not require a private religious institution to recognize or perform a wedding, and in Maine churches and religious institutions would be protected against litigation and their nonprofit tax status could not be challenged based on their views regarding marriage.
As Republicans, we respect the individual and work to empower people to live as they see fit, with as little intrusion by the government as practical. This idea is grounded in an important Judeo-Christian value that we should all treat others as we would like to be treated.
Put yourself in your neighbor’s shoes. How would you feel if, even though you paid the same taxes, potentially served in the same military and followed the same rules as your neighbor, your government denied you the right to marry the person you loved in ceremony?
Same-sex couples want to marry for reasons similar to other couples. They want a lasting bond that can endure through good times and bad, through sickness and health, and that will bring stability as they continue life together.
Eastwood, Cheney, Bolton and Olson are not alone. Recent surveys today show more Americans favor the freedom to marry than oppose it. Two recent polls in Maine show that 57 percent of voters plan to vote yes in November.
Among Republicans in national polls, the number has increased by 50 percent in the past three years, and a majority of conservatives under 30 favor this basic freedom.
This isn’t surprising. The freedom to marry is consistent with core conservative and American values — limited government, personal responsibility, commitment and, above all, freedom for all.
Ken Mehlman is the former chairman of the Republican National Committee and a businessman in New York.
The Christian right had such a great opportunity to bring this nation together and really show the world that they practice what they preach. All they could have said is, we do not approve of your marriage, but its not our place to judge. We will not look at it as two people of the same sex getting married. Rather two loving, caring individuals that want to celebrate their own person relationship with God how they want. Nope they had to go the other direction.
The Christian Right has never been about unification. Unity involves exploring the boundaries of one’s own values and compromising where possible, not absolutes and intransigence. Our nation has fittingly been described as a melting pot of races, cultures and religious perspectives. But when any groups set themselves apart as more Godly or somehow superior to others, divisiveness can be the only outcome.
Witness the “exclusives” many responders have about their religion.
What I don’t get is the Christians used to bend and alter their rules all the time. Its how they grew to the large religion they are today. It’s why Christmas is December 25th and not Jesus’ actual birthday. It’s why their service day is Sunday because that was the only way a Roman Emperor would convert, as he wanted to keep his loyalty to the Sun God. Flexibility is what made them a huge religion, and it is something they seem to have forgotten.
The Queen of England’s birthday is not celebrated on her birthday, either. Elizabeth II’s actual birthday is April 21. In Great Britain, her birthday is celebrated on the first Monday in May. It is celebrated on different dates around the British Commonwealth — in Canada it is celebrated on the last Monday that falls before May 25. In New Zealand it is the first Monday in June. And we know when her actual birthday is!
We don’t know when Jesus was born, and so we can celebrate his birthday anytime we choose. There’s nothing wrong with picking December 25th to celebrate his birthday. You suggest that this breaks some rule — I don’t see how it does.
As for celebrating the Christian Sabbath on Sunday, that has nothing to do with any Roman Emperor. The Christian custom of celebrating the Sabbath on Sunday dates to the 2nd century (the 100s). The Roman Emperor Constantine I was the first Christian Emperor, and he lived about 200 years after the Sabbath was first celebrated on Sunday.
The early Christians probably chose to observe Sunday as the Sabbath because it was believed that the resurrection of Jesus took place on a Sunday. Choosing Sunday as the Sabbath also set Christianity apart from Judaism, which observs the Sabbath on Saturday.
There is this new thing, its called science. By using science and the story of Jesus’ birth, in order for the stars to be aligned the way they were in the story he would have been born in the early months of spring. Secondly, his birthday being celebrated on the 25th of December was a tool of conversion, not some random date. It is the date than many worshipers of the Sun had declared as its birthday, and again the Christian holy day is Sun-day. The Christian Church is full of “adopted” celebrations and rites taken from other religions in order to facilitate conversion.
“On the venerable day of the Sun let the magistrates and people residing in
cities rest, and let all workshops be closed. In the country however persons engaged in
agriculture may freely and lawfully continue their pursuits because it often happens that
another day is not suitable for gain-sowing or vine planting; lest by neglecting the
proper moment for such operations the bounty of heaven should be lost.” – Constantine
The Church Council of Laodicea circa 364 CE ordered that religious observances
were to be conducted on Sunday, not Saturday. Sunday became the new Sabbath. They ruled: “Christians
shall not Judaize and be idle on Saturday, but shall work on that day.”
Stars aligned for Jesus’ birth? No.
First of all, the two stories in the Bible about Jesus’ birth, which are found in Matthew and Luke, contradict one another. They were not written by eyewitnesses, and they are not history. They are two contradictory legends. One of the two stories mentions a star, but neither mention stars being aligned. Neither story gives us any reliable information about the birth of Jesus.
Yes, December 25 was chosen as the date to celebrate the birth of Jesus because there were other celebrations already going on around that date. So what?
If the Queen’s birthday can be celebrated on any date the various governments of the Commonwealth choose, what does it matter? Canada celebrates Thanksgiving in October, and the U.S. celebrates it in November. So what?
Yes, the Synod of Laodicia (or, if you prefer, “Council,” although it is not generally recognized as one of the ecumenical councils) said that the Sabbath would be observed on Sunday — recognizing a practice that was already 200 years old by that time. The Synod of Laodicia, held decades after the death of Constantine I, the first Christian Emperor, also eliminated the Book of Revelation from the Bible (it’s back in, although I wish it wasn’t).
The point is, Sunday was celebrated as the Sabbath 200 years before there was any Christian emperor, so to say that it was set on Sunday to please him is nonsense. The “church fathers” write about Sunday being observed as the Sabbath in the 2nd century, long, long before there were any Christian emperors.
Like you may be, I’m skeptical about a lot of things that “mainstream” Christianity teaches. I just think we should actually know our history and get our facts straight.
There’s nothing “wrong” about celebrating the birth of Jesus any darn time we want.
There’s nothing “wrong” about observing Sunday as the Sabbath.
These may be pet peeves of yours, but they’re unimportant, and at most they are red herrings.
There is nothing wrong with it at all, but do not pretend Christianity is not a religion of flexibility for membership. Do not pretend that the rites of the Church are not taken from other religions in order to facilitate mass conversions of conquered people. Christianity gave birth to a political religion. Which is why it strikes me as odd that the church would not do the same now. The church has always been able to be bought with outright money, or with political power. Why pick this fight to stand on a “moral” ground when they have used up all that capital centuries ago.
The “Church” is not monolithic. Early Christianity had many branches — the Ebionites, Marcionites, Gnostics, Montanists, Arians, Adoptionists, Donatists, proto-Catholics, and many other branches. Eventually the proto-Catholics won control, and yes, they became very political. The Church split between East and West in around 1100, and then split again into many groups during the Protestant Reformation.
Today, just like the early days of Christianity, there are many, many different forms of Christianity. We should not lump them all together.
My church, by the way, supports the freedom to marry, and my minister and I will both be voting “Yes on 1.”
Thank you!
This is psycho-babble and pious clap trap — the sort of nonsense spouted by Bangor’s greatest hero, Bob Carlson.
You’re sick, America.
You’re not a model for anyone, and “Gay Marriage” is your greatest sickness.
Bob Carlson was never involved in any of the campaigns for equal rights for gays and lesbians. If he ever took any side on this issue, pro or con, I’m not aware of it.
What?!
Bob the Bugger of Bangor was on the radio weekly, and frequently advocated for homosexual “marriage.”
He was a highly influential advocate of same sex “marriage” if not the most influential advocate for it in the state.
I never heard what he had to say on the radio, but I know that he did not take any active part in any campaign for equal rights for gays and lesbians in Maine.
And it doesn’t matter. You are throwing in a “red herring.” What Carlson supported or didn’t support isn’t any more important than what lots of people who oppose fairness and equal treatment may or may not have done — if they had affairs, divorced, beat their children, or whatever, it has no bearing on the issue at hand.
If Martin Luther King Jr. had an extramarital affair (I don’t know if he did or not), does that mean that segregation was a good thing? No. Whether or not King had an affair has no bearing on the issue of racial segregation.
Your point is irrelevant.
What is sick is that you stroll the BDN for anything that says gay. I never see you on any other comment pages. God Bless.
I just can’t imagine what it would be like to lose rights at the ballot box. Oh, that’s right, I did in 2005. What’s goes around comes around.
Like?
Voting out of spite? You sound like a stand up citizen.
Same sex marriages are not a freedom concern, moreover a moral issue. God wants man and woman to be together.
All I ask is that you keep in mind that it’s YOUR God you speak of and you need to impose your interpretation of His word on YOUR life. I’m on a diet, but I would never deny you a doughnut. I have Jewish friends that would never dream of telling you that you can’t eat pork. I have been with the same man for 11 years. I love him more today than ever, and I want to express that love in the way my parents taught me was right. I want to get married. I want to be part of what my parents had and did so well. I want to do them honor by living in a loving commited relationship, married to the man I love. I am christian, my partner is a minister, and our church supports marriage equality, but because of a ballot question we are denied OUR religious freedoms. Thank you for your time.
And how do you know for sure? Because your particular faith says so. Suppose another faith imposed only gay marriage as being moral. But folks like you are so sure that they alone know the truth that the kindly sentiments of a Mark Bridges are lost on them. Such folks relish hatred of others for being different.
You can’t even get the standard anti-gay lie correct?
Gay people marrying isn’t preventing straight people from marrying in any way, shape, or form.
Mind your own business, tend to your own garden, rule your own house, and leave everyone else alone.
Let’s stop the lying in the same sex marriage movement.
If you win, the words “wife” and “husband” and “mother” and “father” will be removed from the laws and the administrative regulations of Maine.
You don’t want to protect marriage. You want to replace marriage with its opposite, thereby destroying it.
Good grief but you sure can lie.
How so?
Then explain to the readers here how you can have the word “wife” when both parties to the marriage are sexually-deviant men.
You have made the claim that such a movement already exists.
That is a lie.
One can have “spouses” just as one can have “man and wife”. Either one works.
And no one in Maine is trying to remove them. That’s a lie.
You will see in the following document that the words “husband” and “wife” have been removed.
Now who is the liar?
http://massresistance.org/docs/marriage/romney/mass_marriage_license.html
You are. You said folks were trying to do this in Maine.
That is a lie.
Well, Mr. Badkey,
Are you aware that a bill was introduced in the Maine Legislature which sought to replace the words “mother” and “father” with “Parent 1” and “Parent 2.”
Now, are you stating what you know to be false, or are you merely ignorant of the facts?
Cite your source.
FYI… it really makes no difference to me whatsoever.
Marriage isn’t just about procreation and until you cease all marriages that don’t procreate, you’re being hypocritical.
So… where is this source? Show us that it was attempted in Maine.
Good point — my wife and I (married 33 years) have no children, and are now beyond child-bearing age. And we have a right to be married.
Three years ago the Catholic bishop said that marriages that can’t produce children are “meaningless.” Despite the Bishop’s insensitive remarks, our marriage is the most meaningful thing in my life.
And he wants the women to marry her rapist, but advocating for that would just be foolish, even though God doesn’t think so right?
That is nothing but your opinion.
Your deity is not our governance.
It does, however, hold people like you back from rational thought and reason.
And that is very very sad.
Whose God?
Yes, same-sex marriages are “a freedom concern.”
I’m a straight married guy. My wife and I have the freedom to marry. If you took that freedom away from us, we would surely know that we had lost our freedom.
My neighbors, relatives, and fellow church members — whether they are gay, lesbian, or straight — should have the same freedoms we have.
I have the freedom to marry the adult person I love. My gay and lesbian friends should also have the freedom to marry the adult person they love. Yes, it’s absolutely a freedom issue.
And yes, it is a moral issue. Prejudice is a sin. Laws should not unfairly discriminate against gays and lesbians. You want the law to be immoral, I want it to be moral. I will vote “Yes on 1” because that is the just and moral vote — to treat our neighbors fairly and equally under the law, and to seek justice for the person whose rights are denied.
“What does the Lord require of thee? To live justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.” — Micah 6:8
I have a problem accepting same sex marriages being morally correct. Moreover, God wants man and woman with marriage. Is cloning the next issue Americans will deal with again?
So God talks to you and tells you what he wants….?
God “talks” to lots of religious folks… especially the ones off their meds.
I really have a problem with the way religion is addressed here. No, God doesn’t talk to Mr. Houle. And my church says that God is loving and loves every gay and straight and all that. Why doesn’t anyone ever ask us if God talks to US?
It’s the Book. It’s all in the Book-gay or straight, supportive or non-supportive, it’s how we interpret the Bible. If you want to be disrespectful to someone who is religious, keep in mind that there are MANY of us gay people and allies who are also religious. In fact, most of the gay people and allies I know go to my church and a few others in town.
He also said it was okay to enslave people. So we defy his word by not having slaves.
All I ask is that you keep in mind that it’s YOUR God you speak of and you need to impose your interpretation of His word on YOUR life. I’m on a diet, but I would never deny you a doughnut. I have Jewish friends that would never dream of telling you that you can’t eat pork. I have been with the same man for 11 years. I love him more today than ever, and I want to express that love in the way my parents taught me was right. I want to get married. I want to be part of what my parents had and did so well. I want to do them honor by living in a loving commited relationship, married to the man I love. I am christian, my partner is a minister, and our church supports marriage equality, but because of a ballot question we are denied OUR religious freedoms. Thank you for your time.
Your problem is with the United States Constitution’s guarantee of “Equal Protection.” The Constitution will win, and you will lose. Shame on you for trying to subvert the Constitution.
Yes, cloning is related. They want to be allowed to make offspring together, using stem cell derived gametes or some other method. It turns out that it’s the most important thing, they refuse to acknowledge that it might be dangerous or expensive. And they really do want to deny that a man and a woman have a right to conceive offspring together, they think labs will do it better than “breeders” do. It’s insane, they don’t care about actual same-sex couples that need security, just about eugenics and Transhumanism.
Irreverent opinion.
Our civil law is not your religious law.
Thankfully
God, in His word, calls it an abomination. I’m on His side.
Isn’t it rather arrogant of you to assume that you alone know the true Will of God?
It is blasphemy, which is a mortal sin, to use the Word of God to support a political argument. EJP already got his one-way ticket by by blaspheming here over and over again, day in and day out.
Your arrogance here is as telling as your absence of specifics.
As discussed before, that’s definitely up for discussion and interpretation. Go ahead and be on your interpretation of “his side”. But confine it to your church, not legal statutes.
That’s a LIE. Here are the major Christian and Jewish denominations that say it’s a LIE:
The Association of Welcoming and Affirming Baptists
The Episcopal Church
Evangelical Lutheran Church in America
Metropolitan Community Church
Conservative Judaism
Reform Judaism
Religious Society of Friends (Quakers)
Unitarian Universalist Church
United Church of Christ
You went against God’s word. Didn’t He say, “Thou Shalt Not Lie”?
Actually, the Bible says, “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.” Exodus 20:16.
And as for your list of churches, who’s to say they are following God’s Word. If they’re supporting gay marriage, then they are not. But, they’ll have to answer for their disobedience one of these days.
Yea cause loving everyone and treating them equally is a one way ticket to hell. I mean really, why would someone like Jesus, who preached love and tolerance and against organized churches, want people who love others and are tolerant in his neighborhood? So of course he would send those who practice love and tolerance to their firery destinies.
Well every church that doesn’t have slaves is not following Gods word either.
Don’t forget any church that allows for divorce.
“Truly I tell you, just as you have not done it for one of the least of these, you have not done it for me.” — Jesus of Nazareth, in Matthew 25:45
The Bible in general, and Jesus in particular, shows concern for outsiders, tells us to seek justice for the person whose rights are denied, to love our neighbors, and to welcome the stranger. Jesus welcomed everyone to the banquet table, especially those who were considered outsiders and “sinners” by proper society.
You miss the core of the Bible’s teachings on love, justice, and fairness. Jesus did not go about preaching against any sexual practices, but he did tell us to “Judge not lest you be judged,” and asked, “Why do you see the speck in your neighbor’s eye, but do not see the log in your own eye?”
Since you’re such an authority on the Bible, go ahead and list a verse or two where Jesus told someone to continue in their sin and everything would be all right.
It’s no sin to be born gay — or to be born left-handed or red-headed, for that matter.
But it is a sin to oppress the stranger and the outsider. We should welcome the Samaritan, not take her or his rights away.
No one is born gay. And even if they were, the Bible is clear that living the homosexual lifestyle is sinful.
Huh, glad I don’t follow the “bible” then. That doesn’t sound very good at all. Besides, no one knows what causes homosexuality, so unless you have some psychic knowledge that no one else has, then stop making ridiculous claims.
Again with this.
If people are not born gay, then you are saying that they choose to do something that is wholly against their nature. That we force ourselves against our straight will to be something we are not.
Or, you are saying that the ability to choose this “lifestyle” is within all of us and some of us choose one way and most choose another.
Or is it something else?
Yes, I know that, in your deliberate ignorance, you claim, against all evidence, that everyone is born straight. Therefore:
You must believe that some straight men, who are not sexually attracted to men at all, and who are sexually attracted to women, choose to get fired from their jobs, kicked out of their apartments, be rejected by their families, be condemned by their churches, and get beat up on the street, just so they can reject the people they are attracted to, and have sexual relationships with people they are not attracted to at all! And somehow, that must make some kind of bizarre sense to you.
“You must believe that some straight men, who are not sexually attracted to men at all, and who are sexually attracted to women, choose to get fired from their jobs, kicked out of their apartments, be rejected by their families, be condemned by their churches, and get beat up on the street, just so they can reject the people they are attracted to, and have sexual relationships with people they are not attracted to at all!”
Yeah, that’s a good way to put it. And that seems very illogical….
Is it possible that you will answer for your intepretation and that they are correct?
It’s so convenient that you and your God hate the same things!
Your god is not our civil law.
If you want a theocracy, call Iran… I’m sure they’d welcome you with open arms.
Well then, it’s a darned good thing God isn’t running this country. Separation of church and state; it was good enough for this country’s founders, it’s good enough for me.
I think many people misunderstand the marriage issue in Maine. It not us (supporters of traditional marriage) trying to impose our belief on everyone else. We are simply against redefining marriage, a concept that has remained consistent for 1000s of years. Rather others are trying to impose ‘their’ belief that marriage can be between any people who ‘love’ each other. Well I have a question for all of you trying to redefine marriage. What is the logical extent? Meaning for example if you legalize same sex marriage why not legalize multiple marriages (polygamy)? They do ‘love’ each other after all. Isn’t it a bit hypocritical to argue for redefining marriage in just one way and not the other?
it’s just a word. Words change in meaning over time — languages are evolving by nature and not static things.
I think you misunderstand the issue. In answer to your last question, no, it’s not hypocritical. It’s legal, and not a religious matter.
Ho many times is some fool anti-gay gonna repeat that same discredited “slippery slope” nonsense?
Go read about Warren Jeffs, he is a REAL polygamist. He is in PRISON for criminal child sexual assault. The polygamists DON’T WANT legal marriage. Warren Jeffs pretended to “marry” some 12 or 13 year old girls. In the morning after he had his fun with each one, he took her to sign up for welfare. Legal marriage would have made his scam impossible.
Thank you very much for comparing loving, committed same gender American couples to raping 12 year old girls and welfare fraud. Didn’t you realize one day this anti-gay hate speech would BACKFIRE?
No more hypocritical than claiming that “the definition of marriage” has remained the same for thousands of years.
No… you are actively seeking to prevent extending the protections and benefits of marriage from taking place.
Polygamy has nothing to do with same-sex marriage… that’s changing the subject (though I could care less about polygamous relationships).
Marriage has repeatedly been redefined. This is nothing new.
And will only affect you if you choose for it to.
You say you are a supporter of “traditional marriage,” but what is that?
“Traditional marriage” as practiced in the Bible by Jacob, King David, King Solomon and others, was “one man and as many women as he could afford.” But we have redefined marriage since then.
We’ve also redefined marriage since the times when it was a business deal, an arranged marrige that was more about alliances and property rights than it was about love.
We’ve redefined marriage since the time when there were no church weddings (prior to the 1500s), and no legal documents.
We’ve also redefined marriage since the days when a man had a right to beat and rape his wife, and since the days when it was illegal for an interracial marriage to take place.
We’ve redefined marriage over and over throughout the centuries.
I’m a straight married guy who believes that it’s time to take the next step and treat all adults equally and fairly under the law.
Get the government out of marriage, period.
No, keep them in. Continue the policy of government issued marriage licenses, but expand to SSM.
Get the government out of marriage, period. All marriage.
But until they’re out of it, marriage rights for gay couples, period.
First, they are not “gay” or happier than others.
Second, they are not “couples.”
Third, no right can ever exist for homosexuals to marry, which is in itself a logical absurdity.
Is there anything about their movement which IS NOT a lie?
I don’t care for one moment what your own personal definitions of various words are.
I AM happy and I AM part of a couple. How is that a lie?
You don’t know me!
Your anger is funny.
Your discomfort with gay folks is even funnier.
And yes, two people together are a couple… we don’t need your approval to be a couple.
You don’t get to define rights either…
Liar.
The funniest is that by posting to this site, he is supporting same sex marriage. This website uses Google Analytics. Google is a well known supporter of same sex marriage. So, let him rant and rave all he wants, he is just supporting same sex marriage in the long run.
He supports same sex marriage by
* turning on his computer
* loading a Microsoft app
* Surfing the web (as his traffic passes over Cisco routers)
The list goes on and on… and he obviously isn’t so concerned as to boycott the interwebs, now is he?
Indeed, if same sex marriage was such a threat, you would think he would try harder to stop it.
Sweetie, just because you have a hard time understanding certain things, doesn’t mean you get to ban them. So, before you hurt yourself, why don’t you just lie down and let the grown ups talk, ok?
And no more tax exemptions for being married or having children!
That’s what “get government out of marriage” means.
No government recognition, no benefits and protections for married citizens or their families.
Exactly!
That’s a whole other issue that is not part of this question.
If you want to lobby against that, then lobby against that.
That would be a great idea. Nullify ALL marriages, and let the churches wed whoever they want to.
No benefits for anybody, no special considerations for anybody.
I don’t think I’d like not being able to see my wife in the hospital when something happens to her though, because in the eyes of the law, we wouldn’t be related.
Somehow I think you are being insincere with your proposal.
How would getting government out of marriage nullify all marriages? Who says a marriage ceremony has to be performed by a church? If government were taken out of the equation, they certainly couldn’t be saying who could perform marriage ceremonies. Are you saying that if you wanted a church wedding, that you couldn’t find one church who will marry you. Even now, a pastor does not have to marry you if he feels that it would be un-Biblical.
Sorry, I didn’t realize that the purpose of marriage was about benefits and special considerations. I guess you’re right though. I think back many years ago to when my wife and I were dating, staring lovingly into each other’s eyes, and just talking for hours about benefits and special considerations. What the hell are you talking about?
Ok, I get it, you’re a government lap dog who feels no part of your existence can be validated without their blessing. Sad.
Still don’t think I’m sincere?
So you don’t take those benefits then?
I do, but I also pay income tax which I’m opposed to, just in case you were going to label me a hypocrite.
Do you pay at the single rate or the married rate? Do yo file married but separate return or a joint return? Because yes, if you file a joint return then you are being a hypocrite
Married filing jointly. How does that make me a hypocrite?
Answer the question.
Would you be willing to see all benefits and protections extended to married citizens by the government completely done away with?
If not, then you cannot “get government out of marriage”.
Gee, I’m sorry I wasn’t in from hauling traps in time to answer the question when you thought I should have answered it. Remind me to check with you on putting my schedule together.
Answer to question: Yes.
Now you answer a question. Why do feel the need to have government in marriage?
As long as the benefits and protections exist, one cannot get government out of marriage, and all citizens should be equally suited, regardless of the gender makeup of their family.
Get rid of the protections and benefits and I will stand beside you.
However, that option isn’t being entertained at any level.
Are you willing to give up the legal benefits and protections that come from government?
Again, I don’t care about legal benefits and protections relating to marriage. That’s not why I got married. Exactly what benefits are you referring to?
You need that explained to you?
There are over 1100 specific rights, protections, and privileges extend under marriage by the federal government.
But inheritance taxes alone… something one cannot get around… should be enough to demonstrate the need for equal treatment of all citizens.
1100 specific rights seems like kind of a high number to me, but I don’t care, and don’t care to explore all of them. There are many rights that people claim but are not legally defined anywhere. There are probably a number of things, that if no longer protected by the legal institution of marriage, could be legally protected through other avenues. I’m just telling you where I stand. Not going to make this particular issue my life’s goal to change. Life’s too short, if you know what I mean. Peace.
I respect where you stand… though we’re pushing for expansion of civil marriage rather than the dissolution of civil marriage, I do understand your point.
I just don’t see it as a viable offering.
All the bliss of life to you and yours my friend… keep off the rocks.
Conservatives even get it wrong sometimes….
So, the four horsemen are no longer your heroes? Especially Clint?
If you are a conservative you also realize that people are human and sometimes make mistakes. Unlike progressives who deify their “heroes”.
None of the Conservatives I know show any of those traits.
Aye, you do it all the time.
No, conservatives who do not support traditional (gendered) marriage as a public policy are not really conservative. I elaborate why here: http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/12/the-freedom-to-marry-a-liberal-value-that-conservatives-should-shun/
So how does Question 1 not support “traditional” marriage?
I agree that Question 1 would strengthen marriage by allowing more people to get married. Marriage is not threatened by people who want to get married.
I’m a straight married guy who believe that if same-sex couples believe so strongly that marriage is a good thing that they want to get married, let them. The divorce rate in Massachusetts went down after they allowed same-sex marriage, and Massachusetts now has the lowest divorce rate in the nation. So it is certain that same-sex marriage in Massachusetts did not destroy so-called “traditional” marriage.
So YOU are really here just to ADVERTIZE your WEBSITE, like the “I made $65 in 15 minutes on my home computer” spam, huh?
Oh how delightful it is to post anonymously and tear down somebody without considering what they said. I envy you – I wish I had your courage.
Very good opinion piece and well written…..thanks for the link…..
I think you misunderstand “conservative” with “terrified beyond belief at the idea of change or alternate ideas”.
They’re not the same thing.
Mr. Tedlick Badkey, I give you a C for effort. Care to read my piece then try again? If you don’t like that one, how about this one? http://clashdaily.com/2012/10/gay-marriage-is-immoral-talking-points-for-your-libertarian-atheist-friends/
No. Immorality is a matter of opinion.
You and I will never share the same opinion.
Gays already adopt in all states… marriage is not about children, as procreation is not a requirement. Not trying to ban divorce or marriage of sterile citizens while using such red-herring discussions against gay marriage marks you among the great hypocrisy of those who wish our civil law to enforce religious dogma onto citizens.
Keep your opinion. No one can take it from you, just as they can’t take away the KKKlan’s opinions.
The government and our laws, however, are not favoring your side.
It’s OK though. You’ll only be harmed if you wish to be.
Interesting that you did not reply to my strongest points. I wonder why?
Um… you had no strong points. If you did, they’d stand in court… but yours won’t.
You had a lot of conjecture and opinion, mostly based in misplaced mythology.
Nothing more.
Really? Because I thought these points were quite strong and quite well made:
“Same sex “marriage” implements the law of adoption for the entire society. Instead of the legal bonds of adoption being the exception in order to help children in need, legal bonds will be the norm for all families.”
“Changing the entire society to legal bonds will have unforeseeable consequences and I believe it’s fair to say that most of them will be harmful, especially for the weakest members of society – the young and the poor. Put another way: if we disregard the legal recognition of natural bonds, is it reasonable to expect the result to be good?”
“Some conservatives hope that by supporting gay marriage, they’ll strengthen marriage and families. But only marriage based on and respecting natural bonds can do this. Genderless marriage cannot, since it requires artificial, state-defined bonds.”
“it must be clear to anybody that requiring all of society to replace natural bonds with artificial bonds harms the family structure — it does not strengthen it.”
“The true conservative definition of marriage is “one man, one woman, for life,” because it’s the only family structure that keeps the government out of the family. It is the only family structure that honors our Founders’ intentions of “unalienable rights,” which must include the natural bonds of children to their mothers and fathers.”
ROFLOL!!!
Wow… adoption is, and will always be, optional, just like having kids in the first place. The legal bonds between the married couple and the children does not change.
When procreation becomes a requirement for marriage, give me a shout. Til then, you’re just making stuff up.
“Unforeseeable consequences”… totally unproven and unprofitable. It’s just fear mongering.
You are essentially driving your point home via your obviously impassioned opinion. It’s obvious, however, you’ve read none of the legal challenges to DOMA or gay marriage bans that are challenged in court. I encourage you to do so.
You’ve presented neither harm to society nor a government objective that cannot be met without gay marriage.
As such, you’ve offered nothing but your opinion. None of it can be verified as it is all conjecture.
Good luck with that.
Tedlick, same-sex couples should not be allowed to procreate. It doesn’t matter if they can, or want to, all that matters if is they are allowed to. If they are, they may may marry, if they are not, like siblings, they may not marry. Same-sex couples should be prohibited from attempting to procreate offspring together.
ROFLOL!!!
Okee dokee.
What about adoption (an argument you’ve already lost)?
Adoption is not a right of marriage. Conceiving offspring together is a right of marriage, and we should prohibit labs from attempting that for same-sex couples.
Google the Egg and Sperm Civil Union Compromise, it is three federal laws and is the only acceptable solution.
Right of marriage?
Oh good grief… it’s a right of every fertile man and woman on the planet that chooses to do so.
Marriage is not required… the two are not connected.
Your fear and hostility toward what we may be able to do one day via science is really sad.
I do not, cannot, and will not share your paranoid fear.
Didn’t say it was required. Said all marriages should always be approved and allowed to conceive offspring together using their own genes.
If society ever decides to allow labs to try to make offspring for a same-sex couple, then we’d allow same-sex marriage of course. But we shouldn’t, it would be a very expensive and unnecessary thing, and result in huge government, loss of equality and dignity and rights. We should keep reproduction natural, so all people are created equal.
So you are saying that having children isn’t a requirement for marriage, but same sex couples shouldn’t get married until they can have children, making the ability to have children a requirement of marriage? The derp is strong with this one…
No, the right to have children is a requirement of marriage. Being allowed to have children is a requirement of marriage. If we allow a couple to have children, we should allow them to marry. If we don’t, we shouldn’t.
And we shouldn’t allow same-sex couples to conceive offspring, it would be expensive and unethical and bad public policy and there is no need to do it. When we prohibit same-sex conception with an egg and sperm law, we will have to annul same-sex marriages or it will effect everyone’s marriage by removing the approval to have children together, which is a tangible thing that I want to experience when I marry, I want that protection, I don’t want to be equated to a same-sex couple.
No, children and marriage are two completely unrelated things. Straight people do not need to have or be able to have children to get married. Straight people also do not need to be married or plan to be married to have children. They are two separate issues. If you want to be taken seriously, then actually try to come up with a serious argument. Until then my advice would be to just stop posting, as you are only embarassing yourself.
Marriage should continue to do what it has always done: approve and allow the couple to conceive offspring together. Same-sex couples should be prohibited from conceiving offspring together by an Egg and Sperm law. Couples that are prohibited from procreating are never allowed to marry and should never be, that would strip conception rights from marriage, and that is unacceptable. Just accept that there is a difference in rights.
“Marriage should continue to do what it has always done: approve and allow the couple to conceive offspring together” – Why can’t you get it through your thick skull? Marriage is not required to have children. Your argument is one of the stupidest things I have ever read. I honestly feel dumber having read it.
“Couples that are prohibited from procreating are never allowed to marry and should never be, that would strip conception rights from marriage, and that is unacceptable. ” – GAHHHHH THE STUPID. IT BURNS!!!!! Marriage and procreation are independent. You can do one without the other.
Just accept that your argument has no logical or reasonable basis. I honestly think you are trolling. I don’t think anyone that could write that argument with a straight face possesses the cognitive ability to use a computer.
That’s a good point. I was unaware that couples who want children were prevented from having them until they got married. We oughta fix that, and pronto!
That must be news to Bristol Palin…
Read it again, you aren’t getting it. I’m saying people should not be allowed to reproduce offspring with someone of the same sex, and that marriage should continue to approve and allow the couple to reproduce offspring. Grok on that for a little while.
Read the Constitution, please.
I’m a straight married guy. My wife and I can’t have children. Your illogical “logic” says we have no right to be married.
You have a right to have children even if you are unable to. Marriage says we approve and allow you to conceive offspring, it doesn’t require you to. Same-sex couples shouldn’t have that right, it would be unethical, we should not approve or allow them to.
It is unethical — indeed, immoral — to deny gay and lesbian couples the freedom to marry.
We should all be treated equally and fairly under the law — it’s a Constitutional issue of equal protection. The government shouldn’t be allowed to take away the right of adults to marry the adult person they love.
Prejudice has always been a terrible basis for law-making. If we wish to be ethical, we should vote “Yes on 1.”
“Said all marriages should always be approved and allowed to conceive offspring together using their own genes.”
And you think same-sex marriage will result in huge government!??!?!
Joe, that’s the way it is now, and always has been: marriages are always approved and allowed to conceive offspring together using their own genes. Changing marriage by separating conception rights from marriage and making conception rights contingent on genetic tests and whatnot would result in huge government. Allowing genetic engineering and same-sex conception would result in huge government. Keeping marriage and conception rights together and keeping procreation natural will shrink government.
“Joe, that’s the way it is now, and always has been: marriages are always approved and allowed to conceive offspring together using their own genes.” – False
“Changing marriage by separating conception rights from marriage ” – Marriage is already separate, so, False
“Allowing genetic engineering and same-sex conception would result in huge government.” – Where do you see that happening? I know that they are starting to do research in terms of using stem cells to create sperm and eggs, but that is decades, away from ever actually happening. Besides, it isn’t even the government conducthing this research. So, your paraoid delusions are just that, paranoid delusions.
“Keeping marriage and conception rights together and keeping procreation natural will shrink government.” – They are already separate. Legislating relationships is the only case of “big government” in terms of same sex marriage.
So show me a married couple that is prohibited from conceiving offspring together. I can show you tons of couples that are prohibited from conceiving offspring, but none of them are married: siblings, mothers-sons, etc. We should not separate marriage and procreation rights. No marriages should ever be prohibited from conceiving offspring. Show me the marriages that are prohibited by law from conceiving offspring, give me their names. There aren’t any, and it should stay that way. Marriage should always mean approval of sex and conceiving offspring.
I never said that they were prohibited. I said that marriage and procreation are independent, which your own examples prove. Married couples can procreate just as easily as non married couples. Marriage has nothing to do with the ability to procreate. If you have a problem reading, there is nothing I can do about that.
My concern is that marriage should always mean the couple is approved and allowed to procreate offspring using the couples own genes. We should not separate that approval out. Google “Margaret Sanger American Baby Code” it’s a eugenic goal to separate marriage and conception rights, but it should be rejected to preserve equality and dignity.
Then you need to ban all marriages involving people who can’t make babies.
The rest really sounds like extreme paranoia.
No, not if they are allowed and approved to make babies together, and infertile people certainly are still allowed to try. There is no requirement that they succeed, obviously. But same-sex couples should be prohibited from trying, like siblings are.
ROFLOL!!!
Did you get all this stuff from a Phillip K. Dick novel?
Postgenderists seem to have gotten their ideas from sci-fi novels.
But do you think IVF and such are okay for opposite-gendered couples?
I’m saying we need a law prohibiting making people that are not the union of a man and a woman’s unmodified sperm and egg. That law wouldn’t effect IVF or anything else that is currently practiced, but those things are not rights of marriage anyhow. Conceiving offspring together is a right of marriage, and should remain so, and it shouldnt be allowed for same-sex couples.
There’s this little thing called the Constitution of the United States of America. It guarantees equal protection under the laws. Your (bigoted) suggestion is unconstitutional.
This post is confusing…. “They may may marry”?
Does your prohibition on procreation affect other unions, such that involving murderers, rapists, and Communists?
Oops. Society, through its marriage laws, prohibits some relationship types from marrying, such as siblings, when procreation would be unethical. Google Egg and Sperm Civil Union Compromise for the specific three laws, they are pretty straightforward.
Well, I cannot procreate with my boyfriend, so it’s a moot point!
You could try to have genetic offspring with another man if a lab made eggs from one of your stem cells. It is unethical and shouldn’t be allowed. No matter how it would be done, it is unethical and should be prohibited.
Malarky.
Procreation has never been an overtly stated requirement for marriage because it was covered by there being a man and a woman present. And the fact that some gendered couples cannot or will not procreate does not change this fact. Let me ask you something: how did you get here? Did you spring up out of the ground? Did you hatch from an egg? Did two gay people have sex and conceive you? No? You mean you got here by a man and a woman having sex? Were they using contraception? That doesn’t matter, does it? You’re here. That little sperm found its way to the egg and you’re here. That’s how it’s designed to work. It’s such a powerful process that contraception does not stop it completely, as anybody who has experienced a “contraceptive failure” can tell you.
Regardless of the existence of contraception or infertility, people get here because men and women have sex with each other. The purpose of marriage has historically been to provide the best life chances for the kids that result from the sex act. This is the public or civic purpose of marriage. If we hatched from eggs and slithered away, or sprang up out of the ground fully developed, there would be no need for a civic institution called marriage.
Replacing natural bonds with legal bonds for the entire society in the legal code will weaken the family structure. Simply allowing more people to marry does not, in and of itself, make the institution of marriage stronger.
Show me that in law.
Opposite gendered couples who are married or not married will still have sex and have or not have babies. Same gendered couples who are married or not married will still have sex and choose to have or not have babies.
What you have stated might have been necessary at one point, but it is clear that there is no question at all as to whether or not there will be children brought into society.
The biology is there, whether the couples are married or not. The biology has nothing to do with the legal contract of marriage.
Actually biology does have to do with marriage Joe, and I described why in both pieces. In a nutshell: the fact that the legal code has to be changed to remove gendered words (bride, broom, husband, wife, mother, father) indicates that marriage is a biologically based institution, one that influences how children’s connections to their parents are treated under the law. Read both pieces and you’ll see what I’m saying.
No, it doesn’t. Just because you assert something as true, doesn’t mean it is true. You also need to do a bit more reasearch, because it is clear that you do not know the difference between gender and sex. Sex is biological, gender is a social construct.
Children are not a requirement of marriage. Show me in the law where it states that a person must be able to reproduce to be married. It doesn’t.
As for “removing gendered words”, that is just a terrible argument. “We have to change the laws to include same sex couples, so we shouldn’t change the law”. That’s not some deep revelation, that’s just being lazy. In fact, the same could be said about interracial marriage. “We have to change the law to include people of different races, so we shouldn’t change the law”. Just because you are too lazy to do a find and replace, doesn’t mean you get to deny American citizens their rights.
Gays can’t adopt in Mississippi or Utah. And several other states have vague laws that could prevent gay adoption because gay couples are not recognized as viable. Only 18 states and the District of Columbia have laws in place that allow gay adoption.
Wrong EJ… and I hope it’s unintentional so you’re not lying.
Both Utah and Mississippi restricts joint adoptions by ANY unmarried couples. Gay individual can indeed adopt in both states (this is the most common “vague law”: that only single individuals or married couples can adopt, but unmarried individuals cannot adopt jointly).
The last state with an outright ban on gay adoptions was Florida and they finally came to their senses in 2010.
Where you got your information on only 18 states I don’t know.
As for these “vague laws” please list them.
Methinks you’re simply not current on adoption laws in the US of A. I welcome you to share your source, so I can prove each one of your comments wrong based on said source.
No, if gays are not allowed to adopt it is simply because the people making the laws don’t like gays. Non-viable straight couples are allowed to adopt everywhere. In fact, I might hazard a guess as to that being exactly why they adopt in the first place.
Arkansas attempted to bar any unmarried couple from adopting, but that was struck down. http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2011/04/07/arkansas-supreme-court-expands-gay-adoption-rights/
In 2010, Florida was the only state with a law that “squarely prohibits gays and lesbians from adopting children.” That was struck down in 2010. http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2010/09/22/florida-court-strikes-down-state-ban-on-gay-adoptions/
Mississippi does allow an individual to adopt, by the way, regardless of that individual’s sexual orientation. And it appears that in Utah, “cohabitating” unmarried people in a sexual relationship cannot, but there is nothing I have found yet that says gay individuals cannot adopt.
Can you please cite where you got your data?
As a straight guy, married to the same woman for 33 yerars, I believe in the importance and value of marriage. Marriage promotes conservative family values such as fidelity, family stability, and loyalty. If these conservative values are good for society in general, and for straight couples such as my wife and me, then they are also good for gay and lesbian couples. Why wouldn’t we want to promote fidelity, loyalty, and family stability?
Marriage is not necessarily about procreation — my wife and I have not had children, and we are now beyond the child-bearing years, yet our marriage is the most meaningful thing in my life.
Marriage is “to have and to hold, from this day forward, for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, ’till death us do part.” The gay and lesbian couples who want to get married share in these values.
Marriage is strenghtened, not threatened, by people who want to get married.
Why do you oppose making these conservative family values available equally to all loving adult couples?
Since you don’t want to read my pieces, here are some quotes:
“Same sex “marriage” implements the law of adoption for the entire society. Instead of the legal bonds of adoption being the exception in order to help children in need, legal bonds will be the norm for all families.”
“Changing the entire society to legal bonds will have unforeseeable consequences and I believe it’s fair to say that most of them will be harmful, especially for the weakest members of society – the young and the poor. Put another way: if we disregard the legal recognition of natural bonds, is it reasonable to expect the result to be good?””Some conservatives hope that by supporting gay marriage, they’ll strengthen marriage and families. But only marriage based on and respecting natural bonds can do this. Genderless marriage cannot, since it requires artificial, state-defined bonds.””it must be clear to anybody that requiring all of society to replace natural bonds with artificial bonds harms the family structure — it does not strengthen it.””The true conservative definition of marriage is “one man, one woman, for life,” because it’s the only family structure that keeps the government out of the family. It is the only family structure that honors our Founders’ intentions of “unalienable rights,” which must include the natural bonds of children to their mothers and fathers.”
You have decided that your bonds are natural, and that someone else’s are not. That’s hubris.
If you want to get really conservative, go back to the biblical marriage of “one man and as many women as he can afford,” when there were no synagogue of church weddings, but the parents arrainged the marriage (Jacob did his own negotiating for two wives with his father-in-law to be) and struck a deal about who would get what piece of property, and then a big party was held (like the wedding at Cana), and the couple conssumated the wedding in the wedding bed.
No “one man one woman” rule.
No legal documents.
no church weddings.
Just a common law deal.
That’s what the true definition of a conservative marriage really is.
Any other kind of marriage is a redefined marriage.
“You have decided that your bonds are natural, and that someone else’s are not. That’s hubris.” Oh boy the wheels are already turning in my mind… “Guess what folks? The left believes that your natural connection to your children is hubris! Not only that, but they’re willing to throw your natural connections under the bus in the legal code!” That’s some great copy Mr. Penzance, but are you sure that’s what you wanted to say?
And since you brought up the Bible, let’s see what it has to say on the subject. Is it OK if I quote from Jesus? You like Jesus, right? Most people like Jesus even if they don’t like the Bible or Christians, so I think it’s safe to use what he said, which was this:
“Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”
“Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”
“Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”
Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”
The disciples said to him, “If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.”
Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. ”
Notice that Jesus is referring to only one man, married to only one woman, and their marriage is for life. What do you think about Jesus’ words? Do you still like him or should he get thrown under the bus too?
Wow — you sure are good at deliberately taking a statement out of context and making it say exactly the opposite of its meaning!
I said that you have decided that your opposite-sex relationship to your spouse (and my opposite-sex relationship to my spouse) is natural, but when a same sex-couple falls in love, and they want to care for one another for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, that is somehow unnatural. Your statement to that effect shows immense hubris.
And I stand by that statement. You are showing hubris.
Of course your relationship to your children, which I did NOT mention at all, is natural! Wow! You sure can do the twist like Chubby Checker!
And a gay couple, or a lesbian couple, may also have children, and their bond to them is as natural as your bond to your children. But, as you already knew, that’s not at all what I was talking about.
I was talking about a same-sex relationship as being just as natural as an opposite-sex relationship — you knew that, but you chose to deliberately distort it into something it obviously was NOT.
Being left-handed is not average, but it is normal. Being born gay is not average either, but it is normal, as normal as being born left-handed.
Next point: Just because Jesus said that a married couple should not divorce does not mean that he had anything to say, one way or another, about whether two men (such as David and Jonathan) might love one another, or whether two women (such as Ruth and Naomi) might love one another.
Before you go off on a tangent and deliberately distort what I just said, I make no claim that these same-sex relationships — which the Bible approves of — were sexual. We can’t tell whether or not they were sexual. But we do know that they showed love to one another.
Marriage is mostly about love, and is not mostly about sex. I know you right-wingers are obsessed with what other people do in their bedrooms, but, believe me, when you’ve been together for 33 years as my wife and I have been, marriage is mostly about love, affection, mutual support, and caring for one another. A same sex couple is highly likely to feel the same way.
Jesus never went around preaching against people’s sexual practices. Apparently he was not as fascinated about what other people do in their bedrooms as you are. Let’s let our neighbors have the same freedoms under the law that we have — and then let’s stop prying into their bedrooms.
The religious right? Distorting reality to fit their agenda? Whaaaaattttt? No, but seriously, when are these people going to learn that the bible is not an acceptable form of law making?
Thanks!
Let me try to understand the other side here. I think that someone like Jennifer might reply that she is motivated by what she believes is moral — an issue of right and wrong — and she wants the laws to reflect her sense of morality. And her morality is based on her (distorted) view of what the Bible says.
She has a right to her opinion. I also think that our laws should be moral — and I believe it is immoral to unfairly discriminate against our fellow citizens based on our personal prejudices. So I think her understanding of morality is bass ackwards, but I respect her desire to have laws that reflect her understanding of morality.
The Bible, time and time again, tells us to seek justice for the oppressed person, to love our neighbors, to welcome the stranger. It says nothing at all about gay and lesbian relationships as we understand those terms today. Those who lift a tiny handful of verses out of context in order to give approval for their prejudice are misreading Scripture (sometimes out of ignorance, sometimes deliberately).
Jennifer and I agree that laws should be moral. She just has a thoughtless and distorted (although common) view of what the Bible says on this topic, and then she uses that distorted understanding to support her prejudice.
I honestly have no problem with people trying to make laws based on their sense of right and wrong, AS LONG AS they have some sort of legitimate legal backing to their argument. If the bible is their only reason, then that would be forcing their religious beliefs on the rest of the country. However, for example, if someone believes stealing is wrong because it says so in the bible, they can point to non-biblical arguments as to why stealing should be illegal. That is something most people, regardless of religious affiliation, can agree on. But, they don’t have that separate, legal argument for banning same sex marriage.
I understand what you are saying, and agree.
I also understand that people such as Jennifer — although I disagree with them — are trying to do what they think, mistakenly, is moral.
Both sides want our laws to be moral.
I agree that we should not have laws that are based solely on the Protestant Bible, the Catholic Bible (which contains more books), the Jewish Bible (fewer books), the Qur’an, or any other holy book.
Yes, all laws should be broadly based, and should not favor one religious group over another — that’s a Constitutional principle.
The problem I have with people like Jennifer is that they just ignore the harm that they cause. Either they are being willfully ignorant or they just don’t care. That goes beyond just simple disagreement. They may not be acting intentionally, but they are hurting a good number of people in their misguided quest for “morality” and won’t acknowledge the harm they cause.
Mr. Penzance, it wasn’t ME who decided that marriage between a man and a woman was a biological institution, it’s been in the legal code for I-don’t-know-how-long, but a very long time. The fact that we have words like bride, groom, husband, wife, mother, father, indicate that the institution of marriage is a biologically based institution The fact that your side needs to remove all of these words speaks volumes. It’s YOUR side that insists on changing the natural order. It’s YOUR side that wants to remove biological connections from the legal code. I don’t buy for one minute that you believe I’m making this up. You know full well that removing those words from the legal code creates a genderless and therefore non biological institution for all families, including children. And we’re all supposed to believe that this is the CONSERVATIVE position! HA!!!
Well, I can promise you this Mr. Penzance: you will fool some of the people. Guaranteed. You may even fool enough of them to sweep all four states this Nov, then again you may not – I am not making a prediction. I am saying is that if marriage becomes redefined on a wide scale, and the gendered words eventually get removed from our legal code, and after a generation the family structure deteriorates further because biology no longer matters in how we interpret children’s connections to their own parents…. we’ll at least know who to blame.
1. “it’s been in the legal code for I-don’t-know-how-long, but a very long time.” – Appeal to tradition. The same exact logic can be used to support slavery.
2. “It’s YOUR side that insists on changing the natural order.” – Appeal to nature. Nature is not some sentient being with a certain goal. You are also ignoring the thousands of animals that engage in homosexual behavior.
3. “And we’re all supposed to believe that this is the CONSERVATIVE position! HA!!!” – Well, yes. Smaller government and all.
4. “I am saying is that if marriage becomes redefined on a wide scale, and the gendered words eventually get removed from our legal code, and after a generation the family structure deteriorates further because biology no longer matters in how we interpret children’s connections to their own parents…. we’ll at least know who to blame.” – Well, nothing bad has happened to Canada. Your slippery slope is just another fear mongering logical fallacy.
My goodness, why did you use such traditional grammar and spelling? Why do you care about such things? If you had used poor grammar and spelling I might not have paid as much attention to what you’re saying, and if your grammar and spelling were really horrible I might not have been able to understand you at all … so part of your appeal was to use traditional grammar and spelling because it provides a structure for you to communicate. It’s no different from gendered marriage – it provides a structure. Making marriage and parenthood genderless will weaken that structure considerably. If you think my “appeal to tradition” somehow negates what I’m saying, then you should show by example and identify and halt all tradition in your own life. I think you won’t be pleased with the results.
You cite animals engaging in homosexual behavior – appeal to nature. (BTW animals also eat their young sometimes – should we now eat our young?)
Smaller government – no way. Removing the biological connections of parents to their children will INCREASE government intervention into familes on the widest scale we’ve seen yet.
And as far as Canada: well nothing bad has happened if you’re a liberal. If you a conservative than the situation looks quite different. But you knew that, being a liberal and all. And do you imagine that Canada’s government shrank after implementing genderless marriage and genderless parenthood? If you do then let me disabuse you of that notion: the police state has grown stronger there because it has to enforce the unnatural institution.
It’s not grammar or spelling, it’s logical fallacies. It is an error in reasoning. As for the rest of your first paragraph, what? How is god’s name do you go from proper grammar and spelling to marriage?
“You cite animals… ” – Wow, you really aren’t good at this “logic” thing, are you? That was not an appeal to nature, but instead to show why your “it’s not natural” argument fails. If it occurs in nature, it is natural. Homosexuality occurs in nature, therefore, by definition, it is natural. Wikipedia has an entire article on the appeal to nature fallacy, it might help you actually understand what it is.
“Smaller government ” – Oh, now this I have to hear. In what twisted world do you live in where the government dictating what relationships are and are not acceptable based on religion is a “small” government. Please, I would love to see the mental gymnastics you would need to go through to justify your position.
Canada: Yes, it’s SOOO terrible for conservatives. In fact, it is so bad for conservatives that they elected a conservative in 2006 as Prime Minister and he is still Prime Minester today. But don’t let “facts” or “reality” get in the way of your persecution complex.
If it weren’t so funny reading the illogical gibberish you put forth as a sad attempt at an argument, I would probably tell you to stop embarassing yourself. But, it is really funny, and today is a slow work day.
Jennifer Thieme is the director of finance of the Ruth Institute. It will serve no purpose to continue to engage her. You will get as far with her as you would if you were to discuss this with Brian or Maggie.
Thanks for the heads up. I wasn’t really expecting much from her in the first place after reading her reply. Although, for being so high up on the anti-gay food chain, I would have expected a better response to my post. Her response was just pathetic.
1. Yes, marriage — whether polygamous (traditional marriage) or monogamous (modern marriage) is an institution that has been evolving over the centuries.
In the past, most marriages were arranged. Before the 1500s there were no church weddings and no legal documents. At one time, not long ago, it was legal for a man to rape and beat his wife. Not long ago, interracial marriages were illegal. It’s time, once again, to make the laws more fair.
Marriage promotes conservative family values such as fidelity, family stability, and mutual support. If these conservative family values are good for my wife and me, they are also good for same-sex couples. People who want to get married are not a threat to marriage.
2. You say: “The fact that we have words like bride, groom, husband, wife, mother, father, indicate that the institution of marriage is a biologically based institution. The fact that your side needs to remove all of these words speaks volumes.”
I have two male friends who are legally married in Connecticut (they live in Maine where their marriage is not legally recognized). They haven’t abandoned the word “husband” at all — they frequently refer to one another as “husband.” They still call their father and mother “father” and “mother.” If they had children, they would still use terms like “father” and “son” and “daughter.”
I refer to my step-daughter as “my daughter,” even though there is no biological relationship.
We’re not trying to get rid of these words at all! That’s nonsense.
3. I have no idea what you mean when you say that those of us who support fairness and equal treatment under the law want “to remove biological connections from the legal code.” As far as I can tell, that’s nonsense.
4. Prejudice, such as yours, is not a good reason to deny equal protection under the laws to a large portion of the citizens of the United States. Prejudice is a sin, and is never a good basis for a law.
Spot on!!
Wow! Significant viewpoint. All Rs should follow this recommendation. TPers too.
But no one should have the freedom to genetically engineer babies that are the offspring of a same-sex couple. It would be really unsafe for the person being created, cost billions of dollars to develop and make safe and affordable, become a huge expensive entitlement, and it’s totally unnecessary, there is no medical need to create a person that is the genetic offspring of two people of the same sex.
Congress should pass an Egg and Sperm law to prevent unethical genetic engineering of human beings.
Civil Unions defined as “marriage minus conception rights” would be much easier to pass in all 50 states. Marriage should always express legal approval of conceiving offspring together using the couple’s own genes.
Those are real, live children you are comparing to Frankenstein monsters. No way, they are sweet children lovingly raised by same gender American parents. YOU are the Frankenstein monster throwing the children into the well.
I’m talking about stopping labs from trying to make babies from genetically modified gametes, cloning, etc. There are not any “real, live children” that have been made from genetically modified gametes, but if there were, I certainly wouldn’t throw them in a well. The point is that it would be bad public policy to allow labs to try to make babies by any means other than joining a man’s sperm and a woman’s egg. There is no right to make people any other way, and it would open the door to big government intrusion and regulation and harm human dignity and equality.
Same-sex couples don’t need conception rights together, they need CU’s that would give all the other rights and protections, and they could have those if people stopped demanding equal conception rights. It’s asinine – it can’t be done and might never be possible!
Alas, the word “Conservative” was hijacked by the Religious Right. A true Conservative in the political sense are those like Barry Goldwater, William F. Buckley, Jr., William Safire, and George Will. These were Conservatives of the Conservative political movement. “Social conservatism” is the antithesis of true Conservatism.
Jerry Falwell and his bible thumpers absconded with the word. They should have left the word “conservative” alone and gone with what they really mean: “Fundamentalist/Evangelical Christianity,” what I refer to as the “Christian Taliban.” Their attempts to insert their Christian laws and restrictions into our secular government (which exists to serve ALL citizens) is exactly the same as an Islamic Imam attempting to insert Sharia law into secular law. Utterly no difference.
True Conservatism leaves non-governmental issues to the individual. It is closer to Libertarianism than it ever was to what these new found religious zealots profess.
I know the religious crowd cannot grasp this. They are literalists from the word go. They have no capacity to study history, to find the true meaning of Conservatism. Their bible tells them the world is 6000 years old (or whatever it is) and they blindly believe it and accept it. Lemmings come to mind. I have tolerated them all my life but now they are crapping in my punch bowl and I am not amused.
Let’s hope that come this next election we will see SSM legalized in Maine, Washington, and Maryland. The religious crowd can wring their hands, predict the world’s end, and lament the sins of man. Just direct them to the crowd who predicted the Rapture a summer or so ago. I’m sure that misery loves company. They will have plenty to talk about. At least, they will be leaving the rest of us alone and in peace for a change.
Well said.
This article is based on falsehood from beginning to end.
Dick Cheney is not a conservative. He is the past president of the Council on Foreign Relations.
John Bolton has ties to Goldman Sachs.
And let’s have a little truth in advertising here. Ken Mehlman came out as a homosexual in 2010.
He is currently a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, and is involved in a number of liberal causes including the National Endowment for Democracy and the American Foundation for Equal Rights.[
Some conservative!
But how can one be a conservative and still want to change the most fundamental institution in society?
The liars in the homosexual rights movement plead with tears in their eyes that they want to preserve and strengthen marriage.
How? By eliminating the words ‘mother’ and ‘father’ from the laws and regulations of Maine?!
In other words, the homosexual rights movement is a lie from the Pit of Hell.
They don’t want to protect marriage. They want to destroy it!
It was all a pack of lies from the beginning!
Don’t forget married Republican Senator Larry Craig who was caught soliciting sex in an airport men’s room.
Surely, you are joking.
Larry Craig is also a liberal, and part of our corrupt, degenerate political system — corrupt enough, in fact, to advocate the madness of homosexual “marriage.”
But let’s not forget he’s a Republican!
Republicans are liberals. That is one of many deceptions in this society, the biggest of which is that men can “marry” men, and women can “marry” women.
Then just who, little man, will you be voting for?
Men are marrying men… women marrying women.
As we watch Prop 8 and DOMA come to an end, what are you going to do? How will you change things?
So you are saying that you are so far to the right of Attila the Hun that you think Republicans are liberals. Wow. You are truly from another planet!
You’re hysterical…
Craig and you have a lot in common I’m sure.
Larry Craig a liberal? That’s so nuts!
Ok, I’m calling it now, SonofBangor is a troll. Pay no attention, they are just trying to get a reaction out of you. Just ignore him and he will no longer get any enjoyment out of people responding to him as if he was serious.
Folks, just consider the source here… insanity begets more insanity.
Such baloney! What planet are you from?
The very deep planet called “Closet”…
And he refuses to come out.
Good article, now lets try to apply this to women’s rights to do what they feel is right for them.
Transhumanism is the opposite of conservatism, it’s about radical transformation of humanity. There should be no “freedom” to manufacture people from lab-created gametes, we should enact an “Egg and Sperm Law” that limits creation of human beings to joining a man and a woman’s unmodified genes, so that everyone is created equal.
There is a strong case for gay marriage even for conservatives.
Theocratic knuckle-draggers, however, just want to see people harmed.
Yet they have no case at all…
No, I think people suffering from AIDS who want to put bowel movement sex on a par with marriage — those are probably the ones who want people harmed.
I haven’t even mentioned those who want the words “mother” and “father” erased from the Maine statues.
ROFLOL… sorry little minded one. Most gay citizens have no AIDS, or any other STD for that matter. Thus, they harm no one, nor do they wish to.
You do. You demonstrate it over and over and over…
Marriage is merely a civil contract. Your mythology is not necessary… in fact, no mythology of any kind is necessary.
Removing “mother” and “father”… do you have a source for such lunacy?
Let’s use logic and reason and not name calling, or blasphemy. Let’s save that for those who carry whips and chains and march naked in Gay Shame parades.
If homosexuality is normal, why does the CDC state that homosexuals have 40 times the rate of AIDS as the general population, and a host of other sexually-transmitted diseases?
How can innocent children be raised and properly educated by deviants?
Logic and reason promote the idea that “blasphemy” is only in your head. It’s your deity, not mine.
Gay pride parades? I never go… why do you? Nor have I ever seen “whips and chains” in any photos from gay pride parades in Maine. You’re lying again.
Your obsession with all things gay implies that you are excited by the idea of gay relations. I’m willing to pay for the test if you’ll take it and publicly announce the results. I’m sure it’d be interesting.
Why does the CDC state that? Sad consequence of individuals being irresponsible… but you do realize that doesn’t mean 40% of gay citizens have AIDS, don’t you? Or are you really that out of touch with reality?
No diseases here… and if you wish to judge me by those that have a disease, you should be judged by christians who kill their children in the name of god. After all, some do it, so we must judge them all as if they do.
This is your logic, sweetcheeks.
Deviant? Teaching a kid to put faith in magical sky daddies who murder humans rather than in themselves… THAT is deviant.
Well, I wanted to keep this on the level of logic and reason, but you are thinking in slogans.
The question before the public is whether or not homosexuality should be put on a par with marriage.
That requires the public to consider the positive versus the adverse effects of homosexual behavior, which includes, unfortunately, a discussion of bowel movement sex.
I see that unfortunately you have resorted to blasphemy, which indicates you are under demonic influence, as are many homosexuals. This is clearly demonstrated by the behavior in Gay Shame parades.
It’s all a matter of whether or not the public wants to confront the truth about homosexuality, or instead be lulled into complacency and indifference by saccharine lies.
One thing is clear, if the homosexuals and lesbians win, they will forbid the use of the terms “man” and “wife” in the law.
And that Mr. Badkey, is nothing less than diabolical.
No, that’s just how you and your harmful little shallow brain wish to view it.
See, there’s nothing illegal in being gay… there’s no prohibition in Maine regarding adoption.
You’ve already lost those, and those are what you’re bellyaching about.
You view gay citizens and their relationships however you wish. Like your cousins in the KKKlan, nobody will take that from you.
Your hang up on “man” and “wife” is truly funny… it demonstrates a new level of desperation.
And that pleases me very much.
As if only homosexuals commit sodomy.
3 men + 4 drugs + 2 guns and a flying trapeze = Gay Marriage.
Don’t believe me? Ask Bruce LaVallee-Davidson.
1 christian woman + 1 murdered child = christian citizens.
Don’t believe me? Just ask Deanna Laney.
Why do you continue to support same sex marriage by using a computer? I think that if you really were so against same sex marriage, you should just get rid of your computer altogether.
Thank you, Mr. Mehlman. It is unfortunate that the Moral Majority types have co-opted the conservative base.
Blah , blah , blah…Same question , same result…It has failed everywhere it has been put to a vote…This will be no different…Next issue PLEASE…
This issue will be resolved by legislature, courts, or a combination thereof.
I can’t help what folks will do when it happens.
Do you think it will always be like that?
Did you read what Mr. Mehlman said? He’s a conservative. Instead of “Blah , blah , blah,” could you say why you think that conservative is wrong? I would really like to know why your conservatism is different from his.
“The fact that individuals who happen to be gay want to share in this vital social institution is evidence that conservative ideals enjoy widespread acceptance. Conservatives should celebrate this.”
What freedom is more basic and personal than the right to marry the person you love?
But we don’t have the freedom to marry our sister or mother, there are “supportable basis” to restrict certain relationship types. Being of the same-sex is a relationship type, known to the public, and should be prohibited like siblings are prohibited, because procreation would be unethical. (Not impossible, just unethical and bad public policy.)
if we want a smaller, less obtrusive government, shouldn’t individuals and not politicians decide who they can marry?
But allowing same-sex couples to conceive offspring will lead to a bigger government, because it would take lots of research and testing and be very expensive, and will open the door to all sorts of other kinds of genetic engineering. The way to keep smaller less obtrusive government is to keep procreation natural, joining a husband and wife unmodified gametes.
Maximizing freedom isn’t the only conservative value enhanced by allowing civil marriage for same-gender couples. It will promote stability, responsibility, commitment — family values that we often encourage in public policy.
Those can be given with Civil Unions defined as “marriage minus conception rights.”
Mr. Howard, what you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
I’ve been trying to promote The Egg and Sperm Civil Union Compromise since 2006, and it remains the best resolution to the marriage debate. Maine should enact “Recognition Ready” Civil Unions to help their resident same-sex couples. Civil Unions defined as “marriage minus conception rights” would be constitutional and could be enacted in all 50 states much more easily than same-sex marriage, and with much less discord, and Congress could recognize them as if they were marriages for federal purposes. That would help same-sex couples much more than having conception rights that come with marriage. It is stupid to insist on having equal conception rights when it can’t be done and might never be possible. It is much smarter to trade conception rights (aka, the word marriage) for uniform full legal recognition that is exactly like marriage except doesn’t approve or allow the couple to conceive offspring together. We should not equate the natural right to procreate with using lab-created gametes that have been genetically modified, or with using donor gametes either. Those aren’t rights of marriage, using our own genes to have our own offspring with our spouse is a right of marriage, and must remain so.
Please, just stop. The stupidity of your statements is physically starting to hurt. Marriage and procreation are independent of each other. How many times do I need to say that before it starts to get into your thick skull. Marriage has absolutely nothing to do with the current research being done. Preventing same sex marriage will do nothing to stop that research. Get over it.
Marriage should always allow the couple to conceive offspring and have sex. We should not separate that from marriage, I demand that I get the same right to marry and have sex and procreate with my wife that every other human being has always had. I refuse to let you tell me I have the same right to procreate offspring with my wife that a same-sex couple does, it’s totally offensive and disrespectful.
And separately, we should prohibit attempting to create a person by any means other than joining a man and a woman’s unmodified gametes. That would be totally stupid and the advantages of prohibiting all that stuff now are tremendous. It is stupid to insist that same-sex procreation remain legal, it can’t be done and no one needs it, and accepting that it isn’t a right would end the marriage debate and help thousands of couples get security and legal recognition in CU’s.
You’re really insane.
Gay men and women are not procreating with their partners.
What happened to you to bring about such outrageous paranoia?
Not yet, but we are getting ahead of ourselves when we say that same-sex couples should have equal conception rights before we consider whether it is a good idea. I say it should be prohibited ASAP so that kids are not cruelly led to believe it will be an option for them someday. Also, it soaks up considerable energy and resources. It is just really stupid to be insisting on having a right to conceive offspring with someone of the same sex when it can’t be done and might never be possible and it has such harmful effects on marriage and children to leave it legal.
Google Postgenderism and Transhumanism, those are the insane people. It is very prudent and practical to prohibit genetic engineering and preserve natural reproduction rights for everyone.
To JohnHoward:
“My concern is that marriage should always mean the couple is approved
and allowed to procreate offspring using the couples own genes. ”
Marriage has nothing to do with whether or not the couple is allowed to procreate. They are two completely different things. Stop trying to relate them. You are wrong and you are embarrassing yourself.
So show me ONE married couple that is prohibited from conceiving offspring using their own genes. Marriage has always meant the couple is allowed to procreate and I demand that it continue to. Stripping the right to procreate from marriage is an old eugenicist idea and we rejected it 100 years ago and need to reject it again.
What are you even talking about? I NEVER said that married couples are prohibited from reproducing. Why is it so hard for you to understand that marriage and reproduction are independent? Marriage is not required to reproduce and reproduction is not required to be married. End of story. No one is taking anyone’s right to procreate away. No one is saying that. Maybe that is happening in your delusional fantasy world, but in a little place called “reality” that is not happening.
Same-sex couples should be prohibited from reproducing. If we do prohibit it with an Egg and Sperm law limiting reproduction to joining a man’s sperm and a woman’s egg, then same-sex marriages would be prohibited from reproducing. That would be the FIRST TIME in the history of humanity that a marriage was prohibited from procreating, and it would be a very bad thing. It would mean that marriage no longer protected a couple’s right to reproduce, and that marriage no longer conveyed society’s approval of offspring of the couple.
But perhaps you are saying that same-sex couples should be approved and allowed to conceive offspring together also. But that would be a very bad idea too, it would cost billions of dollars and divert lots of energy and resources, for something that isn’t a right and isn’t necessary, and it would lead to more genetic engineering and more big government regulations. It’s better to prohibit making people by any means other than joining a man and a woman’s unmodified gametes.
I’m done. Your stupidity is too overwhelming. If I go much further, I might have an aneurysm.
I hope that earthquake wasn’t your aneurysm!!!
No, no. I stopped talking to that person before they could make me stupider.
Maybe that headache is cognitive dissonance, because you are realizing that, wow, this guy is actually right, and there actually is a rational, prudent reason to not allow people to marry someone of the same sex, at least right now. But don’t fret, because along with that rational reason comes a way out, a rational distinction between marriages of a man and a woman and Civil Unions for same-sex couples that is Constitutional and acceptable to a vast majority of people in every state, and is a very simple, understandable, permanent and principled and just resolution to the marriage debate that preserves marriage as a man and a woman in a way that actually helps and respects same-sex couples, preserves everyone’s equality, saves energy, time, and human resources, and on and on.
Come on Bangor, you could be how it ends, not with a Bang or a Whimper, but with a Bangor. Sorry you’ve probably heard that one before. But, what’s more important, same-sex couples being able to make babies together, or same-sex couples having the security and protections of marriage without that right to make babies together?
“Maybe that headache is cognitive dissonance, because you are realizing that, wow, this guy is actually right, ” – HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA, oh, you’re serious, well then, let me correct you, no, I do not think you are right. I actually think that you are delusional and living in some fantasy world. I also realize that you lack the ability to use logic and reason, and, based on how you have responded to my posts, a severe lack of reading comprehension. I choose to not waste my time attempting to “debate” someone who is not grounded in reality. I’d make more progress yelling at a brick wall for an hour than I would trying to get you to use logic.
I’m grounded in reality. It’s people who insist that same-sex couples should have equal conception rights that are not seeing straight. I know that it can’t be done now, might never be possible, and would be expensive and dangerous – those are facts. My proposal is a real proposal that won’t go away by ignoring it. You are harming same-sex couples all over the US by making same-sex conception rights your highest priority. They don’t need that.
Oh my god, there is no hope for you. Please, just take your medicine, I’m sure it would help at least a little bit.
Your issue of contraceptive rights is not what is being put to vote. Your attempts at distraction with this weird red-herring are silly (but interesting).
NEXT!
Honestly, I do have to give him points for creativity. It even makes some sense. Come up with an argument so mind numbingly stupid, so divorced from reality, that it leaves your opponent speechless. It is incredibly difficult to fight crazy.
There are three laws I’m proposing, and it is really dumb to object to any of them. One is the Egg and Sperm law that would keep reproduction natural and stop unethical experiments, another would recognize Civil Unions as if they were marriages if they are defined as “marriage minus conception rights” and the third would set the effect of the legal act of marriage as approving and allowing the couple to conceive offspring together (codifying the existing meaning).
Would you care to share with me your reasons for rejecting those laws? Transhumanists of course reject the Egg and Sperm law, Eugenicists reject preserving the conception rights of marriage, and some traditionalists reject giving any legal recognition to same-sex couples. Are you one of those three, or do you have some other reason to reject my proposal?
Marriage rights are conception rights (not “contraception”, but conception), they have always been completely synonymous. There has never been a time when a couple got married but was not then allowed to have sex and procreate offspring together. Just because we don’t require people to get married anymore doesn’t mean marriage still doesn’t do what it always has done. Think of interracial marriage, the issue was not just should they allow people of different races to designate each other to visit each other in the hospital and share property, it was about allowing them to mix their genes (“miscegenation”) and create “interracial” children that would have messed up the system of white supremacy and racial classification. The court ruled that race and preserving white supremacy was an “insupportable basis” to restrict marriage, but let stand supportable basis such as being siblings, etc. By allowing people to marry anyone of any race, society approves and allows them to conceive offspring together.
That’s what marriage should still continue to mean – that society allows same-sex couples to conceive offspring together. Right now it is legal, so it makes sense that we allow same-sex marriage. But if we prohibit same-sex conception, then that would mean marriage stopped protecting the right to have sex and conceive offspring, it would be the first time a married couple was prohibited from conceiving offspring together, and that would be a devastating change to marriage that would effect all marriages and everyone’s conception rights.
Maine should enact Recognition-Ready Civil Unions defined as “marriage minus conception rights” instead, and we should get Congress to enact the Egg and Sperm Civil Union Compromise ASAP. That would encourage more states to enact CU’s and make life much much better for same-sex couples than giving them the word marriage that isn’t recognized in most states and would just spur on an FMA that might very well pass (it only takes 38 states and more than 40 have already rejected SSM.)
What are you talking about?
Just ignore him, he doesn’t make much sense and actually trying to have anything that could be considered a conversation with him is hopeless.
I haven’t heard anyone else with that argument. I wonder if Erick Bennett agrees…
Me neither, but I think that might be because the argument is just so terrible.
The Egg and Sperm Civil Union Compromise is my proposal to resolve the marriage debate. It’s a federal proposal that would nullify same-sex marriages in every state that has enacted them, but would give federal recognition to Civil Unions as if they were marriages if they are defined by the states that enact them as “marriage minus conception rights.” So I’m suggesting that Maine should enact those Civil Unions and push for the Egg and Sperm Civil Union Compromise, as it would give more security to same-sex couples.
Wha…..?
This is novel. I must say, I am tired of the slippery slope to marry cats and chairs. This is most refreshing!!!