In The Chronicle of Higher Education, Notre Dame sociologist Christian Smith defends Mark Regnerus’s research on gay couples and child-rearing against what Smith calls a progressive “witch hunt”:
Whoever said inquisitions and witch hunts were things of the past? A big one is going on now. The sociologist Mark Regnerus, at the University of Texas at Austin, is being smeared in the media and subjected to an inquiry by his university over allegations of scientific misconduct.
Regnerus’s offense? His article in the July 2012 issue of Social Science Research reported that adult children of parents who had same-sex romantic relationships, including same-sex couples as parents, have more emotional and social problems than do adult children of heterosexual parents with intact marriages. That’s it. Regnerus published ideologically unpopular research results on the contentious matter of same-sex families. And now he is being made to pay.
Smith goes on to defend the integrity of Regnerus’s study. Good for Smith; and good for The Chronicle for its open-mindedness.
July 23rd, 2012 | 10:57 pm
Mr. Mattix, did you read any of the comments on the article in CHE that you linked to? Did you not comprehend that nature of the arguments against Mr. Regnerus?
He compared the children of intact married straight couples to the children of separated/divorced couples in a mixed-orientation marriage where one of the spouses had an affair. He then proceeded to claim that any negative outcomes for the children were the fault of the spouse who had a same-sex affair (assuming that spouse was gay, a big leap of faith; such a spouse is more likely bisexual).
July 23rd, 2012 | 11:17 pm
Robert,
That critique of the study is not new and one that has some validity, but it’s hardly one that justifies an inquiry of “scientific misconduct.”
More on Rengerus’s approach and data here: http://www.baylorisr.org/2012/06/a-social-scientific-response-to-the-regnerus-controversy/
July 24th, 2012 | 12:27 am
It should be noted that the Regnerus study was funded by the Witherspoon Institute and the Bradley Foundation, two very conservative organizations. Robert George is a fellow of the Witherspoon Institute, and he is also on the board of directors of the Bradley Foundation. George also has close ties to the National Organization for Marriage. (He is Chairman Emeritus.) NOM, of course, devotes a great deal of its energies and resources to battling same-sex marriage.
Of course, just because two very conservative foundations—opposed to same-sex marriage—funded the study does not necessarily tell us anything about the quality of the study. Nevertheless, I think people have a right to know how the study was funded.
July 24th, 2012 | 3:49 am
Robert (writes)
“He compared the children of intact married straight couples to the children of separated/divorced couples in a mixed-orientation marriage where one of the spouses had an affair.”
Given the fact that the study used a large scale random sample (considered streagth in the practice of constructing non-biased scientific studies that has not been duplicated in any previous study that used non radom sampling) –
This produced a number of particpants who reported that they had spent some time being raised by a lesbian or gay biological parent & their same-sex couples.
Out of this group, the now adult children reported a number of problems in greater rates than those raised by two biological parents
(nothing in the study says anything about “an affair)
Robert (writes)
“He then proceeded to claim that any negative outcomes for the children were the fault of the spouse who had a same-sex affair”
The study makes no such causal assertion – it simply reports that such children experienced a larger number of social problems under a standard measure of child outcomes as compared to married biological parents.
None of these supposed flaws are unusual in social scientific research, and indeed this study is considered more rigorous and non-biased in design than most smaller & less rigrous studies purported to support same-sex parenting.
July 24th, 2012 | 8:01 am
[...] to Micah Mattix for altering me to this story. This entry was posted in Culture, Politics, Statistics [...]
July 24th, 2012 | 8:03 am
Robert,
You ought to not read the Chronicle, but Regnerus’s own study. The “flaw” you mention means that, at worst, Regnerus would have to rephrase some of his findings. E.g.:
31% of now-grown children of families with a lesbian mother or a mother who at least once cheated on her spouse with another woman said ‘yes’ to “Ever forced to have sex against will“, versus 25% of those of families with a gay father or a father who at least once cheated on his spouse with another man and only 8% of those now-grown children from traditional mom-dad families.
July 24th, 2012 | 8:05 am
Fitz, you’re kidding yourself. Regnerus had only TWO reliably gay parents. The rest of his so-called parents merely had a same-sex affair while in a differrent-sex marriage. Gay is not the same as bi. With so many variables going on, in no way can Regnerus know anything about the influence of these so-called gay parents. It simply isn’t possible, and in fact, it is possible that having a gay or bi parent might have been a positive influence. We don’t know, because of all the uncontrolled variables.
You admit seeing flaws. What are they, and how do they impact the Regnerus conclusion?
July 24th, 2012 | 8:26 am
David N,
The source of funding for the Regnerus study is of absolutely no relevance unless there was some sort of ~intentional~ bias or flaw in the results. Unless you are willing to assert a causal connection, how does “a right to know” even enter into the conversation?
I do look forward, however, to your funding source reports on the studies that found no effect or positive effects in children raised by gay parents. The “right to know” being so important and all.
July 24th, 2012 | 8:40 am
I note that Christian Smith’s article does not detail any of the specific claims about the problems of Regnerus’ study. He just says, “…it is no scientifically worse than what is routinely published in sociology journals.”
He certainly doesn’t take the advice of Sidney Hook: “Before impugning an opponent’s motives, even when they legitimately may be impugned, answer his arguments.” Instead he jumps straight to the motives.
July 24th, 2012 | 8:48 am
Ray–
The Chronicle, while geared towards academics, is more journalistic than scholarly. It’s not the place for a technical discussion.
However, Smith and others have provided detailed commentary on the study here (and linked above): http://www.baylorisr.org/2012/06/a-social-scientific-response-to-the-regnerus-controversy/
July 24th, 2012 | 9:11 am
The source of funding for the Regnerus study is of absolutely no relevance unless there was some sort of ~intentional~ bias or flaw in the results.
david c.,
When the funding for a study comes from a source that has an vested interest in the outcome, whether the source be a conservative foundation, a liberal interest group, the Tobacco Institute, a drug company, or any other such group, that information is relevant and should be disclosed. In the article I read about the study on The Witherspoon Institute’s website, it was mentioned parenthetically that they funded the study. The information is certainly relevant. It doesn’t invalidate the study, but it is always relevant who funded a study, whether it is favorable or unfavorable to gay people.
Are you really saying only intentional bias is a relevant issue in a study?
July 24th, 2012 | 9:43 am
David N,
Interest groups fund studies. Governmental academic research funds are limited and fiercely competitive. Thus foundations often step in to help fund the research dollars gap. It’s a fact of academic life and should not really surprise us. In fact, it seems pretty strange to think of foundations or interest groups funding studies the results of which they would be completely uninterested in.
The question to hand is about influence, and that is something that most be shown not simply asserted. Playing the guilt by association game (which is precisely what you are doing) is insufficient and is, in my view, irrelevant to the findings of the Regnerus study. If you or the other critics of the study believe differently the burden of proof rest with you, not Regnerus.
But let me give you a for instance that you might find interesting. A study published by the University of Virginia entitled: “Parenting and Child Development in Adoptive Families: Does Parental Sexual Orientation Matter?” found that the sexual orientation of the parents had no statistical discernible effect on the outcomes measured. Given your demonstrated interest in the question of gay adoption you may even have read or cited the study? At any rate, a source of funding for that study was the Williams Institute at UCLA. The “about us” page of Wiliiams Institute says: “The Williams Institute advances sexual orientation and gender identity law and public policy through rigorous, independent research and scholarship, and disseminates it….” In other words — using your standard “a vested interest” in the findings of the study — and a pretty direct one at that. Relevant or not?
My own answer to the question is no. I think you have to prove it and that the process of vigorous peer review (which both the Regnerus and UVA studies underwent) is the place to try and catch flaws and influences. Both of those studies passed muster with the independent peer review boards. They may be flawed in terms of methodology but that it an entirely different question unrelated to funding…..
July 24th, 2012 | 10:05 am
Playing the guilt by association game (which is precisely what you are doing) is insufficient and is, in my view, irrelevant to the findings of the Regnerus study.
david c.,
Are you really maintaining it is out of bounds to identify the organization that funded a study? Seriously? I said the following:
I can’t see how anyone could object.
It is always relevant for any study, to know who funded it. Here is a quote from the Regnerus study itself:
Do you think Regnerus was wrong to include that information in his study?
In this thread, I have done no more than Regnerus himself to calling attention to the source of funding for the study.
July 24th, 2012 | 10:42 am
David,
Nice try. I am not saying it is “out of bounds” I am asking for relevance. It is not enough to say that it is relevant because conservative think tanks with Bob George on the board helped fund it. I am asking for evidence that what you are insinuating is true. If the interests of the sponsoring organization are your standard (“always relevant”) for insinuating questions about the merits of a study then it is your turn to answer my question. Is the funding by the Williams Institute relevant to the findings of the UVA study? A yes or no will suffice.
July 24th, 2012 | 11:18 am
Bob George
david c.,
He’s Robby George, not Bob George.
Is the funding by the Williams Institute relevant to the findings of the UVA study? A yes or no will suffice.
Of course. I meant what I said. The source of funding for a study is always relevant and should always be disclosed. Parenting and Child Development in Adoptive Families: Does Parental Sexual Orientation Matter? has the following statement in a note on the front page: “This research was supported in part by grants from the Williams Institute at UCLA to Charlotte J. Patterson . . . . ”
I don’t honestly see how anyone could disagree on the matter of this kind of disclosure.
July 24th, 2012 | 11:19 am
One could also point out that nearly every research study is conducted at a university, and most universities (particularly the large, public ones that get lots of research grants) tend to side more with the liberal agenda in various areas.
So does that call the methodology or integrity of nearly all studies into automatic question, the way the funding source of this one does? If not, why not?
July 24th, 2012 | 11:22 am
Did any one else note that in such a large sample only two intact gay relationships were reported?
July 24th, 2012 | 11:40 am
@ Jy–this is why the previous studies are considered not very conclusive. The demographic of stable gay or lesbian relationships that raise a biological child or adopt a child is very specific both in class (middle to upper) and region of the country, besides being very very small. Because of this, it is almost impossible to accurately describe what would happen if gay marriage and subsequently adoption were normalized.
July 24th, 2012 | 11:51 am
David,
You continue to distort my point. I am not concerned about disclosure per se, because as you concede, the issue of disclosure is not relevant to the contents of the study. Disclosure of funding is part and parcel of the process for any reputable academic study. I am not disputing that disclosure should be made, I am asserting that you had an agenda in bringing up the source of the funding in this particular case.
Why be coy about it? By raising the issue of where the funding came from, you are repeating the talking points of many of the study’s non-academic critics have made of it — that the results were influenced by the funding (or by Regnerus’ faith, or both). You went to some pains to point out not only who the funders were, but even went as far as identifying an individual member…. Let’s put aside the fiction that you are just did this in the sole interest of “full disclosure”. Your raising the issue funding in the manner you did was a clear attempt to insinuate influence. That, it seems to me is as undeniable as your own point.
This thread, David, was started by Micah Mattix pointing out that respected Sociologist Christian Smith defends the integrity of both the study and Mark Regnerus (who in the interest of full disclosure, is a friend of mine). The question of funding is moot from the standpoint of it’s affecting the outcome of the study. You insinuate otherwise. That demands proof.
July 24th, 2012 | 11:51 am
So does that call the methodology or integrity of nearly all studies into automatic question, the way the funding source of this one does?
pentamom,
No one said, or at least I didn’t, that the source of funding for the Regnerus study automatically called into question its integrity or methodology. I am maintaining that the source of funding of every study is relevant. If I claimed that the only studies that should be required to disclose their source of funder were those funded by conservative organizations, you would have cause for complaint.
I am not sure what the fuss is about mentioning who funded the Regnerus study. It was disclosed in the study itself. It was disclosed by the Witherspoon Institute. It is known by anyone who bothered to look at the study. However, it was not mentioned here, and so I mentioned it, even quoting from the paper itself. What exactly is the problem?
Any study published by a university will name the university. One may look at a study differently if it came from Notre Dame, Bob Jones University, MIT, Harvard, or the Franciscan University at Steubenville. Where is the problem?
July 24th, 2012 | 12:45 pm
Anyone who says anything against this powerful and immoral agenda is going to catch hell…it becomes more intolerant and violent all the time. Sodomy is a sin and anything predicated upon sin is never going to be moral.
July 24th, 2012 | 1:06 pm
Magdalene –
I don’t agree on ‘intolerant’, but that can be kind of ambiguous to dispute. What specifically is the “agenda” you’re writing about, and on what basis do you claim it’s becoming “more… violent“, though?
July 24th, 2012 | 1:31 pm
Robert (writes)
“Fitz, you’re kidding yourself. Regnerus had only TWO reliably gay parents. The rest of his so-called parents merely had a same-sex affair while in a differrent-sex marriage.”
I have absolutley no idea how you have come to this conclusion.
Robert (writes)
“You admit seeing flaws. What are they, and how do they impact the Regnerus conclusion?”
Not “flaws” in any serious sense that would impact the credibilty of the science.
The most amusing thing about the attacks of this study is that the much less rigerous and spurious studies supporting gay parenting to date are all riddled with serious flaws in their methodology and science as well as their conclusions.
As multiple articles have said including this one.
When they attack Regenrus’s study they end up attacking ALL the studies they have used to support conclusions cited in court briefs and legislation.
The double standard in combing this study for supposed flaws is something that could apply to ANY social science research.
It is not done out of a fidelity to the truth but is politically motivated.
July 24th, 2012 | 1:56 pm
Let’s put aside the fiction that you are just did this in the sole interest of “full disclosure”.
david c.,
No doubt the fact that this study was funded by two very conservative foundations, both of whom have Robby George as a member, makes me more wary of the study than it does you. But I fail to see why it is any more objectionable for me to bring up the fact that a study was funded by conservative foundations than it would be for you or Micah Mattix or anyone here who usually disagrees with me to point out that a study that I cited that was favorable to gay people was funded by a liberal organization. The reason why journals insist on disclosure is so that people know all the relevant facts about studies and can judge them accordingly. It is not necessary of me to demonstrate some bias in the study in order to note who funded it.
Your raising the issue funding in the manner you did was a clear attempt to insinuate influence. That, it seems to me is as undeniable as your own point.
There is a difference between “insinuating influence” and allowing for the possibility that there might be some influence. I did not claim the study was unreliable because it was funded by conservative foundations. I did not imply Regnerus slanted the study to please those who funded it. I specifically said,
The study must be evaluated on its own. It is not to be dismissed because of who funded it. It was peer reviewed and appeared in a reputable publication. But it is not at all illegitimate to keep in mind who Regnerus is and who funded the study.
You seem to me to be saying, in effect, that it is wrong for a liberal (me) to bring up a fact, when conservative foundations fund a study the outcome of which is seized on by conservatives, and that a fact becomes a “talking point” when a liberal repeats it. Aren’t you doing to me what you are accusing me of? Attacking what I say because I am a liberal and you are suspicious of anything a liberal says? It as if it doesn’t matter what I say is true or not. It’s just that I have no business saying it, and I am not credible when I state my own motivations.
I would like to think, by the way, that if a pro-gay study was published, and I knew the study was funded by a pro-gay foundation, I would mention that if nobody else did. And I am quite sure that if somebody else mentioned it, I wouldn’t make a fuss about it. I can’t tell you how many times over the years I have let it pass when I site statistics from the Guttmacher Institute and someone says they can’t be trusted because Guttmacher is an arm of Planned Parenthood.
July 24th, 2012 | 2:23 pm
David,
I have not mentioned your being a liberal at all. To put view this study primarily in politicized terms is what you are doing, not I. My concern was solely that you ran this blog post (which was a reiteration of a defense of the ~content and methodology~ of the study) off the rails by raising the issue of the funding under the rubric of “a right to know”. In so doing it gave you the opportunity to insinuate motive. Your denial of that motivation borders on the laughable.
Anyone who had bothered to look at the study knew where the funding was coming from, Regnerus does nothing to hide it. Since this post was about a defense of the study itself rather than the funding, why introduce the issue? I think we both know the answer to that question….
July 24th, 2012 | 2:48 pm
David c.
I concure – Almost every time this study has been mentioned it is accompanied by various posts that seek to question it legitamacy in multiple ways. This is a clear attempt to smear the study, its author, and paint it as “fataly flawed”
This is not liberal debate engaging in truth seeking – but the classic leftist tactic of changing the debate from truth to motive.
Thats the genious of Marx…To change the debate from truth to motive.
“He’s Robby George, not Bob George.”
No its Prof. ROBERT George.
July 24th, 2012 | 3:02 pm
david c.,
As I said, I did not mention the funding to discredit the study, I did mention it, however, so that people who evaluates the study can take into consideration the funding and decide for themselves whether the study is in some way biased. I have not read the study all the way through, although I have read parts of it, so I cannot pretend to judge the study.
Does an alarm bell go off in my head when I find out a study being touted by conservatives as being good evidence that same-sex parenting produces bad results was funded by two conservative foundations with clear links to NOM? Absolutely. Does that mean I am telling people the study is unreliable or biased? Absolutely not. Am I in effect “warning” people to approach the study with caution? Of course. Would I object if somebody noted the funding of a study I cited and warned people to approach it with caution? I certainly don’t think so.
Saying, “This study was funded by X,” or “Approach this study with caution because it was funded by X,” are altogether different than saying, “Don’t believe this study because it was funding by X.” You are accusing me of doing the latter. I am saying I am doing the former, and you are in effect accusing me of lying.
I can only imagine that Mark Regnerus would fully expect people like me to approach his study with caution but to read it with as open a mind as possible. I would like to think I am capable of doing that. But I am not ready to declare as irrelevant the funding of the study.
You have made your point many times now, and it is clear you don’t trust me or believe me. I can accept that. Now let’s move on. I can’t believe anyone else is interested, and this gets us absolutely nowhere in terms of the issues raised in Micah Mattix’s post. This has become a personal matter between you and me, and I think it is unproductive.
July 24th, 2012 | 3:46 pm
David,
Fair enough. Please note, however, that I am not calling you a liar, I am asking you to be explicit about your motives for introducing this evidence. By stating (at long last!) that the funding of the study set off “alarm bells” for you and that your intention was to “warn people to approach the study with caution” you have done so. Thus we can indeed move on.
As for Mark’s expectations? I can tell you that we had an email discussion the day the study was released and he was anticipating that it would be controversial and that some ire might be directed his way. I am quite certain, however, that he did not anticipate anywhere near the level of vitriol and character assassination that his been aimed his way. In our last conversation (about a completely separate issue) he only said that the last several weeks have been “personally and professionally exhausting”. Where are all the folks who usually rush to the cameras to natter about “academic freedom” and “chilling effects” now?
BTW, if you do decide to read the study and wish to ask Mark some questions about it, you’ll find that he is usually gracious and willing to respond — though he may be less so now, given they way this has all blown up.
July 24th, 2012 | 7:21 pm
It should be noted that the Regnerus study was funded by the Witherspoon Institute and the Bradley Foundation, two very conservative organizations.
Yes, let’s hold this study to a high standard.
Even though the press never reports when studies that come to the “right” conclusion are funded by or even conducted by lesbian activists.
Obviously, the only way gay rights activists can win this struggle is if bad studies, carefully selected to make gays and lesbians look good, are given a free pass, while better studies are criticized so relentlessly that people get a distorted view of what all these studies actually say.
Because, you know, the whole myth of “progressive” civil rights “inevitability” is based on the idea that truth always comes out in the end – and that those who fight the truth are the bad guys, “on the wrong side of history”.
July 24th, 2012 | 8:20 pm
Allow me to present the data this way-
Regnerus [begin quote] We had only two cases in which mom and her partner were together for 18 years. We’ve got only six cases where mom and her partner were reported to have stayed together for 10 or more years, and 18 cases for five years. We’re still seriously in small-sample-size territory, prone to making what’s called a Type II error, meaning we could erroneously conclude that there are no differences when there really are. How about those 81 cases wherein respondents reported living with mom and her partner for at least a good share of a year or more?[end quote]
2 -18 Years
6 – 10 Years
18 – 5 Years
26 Long Time
81 cases of living with mom and her partner a good share of a year or more. (short time)
26 (long time)+81 (short time)= 107
175 respondents
175 – 107(Long and short time) = 68 (39%) who NEVER LIVED WITH THEIR MOTHER AND THEIR MOTHERS GIRL FRIEND
AND for my money I BET that the 81 he talks about above I BET included in that 81 is the 26 Long Time numbers. I think he was being sneaky by the way he wrote that.
http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/features/2012/gay_parents_study/gay_parents_study_mark_regnerus_and_william_saletan_debate_new_research_.html
Please refer to this article by Walter Olson of the Cato Institute and in particular look for my comments-
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/walter-olson/regnerus-gay-parenting-study_b_1681253.html?utm_hp_ref=science&ir=Science#postComment
As well as this article by his peers in Texas-
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/debra-umberson/texas-professors-gay-research_b_1628988.html
As well as this very informative blog written by a Sociologist out of North Carolina Chapel Hill. And the comments here are by fellow Sociologists-
http://scatter.wordpress.com/2012/06/23/bad-science-not-about-same-sex-parenting/
July 24th, 2012 | 9:01 pm
The other studies that have demonstrated psychological damage to children who are deliberately deprived of their right to a father and and a mother include:
In a well designed study of 174 primary school children in Australia with 58 children in married families, 58 in heterosexual cohabitating and 58 in homosexual unions, married couples offer the best environment for a child’s social and education environment, followed by cohabiting couples and finally by homosexual couples. (1.)
In a study published in 2007 of 36 adults raised by LGB parents 15 of them (42%) described challenges relating to their ability to trust other people.(2.)
In a study of 68 women with gay or bisexual fathers and 68 women with heterosexual fathers, there was a statistically significant difference between the two groups. The women (average age of 29 in both groups) with gay or bisexual fathers had difficulty with adult attachment issues in three areas: 1) They were less comfortable with closeness and intimacy, 2) less able to trust and depend on others, and 3) experienced more anxiety in relationships compared to the women raised by heterosexual fathers (and mothers).(3.)
In a study published in the Journal of Marriage and Family found that “children in same-sex parent families scored lower than their peers in married, 2-biological parent households” on two academic outcomes, and that these differences can be attributed to higher levels of family instability in same-sex families, compared to intact, biological married families. This study was also based on a large, nationally representative, and random survey of school-age children; moreover, the same-sex parents in this study lived together.(4.)
1. Sarantakos, S. (1996) Children in three contexts. Children Australia, 21(3), 23-31.
2. Goldberg, A.E. (2007) (How) Does it make a difference?: Perspectives of adults with lesbian, gay, and bisexual parents. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 77: 550-562.
3. Sirota, T, (2009) Adult Attachment Style Dimensions in women with Gay or Bisexual Fathers. Arch. Psych Nursing, 23: 289-297.
4. Potter, D. 2012. “Same-Sex Parent Families and Children’s Academic Achievement.” Journal of Marriage and Family 74: 556-571
July 24th, 2012 | 10:41 pm
“I am quite certain, however, that he did not anticipate anywhere near the level of vitriol and character assassination that his been aimed his way.”
Very little has been said, that I’ve seen, about Mark Regnerus. It is his impossible conclusions that have been blasted, as they should be. If this “study” is typical of a Regnerus study, then he may be the worst academic researcher this side of the Mississippi. All his other work is called into question. If it’s just that he needed to make the statement his funders wanted him to make, then he’s just a shill with a political agenda, not that uncommon in academia. Maybe he’s both. But the “vitriol” is being leveled at his bizarre conclusions, unsupported by a dataset. That’s a big problem in academic research. It will be interesting to see what the future holds for him now.
July 24th, 2012 | 10:46 pm
“The most amusing thing about the attacks of this study is that the much less rigerous and spurious studies supporting gay parenting to date are all riddled with serious flaws in their methodology and science as well as their conclusions.”
Actually, they’re not, because they actually include gay parents, something Regnerus doesn’t know about the possibly gay but more likely bisexual parents he chose. A person who marries a different-sex person, but has a one-time same-sex fling is unlikely to be gay, but rather bisexual. Regnerus doesn’t seem to care. He’s so homophobic that all he can see is the same-sex encounter. And of course this fatal flaw is only one of many in his “study.” Since when do children know their parents’ sexual orientation, especially if those parents are bi?
July 24th, 2012 | 10:50 pm
“None of these supposed flaws are unusual in social scientific research, and indeed this study is considered more rigorous and non-biased in design than most smaller & less rigrous studies purported to support same-sex parenting.”
1. They aren’t “supposed” flaws, but actual flaws. Few people, even Regnerus supporters, deny them.
2. Previous studies actually studied gay parents, unlike the Regnerus study, which studied bisexual parents, but calls them gay, for some reason.
3. When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging. Regnerus goofed, big time, unless his goal is to be the go-to guy for anti-gay funders and issuer of opinion pieces disguised as academic research. To keep embarrassing him by keeping this story alive is not helpful to him.
July 25th, 2012 | 2:25 am
I suppose the writer of this article wouldn’t perceive a study sponsored by the KKK, seeking to compare free law-abiding white citizens to incarcerated law-transgressing black citizens*, as essentially flawed and racist ?
*anything which is not snow-white.
July 25th, 2012 | 4:32 am
Blakes comments above provide a telling insight into the mind of the same-sex “marriage” & parenting enthusiaist.
“impossible conclusions” (how telling)
“he may be the worst academic researcher this side of the Mississippi”
“he needed to make the statement his funders wanted him to make, then he’s just a shill with a political agenda”
“bizarre conclusions, unsupported by a dataset”
“He’s so homophobic”
“fatal flaw is only one of many in his “study.””
(note the quotation marks around the word study)
Supporters of same=sex “marriage” imagine they can use this level of vitriol as a substitute for sound science of their own… That if they throw enough mud some of it will stick… and that bullying empirical, peer reviewed, scientific research can somehow lessen the effects of gay parenting on those vulnerable children who are the victims of premeditated fatherlessness or motherlessness.
Against this laughable onslaught of invective over argument stand journal pieces like that in The Chronicle of Higher Education by Notre Dame sociologist Christian Smith.
This piece by Andrew Ferguson encapsulates further this obvious witch hunt mentality on the left.
“Regnerus’s study has unique strengths, even beyond the size and randomness of its sample, that his critics ignore altogether. His commendable attempt to include a diversity of views among his advisers is rare within the guild, where the leftism is unrelieved. So too were his willingness to immediately publish his research materials online and his pledge to make all his data digitally available this fall. Rather than a study of monochromatic and well-to-do lesbians or gay men, he managed to capture the full ethnic, socioeconomic, and geographic range of gay America. And his study is one of the first to systematically measure outcomes from the children themselves, rather than simply through the reports of their parents.”
And this quote that reinforces my point above about how this research is just as/more sound than what is trumpheted by the left
. “If the Regnerus study is to be thrown out,” wrote the Canadian family economist Douglas Allen in a statement supporting Regnerus, “then practically everything else [in the literature] has to go with it.”
July 25th, 2012 | 8:17 am
Fitzgerald –
“Impossible” in the sense that it’s impossible to come to the purported conclusion based on the data presented.
The study asked the question: From when you were born until age 18 (or until you left home to be on your own), did either of your parents ever have a romantic relationship with someone of the same sex?
As linked to above:
July 25th, 2012 | 9:17 am
This piece by Andrew Ferguson encapsulates further this obvious witch hunt mentality on the left. . . . And this quote that reinforces my point above about how this research is just as/more sound than what is trumpheted by the left.
Fitzgerald,
Charles Camosy has a great piece over at Catholic Moral Theology titled Resisting the New Polarization. I won’t reproduce it here, but I hope everyone will read it. I am going to attempt to make it my guide from now on in discussing issue in forums like this. I will quote on of his points that I think is particularly pertinent to discussions:
July 25th, 2012 | 11:16 am
Fitzgibbons,
“The other studies that have demonstrated psychological damage to children who are deliberately deprived of their right to a father and and a mother”
Your language is imprecise and inaccurate, and your conclusions are incoherent. The gay couple who adopted didn’t “deliberately” deprive children of their biological parents. The fault for that lies elsewhere.
If you mean that the adoptive couple deliberately robbed the children of any mother or father (as the case may be), then please explain why you don’t make illegal adoption by single parents and why you wouldn’t push the widowed into remarriages.
July 25th, 2012 | 2:03 pm
Fitzgibbons,
“these differences can be attributed to higher levels of family instability in same-sex families, compared to intact, biological married families.”
What happens when the stability of the family is controlled for?
July 25th, 2012 | 2:52 pm
Michael (writes)
“If you mean that the adoptive couple deliberately robbed the children of any mother or father (as the case may be), then please explain why you don’t make illegal adoption by single parents and why you wouldn’t push the widowed into remarriages.”
One simply does not follow from the other. One could just as easily say “why dont you jail people who have children outside of wedlock?”
Marriage supporters need not support draconian and absolutist public policies for childbearing/rearing in an effort to “prove” there conviction that intact married childrearing by natural families is a ligitimante policy goal.
Marriage laws as traditionally defined and enforced by goverment are the least intrusive of policy approaches.
What they seek to do is simply
#1. Identify the family form that is superior in terms of the common good (the intact married natural family)
#2. Priviliage that norm legally and offer it alone a package of rights/duities to both encourage & protect those who choose to enter its norm.
The law in excercise & application is about line drawing. Someone will always be able to find a percieved weaknessess in the drawing of those lines.
What is important is not that that line not have any percieved weakness, but rather that it is a defensible line that does the greatest good for the greatest number of people.
Marriage laws as traditionally defined & applied do this. Given that most people are heterosexual & only opposite sex couples are capable of producing children together (& do)…. The percieved weaknessess of certain applications of those laws do nothing to undermine the veracity of the laws as applied.
July 25th, 2012 | 3:21 pm
One simply does not follow from the other.
Fitzgerald,
It seems to me it would make perfect sense, if one believes children have a right to a mother and a father, to prohibit adoption by single parents. If I remember correctly what Michael PS said, single-parent adoption in France is extraordinarily rare. Also, it would make perfect sense to limit certain reproductive technologies, such as in vitro fertilization, to married women. I am not sure it would be a bad idea. Remember “Octomon,” who had 14 children (including octuplets) through in vitro fertilization? Does anybody think that is a good idea?
Other policies might be intrusive, but certainly limiting adoptions and conception by artificial medical technologies to married couples would not be intrusive at all.
It seems to me very much the case that those who argue here that every child has a “right” to a mother and a father turn around and make exceptions for every imaginable case except same-sex couples. That is not a belief that every child is entitled to a mother and a father. It is simply a belief that same-sex couples should not raise children.
July 25th, 2012 | 3:50 pm
Michael, you are creating fantasy situations and I ask you to please refrain from that. Pushing the widowed into remarriage??
The mathematics of same-sex “marriage,” when children are involved, is precise and universally consistent: in 100% of the cases of same-sex “marriage,” when children are part of the equation, there will never be one mother and one father in a stable relationship for that child. The mathematics will never differ from this conclusion.
Please do not waste our time by now telling us about the exceptions to the rule of marriage being between one man and one woman, in a stable relationship, for the purpose of creating and raising children. We have all heard before about the exceptions such as the childless couple or the parent that passes on. Michael, these are exceptions and not the essence of what marriage is. Part of what the essence of same-sex “marriage” is this: in 100% of the cases a child would not have a mother and a father. That is part of the essence of this new attempt to re-define marriage so that it no longer is what it is. And fantasy analogies with traditional marriage will not change the essence of it.
July 25th, 2012 | 4:25 pm
David Nickol (writes)
“That is not a belief that every child is entitled to a mother and a father. It is simply a belief that same-sex couples should not raise children.”
Again, not in the least. This goes back to the generosity of spirit – and authentic understanding of your opponents worldveiw.
You have advesaries both secular & religious who have spent enormous energy and are well on record as being against… (amoung ather things) ..divorce in general and no-fault divorce inparticular, illiegitamacy, pornorgraphy, fornication, Fahterless-ness, IVF, Single mother/father-by-choice movements, and artificial birth control.
If you could come to a genuine understanding of the worldview of your advesaries you would realize how these seemingly disparate set of positions represent a comprehensive understanding of human sexuality and are generated by the realization that a healthy marriage culture requires the standard of married intact childbearing/rearing as its loadstone.
It strain’s reason to believe that the entirity of the western sexual ethic (and every other civilizations as well) is not designed with intact married natural family formation & preservation as it intended goal.
The breadth and depth of marriage norms and laws are not a age old conspiracy designed to deny same-sex families legitamacy…on the contrary they are desinged to promote intact married natural families.
Nor are they (as some would have them characterized) a reasonless muddle that arbitrarily excludes same-sex couples and parenting out of animus.
Developing and demonstrating cognition of the eco-system of male female sexual relations & the way pro-marriage enthusiaists understand it as a comprhensive whole will be neccesary if opponets are ever going to be able to grasp how certain laws, and the lack of other laws represent a fair minded application of these principles rather than arbitrary exclusion.
July 25th, 2012 | 4:43 pm
Part of what the essence of same-sex “marriage” is this: in 100% of the cases a child would not have a mother and a father. That is part of the essence of this new attempt to re-define marriage so that it no longer is what it is.
Dr. Rick Fitzgibbons,
As I said above, insistence that same-sex marriage should not be allowed because children have a right to a mother and a father seems very strange when same-sex marriage opponents who claim that make exceptions for every other situation in which a child will not have both a mother and a father.
Also, it should be noted that not all same-sex couples who marry intend to have children. The one male couple I know who are legally married are in their 60s, and the lesbian couple are in their 50s. At this stage, neither intends to have children. Why should they not have been allowed to get married?
Of children adopted by single parents, 100% will be missing either a mother or a father. Why do you not oppose adoption by single parents? You have given little if any evidence you actually believe every child has a right to a mother and a father. Why should we accept this as your reason for opposing same-sex marriage when there is virtually no other situation in which you claim a child has a right to a mother and father and are actually willing to do something to guarantee that right?
July 25th, 2012 | 5:01 pm
David Nickol
“It seems to me it would make perfect sense, if one believes children have a right to a mother and a father, to prohibit adoption by single parents. If I remember correctly what Michael PS said, single-parent adoption in France is extraordinarily rare.”
Its rarity is one reason that banning it not neccesary. We would not ban single person adoption simply in a effort to remain exactingly consistant in the face of same-sex couples demands that this is somehow required to jusitify traditional marriage laws.
However, single person adoption should not be banned for a singular reason. That is the death of the parents.
Also, it would make perfect sense to limit certain reproductive technologies, such as in vitro fertilization, to married women. I am not sure it would be a bad idea. Remember “Octomon,” who had 14 children (including octuplets) through in vitro fertilization? Does anybody think that is a good idea?”
July 25th, 2012 | 5:10 pm
David Nickol
“It seems to me it would make perfect sense, if one believes children have a right to a mother and a father, to prohibit adoption by single parents. If I remember correctly what Michael PS said, single-parent adoption in France is extraordinarily rare.”
Its rarity is one reason that banning it not neccesary. We would not ban single person adoption simply in a effort to remain exactingly consistant in the face of same-sex couples demands that this is somehow required to jusitify traditional marriage laws.
However, single person adoption should not be banned for a singular reason. That is the death of the parents. Upon such a death it is customary to leave legal custody of the child to the closest realitive or a individual/couple of the parents designation.
In such an event single parent adoption becomes neccesary for legal custodial rights to attach.
Interstingly enough I find blanket prohibitions against gay adoption (Arkansas, Florida) to be an intrusion into a parents right to designate a guardian upon death. That guardian need have legal custodial rights over the child. Single parent adoption provides these rights and these laws infrindge upon their reasonable application.
In this way..laws against “gay” adoption infringe not on the rights of the gay person…but on the rights of the parent and the child to reasonably and effectivley give legal custody to a choosen (usually) realative.
“Also, it would make perfect sense to limit certain reproductive technologies, such as in vitro fertilization, to married women. I am not sure it would be a bad idea. Remember “Octomon,” who had 14 children (including octuplets) through in vitro fertilization? Does anybody think that is a good idea?”
Yes..I do.. Indeed multiple European countires have laws to this effect (Italy & Poland)..
However, even countires like England had a policy around IVF that tried to discourage single motherhood by choice by simply telling woman who used such technologies about the importance of Fathers.
Such laws were succesfully attacked by the left as being part of the “homophobic standards” that viewed both sexes as vital to proper childrearing.
July 25th, 2012 | 5:37 pm
The other studies that have demonstrated psychological damage to children who are deliberately deprived of their right to a father and and a mother include:
Didn’t you know? Only studies that come to the right conclusion “count”.
Never mind that the studies that come to the right conclusion are openly skewed (and in at least two cases conducted by openly activist political partisans).
The only “fair” study is to compare “good” gay families against intact hetero families – that is, to compare stable, committed partnerships, that have various desirable traits.
And the only way to get those “good” gay families (since the overwhelming majority of gay families do not match this criteria) is to cherry-pick a tiny minority of people selected from Gay Pride type activities.
That recruiting from gay partisan political activities also gets people who are highly motivated to “push” for the correct answers is a bonus.
It’s also purely coincidence that affluent white people are overrepresented – even though they are statistically the least likely to have kids, of the entire gay population.
If you have an actual representation of the real gay population, as you get from random sampling, it makes gays look bad, and that means it’s “not fair”.
Also, if you ask the wrong questions (like whether children do better when they are allowed to have both a mother and a father), that makes gays look bad too, so it’s “not fair”.
Asking a “not fair” question is something only a right wing hatejob would do, so therefore any study that asks a “not fair” question may safely be dismissed as partisan.
Do you get the logic yet? It’s sort of like Gilbert & Sullivan – all Englishmen do their duty and love their queen; all gays are better parents than anyone else. Everything else works the same way – ask any question, create any logical construct you like – just so long as you do not violate the “givens”.
July 25th, 2012 | 5:52 pm
Such laws were succesfully attacked by the left as being part of the “homophobic standards” that viewed both sexes as vital to proper childrearing.
Ultimately, the gay rights crowd is afraid of any conversation that openly addresses the question of whether “gay rights” and “the child’s best interest” are in conflict.
Their entire position relies on the assumption that gay rights “trumps” the child’s interests.
If the conflict were recognized openly, it would be obvious that we are already making major policy decisions that prioritize the rights of gays as being prior to and more important than the child’s best interest.
In other words, we are already sacrificing the well-being of children (the same children whom we stand as guardians to, and thus have direct responsibility for) in the name of “political correctness”.
Honesty, not bigotry, is the real enemy of the current gay rights’ agenda. They have lumped together what is rightfully theirs with what is not rightfully theirs, and are hoping to bully people into not noticing.
July 25th, 2012 | 6:17 pm
Its rarity is one reason that banning it not neccesary.
Fitzgerald,
A third of children adopted from foster care in the United States go to single parents. I would not call that rare at all. And the numbers are increasing.
July 25th, 2012 | 6:29 pm
I want to share the wisdom of Pope Benedict on same sex adoptions from 2003.
“…the absence of complimentarity in these (same sex) unions creates obstacles in the normal development of children who would be placed in the care of such persons. They would be deprived of the experience of either fatherhood or motherhood. Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children in the sense that the condition of dependency would be used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development.”
Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, (2003). Considerations Regarding Proposals To Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons, n.7. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html
July 25th, 2012 | 6:47 pm
AM,
Why don’t Pope Benedict’s words apply to single-parent adoptions? I can see (although I reject) the argument that a same-sex couple is “disordered,” and children should not be raise by the disordered. But probably most children are at some point deprived of motherhood or fatherhood, considering the out-of-wedlock birth rate and the divorce rate.
If people really believe in the idea of a mother and father for every child, let’s see some action on fronts in addition to trying to stop same-sex marriage. I am sure that if Pope Benedict had his way, there would be a lot of changes in American society, so his concern about every child is not just empty talk. But for those who can only seem to find one application of the principle, it is gum flapping.
July 25th, 2012 | 7:43 pm
David, all of the exceptions that you raise do not alter the essence of what marriage is. Only—only—this call for same-sex “marriage” actually alters what marriage is. This is why your proposal is dangerous–because it confuses non-marriage arrangements and technologies with marriage itself. You do not seem to see this. Now that you do, at least I hope you do, are you willing to quit this fight to destroy the essence of marriage? And one more thing, when I use the word “only” I do not mean that other kinds of proposals could not destroy the essence of marriage. The other proposals just have not been proposed yet, such as polyamory and man-boy “love.” These, too, would leave a child without one mother and one father, but there is not a call (yet) for these to be part of what marriage is. Talk about reducing a concept to the absurd. If all of this becomes legal it will have reduced the meaning of marriage to the absurd.
We have been over and over and over all of this on other blogs and sites. The ESSENCE of marriage is this (and has been since America was founded and long before that): a social structure in which one man and one woman, through mutual love and support, create and raise children in a stable situation. Everything you mention is an exception to this—-everything. And none of them mentioned except for same-sex “marriage” alters the ESSENCE of what marriage is. The concept of same-sex “marriage” actually and literally changes the ESSENCE of what marriage is. When this happens, one outcome is that in 100% of the cases, children absolutely will not have—AS AN ESSENCE of what same-sex “marriage” is—one mother and one father. Your proposal, perhaps you are now seeing, is dangerous. Will you now give up this misguided quest to destroy the essence of marriage?
July 25th, 2012 | 7:45 pm
Oops, that was my comment.
July 25th, 2012 | 7:52 pm
I would like to share further Papal wisdom on the attempts to redefine marriage and to harm children by deliberately depriving them of a mother or a father.
“I am thinking of the strong pressure from the European Parliament to recognize homosexual unions as an alternative type of family, with the right to adopt children. It is legitimate, and even necessary, to ask whether this is not the work of another ideology of evil, more subtle and hidden, perhaps, intent upon exploiting human rights themselves against man and against the family.”
John Paul II (2005) Memory and Identity, p.11. Rizzoli Publishers, New York, NY.
July 25th, 2012 | 8:07 pm
David, all of the exceptions that you raise do not alter the essence of what marriage is. Only—only—this call for same-sex “marriage” actually alters what marriage is. This is why your proposal is dangerous–because it confuses non-marriage arrangements and technologies with marriage itself. You do not seem to see this. Now that you do, at least I hope you do, are you willing to quit this fight to destroy the essence of marriage? And one more thing, when I use the word “only” I do not mean that other kinds of proposals could not destroy the essence of marriage. The other proposals just have not been proposed yet, such as polyamory and man-boy “love.” These, too, would leave a child without one mother and one father, but there is not a call (yet) for these to be part of what marriage is. Talk about reducing a concept to the absurd. If all of this becomes legal it will have reduced the meaning of marriage to the absurd.
July 25th, 2012 | 9:08 pm
Fitzgerald,
“One simply does not follow from the other. Marriage supporters need not support draconian and absolutist public policies for childbearing/rearing in an effort to “prove” there conviction that intact married childrearing by natural families is a ligitimante policy goal”
I’m trying to understand why Fitzgibbons supports an inconsistent policy. I understand that he prefers adoption by married heterosexuals and that he would make illegal adoption by married gay couples. What I don’t understand is why he supports adoption by single people.
If he wanted to be consistent, he would allow adoption only by married heterosexuals and make illegal both adoption by gay couples and adoption by single people.
July 25th, 2012 | 9:13 pm
There’s been a few allegations raised in this and other threads that commenters like David Nickol are ungenerously misrepresenting or misstating others’ viewpoints or worldviews by, for example, asking about the relative acceptability of single-parent adoptions or couples who marry without the possibility or intent to produce/raise children.
But–speaking as someone who mainly just lurks here–it is not self-evident that Mr. Nickol’s questions are irrelevant or immaterial. Beneath a general consensus that legalized same-sex marriage and adoptions by same-sex couples are to be resisted, there are a number of tensions. There’s less a singular worldview and more a set of overlapping but not quite identical value sets. Different people on the same “side” respond differently and voice different rationales. I (and perhaps others) are curious to feel out those areas of overlap or tension.
If, as Blake suggests, the welfare of children (i.e., welfare=being raised by natural father and mother) is paramount in this debate, then it seems apposite to note that present-day, state-recognized marriage is not a mechanism constructed purely or even primarily to ensure the welfare of children. The question of single-parent adoptions (better or worse than adoptions by gay/lesbian couples? why?) likewise seems relevant to this conversation. In other words, the debate in this sense seems to concern the value or harm of same-sex couples’ parenting more than legal questions of same-sex unions.
If, as Dr. r. suggests, the main issue is same-sex marriage’s departure from a standard/essential/natural social model (heterosexual monogamy with children), then surely it’s not inappropriate to ask how and why so many actually existing legal marriages eschew this model and yet are not considered problematic. The question here is less about parenting per se than about which familial models a state ought to recognize and privilege. Asking about the relative morality of, e.g., non-procreative marriages or remarriages after divorce thus seems appropriate.
I gather, of course, that for many here (not everyone, but at least some) the two issues–parenting and marriage–are nearly identical. To consider same-sex couples’ participation in one is necessarily to consider the other. But if this is the argument, then asking how proponents of that view engage with exceptional cases like single-parent adoption or non-procreative marriage is not (or at least not necessarily) ungenerous.
I would suggest, in sum, that at least some of Mr. Nickol’s questions aim at parsing out these internal differences. At least, that’s the value I’m gleaning from this conversation. I appreciate various interlocutors’ patience in elaborating rationales that must seem obvious to you, just as I appreciate Mr. Nickol’s consistent questions about those rationales. It makes for one of the more rewarding comment sections I’ve found.
July 25th, 2012 | 9:26 pm
Fitzgibbons,
“Michael, you are creating fantasy situations and I ask you to please refrain from that. Pushing the widowed into remarriage?”
I wish you would dial back the hostility. I’m asking a serious question, and I’d love to hear a serious answer.
You have explained that it is wrong for a child to be raised without a mother and a father, and I’m trying to understand just how wrong it is. It doesn’t appear so very wrong that you would push the widowed into remarriage. It doesn’t appear so very wrong that you would make adoption by singles illegal. It only seems to be wrong when gay couples are involved. And so I’m asking why gay couples are so much worse than the widowed or singles.
Your answer here is that the widowed and singles are an exception, but lots of parents die and lots of singles adopt. I know that many widowed parents rush into remarriage, especially when they are men with young children, but attitudes are changing, and I think most people urge caution on the widowed. Many people seem to feel that having both a mother and a father is less important than ensuring that the marriage is without regrets. Do you think these people are wrong to urge caution? What do you think is more important—a mother or father for a child, or a marriage without regrets?
July 25th, 2012 | 9:32 pm
Fitzgibbons,
“What do you think is more important—a mother or father for a child, or a marriage without regrets?”
I hate to quote myself, but I realized as I wrote this that even our language rebels against the reductive definition of marriage that you and Robert George and others are promoting.
When we say things like a “marriage without regrets,” as I did above, what we mean by marriage is the relationship between the adults. Marriage exists first to unite adults, and then children are the next concern, just as Genesis says.
July 25th, 2012 | 9:45 pm
Fitzgibbons,
“The mathematics of same-sex “marriage,” when children are involved, is precise and universally consistent: in 100% of the cases of same-sex “marriage,” when children are part of the equation, there will never be one mother and one father in a stable relationship for that child.”
I don’t dispute this point. I dispute what you make of it.
You’ve admitted that gay couples are not to blame for the deprivation when they adopt a child. They had nothing to do with the biological parents breaking up.
Why are you willing to let singles adopt and not gay couples? In both cases, the child will not have both a mother and a father, but you are willing to accept one and not the other. Why are you willing to hold such an inconsistent opinion?
July 25th, 2012 | 9:55 pm
Blake,
“Ultimately, the gay rights crowd is afraid of any conversation that openly addresses the question of whether “gay rights” and “the child’s best interest” are in conflict”
Actually, several of us in the “gay rights crowd” here on this thread have “openly addressed” this question. Finding people in the “anti-gay rights crowd” to answer direct questions without accusations of bad faith is proving harder.
July 25th, 2012 | 9:58 pm
AM,
“Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children in the sense that the condition of dependency would be used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development”
And yet in my congregation there are several gay families who have produced children who are psychologically healthy and well loved.
I think the cardinal needed to do more pastoral work before uttering such pronouncements.
July 25th, 2012 | 10:11 pm
Fitzgibbons,
“all of the exceptions that you raise do not alter the essence of what marriage is. Only—only—this call for same-sex “marriage” actually alters what marriage is. This is why your proposal is dangerous–because it confuses non-marriage arrangements and technologies with marriage itself.”
Your definition of marriage is reductive and unbiblical, and your understanding of gay marriage as a “proposal” misunderstands the pastoral nature of the change in the status of homosexuals.
Marriage, as Jesus reminds us, is best explained in Genesis as the reason men leave their families. They are seeking that other part of themselves, ending their loneliness (“it is not right that man should be alone”), and finding their “helpmeet.” Jesus and Genesis both define marriage without reference to children. Your attempt to place children in the center of marriage ignores the Bible and reduces marriage to only part of its function.
No one “proposed” gay marriage. It emerged as a recognition of something that was there in our midst and had been forever. It began when people started noticing that gays were separating from their families, forming couples, ending each other’s loneliness, and serving as each other’s helpers.
The pastoral response to this recognition is to continue to preach the core values of Christian sexual morality: such unions are between two people who must remain faithful to one another no matter what obstacles are placed in their path.
July 25th, 2012 | 10:15 pm
John Fletcher,
Thanks for that sane and well articulated summary of the discussion. It is a breath of fresh air.
July 26th, 2012 | 4:10 am
Micheal (writes)
“No one “proposed” gay marriage. It emerged as a recognition of something that was there in our midst and had been forever. It began when people started noticing that gays were separating from their families, forming couples, ending each other’s loneliness, and serving as each other’s helpers.”
This just so story pretends that same-sex “marriage” is/was some organic populist and democraticlly legitimante movment that arose out of popular appeal.
This flies in the face of reality..
Same-sex “marriage” was a wholly created judicial phenominia that the larger culture had no interest in. Far from being a creature of response to lived expierience and popular demand it has its origins in the feminist/gender philosophies of university academics and activists mired in oppresor/oppressed dialectics applied to gender.
Be it same-sex “marriage” or even civil unions the wider population and even the political class has shown no appetitie for it.
The needs of gay men & women for mutual support, friendship & caregiving simply do not rise to the level of requiring state endorsement or subsidy, much less a change in the definition of a fundemental social insititution as important as marriage.
Gay relationships strike most Americans of needing no more or less support than mutual caregiving relationships like platonic roomates, co-habitating siblings, children residing as caretakers with parents…and the like.
Your misreadings of scripture as well as your contortions and selective applications of Christian sexual ethics aside…..you have lapsed into a wholly contrived rational of recent history with no support in reality.
I think you should re-think this narrative you have constructed. Not only is it narrow and convienant, it denotes a worldview untethered by truth.
July 26th, 2012 | 7:50 am
David,
Although children are sometimes raised without a mother or a father in traditional marriage, this is always (when the separation is willed) seen as a failure by society. In the case of the same-sex advocates, same-sex “marriage,” were it approved, would be heralded as a success, not as a failure. Please think very deeply about this: The children without a mother or a father in same-sex “marriage” are now part of a “success” and not a failure, as is the case in traditional marriage. It seems that same-sex “marriage” is standing the term “success” on its head. Why would you wish to do that?
July 26th, 2012 | 8:09 am
This additional Papal wisdom should be helpful in understanding the essential struggle to protect marriage from being redefined.
“…if homosexuals unions are perceived more and more as enjoying the same standing as marriage, then we are truly facing a dissolution of the image of humankind, bearing consequences that can only be extremely grave.”
Pope Benedict XVI. Essay from Without Roots. Basic Books. First Things. January 2006.
July 26th, 2012 | 9:25 am
Michael, you were using the rhetorical technique of reductio ad absurdum when you suggested that the widowed be forced into remarriage. I was not letting you get away with it. This is not hostility. It is countering your attempt to reduce my thoughts to the absurd….and it did not work. Michael, you have a false assumption about the Bible that I would like to challenge. If the Bilbe does not mention something in a natural context, such as man and woman becoming one flesh, then you presume it was irrelevant to the writer. No mention of children in the “one flesh” narrative and you presume that children are not part of the marriage equation. Here is where the Bible connects perfectly with natural law: An obvious endpoint or purpose of marriage is children. Abraham and Sarah had a vital end point, right? What was it? The procreation of the Hebrew nation through the creation and nurturance of—-children. Look around at what marriage has produced since the historical record of the Hebrew Bible for more evidence here. Children as a vital endpoint of marriage is very obvious in the Biblical context and I am surprised that you missed that.
What is the endpoint of same-sex marriage,Michael? You said it yourself—love in relationship—period, end of story. That endpoint or purpose is the exact same for polygamy, polyamory, and man-boy “love.” Man-boy “love” is not a marriage, but instead is exploitation. Thus, love in relationship cannot ever be the one and only endpoint to marriage because it can lead to all kinds of social structures, including those that foster dangerous exploitation.
July 26th, 2012 | 9:28 am
Although children are sometimes raised without a mother or a father in traditional marriage, this is always (when the separation is willed) seen as a failure by society.
Dr. Rick Fitzgibbons,
If no-fault divorce was seen as a failure of society, why was it adopted by all 50 states in a matter of a few decades? When society makes it easier, rather than more difficult, to walk away from a marriage, easy divorce surely is seen as a good.
In the case of the same-sex advocates, same-sex “marriage,” were it approved, would be heralded as a success, not as a failure.
You speak of same-sex marriage as if its purpose were to enable same-sex couples to have children. But same-sex couples can easily have children without legal marriage. In the case of Catholic Charities in Illinois, the issue is not same-sex marriage, since Illinois does not have same-sex marriage. You are passionate in resistance to the “redefinition” of marriage, but is that the extent of it? As I see it, civil unions or domestic partnerships would avoid the “redefinition” of marriage. But I suspect you oppose them too. (Please correct me if I am wrong.) I suspect that you oppose any legal recognition of same-sex couples, whether it is called marriage or not. (Again, please correct me if I am wrong.)
As I have said before—and I am speaking only for myself, not Dan Savage or Michelangelo Signorile, I personally do not feel all that strongly about “marriage equality.” I do feel strongly that gay couples should have some kind of legal union to recognize and strengthen their relationships. And I feel that it is most likely better simply to open marriage to same-sex couples rather than create a new institution (like the French PACS) to try to accommodate same-sex couples. Show me a good alternative to marriage for same-sex couples, and I am more than willing to consider it. Of course, many supporters of same-sex marriage would disagree with me, but I do not pretend to be speaking for them.
July 26th, 2012 | 10:58 am
Abraham and Sarah had a vital end point, right? What was it? The procreation of the Hebrew nation through the creation and nurturance of—-children.
Dr. Rick Fitzgibbons,
Surely you don’t approve of a marriage between a man and his half sister, do you? Is an incestuous (and polygamous) marriage any way to begin a nation?
July 26th, 2012 | 11:56 am
Michael, it is not no-fault divorce that is at issue. When no-fault divorce comes into play it is because there was a failure in the marriage and in the raising of the children (if children are involved). So, it is the failure of a prior situation (marriage and raising children) that has led to the “success” (as you call it) of no-fault divorce. Whether no-fault divorce is a success or a failure has no bearing on the fact that it was established because of a prior failure.
Same-sex couples can adopt. Yes, but this is not in a context of marriage. Marriage is not being redefined by this societal move that is harmful to children. (see http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/same_sex_adoption_is_not_a_game)
The attempts to redefine of marriage is the tragedy. Why? I will repeat: because if the essence of marriage is changed, then marriage itself will be something very different than it is now and the healthy psychological development of children will be damaged.. I have covered this detail in a previous post here.
July 26th, 2012 | 1:42 pm
Fitzgerald,
The societal approval of homosexuality and of gay marriage grows with each passing year. The more people get to know gays and gay couples, the more that people understand and accept them. What I explained above is not a “just so story”; it’s how societies change. The very fact that you are having to argue for so called traditional marriage shows how weak your case is.
As for the biblical view of marriage, notice that Jesus said nothing about children. He (like Genesis) talks about the indissolubility of man and wife. It’s a stretch for me to apply these verses to gay marriage, but it’s a distortion of the Bible to claim that Jesus’s teaching about marriage defines its essence as procreation.
July 26th, 2012 | 1:52 pm
Fitzgibbons,
I’d like to see you be more precise in your language. You use words like essence, purpose, and endpoint as if they meant the same thing. The purpose of marriage is to create a new, separate family that ends loneliness and provides a helpmeet. Most of these new families produce children, but marriage doesn’t exist solely to create children.
July 26th, 2012 | 1:56 pm
Fitzgibbons,
In your last response, you say you support gay couples adopting. You just don’t want them to marry. Do I understand you correctly?
July 26th, 2012 | 2:29 pm
When no-fault divorce comes into play it is because there was a failure in the marriage and in the raising of the children (if children are involved).
Dr. Rick Fitzgibbons,
There’s pretty much of a consensus, particularly among religious conservatives, that the advent of no-fault divorce laws resulted in married couples being more likely to divorce, not that it just let them end a marriage that was on the rocks. (Whether this can actually be demonstrated empirically is another matter entirely.) Currently, though, the divorce rate dropping slightly. Obviously, for anyone who believes a child must be raised by both a mother and a father, divorce is a major concern.
I am always astonished by this statistic, and people are probably getting tired of hearing it from me: Of women with two or more children, 28% of those women conceived by two or more fathers. Of course, not just divorce, but out-of-wedlock births contribute to that.
Approximately a quarter of all children are living in single-parent homes, and approximately half of those single-parent homes are the result of divorce.
July 26th, 2012 | 4:31 pm
Micheal (writes)
“The societal approval of homosexuality and of gay marriage grows with each passing year.”
I dont know how you measure this.. Except for polls conducted under vague language and manipulative wording. You also (yourself) conflate acceptance of “homosexuality & gay marriage” into one. People are more sophisticated than this and can parse out total capitulation from general tolerance.
Micheal (writes)
“The more people get to know gays and gay couples, the more that people understand and accept them.”
This seems to be boilerplate on the left & their is no evidence for it. It accuses the reader & the population for having an aversion to gay “rights” or same-sex “marriage” based on not knowing gay people.
Its more than a little silly… The number of gay people and gay couples is static. They already know plenty of people and have plenty of friends and family. Unless their is a movment afoot for gay people to icrease there social circles I dont know how you see gay interaction as somehow a growing phenomina.
And then the causal link from this (knowing gay people) to capitualting to the aims of its political arm is tenious.
I would argue that the opposite is taking place. That society is growing weary of what they see as unreasonable demands & thugish tactics (like those used against Regnerus). That at a certain point support for the gay agenda will become like support for feminism…something most people and even most gay people will veiw as an enbarasment.
Micheal (writes)
“What I explained above is not a “just so story”; it’s how societies change.”
Its how they are attemting to change socieity. Rehtoricaly linking gay “rights” and redefining marriage on one side versus irrationally bigotry on the other is the hallmark of leftist opprosseor/oppresed political tactics.
My point is that this has “topped out” and cultures resilance will increasing reassert itself as well as the pull of the normative. The changes required to redifine marriage for example or stomp out “heteronormativity” are simply to great & will increassingly meet with an exasperated public who now find gay “rights” to be the radical and strident movment it truly is.
Micheal (writes)
“The very fact that you are having to argue for so called traditional marriage shows how weak your case is.”
Hardly – It shows nothing more than something that I mentioned above but that you convienantly ignored. But for the illiegal imposition of marriages redefinition by a handfull of State Supreme Courts we would not even be having this argument.
People have rejected civil unions even in liberal States like Vermont.
At no point before the spat of tenious Court Opinions forcing this on their populace was the gay “marriage” movement capable of acheving a single victory.
Indeed in states like California & Main were gay “marriage” was forced on those populations, the people were intent on overthrowing it.
Strong arm tactics of stridency and calling people bigots who disagree with your agenda are subject to diminishing returns.
Creating an all or nothing dicotomy that says…either you support “gay rights & redifining marriage” OR you have animus and irrational hatred of gay people; may sway results on public opinion polling, but they dont change the human heart.
Time after time, when people enter the privacy of the voting booth the show their principled stand for traditional marriage by much larger margins than pre-election surveys demonsotrate.
At this point the American people have enacted marriage protection amendments in 30+ States (many of them also preventing civil union like conterfits)
The cordinated onslaught of the movment to redefine marriage combined with the power of a likeminded media has now exhausted its gains amoung the larger population. That was their moment and its my belief that the future holds a steady diminishment of support for a agenda that is absolutist, inhuman, self-centered, and incapable of compromise.
July 26th, 2012 | 4:58 pm
Micheal (writes)
“The societal approval of homosexuality and of gay marriage grows with each passing year.”
I dont know how you measure this..
It is a narrative – that is, a rhetorical trick.
Specifically, it is a narrative of inevitability.
We all have narratives stuck in our head, and usually we believe them to be truth, to the point where we can’t separate them from truth, but it’s a cognitive error – it is the tendency to believe that history always means progress, therefore it is inevitable that history will vindicate my particular point of view.
There are a number of errors with it as a narrative. The first is that it isn’t the only narrative – I have my own narrative in my own head, so I’m biased in the other direction, but I tend to see “the more correct” narrative as “progress is mostly linear (after correction)”. This is a narrative that is mostly like the “progress is linear” narrative, except that it takes into account the many, many examples of moralizers and reformers (both left and right) whose viewpoints were not vindicated.
Another problem with the narrative is that it’s got a narrow focus. The narrative says, “gay rights is inevitable because truth always comes out, and gays have truth on their side”. But gays don’t have a monopoly on truth. Certainly they have certain truths on their side – they don’t choose to have gay impulses, and they’re stuck in a genuinely bad situation that really does need to be resolved one way or another. We have shifted from a society that views marriage in a utilitarian way to one that has ideals of “love” and perfect companionship, and that makes it impossible for a homosexual to resolve the situation comfortably; the situation won’t have closure til we come up with a solution for the gay person that is accepted as legitimate and right.
But gay rights activists have gotten drunk on entitlement – they demand more than they can justify, and they feel entitled to use dirty tricks out of sheer greed. Be very wary, because oftentimes the use of this myth of inevitability narrative is one of the dirty tricks that people use – with the goal being to persuade you that “resistance is futile”.
July 26th, 2012 | 5:21 pm
Micheal (writes)
“He (like Genesis) talks about the indissolubility of man and wife. It’s a stretch for me to apply these verses to gay marriage, but it’s a distortion of the Bible to claim that Jesus’s teaching about marriage defines its essence as procreation.”
The parseing of Chrisitanity you demosnstrate hear seems to pit the Bible against “what Jesus said” vs the Christian sexual ethic.
Luckily for myself and other Christians, be they Catholic or other denomintions…we are not fundementalists in terms of literall (and constrained) readings of either the Bible or “What Jesus said”.
Jesus spoke in the context of his time & his words are interpreted properly within that context. When the subject comes to human sexuality…we properly understand his words within the context of Jewish sexual ethics.
This is true of are reading of the Bible as a whole. Ours is a lived tradition that readily understands the context and meaning of Biblical passages through our traditions.
The procreative purpose of marriage & human sexuality is presupposed by Christians, & was presuposed by Jesus through the Jewish sexual ethics of his time.
(see also Dr. Fitzgibbons at 9:25 am)
David Nickol (writes)
“A third of children adopted from foster care in the United States go to single parents. I would not call that rare at all. And the numbers are increasing”
Could you point me to were you get this statisitic. You may be confusing single person adoption with adoption into a single person household. They are not the same.
July 26th, 2012 | 5:38 pm
Blake..(writes)
“It is a narrative – that is, a rhetorical trick. Specifically, it is a narrative of inevitability.”
I agree wholeheartidly…this is precisley the phenomina oprerating amoungst many of our advesaries.
As such its no mysterey that it mirrors exactly what is called “marxist determinism”.. The beleif in a “science of history” that showed world socialism to be a inevitable march.
I therefore dont find it unusuall that it is primarily those on the left who are bittin by this thinking..
You may also be interested in Karl Popper who showed this mental impulse in his “The Poverty of Historicism”
July 26th, 2012 | 9:36 pm
Fitzgerald,
Yes, some polls are vague, and yes, most states have voted down gay marriage, but it’s not over til it’s over. Europe has accepted gays and so has New York. More will come. There are enough good polls that it’s clear that young Americans, even young evangelicals, support gays.
One year has now passed since gays could openly serve in the military. Do you think they will one day be run out of the military again, or do you see this as a permanent change?
You make a distinction between tolerating gays and capitulating to gay marriage. I can’t think of a situation like this in which toleration didn’t lead to acceptance. When your friends have been a couple longer than you have and have raised kids older than yours, it’s hard to claim that they aren’t really married merely because they’re gay.
Although you’re right that the number of gays is static, more come out of the closet each year and that means more Americans are getting to know, understand, and accept them. My parents are in their nineties, and they knew and suspected some of their friends and acquaintances of being gay. I grew up Catholic, Republican, and Texan. It’s hard to say which was more conservative, but I knew gay kids in high school and could tell they were alright. My best friend from high school in fact has raised two daughters with a Presbyterian clergyman. They’ve been together 23 years.
I haven’t accused anyone or even implied that opposition to gay rights is bigoted or irrational, and I’d appreciate an apology. I think that there are good reasons to reject homosexuality and gay marriage, but I think those reasons are weaker than the truth. I certainly understand why some take a principled opposition to homosexuality, but I find many of the arguments on this thread to be illogical and incoherent.
July 26th, 2012 | 9:41 pm
Blake,
So what’s the solution?
In the meantime, I’ll point out that gross generalizations are also a dirty trick and that some anti-gay activists also think gay marriage is inevitable.
July 26th, 2012 | 10:04 pm
Fitzgerald,
There are two things you need to keep in mind when interpreting Genesis. The first is that most law and most societal concerns about marriage have centered on property, especially inheritance. Those concerns have to do with children. Neither Jesus nor Genesis, however, care about property or children; they care about the discovery of the missing piece of yourself. That piece is so important that you are willing to leave your own family and pitch your future with her.
As is typical, humans have not followed this command, but have distorted marriage to serve the ends of property. This is why the Hebrews accepted polygamy for a time, why various eras have accepted annulment on the grounds of non-consummation or childlessness. It’s why Protestants accept divorce today and Catholics dispense annulments like candy.
In marriage, we give power and loyalty to our spouses that only our families had before. This is the message of Jesus and Genesis. It is why we consider women who have married in their fifties to be truly married even though they are past childbearing. The union is the key feature of marriage.
July 26th, 2012 | 10:22 pm
Micheal (writes)
“I haven’t accused anyone or even implied that opposition to gay rights is bigoted or irrational, and I’d appreciate an apology.”
I dont need to apologize because I never said you accused others of this (I which case it would be I that would be asking for an apology)
My point is that those court opinions that have forced same-sex “marriage” onto an unwilling populace have done this as a matter of fact.
But for such irrational opinions concerning the basis of our marriage laws we would not be having this discussion & same-sex “marriage” would be a little discussed tangentile issue with little political traction.
This is all a matter of record.
Along comes the media and the cultural left and portrays the argument over same-sex “marriage” as mirroring this unfair charachterization.
It is this dycotomy that is in the minds of the populace when they answer poll questions and even vote.
Once one removes themselves from this threat and apporaches the issue froma public policy perspective the case for redifining marriage tends to fall apart.
Young people may register apporoval of homosexuality in polls and same-sex “marrriage” imparticular.
I find this to be the secular equivilant of cheap grace. These young people are veiwing the issue largley under the rubric of the oppresor/oppressed dialectic that I outlined above.
This is a far cry from genuine heartfelt belief muchless a reasoned and neuanced understanding of the complexity of the issues involved or the effects changing the definition of marriage will have on society.
Young people grow up, their opinions become more sophisticated and are subject to hard won experience.
Meanwhile those gay “rights” supporters continue to reveal themselves and their agenda as intollerant and radical in design and application.
“Everything thats old is new again; & everything that is new is already passing away”
I wish I could help you understand how this truism applies to the efforts to redefine marriage. How the very effects on those socieities that have adopted it are becoming more apparent, and how things like the Regnerus study will only find more emperical evidence in the future.
Most of the sexual revolutions chickens are coming home to roost. When no-fault divorce was being instiutionalized, incredelous proponents on the left answered critics by saying things like “How do two people getting a divorce effect your marriage?”
Expect to see the efforts to redifine marriage crumble with a genuine conciousness change in the population on issues of human sexuality in general, & a survey of the wrreakage of the sexual revolution inparticular.
July 27th, 2012 | 12:53 am
“Neither Jesus nor Genesis, however, care about property or children; they care about the discovery of the missing piece of yourself. That piece is so important that you are willing to leave your own family and pitch your future with her.”
As stated above, like most Christians I dont interpret scripture on my own..I am part of a tradition that consistantly understands Gods will for humanity and can root texts according to the meaning they had when they were written.
I find your reading to be highly selective, narrow and self-serving. I would be fascinated to know what school of theology takes this approach & what denomination holds it up for believers to follow.
Why did God create a woman in order for Adam to “be complete”. _ would not another man have sufficed for companionship?
What of the “one flesh union” & the commandment to “be fruitfull & mutiply & subdue the earth”?
What of the 10 commandments proscriptions to not covet wives, commit adultery, honor your Mother & Father….
The listt goes on… And the clear Jewish intellectual and moral tradition that Jesus was formed in seems to fall apart as well..
This seems to be a revisionist argument for scriptual passages designed to promote an androgenous conception of marriage.
It raises more questions than it can hope to answer… and flies in the face of the complementary role of the sexes and marriages procreative purpose.
I dare say the ancient Isrealites would never have survived 40 years in the desert much less inherited Isreal, or found their Messiah had they had this contemporary leftist narative as their guide.
July 27th, 2012 | 9:03 am
Michael, I think I have been precise in my meanings, but you have been imprecise in your understanding of the terms essence, purpose and endpoint. Please do not misunderstand me. This is not a criticism. It is only an observation. The essence of something tells us what it is. A children’s ball for play has an essence because of the substance of which it is made, it’s shape, and it’s intended purpose. A ball like this is made of a substance that allows it to be bounced. It is round. And the intent of making the ball is play. The ball has an endpoint or purpose, that of enjoyment, play, fun. So, essence (what a thing is) differs from its purpose or its function. If a person says that a square block of wood is a ball (what it is or it’s essence) this just will not do because a square block of wood cannot achieve the purpose for a child that a true ball can. To give a child a square block of wood and then to tell that child it is a ball and to create the expectation that the child should now play with it in a way that he or she does with a true ball is to invite confusion.
Now to our discussion. The essence of marriage (what it is) has always and without exception been this: man and woman in a loving relationship. The endpoint or purpose of marriage has always and without exception been this: mutual loving support of each other and—and—the creation and support of children. Just as a particular children’s play ball can have defects in structure, so too can any given marriage. These defects for particular play balls or marriages do not change the fact—the fact—of what the ball or the marriage are in their essence. If a particular man and woman choose not to have children, they are not availing themselves of the full purpose of marriage. The parent who puts the ball on a shelf and refuses to let the child play with the ball is not fulfilling for the child the full purpose of the ball. In either of these particular cases, the essence of marriage and the essence of the play ball are not altered by particular uses or purposes that are idiosyncrstic to these particular circumstances. The particular does not alter the universal essence of a thing.
You are asking society to change the essence of marriage, what it is at its core.
So what? This is probably your question.
As you change the essence of marriage, you invariably change its purpose because essence and purpose are closely connected. You must—must—take from the purpose of marriage this: the creation and support of children. Note carefully that you have done precisely that in your own words.
You then are left only with this for the purpose of marriage: mutual loving support of those entering into marriage.
How does the new purpose (it is new because part of the traditional purpose of marriage is deliberately eliminated) affect the essence of marriage (what it is at its core)?
Here is the punch line, so please read very carefully: it follows clearly and unambiguously that if the purpose of marriage is only mutual loving support, then the essence of marriage can and must include polygamy, polyandry, and man-boy “love.” Why? Because each of these social structures fits within the definition of your purpose for marriage with no contradictions whatsoever. By defining the purpose of marriage as you have, you have changed its essence and allowed for some very strange social social structures, such as man-boy “love,” of which you probably do not approve, but must then accept logically.
What if you then say that you will alter the essence and restrict the mutual love to only two people? You cannot do that logically. “Two” becomes what philosophers call an “accident” of a thing, something not necessary to the essence. It is like insisting that a ball always be red. Redness is an accident of the ball, not part of its essence because a blue or yellow ball still retains all of the essence of what a ball is. Similarly, 19 men and 5 women who come together willingly in mutual loving support completely fulfill your made-up essence and your made-up purpose of what a marriage is and its purpose.
You might then say this: Well, the idea of 2 must be arbitrary for heterosexual marriage, too. No, it is not. Recall a vital purpose of marriage: to create and nurture the children. Only two (one man and one woman) can create a child. Research shows that the child is nurtured best with the mother and the father. Two is part of the essence of true marriage.
I ask again, Michael. Will you please now give up this fight and join me in protecting marriage from man-boy “love” and protect children so that a stated purpose of marriage is the creation and protection of children with one mother and one father? Otherwise, and this is the logic of it, not my opinion only of it, you invite social chaos.
July 27th, 2012 | 9:46 am
Dr. Rick Fitzgibbons –
Does the current ‘essence’ of marriage admit of woman-boy “love”? How about man-girl “love”?
July 27th, 2012 | 10:50 am
Recall a vital purpose of marriage: to create and nurture the children. Only two (one man and one woman) can create a child.
Dr. Rick Fitzgibbons,
Regarding the essence, or vital purpose, of marriage, it seems that (as Roy Ingles has noted) it is not incompatible with a 13-year-old husband and a 40-year-old wife, or a 13-year-old wife and a 60-year-old husband. Also, there is no reason that I can see why a brother and sister couldn’t marry, or a widowed father (mother) couldn’t marry his (her) daughter (son). All these combinations can procreate and raised children.
An obvious endpoint or purpose of marriage is children. Abraham and Sarah had a vital end point, right? What was it? The procreation of the Hebrew nation through the creation and nurturance of—-children.
You brought up Abraham and Sarah previously, but you have not addressed the fact that Sarah was Abraham’s half sister, and that Sarah gave Abraham her handmaiden, Hagar, so that Abraham could conceive a son (Ishmael). We have, in the example you gave to bolster your case about “traditional marriage,” both incest and polygamy.
July 27th, 2012 | 3:14 pm
Fitzgerald,
When you responded to me, you connected my argument to “boiler plate” arguments from the left, which includes accusations of bigotry, irrationality, etc. I’d like you to respond to the arguments I’m making and not to those others might have made. It’s a matter of common curtesy.
July 27th, 2012 | 3:29 pm
Fitzgerald,
The sexual revolution brought some good and some bad. Among the good was women’s rights and gay rights. Among the bad was promiscuity, abortion, and divorce.
You and I agree on some of these issues and disagree on others, but the way you have approached our conversation is to place me on the “other side.” This tactic is common among culture warriors as was discussed on a recent thread. Frankly, I’m tired of all the accusations. I think it weakens the country and Christianity.
July 27th, 2012 | 3:49 pm
David Nickol (writes)
“Regarding the essence, or vital purpose, of marriage, it seems that (as Roy Ingles has noted) it is not incompatible with a 13-year-old husband and a 40-year-old wife, or a 13-year-old wife and a 60-year-old husband. Also, there is no reason that I can see why a brother and sister couldn’t marry, or a widowed father (mother) couldn’t marry his (her) daughter (son). All these combinations can procreate and raised children.”
Exactly – From a legal standpoint (Im an attorney myself) this is not evidence of unconsitutionality.
Over & under inclusivness is not a test of consititionality. Marriage is BOTH under & over inclusive. That is: it includes couples that cannot have children (the aged & infertile) while also excluding couples that can have children..(your examples above)
“Constitutionally protected fundamental rights need not be defined so broadly that they will inevitably be exercised by everyone. For example, although the ability to make personal decisions regarding child rearing and education has been recognized as a fundamental right (see, e.g., Pierce v. Society of the Sisters (1925) 268 U.S. 510, 534- 535), this right is irrelevant to people who do not have children. Yet, everyone who has children enjoys this fundamental right to control their upbringing. A similar analogy applies in the case of marriage. Everyone has a fundamental right to “marriage,” but, because of how this institution has been defined, this means only that everyone has a fundamental right to enter a public union with an opposite-sex partner. That such a right is irrelevant to a lesbian or gay person does not mean the definition of the fundamental right can be expanded by the judicial branch beyond its traditional moorings.” 1
1- In re Marriage Cases, Cal. App. 2006, McGuiness, P. J. (writing for the majority.)
July 27th, 2012 | 4:37 pm
Regarding the essence, or vital purpose, of marriage, it seems that (as Roy Ingles has noted) it is not incompatible with a 13-year-old husband and a 40-year-old wife, or a 13-year-old wife and a 60-year-old husband. Also, there is no reason that I can see why a brother and sister couldn’t marry, or a widowed father (mother) couldn’t marry his (her) daughter (son). All these combinations can procreate and raised children.
The state has the power to recognize which unions are entitled to state subsidies.
That’s why it is important to recognize the procreative nature of marriage.
Gays want to have it both ways – they want to make it a thought-crime to recognize marriage as having a procreative function, when we are discussing heterosexual marriage, because it is obvious that if marriage has a significant procreative function, then it isn’t discriminatory to note that the union between gays is different in kind from that between heterosexual couples (whether the heterosexual couple ends up choosing to make babies or not).
But gays also want to have it the other way, too; they want to be recognized as a procreative couple, because obviously if they aren’t, then they can’t be considered equal to heterosexual couples (since obviously it’s just bald-face lying to pretend to believe that marriage is not procreative in nature). So they do not accept that their union is inherently barren; they do not accept that they can or should marry one person but make babies with another. They need to have their partner recognized as the child’s other parent – and to that end no amount of child abuse, lying, taboo-making, crazymaking, dysfunction, bullying, hurt, viciousness, or attacking those who refuse to play along, is unreasonable. This is where greed and covetousness matters more than “equal rights” or “civil” anything.
July 27th, 2012 | 4:43 pm
they do not accept that they can or should marry one person but make babies with another.
By the way, I’m still waiting for someone to at least pretend to have a reasonable explanation for why, if marriage is “not procreative”, gays must have the right to force their children to play along with the “two mommies” myth.
If marriage and procreation aren’t linked, what’s wrong with simply marrying one person while making babies with someone else?
July 27th, 2012 | 4:48 pm
Micheal (writes)
“You and I agree on some of these issues and disagree on others, but the way you have approached our conversation is to place me on the “other side.” This tactic is common among culture warriors as was discussed on a recent thread. Frankly, I’m tired of all the accusations. I think it weakens the country and Christianity.”
It is not an accusation and I am confident that you hold a series of opinions that differentate your thoughts from the “other side” you seem to think Im lumping you in with.
My point is that this “other side” represents a comprehensive worldview and one that has (by far) the greatest gravitational pull in matters of public policy & public opinion.
Under this view – the “philosophy of Micheal” only aids the other side, it cannot & willnot become a distinctive camp of its own.
While I dont mean to lump you in with this camp, I am trying to demonstrate how your set of opinions are both predicated on certain gains of our advesaries as well as aiding those advesaries in further instalation of their worldview in public opinion & public policy.
In a recent book by Mary Eberstast called “Adam & Eve after the Pill” the author draws parralles between the sexual revolution and its defenders to the Cold War against the Soviet communists and there defenders.
In this war (If your old enough to recall) there were not just staunch defenders of communism (rare twoards the end) but also “parlor pinks”, “fellow travelers”, & multiple apologists of multiple stripes.
They even went so far as to commonley call themselves anti anti-communists. I am confident that all these individuals had their own understandings about what they believed.
It is fair however, in my estimation, to assert that these multiple camps did nothing but serve the overall interests of communists themselves and helped buttress the Soviet Unions aims and goals.
Micheal (writes)
“When you responded to me, you connected my argument to “boiler plate” arguments from the left, which includes accusations of bigotry, irrationality, etc. I’d like you to respond to the arguments I’m making and not to those others might have made. It’s a matter of common curtesy.”
I connected your arguments to boiler plate arguments on the other side because such arguments are boiler plate on the other side. I would refrence you to my response to Blake of July 26th, 2012 at 5:38 pm.
Marxist determinism & “historicism” are real phenomina that still influence the thoughts of individuals across the spectrum. Yours may not be so affected, but I cannot know what you think..but only what you say.
If what you say reminds me of such phenomina then it is incumbant on me to say so. This is itself a “matter of common curtesy”. Afterall, Im sure you would rather acheive disagreement with my actuall veiws then acheive agreement with someone I am not.
July 27th, 2012 | 5:55 pm
Fitzgerald,
My interpretation of scripture is more in line with tradition than the current move that makes procreation the purpose of marriage. I think you’re having trouble distinguishing between the two parts of my case. The first is biblical: that both Jesus and Genesis agree that the purpose of marriage is the union of man and wife, not procreation, which usually follows from the union. The second part of my case explains why we should now recognize that gay couples can satisfy God’s plan for union.
July 27th, 2012 | 8:46 pm
Micheal (writes)
“My interpretation of scripture is more in line with tradition than the current move that makes procreation the purpose of marriage.”
As I say above.. I am curious to know what this interpretation is and what tradition it claims to stem from as well as what denomination and or congregation subscribes to it.
Given the second part of your case it seems a “convinenat” reading…
Its also simply historically incorrect to maintain that the procreative purpose of marriage is “current move” on any Christian denominations part.
For example..the Catholic Church’s position of marriage as Both unifying the complementary natures of two the two sexes & being for the purpose of procreation are seen as a single bodily rational.
As a matter of historical fact this is well established Church doctrine. It is a sacrement that cannot and has not changed.
The novel interpretation that “union” alone is Gods plan seems to beg the question of mans duel sex nature and the scriptural refrences of that union as dual sexed exclusivley.
The questions I present in July 27th, 2012 |at 12:53 am remain unanswered and unanswerable under this interpretation. As well as a host of other questions that arise for Jesus’s and ancient Jewish proscriptions in human sexuality.
July 27th, 2012 | 9:25 pm
Blake,
The distortions and mischaracterizations of your 4:37 pm post just make me tired.
July 27th, 2012 | 9:27 pm
Blake,
Of course, marriage and procreation are linked. They are not linked in the way you want them to be, but they are linked.
July 27th, 2012 | 10:10 pm
Fitzgerald,
On the one hand, you deny “lumping” me in with radicals, and on the other hand, you say you are right to do so. You should decide exactly how you want to talk to others.
You make too much out of the overlap between some of the points I make and some of the points made by others who recognize the rights of gays. I assume you would cry foul if I pointed out that you use the same arguments against gays as Fred Phelps, Uganda, Hitler, and skinheads do.
Yes, I’ll old enough to remember the cold war. I’m also old enough to have met some of those whose lives were ruined by the cavalier attitude toward the truth that some cold warriors displayed. It’s an attitude I see here sometimes.
You say that “these multiple camps did nothing but serve the interests of the communists.” This is a gross simplification of history. To give but one dramatic example, Rosa Parks was trained in a labor camp run by people who were sympathetic toward communism. But that same training helped break segregation. You would have condemned this labor camp as doing “nothing but serve the interests of communists” when in fact it served the whole country.
July 27th, 2012 | 10:40 pm
Fitzgibbons,
Neither one of us are philosophers so we shouldn’t go down this road too far. I’ll just point out a couple of things: You use endpoint and purpose as synonyms, which is confusing and sloppy. You say that the essence of marriage is a loving relationship, but then you say that the purpose is mutual support. The two seem nearly synonymous to me.
Now to the heart of the matter. Everything that is commonly said about marriage is directed toward the kind of bonds a couple has, not about whether they have children.
When we say a couple isn’t really married, we are commenting on the quality of their relationship. So too with common law marriage. We say things like, they act married.
Procreation, on the other hand, makes you a father, not a husband. A baby-daddy isn’t married.
The word married covers everyone who has made a recognized public commitment to one another. That couple can be infertile or past child bearing, but they are covered by the one word.
Opponents of recognizing gay marriage are so eager to defeat what they find an abomination that they are willing to twist the word marriage into knots. I think people are quickly seeing through this. They are accepting gay marriage because they know marriage when they see it. When a couple lives next door for ten, twenty, or thirty years, you think of them as married.
July 28th, 2012 | 5:05 am
Micheal..
You accuse the good Doctor of twisting marriage..but is clearly the marriage revisionists like you who are doing so.
Marriage has a defintion in both law & custom. That definition at law is clear and imbeded in precedent.
So far the “movement” for changing the definition of marriage has only gotten traction by the most henious, results orienented, and trasparently wrong legal precedents I have had the disprivilage of reading. (They also call all arguments for marriage as defined irrational & based in bigotry)
My considerable rading on the subject may help you in your inability to grasp what Dr. Fitzgibbons is refering to..
Scholars in this area talk about,,,
The Conjucal Model of marriage….
VS
The pure relationship theory of marriage..
Advocates of same-sex “marriage” have to ignore, seperate and abandon the Conjucal Model.
Advocates of marriage however incorporate aspects of the Pure relationship theory in with the conjucal model.
There is no complelling state interest in privelaging a Pure Relationship Model. While such relationships may be nice, and even loving…their is nothing about them that requires state sanction.. (they are no more important to the state & society than freindships, caregiving adults and siblings or a host of common arrangments)
This is why you constantly need to downplay and ignore something as intrinsicilly linked to marriage as childbearing.
Even your reading of scripture seeks to pretend that it dosent see this intrinsic link, as does your reading of history when it comes to marriage and (one supposes) the law.
This creates a void, a proffesed and obstanant ignorance on your part where liberal comity would normally reign.
The fact that you know same-sex couples that expiereince long term relationships that demonstrate the type of love & caring many opposite sex couples strive for…in no way changes socities need for defining marriage traditionally in order to realize those goods that follow from the insitution for the couple, the children they sire, and for society at large.
P.S. – Interestingly enough I had the privelage of meeting Ms. Parks & represent one of the foundations she helped establish..
She was a good Christian woman who understood the importance of marriage to her community and society…
That labor camp is by my familys summer home.
July 28th, 2012 | 10:18 am
Blake –
I’m still waiting for you to establish that “gays… force their children to play along with the “two mommies” myth.” For, um, over a year. Up to now, all we have is your vigorous assertion that that’s the case.
July 28th, 2012 | 5:08 pm
Re- The intrinsic connection between marriage & childbearing.
As Bertrand Russell, a staunch atheist, put it,
“But for children, there would be no need of any institution concerned with sex. it is through children alone that sexual relations become of importance to society, and worthy to be taken cognizance of by a legal institution.”
It is this all important point that advocates of same-sex “marriage” have to sweep under the rug & sideline. Instead they must concentrate on “marriage” as purley about adult fullfillment, i.e.- the Pure Relationship Theory, that concentrates soley on adult want rather than childrens needs.
It is a direct violation of fundemental consitutional rights & international human rights.
It is also a direct violation of the rights of the child & parent. Each who have a right to know & be known by the parents who made them.
July 28th, 2012 | 5:41 pm
It is also a direct violation of the rights of the child & parent. Each who have a right to know & be known by the parents who made them.
Fitzgerald,
Same-sex marriage, in and of itself, does not produce children—something you would be the first to acknowledge. So I don’t see why you have any more objection same-sex marriage than you have to any other form of nonreproductive marriage. We have been over this again and again, but you provide no satisfactory answers. If marriage is all about children, why allow women past childbearing age to marry? Why allow married couples to adopt? What about the rights of the children to know their biological parents? Why allow unmarried women to conceive with artificial insemination or IVF? Actually, why allow anyone to conceive through artificial insemination using sperm from a sperm donor? The child will never know his father.
July 30th, 2012 | 4:33 pm
“We have been over this again and again, but you provide no satisfactory answers. If marriage is all about children, why allow women past childbearing age to marry? Why allow married couples to adopt? What about the rights of the children to know their biological parents? Why allow unmarried women to conceive with artificial insemination or IVF? Actually, why allow anyone to conceive through artificial insemination using sperm from a sperm donor? The child will never know his father.”
Your being absolutist when you use the phrase
“If marriage is all about children” & the incredulous because society has not in past and does not now punitivley restrict marriage to only those who can/do bear children.
The law is about line drawing. Restricting marriage to the only coupling of adults (male/female) capable of producing children is a solid a defensible line.
Men and women are members of a class that can produce children. While any member of that class may not or cannot produce a child, they remain members of a class that can produce children. Same sex pairings can never produce children. They are members of a class that always and everywhere are incapable of producing children.
Therefore same sex “marriage” necessarily severs marriage from procreation. It both androgynizes the institution and separates it from any necessary link to childbearing.
Only the sexual relationships of men and women together produce children. Therefore, only the sexual relationships of men and women together require governmental regulation because of (1) their capacity together to create social disorder , and (2) that reproduction is a fact and does have important and inevitable consequences on society both good and bad if it is not regulated. Thus, it inevitably must implicate the political and public aspect insofar as the production of future citizens is not only vital to the survival of a nation, but that the regulation of this production is just as vital.
July 30th, 2012 | 6:57 pm
Fitzgerald,
“There is no complelling state interest in privelaging a Pure Relationship Model.”
My first interest is in the compelling pastoral interest in pursuing gay marriage, but yes, we can talk about state interest. Let’s remember that law (like philosophy and theology) usually follows practice and justifies it, not the other way around. It’s because society is starting to recognize the existence of gays and of gay couples that anyone is even talking about changing the law so that it catches up with what’s going on here on the ground where people actually live.
Gay couples are asking for new law because they are not seen as the next of kin for each other, because they are denied hospital visitation rights, because they are denied housing and services, etc. Whenever I say that I am the husband, doors are opened for me. Those same doors frequently remain closed for gay couples, often despite whatever legal documents have been signed.
“This creates a void, a proffesed and obstanant ignorance on your part where liberal comity would normally reign”
Speaking of comity, I’d appreciate it if you addressed me a little more kindly and with fewer insults.
July 30th, 2012 | 7:25 pm
Fitzgerald,
“Interestingly enough I had the privelage of meeting Ms. Parks & represent one of the foundations she helped establish..She was a good Christian woman who understood the importance of marriage to her community and society…”
Your affection toward Rosa Parks serves my point. She’s an icon now, but in the fifties, conservatives attacked her as part of communist vanguard, and had they known more about the people she “palled around” with, they would have made an even bigger stink.
I think it’s important to talk to people in all their specificity rather than lump them into camps—my side and your side, good guys and bad guys.
July 30th, 2012 | 8:12 pm
Fitzgerald,
“It is also a direct violation of the rights of the child & parent. Each who have a right to know & be known by the parents who made them”
The problem with this argument is that it lumps together three distinct situations and therefore distorts the truth.
Gays have children by one of three ways: (1) someone marries, has a child, divorces, and then enters a gay relationship; (2) the couple adopts; and (3) the couple makes some surrogate arrangement.
In the case of remarriage, the child knows his parents, and I don’t think you’re proposing banning remarriage.
It’s true that adopted children often don’t know the parents who made them, but I don’t think you’re proposing to ban adoption. So you’ll need to come up with a way of discriminating against adoption by gays. The usual argument is that a child “needs” a male and female parent. The problem is that you’ve been allowing singles to adopt children for a long time. A related problem is that you haven’t complained about the widowed or divorced raising children alone. The “need” for an opposite sex parent somehow only becomes acute when a gay person appears on the scene.
Your declaration that gay marriage categorically deprives children of the right to know their parents only becomes true when you are discussing surrogate arrangements. I’m no fan of surrogacy and would be happy to rid our society of the practice. But once again, you’re going to find it hard to persuade straight folks to go along with such a ban.
By the way, earlier this year, the Roman Church annulled my brother’s thirty-year-old marriage. This came as a surprise to his three children who were informed that their parents had never been married in the eyes of the Church. Oh, they know who their parents are, but I can’t help but feel that the Church has failed to keep the interests of children uppermost.
July 30th, 2012 | 8:47 pm
Fitzgerald,
“Therefore, only the sexual relationships of men and women together require governmental regulation because of (1) their capacity together to create social disorder , and (2) that reproduction is a fact and does have important and inevitable consequences on society both good and bad if it is not regulated. Thus, it inevitably must implicate the political and public aspect insofar as the production of future citizens is not only vital to the survival of a nation, but that the regulation of this production is just as vital”
This statement really clarifies what is and isn’t at stake. If only heterosexual relations require regulation, why do you care whether gays marry or not? Spend your energy regulating straight sex, and let gays make the commitments they desire.
July 30th, 2012 | 9:07 pm
Michael (writes)
“Lets remember that law (like philosophy and theology) usually follows practice and justifies it, not the other way around. It’s because society is starting to recognize the existence of gays and of gay couples that anyone is even talking about changing the law so that it catches up with what’s going on here on the ground where people actually live.
I don’t see this happening in the least. And that is a matter of clear record. I see the exact opposite happening. If gay Americans had approached their fellow citizens in a spirit of authentic liberal debate and democratic pluralism about the need for X or Y benefit being extended to their couples; or had asked those few States that still had sodomy laws & professed “We see these as infringements of our privacy, a Scarlet letter against us as people, and a downright silly use of police and legal resources” many people (including myself) would have joined their ranks in such a movement.
Michael (writes)
“Gay couples are asking for new law because they are not seen as the next of kin for each other, because they are denied hospital visitation rights, because they are denied housing and services, etc. Whenever I say that I am the husband, doors are opened for me. Those same doors frequently remain closed for gay couples, often despite whatever legal documents have been signed.”
Multiple arrangements can be made in the form of legislation at the State and National level regarding genuine interests that may hinder caring couples from conducting their affairs without undue burden. As I said above gay Americans have not approached their fellow citizens in a spirit of authentic liberal debate and democratic pluralism.
What has happened is a matter of near history and the record is clear. They have used the tool of what is called “judicial activism” or “living constitutionalism” to force on multiple states a new definition of marriage that the people oppose for a host of reasons having to do with the general welfare, rights of parents and children, the actual institution of marriage, and religious liberty questions.
This approach was never preceded with a legislative push or engagement of the public on behalf of gays concerns. Rather a national and indeed international push was made exclusively through the court at the time of the Goodridge decision in Massachusetts. That push was not asking for anything, but rather demanded that the country redefine the institution of marriage. Any opposition was called and dismissed by Supreme Courts as “irrational bigotry: Marriage itself and its justifications were dismissed as “irrational bigotry”. This was paralleled by a compliant media and gay advocate groups that framed the issue as one of a request for “adding” (as apposed to redefining) gay couples into “marriage”. Accusations of bigotry, homophobia, & comparisons to the black civil rights movement * anti-miscegenation laws abounded, and still do.
A Democratic U.S. Senator I spoke with said (off-the-record) “This is not a movement, its a scheme)
As far as democratic engagement; the people answered back by adopting constitutional amendments in 31 States so far… defining marriage as it was already defined in their laws…as protection against further intrusion by unlawful court opinions.
The example of California is instructive. After the Hawaii Behar decision – the people of California adopted a ballot initiative that protected marriages definition at law. It won by 65%. They also adopted civil unions, as did several states as a way of addressing homosexuals concerns. This was dismissed by the courts as inadequate and indeed has been used as an excuse by court for redefining marriage. After the courts in California did this…the people themselves got another ballot initiative, this time a constitutional amendment stopping the courts from redefining marriage. Again an arrogant elite ignored the people and imposed same-sex “marriage” through Federal Judges.
Any authentic legislative gains won by same-sex “marriage” advocates have been done under the pale of this oppressor/oppressed dicotomy, and amidst a media firestorm only too willing to continue to cast this battle in the framing set by Judges and advocates.
This is not a movement to address authentic concerns homosexuals may have for their relationships. This is a movement rooted in a desire to overthrow the institution of marriage as a legal relationship that centered in sex differences and hereditary lines. Being fortunate enough to be on good terms with high placed Law School professors, advocates, & Judges who reveal the authentic motivations and ideological underpinnings of this movement simply reaffirms what sophisticated observers already understand.
Taking the approach that this is simply sympathetic need driven requests made by homosexuals to address some genuine needs that can not be addressed by other avenues is either disingenuous or rooted in a delusional esteem for ones own cause; rather than a clear reading of near history.
In order to understand your adversaries point of view on this subject you need to be able to understand… #1. Just how grotesque and insulting these results driven Judicial decisions are #2. How the entire movement for same-sex “marriage” & even civil unions would have found little political traction without such usurpations of our jurisprudence #3. The real philosophical divide between marriage as understood in law & culture as opposed to what this new definition of marriage says about the institution.
Michael (writes)
“Speaking of comity, I’d appreciate it if you addressed me a little more kindly and with fewer insults.”
Perhaps this would be easier if you would meet the substance of our disagreements & displayed a greater understanding of your advesaries arguments and worldview. This could represent a start. I would be happy to suggest readings and books that also agree with my understanding of what is being done to our law & culture through this “movement” that is really a scheme.
July 30th, 2012 | 10:38 pm
Fitzgerald,
“Perhaps this would be easier if you would meet the substance of our disagreements & displayed a greater understanding of your advesaries arguments and worldview.”
But I believe I have discussed the substance of your disagreements. I’ve tried to answer your points as you make them, and I’ve stuck with the substance of your claims instead of attacking your motives or aligning you with people who make similar arguments.
I believe that I have demonstrated that I understand your arguments. I don’t think you can point to a place where I have misrepresented your views. I don’t agree with them, but I think I portray them fairly.
And of course, I understand your worldview. I was raised Republican, Catholic, and Texan. I understand you. I just don’t agree with you.
Finally, I want you to consider that your comment is basically saying that you’d stop insulting me if I agreed with you more.
Even though you disagree with me, I somehow don’t feel the need to heap abuse on you. I’d like to think that that courtesy has made our exchange a little more pleasant for you. I’m just asking you to ratchet down the insults. Is that too much to ask?
Perhaps I’ll answer the rest of your post later.
July 31st, 2012 | 10:00 am
Fitzgerald,
“If gay Americans had approached their fellow citizens in a spirit of authentic liberal debate and democratic pluralism about the need for X or Y benefit being extended to their couples; or had asked those few States that still had sodomy laws & professed “We see these as infringements of our privacy, a Scarlet letter against us as people, and a downright silly use of police and legal resources” many people (including myself) would have joined their ranks in such a movement”
How often does it work this way? How often do tiny minorities use legislatures to gain their rights? Can you offer me an example? Blacks, after all, were large minorities in the South, making up, I’m guessing, 20-40% of the population and still had to work through the courts to get their rights recognized. What chance does 3% of the population have?
And of course, sodomy laws are only the tip of the iceberg. Those laws aren’t even enforced. Besides, I thought the courts had already dispensed with them in the Lawrence decision.
“Multiple arrangements can be made in the form of legislation at the State and National level regarding genuine interests that may hinder caring couples from conducting their affairs without undue burden”
What arrangements are you recommending?
“They have used the tool of what is called “judicial activism” or “living constitutionalism” to force on multiple states a new definition of marriage that the people oppose for a host of reasons having to do with the general welfare, rights of parents and children, the actual institution of marriage, and religious liberty questions”
Perhaps you can explain this part to me. Gay couples are already establishing households, devoting their lives to each other, and raising children together. Do you want to prevent some of these things from happening, or do you just want to prevent states and churches from calling these arrangements marriage?
“That push was not asking for anything, but rather demanded that the country redefine the institution of marriage.”
I’ve only read excerpts from the Goodridge decision, but I hear these excerpts asking for something: “The Massachusetts Constitution affirms the dignity and equality of all individuals. It forbids the creation of second-class citizens… Many hold equally strong religious, moral and ethical convictions that same-sex couples are entitled to be married and that homosexual persons should be treated no differently than their heterosexual neighbors… No one disputes that the plaintiff couples are families, that many are parents and that the children they are raising, like all children, need and should have the fullest opportunity to grow up in a secure, protected family unit. Similarly, no one disputes that, under the rubric of marriage, the state provides a cornucopia of substantial benefits to married parents and their children. The preferential treatment of civil marriage reflects the legislature’s conclusion that marriage ”is the foremost setting for the education and socialization of children” precisely because it ”encourages parents to remain committed to each other and to their children as they grow.”… In this case, we are confronted with an entire sizable class of parents raising children who have absolutely no access to civil marriage and its protections because they are forbidden from procuring a marriage license. It cannot be rational under our laws, and indeed it is not permitted, to penalize children by depriving them of state benefits because the state disapproves of their parents’ sexual orientation.”
The removal of second-class status, the extension of religious liberty to those who believe that gay couples are entitled to be married, the provision of a cornucopia of substantial benefits to married parents and their children, the protection of a class of parents raising children—these all sound like asking for something to me.
“Accusations of bigotry, homophobia, & comparisons to the black civil rights movement * anti-miscegenation laws abounded, and still do”
I think there are good, solid reasons to oppose gay marriage that are not rooted in bigotry and homophobia, but I hope you are willing to admit that some of people who oppose gay marriage are bigots and homophobes. I hope you are also willing to acknowledge that I haven’t made any such accusations. I prefer to argue cases on their merits rather than presupposing anyone’s motivations.
As far as comparisons to the black civil rights movement and to anti-miscegenation laws, I rarely use analogies because no comparison is ever perfect. You might not find the analogies apt, but I don’t see why you think using them is so very wrong that they are on the same level as accusations of bigotry and homophobia.
I hope you’ll understand that it’s not quite fair for you to ask me to defend, explain, or denounce arguments that I haven’t made.
July 31st, 2012 | 5:37 pm
Michael (writes)
“How often does it work this way? How often do tiny minorities use legislatures to gain their rights? Can you offer me an example? Blacks, after all, were large minorities in the South, making up, I’m guessing, 20-40% of the population and still had to work through the courts to get their rights recognized. What chance does 3% of the population have?”
All the time. The Americans with disabilities act was voted on and gained acceptance by bi-partisan legislative actions. It represented standards that cost the government and private business billions of dollars to comply with and is still being hashed out. Minority groups as you describe them don’t get a free “push” or “extra head start” through the courts in a democracy simply because there numbers may be small.
The Black civil rights movement was no different. The 14th amendments guarantees of equal protection were written precisely with African-Americans in mind. The courts were not helping a minority out; they were applying correctly the 14th amendments guarantee of equal protection after generations of Jim Crows “separate but equal” approach proved an obvious farce. They had enabling legislation like the 1957 Civil Rights act as added evidence of popular will.
Blacks had been subjected to massive voter disenfranchisement efforts and intimidation that made it impossible to effectively use the ballot box to effect change.
I do not bring up these examples to simply show how gay “rights” & black civil rights differ. I bring them up to illustrate why Judicial intervention was necessary and warranted under the law, as opposed to same-sex “marriage” that is clearly unconstitutional infringement on the rights of all Americans.
Another example can also shed light on the “scheme” you may unwittingly be a part of. That is the right of woman to vote.
Here you had half the population disenfranchised from the most potent form of political participation; the vote. Now remember, the 19th amendment came after the 14th. Courts at the time could have used the 14th amendments language to enable female voting but they did not. This is because the 14th amendment simply was not written with females in mind. It took about a generation for woman to use their free speech rights and rights to free association and petitioning their government for the regress of grievances, in order to convince the male half of the population to allow them the vote. All this occurred with out women even being able to vote; they had to convince men in large numbers to give up their monopoly on the franchise; and it worked! This is a testimony to the power of authentic equality arguments ability to prevail despite political disenfranchisement.
This shows that our system of government properly applied, liberal democracy does work when people play by the rules.
All these examples are juxtaposed to the illegitimate abuse of power that is occurring in the name of gay “rights”.
“To ignore the meaning ascribed to the right to marry in these cases and substitute another meaning in its place is to redefine the right in question and to tear the resulting new right away from the very roots that caused the U.S. Supreme Court and this Court to recognize marriage as a fundamental right in the first place.” *
* – Andersen v. King County; New York Superior Court (J. Graffeo concurring)
NO reasonable, informed person on EITHER side in this debate maintains that this is not a redefinition of marriage.
Allow me to flush out one particular insight that I take as evidence to demonstrate that (at the highest levels) supporters of same-sex “marriage” are not simply “like” totalitarian movements but rather are, in & of themselves…literally totalitarian
The origins of Totalitarianism go back to the French Revolution. [The Origins of Totalitarianism - Hannah Arendt]
Under classic liberal enlightenment thought the traditional family is what is called a “intermediary social institution” That is it exist between the naked individual & the State. There are any number of such institutions including Universities, Trade Unions, Religion, Political Parities, Press outlets, and the like… These are covered under our “right to free association” under the 1st amendment.
The entire collection of these institutions, including the family are known as “civil society”. Of these “intermediary social institutions” – marriage & the family has always been considered the primary one.
As old as Pericles the family has been considered a bulwark against state tyranny. Marriage & the family are considered to pre-exist the State and even religion. That neither created marriage, but that it evolved organically. The State did not create marriage, it simply recognizes it as one of our natural rights. That is why & how it became recognized as a fundamental constitutional right and international human right.
In the Mass. Goodridge case the Court addresses this understanding in its decision – “We begin by considering the nature of civil marriage itself. Simply put, the government creates civil marriage..”
This is no mistake that the Judge in such a prominent case starts off with this argument. If the State creates marriage it can uncreated marriage or redefine marriage. A totalitarian state is considered one who doesn’t recognize these “intermediary social institutions” – Hence “totalitarian” = total social control by the state.
Marriage is the basis of the family and the family is considered to be the ultimate “intermediary social institutions” – with rights against the State.. All this is well established fact in the history of political philosophy and represented well in the case law.*
* {Supreme Court precedents of Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987); Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374 (1978); Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967); Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965); Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535 (1942) }
Under international human rights law and Supreme Court precedent marriage is considered a fundamental right; the state must recognize marriage as originally defined. It can no more redefine marriage than say redefine “speech” to mean “saying those things the government wants you to say” or redefine “arms” to mean “down pillows”.
This is not slight of hand but rather naked subterfuge.
This is what I mean when I say that you show no real evidence of being able to understand your adversaries world view on this subject.
Michael (writes)
“And of course, I understand your world view. I was raised Republican, Catholic, and Texan. I understand you. I just don’t agree with you.”
None of these facts necessarily mean you genuinely understand our world view or the facts of what is taking place and how it is being accomplished.
Michael (writes)
“I hope you’ll understand that it’s not quite fair for you to ask me to defend, explain, or denounce arguments that I haven’t made.”
I don’t expect you to do anything of the sort. What I expect you to do is be able to comprehend and acknowledge that these are in fact the strategies and animating impulses of the movement to redefine marriage. Towards this end, the best paradigm that I have seen is that used by scholars of the family.. That is the “pure relationship theory” vs “the conjugal model”. As N. Y. Superior court Justice J. Graffe points out..our fundamental constitutional right to marriage is predicated on the conjugal understanding of marriage.
I hope you can bring yourself to a fuller understanding of the arguments against same-sex “marriage” – How redefining a institution changes its meaning and purpose & how transparent violations of our rights have been the predicate on which this “movement” has gained the traction it has. But for such an egregious abuse of “raw judicial power”, our democratic process would have lended itself to a more sober reflection and intellectually honest approach to an institution that is as important to the whole of society as marriage.
August 1st, 2012 | 11:29 pm
Fitzgerald,
“The Americans with disabilities act was voted on and gained acceptance by bi-partisan legislative actions.”
Yes, the act was bi-partisan, but the few who voted against it were Republican.
“Minority groups as you describe them don’t get a free “push” or “extra head start” through the courts in a democracy simply because there numbers may be small”
I asked about the rights of “tiny minorities,” and the three examples you gave me were the disabled, blacks, and women. These groups are hardly tiny. Live long enough and every one of us joins the ranks of the disabled, blacks constitute 13% of the population and much larger percentages in the South, and women, of course, are slightly in the majority.
The operative question is how much understanding needs to be created for a group with whom you may have little in common. Can you try again and give me an example of rights gained by a tiny, unpopular minority?
“The 14th amendments guarantees of equal protection were written precisely with African-Americans in mind. The courts were not helping a minority out; they were applying correctly the 14th amendments guarantee of equal protection after generations of Jim Crows “separate but equal” approach proved an obvious farce.”
As any old-school Texan will tell you, the 14th amendment is hardly an example of good democracy in action, the will of the people, or what you describe as “This shows that our system of government properly applied, liberal democracy does work when people play by the rules.”
Texas, like all of the South, voted against ratification of the 14th amendment, but the Republican Party wasn’t about to let our “system of government” stand in its way. It suspended the duly elected legislatures and placed military governments in power until more politically correct state legislatures could be put in place so that “the people” could reach the proper, pre-determined outcome. Now there’s a totalitarian regime in action!
“after generations of Jim Crows “separate but equal” approach proved an obvious farce.”
It wasn’t obvious to Southerners, but you don’t seem to mind. This example, of course, was much on the mind of the Massachusetts Supreme Court. The Court recognized the alternative to gay marriage was the creation of “second-class citizens.” A separate form of union for gay and straight results in unequal statuses, which is what you want to preserve.
“They had enabling legislation like the 1957 Civil Rights act as added evidence of popular will”
You have cause and effect the wrong way around. Brown v. Board of Education in 1954 and the sight of federal troops in Arkansas shamed and scared the Congress into accepting the “popular will” expressed in the 1957 Civil Rights Act, a “popular will” that was not at all popular in the South.
“as opposed to same-sex “marriage” that is clearly unconstitutional infringement on the rights of all Americans”
All Americans, that is, if you don’t count gay Americans as American.
“NO reasonable, informed person on EITHER side in this debate maintains that this is not a redefinition of marriage”
This is a silly claim. Plenty of reasonable, informed people see gay marriage as a correction rather than a redefinition. The Goodridge decision says, “The plaintiffs seek only to be married, not to undermine the institution of civil marriage. They do not want marriage abolished. They do not attack the binary nature of marriage, the consanguinity provisions or any of the other gate-keeping provisions of the marriage licensing law.”
I wonder why some people have to paint those who disagree with them as irrational and ignorant. Isn’t it possible that people simply disagree out of reasonable, informed opinion?
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact