Opposing Gay Marriage Is Rational, Not Religious
Aug 9, 2012
Leroy Huizenga
Many make the mistake of thinking that opposition to gay marriage is religious. A Facebook friend recently posted this quote: “Have you ever noticed the same people who claim that marriage is a religious institution only think that LGBT people shouldn’t get married? They never seem to object to Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, or atheists getting married.”
This is a perfect summary of the ignorance with which many (though by no means all) gay marriage proponents operate. And I think their ignorance largely the fault of religious supporters of traditional marriage who have forgotten the categories of reason and nature.
Many times Christians present our arguments for the traditional family by making arguments from Scripture and speaking of “God’s design for marriage.” For instance, Billy Graham recently issued a statement in support of Chik-fil-A and its owners, the Cathy family, in which he said, “Each generation faces different issues and challenges, but our standard must always be measured by God’s word. I appreciate the Cathy family’s public support for God's definition of marriage.” Dan Cathy himself said, “I think we are inviting God’s judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at Him and say ‘we know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage’ and I pray God’s mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to define what marriage is about.”
It’s no wonder, then, that the broader population thinks opposition to gay marriage is a matter of religion alone. And as such, it can be marginalized. Indeed, it must be marginalized, for our culture assumes a fundamental split between faith and reason. The roots of this split reach back to the medieval period in William of Occam’s nominalist and voluntarist theology, which conceived of God not as reason but as raw arbitrary will. Religion became regarded as irrational. And most modern Christians—whether Protestant or Catholic—accept that split, having absorbed it from the ambient culture.
There’s a reason Occam was never sainted. The broader Christian tradition has claimed God is rational. First, the intelligibility of creation suggests a rational intellect as creator. Second, the first verses of the Gospel of John claim that the logos—the second person of the Trinity, the Son of God—was God and the agent of creation. Most translations render logos as “Word,” but it can also be rendered as “Reason”: “In the beginning was Reason . . . and Reason was God.” The split between faith and reason (and thus religion and the public square) is not a necessary given of Christian theology. Rather, the broader Christian tradition has seen faith and reason operating in harmony. John Paul II wrote in Fides et Ratio that “Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth,” that faith and reason need each other, that reason provides common ground for believers and non-believers, and that the separation of faith and reason leads to violence. Benedict XVI picked up these themes in his Regensburg address. You will find no greater defender of right reason today than the Catholic Church. And so the irony of the gay marriage debate is that traditionalists are making arguments based on reason and nature, while secular culture is now largely irrational in spite of its trumpeting of reason, as the severing of faith and reason has led to a nihilism wherein the greatest good is the fulfillment of whatever desires among consenting adults. Is that all reason can really say, that anything one wants goes as long as no one else gets hurt?
These claims are controverted, of course. It’s a common postmodern maneuver to claim that all appeals to the objectivity of nature and reason are merely masquerades instantiating culture by the will to power. We need to continue having that discussion. But for now, in simpler terms, consider this: Is “Thou shalt not kill” a truth of faith, or a truth of reason? Shall we repeal our laws forbidding murder because its prohibition is found in a religious text?
Of course not. And so when thoughtful religious people make arguments in the public square based on reason, they should not be discounted. For instance, responding to Chicago mayor Rahm Emanuel’s remarks declaring Chik-fil-A restauranta non grata, Cardinal George suggested on his blog, “It might be good to put aside any religious teaching and any state laws and start from scratch, from nature itself, when talking about marriage.” He then made the following points:
Marriage existed before Church and state. Therefore, “Neither Church nor state invented marriage, and neither can change its nature.”
Marriage concerns the physical complementarity of the sexes. “The sexual union of a man and woman is called the marital act because the two become physically one in a way that is impossible between two men or two women.”
Even though marriage precedes the state, the state has an interest in regulating marriage, which is a public institution, to the end of “assur[ing] stability in society and the proper protection and raising of the next generation of citizens.”
The Church is also interested in regulating marriage, “because Jesus raised the marital union to the level of symbolizing his own union with his Body.” For Catholics, at least, the harmony of reason and faith, of nature and grace, means that things that existed before Jesus Christ was ever conceived—water, bread, wine, marriage—can be raised to the level of a sacrament.
The Cardinal, then, claims that the State has a duty not to define marriage according to the passing fancies of the body politic at a given time but to protect marriage as a natural good preceding the State. The Church too has a double duty, as it is indebted not only to nature but also to revelation.
Because of the harmony of faith and reason, thoughtful Christians can speak of marriage in terms of both categories. And we sometimes confuse categories, and that proves confusing to the general public. But make no mistake: Our defense of marriage is no act of legerdemain, in which we try to force what we know solely by revelation on the public. (Observe no one is pushing laws forcing participation in the sacraments or forbidding participation in a particular faith.) Rather, we are concerned for the common good, a rational concern motivated by our very faith. Convinced that reason and nature teach us the truth about marriage, we will continue to make arguments in the public square about the public goods of marriage, for no society or person can long thrive kicking against the goads of reason and nature.
Leroy Huizenga is Director of the Christian Leadership Center at the University of Mary in Bismarck, North Dakota. His personal website is LeroyHuizenga.com. His previous “On the Square” articles can be found here.
RESOURCES
Billy Graham Offers His Support to Chik-fil-A
Robert George, Sherif Girgis, and Ryan Anderson, What Is Marriage?
Does Jesus Care About Sex and Marriage?
Anthony Esolen, Ten Arguments for Sanity
Cardinal George, Reflections on “Chicago Values”
John Paul II, Fides et Ratio
Become a fan of First Things on Facebook, subscribe to First Things via RSS, and follow First Things on Twitter.
Comments:
8.9.2012 | 2:38am
Gian says:
"the state has an interest in regulating marriage"
Many deny it, especially on the Right. They say it is family or individual matter and the State never used to do so in historical periods. The State recognition and regulation of marriage is a new thing. How to reply to them?.
The state is concerned with natural law; the church with divine law.
They are inter-connected. The natural is rooted in the supernatural while the supernatural builds upon the natural.
The supernatural is demarcated by intellect and revelation. Thus in societies without a clear demarcation of the supernatural, the functions of State and Religion are confused.
Marriage is a natural institution, grounded in the supernatural. Thus it is a proper subject for State.
That it is natural we see by cross-cultural and historical comparison. That it can not be purely an individual or family matter, is clear from its role in rearing the next generation of citizens.
The supernatural grounding of marriage gives Religions a claim. The marriage law should be Religion-based, not necessarily the same for all religions in a polity. I would argue that Family Law in general should not be uniform over all Religions and Communities, though again it should not be entirely left to the Religions. Rather, it should be evolved by mutual consultation of the State with respective Religions and Communities.
Many deny it, especially on the Right. They say it is family or individual matter and the State never used to do so in historical periods. The State recognition and regulation of marriage is a new thing. How to reply to them?.
The state is concerned with natural law; the church with divine law.
They are inter-connected. The natural is rooted in the supernatural while the supernatural builds upon the natural.
The supernatural is demarcated by intellect and revelation. Thus in societies without a clear demarcation of the supernatural, the functions of State and Religion are confused.
Marriage is a natural institution, grounded in the supernatural. Thus it is a proper subject for State.
That it is natural we see by cross-cultural and historical comparison. That it can not be purely an individual or family matter, is clear from its role in rearing the next generation of citizens.
The supernatural grounding of marriage gives Religions a claim. The marriage law should be Religion-based, not necessarily the same for all religions in a polity. I would argue that Family Law in general should not be uniform over all Religions and Communities, though again it should not be entirely left to the Religions. Rather, it should be evolved by mutual consultation of the State with respective Religions and Communities.
8.9.2012 | 2:42am
Gian says:
"Marriage existed before Church and state"
Rather, marriage preceded American State. Per Aristotle, the State is Prior to the Individual and the Family. The State means the state of laws and as man is a political animal, man has always existed in law-bounded communities that we call state. Marriage did not precede State but is co-extensive with it.
Rather, marriage preceded American State. Per Aristotle, the State is Prior to the Individual and the Family. The State means the state of laws and as man is a political animal, man has always existed in law-bounded communities that we call state. Marriage did not precede State but is co-extensive with it.
8.9.2012 | 5:32am
Michael PS says:
Perhaps, the best argument against SSM was formulated by Bertrand Russell, an avowed atheist: “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.” He was speaking in the context of divorce law reform, but his words are equally applicable to SSM.
In a country so dedicated to the principle of Laïcité as France, Archbishop of Paris André Vingt-Trois addressed the following well-chosen words on the nature of marriage to the Commission of the National Assembly: “Even though it has not taken the modern form familiar in our civil legislation, there has always been a means of handing things down from generation to generation, which is the very basis of continuity and stability in a society. This transmission between generations is primarily effected by the family. It is the legal framework of family life that structures the transmission of life and shapes the future of society.”
His remarks were well received and adopted in the 2006 report of the Pécresse Commission. The Commission also quoted him as saying, “In a democratic society such as ours, the legislator’s duty is not just to record and legalize a multitude of special cases, necessarily impossible to develop into a general case, which is normally the only one written into law. The law strives for a measure of universality and must normally be intended to apply to the greatest number of a country’s citizens. The idea that legalizing special situations could be a way of extending recognition to them seems to me to be an abuse of legislation in the sense that the law would then be merely window-dressing for ethical advocacy. It seems to me that we should act with great caution in this field,” a caution that won the approval of the jurists, with many professors of Civil Law endorsing them.
In a country so dedicated to the principle of Laïcité as France, Archbishop of Paris André Vingt-Trois addressed the following well-chosen words on the nature of marriage to the Commission of the National Assembly: “Even though it has not taken the modern form familiar in our civil legislation, there has always been a means of handing things down from generation to generation, which is the very basis of continuity and stability in a society. This transmission between generations is primarily effected by the family. It is the legal framework of family life that structures the transmission of life and shapes the future of society.”
His remarks were well received and adopted in the 2006 report of the Pécresse Commission. The Commission also quoted him as saying, “In a democratic society such as ours, the legislator’s duty is not just to record and legalize a multitude of special cases, necessarily impossible to develop into a general case, which is normally the only one written into law. The law strives for a measure of universality and must normally be intended to apply to the greatest number of a country’s citizens. The idea that legalizing special situations could be a way of extending recognition to them seems to me to be an abuse of legislation in the sense that the law would then be merely window-dressing for ethical advocacy. It seems to me that we should act with great caution in this field,” a caution that won the approval of the jurists, with many professors of Civil Law endorsing them.
8.9.2012 | 8:22am
A.M says:
Good article and wish there could be big bill boards that would declare that sentence about ' no greater defender of right reason than the Catholic Church .'
One error noted though - as far as gay marraige not harming anyone : easy to see the destructive effects in such couples rearing children - the confusion and angry despair with envy of the wrong , fake father /mother figure as well as as the gulity, fearful response of the natural mother /father , to make one shudder to think what the children growing up in such families would have to go through !
Non Christian marriages do not desecrate the dignity and truth about parents , which is what the lie of same sex unions do - and no wonder, since the root of the issue itself , very likely have to do with disorders at this level !
Can see how the term of 'marriage ' in relation to The Lord and The Church can bring confusion to carnal minds , in a sex saturated culture !
No wonder that our Lord saw to it , to bring forth the Dogma of Immaculate Conception , at a far enough time ahead , to help many to know that carnal naure is not to have primacy , that the Lord , as The Bridegroom, rescues The Bride , from the tyranny of the enemy , to adorn Her , with the graces of holiness , from His merits .
Such a deep awareness and willingness to accept those graces for all occasions of enemy assaults is what the children of that Bride and Mother are to do - one good thing , to counter the even inborn struggle in area of parental connectedness may be , is to thank our Father and our parents , for the moment of conception of each one of us , for that moment when an eternal soul is breathed into us , with enough graces prepared already for that soul !
That gratitude then offered, on behalf of one's parents, their parents , for those around ..
The deep seated awareness of the sacreness of the Imamculate Conception would help , to offer that heartfelt gratitude , without any lingering and rightful shame about carnality .. to bring graces and healing at many other levels - for the dignity of each of us , of those around ..
That , in turn could be what would help to check the spirit of seduction and lust that entangle men and women , in destructive bonds !
The false pity from seeing such persons as being incurable is one reason that many are motivated to condone the perpetuation of the cycle and lifestyles !
Well, since we are supposd to be in the midst of a pandemic of demonisation , from influence of media and all the other evils around , which means we all are to be ardent in warfare , those afflicted in areas of sexual confsuion can also join in valiantly , for all the good it could do for themeves and society at large !
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FAg0yj3LdCc - powerful exorcsim prayers, from a Rome trained exorcist priest - Fr.Machado , that can be listened to , even 2-3 times a day ..
along with all the other good means The Church has , to do away with the basic fault so that there would be no need to militantly demand that the rest of the world condone the lie and destructive choices !
Wish one of the Catholic addiction treatment centers would start a program of having those under treatment sit in front of a large image of Divine mercy
( prefer the original Vilnius , with that Fatherly composure -
http://www.faustina-message.com/
and listen to reading of The Word, warfare prayers etc ; to see how such would be effective means , to deal with all sorts of addictions !
One error noted though - as far as gay marraige not harming anyone : easy to see the destructive effects in such couples rearing children - the confusion and angry despair with envy of the wrong , fake father /mother figure as well as as the gulity, fearful response of the natural mother /father , to make one shudder to think what the children growing up in such families would have to go through !
Non Christian marriages do not desecrate the dignity and truth about parents , which is what the lie of same sex unions do - and no wonder, since the root of the issue itself , very likely have to do with disorders at this level !
Can see how the term of 'marriage ' in relation to The Lord and The Church can bring confusion to carnal minds , in a sex saturated culture !
No wonder that our Lord saw to it , to bring forth the Dogma of Immaculate Conception , at a far enough time ahead , to help many to know that carnal naure is not to have primacy , that the Lord , as The Bridegroom, rescues The Bride , from the tyranny of the enemy , to adorn Her , with the graces of holiness , from His merits .
Such a deep awareness and willingness to accept those graces for all occasions of enemy assaults is what the children of that Bride and Mother are to do - one good thing , to counter the even inborn struggle in area of parental connectedness may be , is to thank our Father and our parents , for the moment of conception of each one of us , for that moment when an eternal soul is breathed into us , with enough graces prepared already for that soul !
That gratitude then offered, on behalf of one's parents, their parents , for those around ..
The deep seated awareness of the sacreness of the Imamculate Conception would help , to offer that heartfelt gratitude , without any lingering and rightful shame about carnality .. to bring graces and healing at many other levels - for the dignity of each of us , of those around ..
That , in turn could be what would help to check the spirit of seduction and lust that entangle men and women , in destructive bonds !
The false pity from seeing such persons as being incurable is one reason that many are motivated to condone the perpetuation of the cycle and lifestyles !
Well, since we are supposd to be in the midst of a pandemic of demonisation , from influence of media and all the other evils around , which means we all are to be ardent in warfare , those afflicted in areas of sexual confsuion can also join in valiantly , for all the good it could do for themeves and society at large !
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FAg0yj3LdCc - powerful exorcsim prayers, from a Rome trained exorcist priest - Fr.Machado , that can be listened to , even 2-3 times a day ..
along with all the other good means The Church has , to do away with the basic fault so that there would be no need to militantly demand that the rest of the world condone the lie and destructive choices !
Wish one of the Catholic addiction treatment centers would start a program of having those under treatment sit in front of a large image of Divine mercy
( prefer the original Vilnius , with that Fatherly composure -
http://www.faustina-message.com/
and listen to reading of The Word, warfare prayers etc ; to see how such would be effective means , to deal with all sorts of addictions !
8.9.2012 | 9:17am
Deone emineth says:
ALthough I can agree that reason helps the human soul to contemplate truth, there is still a barrier to grasping the essence of God's revelation of himself to mankind. if it were purely a Matter of reasoning together, the world (even the Church) would be much more the reflection of God's intention than, alas, either of them are.
there is still a veil that covered hearts and clouds tha fallen reason of mankind which is only lifted when the Holy Spirit takes it away when one comes to faith in Jesus Christ.
the most learned and reasonable men in Jesus day (the Pharisees like Nicodemus and Saul of Tarsus) were radically transformed by an encounter with the Lord Jesus CHrist when they were confronted with the state of their souls and not the dullness of their intellect.
the last time I read John 3 it sounded more like something from a Billy Graham
crusade than any homily I have ever heard from a catholic pulpit.
all the argument for or against gay marriage cannot change the heart. The sentence "you must be born again" came from Jesus and was echoed by Peter in his first epistle.
Don't be too quick to discredit Billy GRaham my friend.
there is still a veil that covered hearts and clouds tha fallen reason of mankind which is only lifted when the Holy Spirit takes it away when one comes to faith in Jesus Christ.
the most learned and reasonable men in Jesus day (the Pharisees like Nicodemus and Saul of Tarsus) were radically transformed by an encounter with the Lord Jesus CHrist when they were confronted with the state of their souls and not the dullness of their intellect.
the last time I read John 3 it sounded more like something from a Billy Graham
crusade than any homily I have ever heard from a catholic pulpit.
all the argument for or against gay marriage cannot change the heart. The sentence "you must be born again" came from Jesus and was echoed by Peter in his first epistle.
Don't be too quick to discredit Billy GRaham my friend.
8.9.2012 | 9:35am
Mike Melendez says:
Gian writes: "In short, humans are cultural animals, not biological and argument needs to reflect this."
I think you reached too far. We humans are, in fact, both cultural and biological. The culture changes over time. The biology does not.
I think you reached too far. We humans are, in fact, both cultural and biological. The culture changes over time. The biology does not.
8.9.2012 | 9:57am
patricksarsfield says:
The author (quoting Card. George) is correct in saying that Marriage existed before both Church and State and that neither can/should change its nature. Even the Supreme Court recognized that in the Griswold v Connecticut case when it admitted the limits of state power to affect the marital relationship and that marriage was:
"older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects."
For that reason concurring Justice Goldberg noted that:
"The fact that no particular provision of the Constitution explicitly forbids the State from disrupting the traditional relation of the family - a relation as old and as fundamental as our entire civilization - surely does not show that the Government was meant to have the power to do so. Rather, as the Ninth Amendment expressly recognizes, there are fundamental personal rights such as this one, which are protected from abridgment by the Government though not specifically mentioned in the Constitution."
Yet, a less self-restrained set of rulers, now seeking to change that traditional relationship in the name of vote getting, point to the fact that States have long regulated Marriage even if they didn't create it. True, but the interest of the State in regulating the pre-existing Institution is to ensure that the promises made by husband to wife and vice-versa and to their children are kept or to the degree promises were not explicit (as with the laws of Dower and intestacy when no will has been made) that a safety net is present. Beyond the explicit promises, the state has in the past sought to ensure that neither party can disregard the promises by going out on the other through the laws of adultery and the legal rule that any child born of the marriage is presumed to be the child of the husband. Those rules ensure that the children of the union have a man and a woman to raise them "so long as they both shall live" and that the marital relationship is fostered as much as possible.
Those rules are necessary because of the incredible potency of the marital relationship between man and woman. The facts of life are that when man lies down with woman and copulate for their entire lives, babies are made unless a) they married too late; b) one dies too soon; c) there are fertility problems; or d) they actively seek to avoid children. By contrast, homosexual men and women can lie down with each other for their entire lives, yet not one child will "issue" (a legal term) from that copulation because gestation requires the union of a man and a woman (i.e., the mixing of sperm aand ovum).
What right then does the State have to interfere with the preexisting marital institution to try fit the square peg of "Gay Marriage" into the round hole of Marriage? The claim is that the Equal Protection and Due Process (and maybe the First Amendment) demand it. Supposedly, Marriage is a set of rights that the State has created to confer benefits on people who have decided to commit their lives to one another. Yet, since Marriage is far older than the State that is hardly true. What's more, Marriage is far more than a set of tax and visitation rights; it is also a set of obligations (such as the rule of marital fidelity, designed to foster fewer illegitimate children and the presumption of legitimacy that attaches to children born out of the wife's womb in the course of the marriage) needed to protect the consequences of the union of a man and a woman. Those consequences are simply not present when men lie down with other men or women with other women, however much they may "love" one another. The only way they can "procreate" is by going outside the marital union to bring in opposite sex genetic material (or to outsource both genetic material inputs via an "adoption" acquisition). Thus, things like the Presumption of Legitimacy make no sense in a "Gay Marriage" context. Simply put, it makes no sense to claim that any child born out of a lesbian woman was fathered by her lesbian "partner." makes no sense.
"older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects."
For that reason concurring Justice Goldberg noted that:
"The fact that no particular provision of the Constitution explicitly forbids the State from disrupting the traditional relation of the family - a relation as old and as fundamental as our entire civilization - surely does not show that the Government was meant to have the power to do so. Rather, as the Ninth Amendment expressly recognizes, there are fundamental personal rights such as this one, which are protected from abridgment by the Government though not specifically mentioned in the Constitution."
Yet, a less self-restrained set of rulers, now seeking to change that traditional relationship in the name of vote getting, point to the fact that States have long regulated Marriage even if they didn't create it. True, but the interest of the State in regulating the pre-existing Institution is to ensure that the promises made by husband to wife and vice-versa and to their children are kept or to the degree promises were not explicit (as with the laws of Dower and intestacy when no will has been made) that a safety net is present. Beyond the explicit promises, the state has in the past sought to ensure that neither party can disregard the promises by going out on the other through the laws of adultery and the legal rule that any child born of the marriage is presumed to be the child of the husband. Those rules ensure that the children of the union have a man and a woman to raise them "so long as they both shall live" and that the marital relationship is fostered as much as possible.
Those rules are necessary because of the incredible potency of the marital relationship between man and woman. The facts of life are that when man lies down with woman and copulate for their entire lives, babies are made unless a) they married too late; b) one dies too soon; c) there are fertility problems; or d) they actively seek to avoid children. By contrast, homosexual men and women can lie down with each other for their entire lives, yet not one child will "issue" (a legal term) from that copulation because gestation requires the union of a man and a woman (i.e., the mixing of sperm aand ovum).
What right then does the State have to interfere with the preexisting marital institution to try fit the square peg of "Gay Marriage" into the round hole of Marriage? The claim is that the Equal Protection and Due Process (and maybe the First Amendment) demand it. Supposedly, Marriage is a set of rights that the State has created to confer benefits on people who have decided to commit their lives to one another. Yet, since Marriage is far older than the State that is hardly true. What's more, Marriage is far more than a set of tax and visitation rights; it is also a set of obligations (such as the rule of marital fidelity, designed to foster fewer illegitimate children and the presumption of legitimacy that attaches to children born out of the wife's womb in the course of the marriage) needed to protect the consequences of the union of a man and a woman. Those consequences are simply not present when men lie down with other men or women with other women, however much they may "love" one another. The only way they can "procreate" is by going outside the marital union to bring in opposite sex genetic material (or to outsource both genetic material inputs via an "adoption" acquisition). Thus, things like the Presumption of Legitimacy make no sense in a "Gay Marriage" context. Simply put, it makes no sense to claim that any child born out of a lesbian woman was fathered by her lesbian "partner." makes no sense.
8.9.2012 | 10:36am
Felapton says:
"Marriage existed before Church and state. Therefore, 'Neither Church nor state invented marriage, and neither can change its nature.' "
This is nonsense. Dogs existed before Church or state; this does not invalidate animal control laws.
"Marriage concerns the physical complementarity of the sexes. 'The sexual union of a man and woman is called the marital act because the two become physically one in a way that is impossible between two men or two women.' "
This is nonsense too. Congenitally impotent men, even men who are maimed and lack the requisite organ, are allowed to contract civil marriages.
I think "gay marriage" is nonsensical too (also anti-social) but refutations based on fallacious arguments end up sounding like support.
This is nonsense. Dogs existed before Church or state; this does not invalidate animal control laws.
"Marriage concerns the physical complementarity of the sexes. 'The sexual union of a man and woman is called the marital act because the two become physically one in a way that is impossible between two men or two women.' "
This is nonsense too. Congenitally impotent men, even men who are maimed and lack the requisite organ, are allowed to contract civil marriages.
I think "gay marriage" is nonsensical too (also anti-social) but refutations based on fallacious arguments end up sounding like support.
8.9.2012 | 11:46am
Pam says:
I don't understand the reason gays want the marriage label. Women and blacks wanted equal rights in government and society too but never did they want to be called "men" or "white". If what gays want is to be recognized by governments then lets give gay unions their own label. Surely someone can come up with something better than "civil unions" like "bonding" or "pairing". Trying to get society to call gay partners married smacks of a desperate need to be accepted. Something no amount of government intervention can facilitate.
8.9.2012 | 12:45pm
Diana M. Swancutt says:
As crisply and cleanly as I can say it: This is bunk.
Giving this argument the time of day [as if this false-rationality isn't just a way of hiding-in-the-head from all kinds of better rational and non-rational arguments to the contrary [whether biblical, "natural," polis-based, cross-cultural, experiential, scientific, and otherwise] only allows the veneer of rationality to stand over what it really is.
There are some things that should not get airtime. This garbage is one of them.
Giving this argument the time of day [as if this false-rationality isn't just a way of hiding-in-the-head from all kinds of better rational and non-rational arguments to the contrary [whether biblical, "natural," polis-based, cross-cultural, experiential, scientific, and otherwise] only allows the veneer of rationality to stand over what it really is.
There are some things that should not get airtime. This garbage is one of them.
8.9.2012 | 1:31pm
Meg says:
"Shall we repeal our laws forbidding murder because its prohibition is found in a religious text?"
Perhaps a more relevant question within this context would be: "Shall we stone to death women who are not virgins on their wedding day because its assertion in found in a religious text?", that religious text being Deut. 22: 13-21. Not all religion is rational, and not all that is rational is religious. The Bible describes many forms of non-traditional union, including polygamy and consorting with concubines (as in the case of Abraham). One could argue that God accepted these behaviors because of the historical context of the time, which would be equivalent to acknowledging that relationships are inexorably influenced by culture, which is certainly true. How about love, companionship, satisfaction of libidinal needs, stability, and a long-term commitment to serve and protect the loved one as reasons for marriage? These reasons are as valid in SSM as in "traditional marriage" (which, history indicates, isn't very "traditional" at all -- even in the Bible).
Perhaps a more relevant question within this context would be: "Shall we stone to death women who are not virgins on their wedding day because its assertion in found in a religious text?", that religious text being Deut. 22: 13-21. Not all religion is rational, and not all that is rational is religious. The Bible describes many forms of non-traditional union, including polygamy and consorting with concubines (as in the case of Abraham). One could argue that God accepted these behaviors because of the historical context of the time, which would be equivalent to acknowledging that relationships are inexorably influenced by culture, which is certainly true. How about love, companionship, satisfaction of libidinal needs, stability, and a long-term commitment to serve and protect the loved one as reasons for marriage? These reasons are as valid in SSM as in "traditional marriage" (which, history indicates, isn't very "traditional" at all -- even in the Bible).
8.9.2012 | 1:49pm
Frank says:
Thank goodness many courts have rightly been able to see through this kind of biased tangling of so-called rational logic. Yes, it takes male and female to reproduce. Congratulations. That says nothing about the best environment to raise children in modern society and nothing about the fact that marriage serves functions in addition to raising children. Studies have shown over and over that children raised in SSMs do as well or better than those raised in OSMs (in spite of endless contrary nonfactual speculation, such as in some comments above). Studies provide rational logic, based on facts. Marriage's only purpose in our society is not raising children. If it were, you'd be fighting to disallow divorce where children are involved, and to prevent people who can't have children from marrying. Every single "reason" used to deny a group of citizens equal marriage civil rights boils down to feeble, pathetic, unproven excuses, whether religious, or pseudo-rational to justify animus. And frankly, we are fed up with it.
8.9.2012 | 2:08pm
Michael PS says:
I do not believe one needs to invoke revelation to establish the nature of civil marriage.
The state has a legitimate interest in marriage and it is important to note what precisely that is. Mandatory civil marriage originated in France on 9th November 1791 and was a product of the same Revolution that had just turned 10 million tenant farmers into heritable proprietors. This was no coincidence.
The Code of 1804 contained no formal definition of marriage, but jurists have always found a functional definition in the provision that “The child conceived or born in marriage has the husband for father,” which mirrors the doctrine of the Roman jurist, Paulus, “.pater vero is est, quem nuptiae demonstrant.” (Marriage points out the father) [Dig. 2, 4, 5; 1].
This was the opinion of the four most authoritative commentators on the Civil Code, Demolombe (1804–1887), Guillouard (1845-1925). Gaudemet (1908-2001) and Carbonnier (1908–2003), covering the period from the introduction of mandatory civil marriage down to our own day and long before the question of same-sex marriage was agitated. In 1998, a colloquium of 154 Professors of Civil Law, including Philippe Malaurie, Alain Sériaux, and Catherine Labrusse-Riou unanimously endorsed this interpretation of the Civil Code. This led to the introduction of civil unions (PACS) for same-sex and opposite-sex couples in the following year.
No one will deny that the state has a clear interest in the filiation of children being clear, certain and incontestable. It is central to its concern for the upbringing and welfare of the child, for protecting rights and enforcing obligations between family members and to the orderly succession to property. To date, no better, simpler, less intrusive means than marriage have been found for ensuring, as far as possible, that the legal, biological and social realities of paternity coincide. And that is no small thing.
It is significant that, in a country so committed to the principle of laïcité as France, no one has suggested that the opinion of the jurists, or of the courts which have endorsed it, are either the result of religious convictions or an attempt to import them into their interpretation of the Code.
The state has a legitimate interest in marriage and it is important to note what precisely that is. Mandatory civil marriage originated in France on 9th November 1791 and was a product of the same Revolution that had just turned 10 million tenant farmers into heritable proprietors. This was no coincidence.
The Code of 1804 contained no formal definition of marriage, but jurists have always found a functional definition in the provision that “The child conceived or born in marriage has the husband for father,” which mirrors the doctrine of the Roman jurist, Paulus, “.pater vero is est, quem nuptiae demonstrant.” (Marriage points out the father) [Dig. 2, 4, 5; 1].
This was the opinion of the four most authoritative commentators on the Civil Code, Demolombe (1804–1887), Guillouard (1845-1925). Gaudemet (1908-2001) and Carbonnier (1908–2003), covering the period from the introduction of mandatory civil marriage down to our own day and long before the question of same-sex marriage was agitated. In 1998, a colloquium of 154 Professors of Civil Law, including Philippe Malaurie, Alain Sériaux, and Catherine Labrusse-Riou unanimously endorsed this interpretation of the Civil Code. This led to the introduction of civil unions (PACS) for same-sex and opposite-sex couples in the following year.
No one will deny that the state has a clear interest in the filiation of children being clear, certain and incontestable. It is central to its concern for the upbringing and welfare of the child, for protecting rights and enforcing obligations between family members and to the orderly succession to property. To date, no better, simpler, less intrusive means than marriage have been found for ensuring, as far as possible, that the legal, biological and social realities of paternity coincide. And that is no small thing.
It is significant that, in a country so committed to the principle of laïcité as France, no one has suggested that the opinion of the jurists, or of the courts which have endorsed it, are either the result of religious convictions or an attempt to import them into their interpretation of the Code.
8.9.2012 | 2:41pm
Joe says:
I'm sure quite a number of people who were for segregation considered themselves "traditional supporters" of separation of the races, just as God intended. After all, "He created us white, black, yellow and malay and spread them to the continents, and for that was proof that he did not intend the races to mix."
8.9.2012 | 2:45pm
Joe says:
"Even the pederasty-loving Greeks never had same-sex marriage."
Precisely. Same-sex marriage never existed in the bible for it to be condemned, therefore the bible never condemns same sex marriage. "Pederasty" on the other hand is a coercive act, and had every right to be considered sinful. But just as the bible condemns many acts of heterosexuality (divorce, infidelity, rape, etc) does not mean that heterosexuality -as a whole- is sinful, it is a leap to assume that particular acts of homosexuality condemned as sinful does not mean that homosexuality -as a whole- is sinful either.
Precisely. Same-sex marriage never existed in the bible for it to be condemned, therefore the bible never condemns same sex marriage. "Pederasty" on the other hand is a coercive act, and had every right to be considered sinful. But just as the bible condemns many acts of heterosexuality (divorce, infidelity, rape, etc) does not mean that heterosexuality -as a whole- is sinful, it is a leap to assume that particular acts of homosexuality condemned as sinful does not mean that homosexuality -as a whole- is sinful either.
8.9.2012 | 2:48pm
Fitzgerald says:
Many gay and gay "marriage" supporters are convinced that no real argument exists against same-sex "marriage" outside the religious ones predicated on scripture. I have been accused of using religious arguments even when I never mention them. It is often gay "marriage" supporters who drag in the issue of religion even when its not on topic or nobody brings it up.
Family Scholars have done a good job of differentiating the two opinions on marriage that often constitute the disagreement in these debates.
They are known as the "Pure relationship theory" of marriage & the "Conjugal Model" of marriage.
While the Conjugal model of marriage incorporates elements of the Pure relationship theory within itself...the advocates of same-sex "marriage" must elide, ignore, downplay or outright deny the conjugal, reproductive aspects of marriage in order to assert a "no rational basis" upon their adversaries argument.
This can take on ludicrous proportions were advocates say "marriage doesn't require childbearing" or "childbearing doesn't require marriage" or "why don't you make divorce illegal" or "why don't you ban illegitimacy" and the like...
Advocates of traditional marriage would do well if the immediately pointed out these two conceptions of marriage... "Pure relationship theory" of marriage & the "Conjugal Model" of marriage.
The begetting and raising of children by their natural Mother & Father is the public policy rational behind marriage. Close relationship exist in a variety of forms that include homosexual ones as well. It makes no public policy sense to differentiate gay relationships as particularly worthy of social recognition at all, much less call them marriage. Siblings & friends as well as Mothers and Daughters (often raising children collectively after male abandonment) all exist in larger numbers than monogamous gay relationships and all have mutual long term care giving benefits.
Only the union of male & female produce children so that singular institution is given social recognition and the proper label of marriage.
Family Scholars have done a good job of differentiating the two opinions on marriage that often constitute the disagreement in these debates.
They are known as the "Pure relationship theory" of marriage & the "Conjugal Model" of marriage.
While the Conjugal model of marriage incorporates elements of the Pure relationship theory within itself...the advocates of same-sex "marriage" must elide, ignore, downplay or outright deny the conjugal, reproductive aspects of marriage in order to assert a "no rational basis" upon their adversaries argument.
This can take on ludicrous proportions were advocates say "marriage doesn't require childbearing" or "childbearing doesn't require marriage" or "why don't you make divorce illegal" or "why don't you ban illegitimacy" and the like...
Advocates of traditional marriage would do well if the immediately pointed out these two conceptions of marriage... "Pure relationship theory" of marriage & the "Conjugal Model" of marriage.
The begetting and raising of children by their natural Mother & Father is the public policy rational behind marriage. Close relationship exist in a variety of forms that include homosexual ones as well. It makes no public policy sense to differentiate gay relationships as particularly worthy of social recognition at all, much less call them marriage. Siblings & friends as well as Mothers and Daughters (often raising children collectively after male abandonment) all exist in larger numbers than monogamous gay relationships and all have mutual long term care giving benefits.
Only the union of male & female produce children so that singular institution is given social recognition and the proper label of marriage.
8.9.2012 | 2:52pm
Chris Vogel says:
Huizinga is wrong on many counts. Same sex marriages exist in other cultures and in the Christian church into the twentieth century. Marriage itself was considered by the early church to be too materialistic to be allowed into the sanctuary, much less celebrated. It was not until the ninth century that some congregations were willing to permit the ceremony in front of the building, and not until after that that it was permitted inside. Fundamentally though, the difference is that legal marraige is a state institution, not a religious one. In other words, the churches do not own marriage. There is no difference between opposite-sex and same next marriages, nor is there one in the raising of children. By whatever standard, same-sex couples are as eligible to marry as are opposite-sex couples. Everyone, of course--despite the churches' fierce historic opposition to freedeom of faith and speech--is entitled to believe whatever they want, but they are not inetitled to insist that their faith be imposed by law on everyone else. Still, better than the old days; modern secular governments do not permit the church their traditional response to difference: torture and mass murder.
8.9.2012 | 3:14pm
David Nickol says:
"So convenient a thing it is to be a reasonable creature, since it enables one to find or make a reason for everything one has a mind to do." — Benjamin Franklin
8.9.2012 | 3:41pm
Mike D'Virgilio says:
I would title this piece: "Opposing the Redefinition of Marriage Is Rational, Not Religious." "Gay Marriage" is an oxymoron and only lends credibility to the idea any time it's used. I wish people who believe in marriage would quit using it.
When I argue for marriage, I never use Scripture, because it's unnecessary as outlined here.
When I argue for marriage, I never use Scripture, because it's unnecessary as outlined here.
8.9.2012 | 3:50pm
What? says:
You set the expectation that the article will make it's argument from a rational not religious angle, then proceed to cover your argument with religion.
The fact that you believe that christians "allow" other religions and atheists to get married speaks volumes. Further, "allowing" people of other faiths to get married (as if it were the christian institution's decision to grant permission in the first place) does not change the fact that it is attempting to deny that right to a particular group of people based on religious principals, not on rational principals.
Heads up guy, you don't "allow" or "grant me permission" for anything; I'm a straight male happily married for 22 years, and believe everyone in the United States has the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; and not a single individual requires some religions permission to have access to those rights.
Separation of Church and State needs to be adhered to in this situation, the word "marriage" does not belong to the christian religion, and has become the default word for "civil union", you can wish and twist any way you like, but it won't change the reality that bigotry and discrimination should never be allowed to set policy. Do what you wish in your "holy" places, please leave those of us who do not follow your version of god out of your delusion, and let us find god in our own delusion.
The fact that you believe that christians "allow" other religions and atheists to get married speaks volumes. Further, "allowing" people of other faiths to get married (as if it were the christian institution's decision to grant permission in the first place) does not change the fact that it is attempting to deny that right to a particular group of people based on religious principals, not on rational principals.
Heads up guy, you don't "allow" or "grant me permission" for anything; I'm a straight male happily married for 22 years, and believe everyone in the United States has the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; and not a single individual requires some religions permission to have access to those rights.
Separation of Church and State needs to be adhered to in this situation, the word "marriage" does not belong to the christian religion, and has become the default word for "civil union", you can wish and twist any way you like, but it won't change the reality that bigotry and discrimination should never be allowed to set policy. Do what you wish in your "holy" places, please leave those of us who do not follow your version of god out of your delusion, and let us find god in our own delusion.
8.9.2012 | 3:53pm
Mark says:
1. First the orginal marriage was based on ecomonics and were not one man one woman, but rather several women. Further, adultery was only an offense by the wife not the husband. So we've changed, we've learned, we've grown, so to say it should be based on something historic, well do that, but than do it right, don't pick and choose what you believe - a common practice by Christians. I bet you all eat shellfish - the sin in the Bible is the same, yet shellfish eaters are allowed to marry.
2. You disprove your own point. In the US, Christians are the main people against same sex marriage, just as they are against any type of social change. It makes sense as people who need these rules to stay good, tend to not understand how other people can be good without these rules. It's true, the weak shall enherit the earth. it's an observation that the weak need to oppress to feel better about themselves.
3. Stop with the children argument. Couples without kids still get married and many couples have kids without being married. Further, saying kids from same sex couples turn out angry, unadjusted, well that's ignorance. I guarantee you've never spent time with a gay person, except ten minutes at the office. You have no idea what you are talking about. I personally have learned over time, that Christains generally are mean people. I hear all the time, I'm a good Christian, as they stab people in the back for an extra buck and justify it by saying they are Christians or they are sinners. This article has no logic or reason, just saying a Pope says religion and reason are the same, doesn't make it so. Keep justfiying hate, that's what you all are doing. You're bad people who hate people and it makes me sick.
2. You disprove your own point. In the US, Christians are the main people against same sex marriage, just as they are against any type of social change. It makes sense as people who need these rules to stay good, tend to not understand how other people can be good without these rules. It's true, the weak shall enherit the earth. it's an observation that the weak need to oppress to feel better about themselves.
3. Stop with the children argument. Couples without kids still get married and many couples have kids without being married. Further, saying kids from same sex couples turn out angry, unadjusted, well that's ignorance. I guarantee you've never spent time with a gay person, except ten minutes at the office. You have no idea what you are talking about. I personally have learned over time, that Christains generally are mean people. I hear all the time, I'm a good Christian, as they stab people in the back for an extra buck and justify it by saying they are Christians or they are sinners. This article has no logic or reason, just saying a Pope says religion and reason are the same, doesn't make it so. Keep justfiying hate, that's what you all are doing. You're bad people who hate people and it makes me sick.
8.9.2012 | 4:35pm
Eric says:
Where in this article is the rational basis to oppose marriage equality?
I haven't seen any arguments put forth that five federal courts haven't already rejected.
I haven't seen any arguments put forth that five federal courts haven't already rejected.
8.9.2012 | 5:00pm
Steve says:
You can't force married couples to have children and you can't deny anyone who isn't married the right to have a child. So, how can you make the case that marriage is all about children?
And denying a gay couple the right to get married isn't going to change that. It's totally non sequitur. That's why these argument fail. It's not rational. They have nothing to do with one another.
And denying a gay couple the right to get married isn't going to change that. It's totally non sequitur. That's why these argument fail. It's not rational. They have nothing to do with one another.
8.9.2012 | 5:24pm
Lou Capuano says:
I read the article and I still do not see what the valid argument against same-sex marriage is.
You state "the state has an interest in regulating marriage, which is a public institution, to the end of “assur[ing] stability in society and the proper protection and raising of the next generation of citizens.” "
By denying the stability-building institution of Marriage to same-sex families you are going against your very argument.
It is my belief that you do not understand what a gay family is. We wake up and go to work. We go shopping. We come home and do housework, make dinner, and watch TV. We do laundry. Do yard work... get the car worked on. Take the dogs for a walk. Go for a run or to the gym. We entertain friends and family. Join friends out for an evening. We pay taxes. We worry about bills. We take care of our parents/family/kids. We go see a movie or out to eat. We check email. We read a good book. We climb into bed exhausted... give each other a kiss and fall asleep to get ready to do it all over again the next day.
Do you want to know the only real difference between a straight family and a gay one? A straight family has all the rights and protections and benefits as provided by law automatically. Same sex families are harmed by not having the same rights...the same stability and sense of security.
You state "the state has an interest in regulating marriage, which is a public institution, to the end of “assur[ing] stability in society and the proper protection and raising of the next generation of citizens.” "
By denying the stability-building institution of Marriage to same-sex families you are going against your very argument.
It is my belief that you do not understand what a gay family is. We wake up and go to work. We go shopping. We come home and do housework, make dinner, and watch TV. We do laundry. Do yard work... get the car worked on. Take the dogs for a walk. Go for a run or to the gym. We entertain friends and family. Join friends out for an evening. We pay taxes. We worry about bills. We take care of our parents/family/kids. We go see a movie or out to eat. We check email. We read a good book. We climb into bed exhausted... give each other a kiss and fall asleep to get ready to do it all over again the next day.
Do you want to know the only real difference between a straight family and a gay one? A straight family has all the rights and protections and benefits as provided by law automatically. Same sex families are harmed by not having the same rights...the same stability and sense of security.
8.9.2012 | 6:41pm
Paul S says:
If there is a rational argument against equal marriage it is certainly not to be found in this piece, although as it contains statements such as "First, the intelligibility of creation suggests a rational intellect as creator." that should come as no surprise.
Marriage is and always has been a mostly financial arrangement, everything else is either religious, traditional or otherwise sentimental frippery. Denying some consenting adults the ability to enter into a state-sanctioned contractual arrangement, while allowing others to do the same, is simple discrimination. There's your 'rationality'.
It was discriminatory when mixed-race marriages were banned, it is discriminatory now with same-sex marriages being banned. I hope opponents of equal marriage are around in 50 years time, to see the contempt their views will be treated with.
Marriage is and always has been a mostly financial arrangement, everything else is either religious, traditional or otherwise sentimental frippery. Denying some consenting adults the ability to enter into a state-sanctioned contractual arrangement, while allowing others to do the same, is simple discrimination. There's your 'rationality'.
It was discriminatory when mixed-race marriages were banned, it is discriminatory now with same-sex marriages being banned. I hope opponents of equal marriage are around in 50 years time, to see the contempt their views will be treated with.
8.9.2012 | 6:57pm
Steve says:
Fitzgerald writes: "The begetting and raising of children by their natural Mother & Father is the public policy rational behind marriage."
And that's a very valid policy objective. I think we can all get behind that one; every child deserves to be raised by their biological parents.
But what does that have to do with a gay couple getting married? If a gay couple gets married, a child isn't denied its parents. I don't understand how that's a 'rational' argument.
If you're going to help children, help children. Don't try and deny a gay couple's right to get married and say it's to help children. Gay marriage has nothing to do with children. How is that 'rational'?
And that's a very valid policy objective. I think we can all get behind that one; every child deserves to be raised by their biological parents.
But what does that have to do with a gay couple getting married? If a gay couple gets married, a child isn't denied its parents. I don't understand how that's a 'rational' argument.
If you're going to help children, help children. Don't try and deny a gay couple's right to get married and say it's to help children. Gay marriage has nothing to do with children. How is that 'rational'?
8.9.2012 | 7:37pm
Jaego Scorzne says:
Marriage is already dead - no fault divorce killed it. Women are rewarded for breaking the contract by custody of the children and alimony. Some even get to kick a man out of his own home. Thus marriage should cease to have anything to do with the State (which is no longer Christian) and become a private affair between the two people and God. C.S Lewis proposed the same. If the Churches had any sense they would be willing to marry people without a license. As it is, couples will have to do it themselves or in front a few friends. The Protestant model comes to the fore here - too bad. The Church has blown it here just as it has on everything else for the last 70 years or so.
8.9.2012 | 8:38pm
Diogenes says:
@Lou Capuano,
I understand the need for couples other than husbands and wives to have legal recognition and certain defined rights and responsibilities, whether such couples are in a sexual relationship or not. I'm all for granting such rights via domestic partnership or similar laws. What I don't understand is why the word "marriage" should be redefined for that purpose. If "domestic partnership" or "civil union" is inadequate, then fine, but why take a word that has meant one thing for time immemorial and seek to change its fundamental meaning.
Marriage has historically (as reflected in law and marriage rites) been a lifelong union of a man and woman who, among other things, ordered their sexual lives toward the procreation of children. See, for example the Rite of Matrimony from the classic 1662 Book of Common Prayer. Annulments (that is, a finding that no marriage had ever occurred) have historically been granted when, among other grounds, the couple had not consummated the marriage by engaging in coitus, the act by which procreation naturally occurs. (Note, fertility and procreation are not and were not grounds for annulments, but failure to consummate by coitus is even today in some jurisdictions (for example, Ohio and England).)
Even if we change the definition of the word "marriage" to include broader categories of relationships, same-sex unions will be different-in-kind and not merely in degree in that by nature such unions cannot be ordered toward procreation while opposite sex marriages can. That is, the union now and historically labeled "marriage" will remain definably distinct from same-sex unions, but it will no longer be recognized as distinct in law or in our language. It will be, in effect, a legal and linguistic denial of a reality.
I honestly would like an explanation as to why we as a society could not meet your desire for legal rights, protections and benefits without denying the distinction between unions which by their nature are ordered toward procreation (which is, after all, an extremely important matter) and ones which are not. Indeed, I would think that the oft heard call to recognize and celebrate diversity would call for recognizing the essential distinctions between these two very different kinds of unions. Help me understand why redefining legally the word "marriage" is of such importance.
Thank you.
I understand the need for couples other than husbands and wives to have legal recognition and certain defined rights and responsibilities, whether such couples are in a sexual relationship or not. I'm all for granting such rights via domestic partnership or similar laws. What I don't understand is why the word "marriage" should be redefined for that purpose. If "domestic partnership" or "civil union" is inadequate, then fine, but why take a word that has meant one thing for time immemorial and seek to change its fundamental meaning.
Marriage has historically (as reflected in law and marriage rites) been a lifelong union of a man and woman who, among other things, ordered their sexual lives toward the procreation of children. See, for example the Rite of Matrimony from the classic 1662 Book of Common Prayer. Annulments (that is, a finding that no marriage had ever occurred) have historically been granted when, among other grounds, the couple had not consummated the marriage by engaging in coitus, the act by which procreation naturally occurs. (Note, fertility and procreation are not and were not grounds for annulments, but failure to consummate by coitus is even today in some jurisdictions (for example, Ohio and England).)
Even if we change the definition of the word "marriage" to include broader categories of relationships, same-sex unions will be different-in-kind and not merely in degree in that by nature such unions cannot be ordered toward procreation while opposite sex marriages can. That is, the union now and historically labeled "marriage" will remain definably distinct from same-sex unions, but it will no longer be recognized as distinct in law or in our language. It will be, in effect, a legal and linguistic denial of a reality.
I honestly would like an explanation as to why we as a society could not meet your desire for legal rights, protections and benefits without denying the distinction between unions which by their nature are ordered toward procreation (which is, after all, an extremely important matter) and ones which are not. Indeed, I would think that the oft heard call to recognize and celebrate diversity would call for recognizing the essential distinctions between these two very different kinds of unions. Help me understand why redefining legally the word "marriage" is of such importance.
Thank you.
8.9.2012 | 11:02pm
Frank says:
If we construct domestic partnership for gays, and marriage for straights, we are building a circle of inclusion and excluding gays out of that circle. You can say, "Will you marry me." What are we to say: "Will you enter into a domestic partnership contract with me?" Should we say, "We were civil unioned in April 1980"? Should we change the name of the Marilyn Monroe movie to "How to enter into a Domestic Partnership with a Millionaire"? If your relationship is called marriage, but I can't use that word, I am not equal to you. Separate is not and will not ever be equal. As a comment above mentioned, no religion and no tradition owns the word "marriage". Its meaning has changed many times throughout history. The definition of marriage as one man and one woman is discriminatory. We must change it.
The definition of marriage has changed enormously throughout time. The statement that it has never before included same-sex marriage is not true. There are 11 countries and 6 states with single-sex marriage. Before 11 years ago, I'd be hard pressed to find examples of SSM in society in previous history. However, this is not 4000 BCE. It is not the 1600's. We don't use the laws of Henry VIII to determine property rights, anymore. It is 2012 AD. Slavery was accepted by all societies until a few hundred years ago. So do you recommend we keep that in the name of tradition, too?
The only non-religious supposedly rational argument I've heard in this whole stream is that it takes male and female to reproduce. Some say children fare better in OSM, but no evidence supports that conclusion. To say that since it takes male/female to reproduce, therefore it is essential to deny the benefits of marriage to gays is not rational thinking. It's ridiculous. The only argument to support denying equal rights (which, by the way, no single-sex couple in the U.S. currently has---not one) is keeping the tradition of the discriminatory nature of the definition of marriage.
When it comes to a non-religious, rational argument against gay marriage: these reasons fail. You have failed to show one rational reason supported by evidence to deny me and my partner of 32 years equal rights.
The definition of marriage has changed enormously throughout time. The statement that it has never before included same-sex marriage is not true. There are 11 countries and 6 states with single-sex marriage. Before 11 years ago, I'd be hard pressed to find examples of SSM in society in previous history. However, this is not 4000 BCE. It is not the 1600's. We don't use the laws of Henry VIII to determine property rights, anymore. It is 2012 AD. Slavery was accepted by all societies until a few hundred years ago. So do you recommend we keep that in the name of tradition, too?
The only non-religious supposedly rational argument I've heard in this whole stream is that it takes male and female to reproduce. Some say children fare better in OSM, but no evidence supports that conclusion. To say that since it takes male/female to reproduce, therefore it is essential to deny the benefits of marriage to gays is not rational thinking. It's ridiculous. The only argument to support denying equal rights (which, by the way, no single-sex couple in the U.S. currently has---not one) is keeping the tradition of the discriminatory nature of the definition of marriage.
When it comes to a non-religious, rational argument against gay marriage: these reasons fail. You have failed to show one rational reason supported by evidence to deny me and my partner of 32 years equal rights.
8.9.2012 | 11:09pm
SteveP says:
Leroy Huizenga: a fine article you’ve written. While not to diminish your effort, I do not think some of those readers of yours a capable of comprehending -- some of those who propound that two adult males or two adult females can enter into marriage have also stated that a slice of cooked chicken between two slices of bread is a “hate sandwich.” What else need be examined to assess their rational state?
8.9.2012 | 11:15pm
catholicmom says:
Steve says:
"Gay marriage has nothing to do with children."
Yes - that is the whole point!! Marriage has everything to do with children - so therefore, there is no rational basis for same-sex "marriage". I understand there are couples who cannot, through no fault of their own have children - but that is not their wish - all those couples I know are still trying to have children. Those couples who get married with the express commitment NOT to have children, however are really in the same situation as same-sex couples. Their union is sterile. Marriage is meant to be fruitful - physically and spiritually. In the case of unintentional, or accidental sterility, the couple can still physically unite in the natural way and truly give themselves to each other and receive the gift of each other. Homosexual sex acts NEVER unite the two persons in this way. And contracepting heterosexual couples are always holding back something - they are not fully uniting, either.
"Gay marriage has nothing to do with children."
Yes - that is the whole point!! Marriage has everything to do with children - so therefore, there is no rational basis for same-sex "marriage". I understand there are couples who cannot, through no fault of their own have children - but that is not their wish - all those couples I know are still trying to have children. Those couples who get married with the express commitment NOT to have children, however are really in the same situation as same-sex couples. Their union is sterile. Marriage is meant to be fruitful - physically and spiritually. In the case of unintentional, or accidental sterility, the couple can still physically unite in the natural way and truly give themselves to each other and receive the gift of each other. Homosexual sex acts NEVER unite the two persons in this way. And contracepting heterosexual couples are always holding back something - they are not fully uniting, either.
8.9.2012 | 11:30pm
Fitz says:
Steve (writes)
"And that's a very valid policy objective. I think we can all get behind that one; every child deserves to be raised by their biological parents."
"But what does that have to do with a gay couple getting married? If a gay couple gets married, a child isn't denied its parents. I don't understand how that's a 'rational' argument."
The legal test that court are presented with is whether or not the public policy interest itself is rational. Not whether the purposed change necessarily effects the desired public policy goal.
It is called the rational basis test and is the most deferential test to legislators and the laws when applying the 14th amendment.
I hope you can appreciate the difference, because its a crucial one.
Again: The question presented to courts is.. "Does fostering intact married natural childbearing and rearing a rational public policy" - That's it...that's the question at hand.
Courts are simply not required under the test to engage in hypothetical thinking over a purposed definitional change will have X or Y impact.
Such policy questions are seen as best reserved to the legislatures who's job that is.
Perhaps this helps explain why many informed observers who defend marriage against redefinition see what has been going on as a tyrannical abuse of power & a gaming of the system on questions of fundamental constitutional & human rights.
"And that's a very valid policy objective. I think we can all get behind that one; every child deserves to be raised by their biological parents."
"But what does that have to do with a gay couple getting married? If a gay couple gets married, a child isn't denied its parents. I don't understand how that's a 'rational' argument."
The legal test that court are presented with is whether or not the public policy interest itself is rational. Not whether the purposed change necessarily effects the desired public policy goal.
It is called the rational basis test and is the most deferential test to legislators and the laws when applying the 14th amendment.
I hope you can appreciate the difference, because its a crucial one.
Again: The question presented to courts is.. "Does fostering intact married natural childbearing and rearing a rational public policy" - That's it...that's the question at hand.
Courts are simply not required under the test to engage in hypothetical thinking over a purposed definitional change will have X or Y impact.
Such policy questions are seen as best reserved to the legislatures who's job that is.
Perhaps this helps explain why many informed observers who defend marriage against redefinition see what has been going on as a tyrannical abuse of power & a gaming of the system on questions of fundamental constitutional & human rights.
8.10.2012 | 12:06am
Joseph Marshall says:
I would be curious to know how the good Cardinal, and others here know that "Marriage existed before Church and state. Therefore, “Neither Church nor state invented marriage, and neither can change its nature.” " This seems to be a clear case of illegitimately reifying an intellectual abstraction. Both sex and gender were certainly here before church and state: had they not been, neither we nor church nor state would be here. But, clearly, sex + gender difference is not equivalent to marriage, whatever marriage may be. Whatever marriage is, it clearly exists in some occult realm of sacrament which none but priests have direct access to, and not in the world of groceries, inventories, and property. In other words, it is abstract and not concrete, metaphysical and not physical.
So someone like myself, who is neither a priest nor married, has no direct way of proving that marriage even exists at all. Once this is clear, most of the dialectic antinomies of this article and many others simply evaporate, and the key to the philosophy of such matters is not William of Occam's views on the nature of God but Immanuel Kant's Critique of Pure Reason.
Kant in no way opposes Reason to Religion [he was far too intelligent to be deceived by this secular commonplace] He merely argues that applying reason to religion [or any other metaphysics] is like trying to open a tin can with a sponge. Now it may be that the tin can actually contains a sponge, rather like the nature of God as Reason and not mere Will, but you can't use a sponge on the outside of a can to reveal a sponge inside of it.
All claims about the "nature" of marriage are completely a priori and inaccessible to reason: they are premises you can reason from, but not conclusions you can reason to. To try to do so is to fall into error of reasoning known as Circularity. The problem with most, if not all, "arguments from reason" about the nature of marriage is not that they are Religious, but that they are circular; in other words, they are incorrect reasoning as opposed to correct reasoning.
Pope Benedict, when writing about Faith and Reason as Cardinal Ratzinger was far clearer about this than most of his Flock.
Of course, the opponents to the Flock on this issue are not particularly clear about it either, but they intuitively grasp that the arguments involved are a form of logical Three Card Monte, even if they cannot clearly understand why.
The best they can do with reasoning on their side is that since the arguers are Religous, that the arguments are Religious as well.
So someone like myself, who is neither a priest nor married, has no direct way of proving that marriage even exists at all. Once this is clear, most of the dialectic antinomies of this article and many others simply evaporate, and the key to the philosophy of such matters is not William of Occam's views on the nature of God but Immanuel Kant's Critique of Pure Reason.
Kant in no way opposes Reason to Religion [he was far too intelligent to be deceived by this secular commonplace] He merely argues that applying reason to religion [or any other metaphysics] is like trying to open a tin can with a sponge. Now it may be that the tin can actually contains a sponge, rather like the nature of God as Reason and not mere Will, but you can't use a sponge on the outside of a can to reveal a sponge inside of it.
All claims about the "nature" of marriage are completely a priori and inaccessible to reason: they are premises you can reason from, but not conclusions you can reason to. To try to do so is to fall into error of reasoning known as Circularity. The problem with most, if not all, "arguments from reason" about the nature of marriage is not that they are Religious, but that they are circular; in other words, they are incorrect reasoning as opposed to correct reasoning.
Pope Benedict, when writing about Faith and Reason as Cardinal Ratzinger was far clearer about this than most of his Flock.
Of course, the opponents to the Flock on this issue are not particularly clear about it either, but they intuitively grasp that the arguments involved are a form of logical Three Card Monte, even if they cannot clearly understand why.
The best they can do with reasoning on their side is that since the arguers are Religous, that the arguments are Religious as well.
8.10.2012 | 2:40am
MarkM says:
"Marriage concerns the physical complementarity of the sexes. “The sexual union of a man and woman is called the marital act because the two become physically one in a way that is impossible between two men or two women.” "
As pointed out, this is question-begging. Cardinal George asserted that "physical complementarity" between the two participants in a marriage is an essential characteristic of marriage but no justification for this assertion is given.
This isn't an exercise in reason: it's just argument by assertion for a high-brow audience.
As pointed out, this is question-begging. Cardinal George asserted that "physical complementarity" between the two participants in a marriage is an essential characteristic of marriage but no justification for this assertion is given.
This isn't an exercise in reason: it's just argument by assertion for a high-brow audience.
8.10.2012 | 4:51am
Steve says:
I'll ask again: how does denying gay couples the right to get married help children or support heterosexual marriages?
If you want to help children, help children. Devise some sort of policy to strengthen families. But simply saying we are excluding this segment of the population from marriage doesn't help anyone. How are you helping straight couples? It's not rational because it doesn't accomplish the objective. It just highlights unnecessary and meaningless differences without accomplishing anything other than denying a group of people any semblance of equality. And that's not good for the common good.
If you want to help children, help children. Devise some sort of policy to strengthen families. But simply saying we are excluding this segment of the population from marriage doesn't help anyone. How are you helping straight couples? It's not rational because it doesn't accomplish the objective. It just highlights unnecessary and meaningless differences without accomplishing anything other than denying a group of people any semblance of equality. And that's not good for the common good.
8.10.2012 | 8:35am
Michael PS says:
The state’s interest in marriage is in establishing the civil status and, hence, the rights and duties, of any children born of it – “the child conceived or born in marriage has the husband for father.” Otherwise, the laws facilitating death-bed marriages are unintelligible.
To argue that the law should exclude opposite-sex infertile couples from marriage, is a red herring for two reasons
(1) to establish a screening process would be burdensome, expensive, intrusive and litigious, especially given current advances in reproductive medicine and assisted reproduction. By contrast, same-sex couples form a readily-identifiable infertile class. Laws are enacted for the general case and anomalies are the price that legislators pay for simplicity and certainty.
(2) by adoption, an infertile opposite-sex couple can make as if they have procreated. In other words, they present to the child, and to the wider community, the model of the natural (procreative) family, which, some experts assert, makes the establishment of the parental bond between the adopters and the adopted child, easier and spares adopted children the additional difficulty of having to integrate into a “non-standard” family, however loving.
To argue that the law should exclude opposite-sex infertile couples from marriage, is a red herring for two reasons
(1) to establish a screening process would be burdensome, expensive, intrusive and litigious, especially given current advances in reproductive medicine and assisted reproduction. By contrast, same-sex couples form a readily-identifiable infertile class. Laws are enacted for the general case and anomalies are the price that legislators pay for simplicity and certainty.
(2) by adoption, an infertile opposite-sex couple can make as if they have procreated. In other words, they present to the child, and to the wider community, the model of the natural (procreative) family, which, some experts assert, makes the establishment of the parental bond between the adopters and the adopted child, easier and spares adopted children the additional difficulty of having to integrate into a “non-standard” family, however loving.
8.10.2012 | 8:36am
MarkM says:
Catholicmom,
"In the case of unintentional, or accidental sterility, the couple can still physically unite in the natural way and truly give themselves to each other and receive the gift of each other... And contracepting heterosexual couples are always holding back something - they are not fully uniting, either."
This seems to be another example of argument-by-assertion, though. What is it about contraception that causes heterosexual partners to "hold something back" in contrast to a heterosexual couple where one partner is sterile?
What do you think of St. Augustine's view that couples who practice the "rhythm method" are not really married because they are more concerned with satisfying lust than with having children? That appears to contradict modern Catholic doctrine.
The point is that St. Augustine and modern Catholic thinkers are all pretty intelligent but their reasons for their differing views on family planning don't seem to have anything to do with partners' "holding something back." That seems like an ex post rationalization for a rule that has its origins in some other consideration.
"In the case of unintentional, or accidental sterility, the couple can still physically unite in the natural way and truly give themselves to each other and receive the gift of each other... And contracepting heterosexual couples are always holding back something - they are not fully uniting, either."
This seems to be another example of argument-by-assertion, though. What is it about contraception that causes heterosexual partners to "hold something back" in contrast to a heterosexual couple where one partner is sterile?
What do you think of St. Augustine's view that couples who practice the "rhythm method" are not really married because they are more concerned with satisfying lust than with having children? That appears to contradict modern Catholic doctrine.
The point is that St. Augustine and modern Catholic thinkers are all pretty intelligent but their reasons for their differing views on family planning don't seem to have anything to do with partners' "holding something back." That seems like an ex post rationalization for a rule that has its origins in some other consideration.
8.10.2012 | 9:25am
patricksarsfield says:
There was an important decision this week by a Federaljudge in Hawaii upholding a state restriction of marriage to a union of a man and a woman. Jackson v Abercrombie.
Here is the link:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/102403206/US-District-Court-ruling-on-same-sex-marriage
Significantly, the court held that the restriction was not premised on animus alone (as another court recently held) but had rational bases (including encouragement of reltionships in which children are born as much as possible by natural procreation, and promoting the ideal, where possible, tha children be raised by both their mother and father).
Here is the link:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/102403206/US-District-Court-ruling-on-same-sex-marriage
Significantly, the court held that the restriction was not premised on animus alone (as another court recently held) but had rational bases (including encouragement of reltionships in which children are born as much as possible by natural procreation, and promoting the ideal, where possible, tha children be raised by both their mother and father).
8.10.2012 | 9:46am
Michelle says:
I believe Adam Kolasinski said it best in his article "the secular case against gay marriage" when he stated that:The biggest danger homosexual civil marriage presents is the enshrining into law the notion that sexual love, regardless of its fecundity, is the sole criterion for marriage. If the state must recognize a marriage of two men simply because they love one another, upon what basis can it deny marital recognition to a group of two men and three women, for example, or a sterile brother and sister who claim to love each other?- Marriage has always existed as is for the benefit of the couple, the children they bring into this world, and society at large. Trying to redefine marriage to include what it is not is like trying to label a BigMac as healt food. It will never happen because of the very nature of the BigMac (processed food, chemicals, fat, preservatives). Big Mac will continue to remian fast food, and Marriage will continue to remain between a man and a woman. If gay people want to live together, as they choose to do so anyways, well continue to do so, but never under the definition of marriage.
8.10.2012 | 9:53am
jason taylor says:
"Chris Vogel says:
Huizinga is wrong on many counts. Same sex marriages exist in other cultures and in the Christian church into the twentieth century. Marriage itself was considered by the early church to be too materialistic to be allowed into the sanctuary, much less celebrated. It was not until the ninth century that some congregations were willing to permit the ceremony in front of the building, and not until after that that it was permitted inside. Fundamentally though, the difference is that legal marraige is a state institution, not a religious one. In other words, the churches do not own marriage. There is no difference between opposite-sex and same next marriages, nor is there one in the raising of children. By whatever standard, same-sex couples are as eligible to marry as are opposite-sex couples. Everyone, of course--despite the churches' fierce historic opposition to freedeom of faith and speech--is entitled to believe whatever they want, but they are not inetitled to insist that their faith be imposed by law on everyone else. Still, better than the old days; modern secular governments do not permit the church their traditional response to difference: torture and mass murder."
Please elaborate
Huizinga is wrong on many counts. Same sex marriages exist in other cultures and in the Christian church into the twentieth century. Marriage itself was considered by the early church to be too materialistic to be allowed into the sanctuary, much less celebrated. It was not until the ninth century that some congregations were willing to permit the ceremony in front of the building, and not until after that that it was permitted inside. Fundamentally though, the difference is that legal marraige is a state institution, not a religious one. In other words, the churches do not own marriage. There is no difference between opposite-sex and same next marriages, nor is there one in the raising of children. By whatever standard, same-sex couples are as eligible to marry as are opposite-sex couples. Everyone, of course--despite the churches' fierce historic opposition to freedeom of faith and speech--is entitled to believe whatever they want, but they are not inetitled to insist that their faith be imposed by law on everyone else. Still, better than the old days; modern secular governments do not permit the church their traditional response to difference: torture and mass murder."
Please elaborate
8.10.2012 | 10:43am
ML says:
Gay so-called-marriage supporters claim that this has nothing to do with children - Then they might as well seek permission to "marry" their furry friend fido. Because after all, that has nothing to do with children either. Sigh. It's a slippery slope people, and one we do not want to go down.
8.10.2012 | 10:55am
Cy Winter says:
Without God as first appeal, people don't care about logic and natural law. They care about "me myself and I". They do what they want, not what reason shows to be true for they reject objective truth. Without faith and loving obedience to God, we are lost in rebellion in pursuit of the addictions to the flesh.
8.10.2012 | 10:56am
Frank says:
Many commenters are totally hung up on the notion that the only purpose of marriage is children. There are millions of straight couples who marry and are incapable of producing children. There are millions of couples who marry and do not want to ever have children. Marriage provides a public stated love and companionship in life. Its benefits include taxes, and spousal protections that have nothing to do with children. Marriage does not exist in any state or religion as solely a child producing and child rearing institution. This is a made-up argument, that is convenient to excluding folks you don't like from your exclusive little club.
8.10.2012 | 11:18am
Diogenes says:
@Frank,
Thanks for your thoughtful post, which I take to be a response to my question addressed to Lou Capuano. Let me follow up your post with a couple of questions:
Is a union of a man and a woman who engage in coitus and are open to procreation different from any other type of relationship, be it (1) a relationship between a man and a woman who do not engage in coitus or who do, but have voluntarily closed that act to procreation or (2) a sexual relationship between two men or two women that by its nature cannot be open to procreation or (3) a non-sexual relation between any two people? If your answer is no, then could you please elaborate as to why you don't believe a relationship which may produce children who are the biological offspring of both partners (whether it actually does so or not) is not different from relationships which are not potentially fertile by their nature or by choice and which cannot produce children who are the offspring of both partners?
Please understand what I am not suggesting, that people other than biological parents cannot or should not rear children. That has been practiced for time immemorial as well, even by people who are not married. My question is addressed specifically to the nature of the relationship and whether one that is potential procreative is exactly the same or different in some fundamental way from all other relationships.
I welcome other advocates of same-sex marriage to respond as well. I would ask that those opposed to same-sex marriage not respond. I am seeking a true dialog here with advocates of same-sex marriage and not a food fight so common on blogs. I would appreciate being allowed to engage in this hopefully civil and respectful dialog without interference. Thank you.
Thanks for your thoughtful post, which I take to be a response to my question addressed to Lou Capuano. Let me follow up your post with a couple of questions:
Is a union of a man and a woman who engage in coitus and are open to procreation different from any other type of relationship, be it (1) a relationship between a man and a woman who do not engage in coitus or who do, but have voluntarily closed that act to procreation or (2) a sexual relationship between two men or two women that by its nature cannot be open to procreation or (3) a non-sexual relation between any two people? If your answer is no, then could you please elaborate as to why you don't believe a relationship which may produce children who are the biological offspring of both partners (whether it actually does so or not) is not different from relationships which are not potentially fertile by their nature or by choice and which cannot produce children who are the offspring of both partners?
Please understand what I am not suggesting, that people other than biological parents cannot or should not rear children. That has been practiced for time immemorial as well, even by people who are not married. My question is addressed specifically to the nature of the relationship and whether one that is potential procreative is exactly the same or different in some fundamental way from all other relationships.
I welcome other advocates of same-sex marriage to respond as well. I would ask that those opposed to same-sex marriage not respond. I am seeking a true dialog here with advocates of same-sex marriage and not a food fight so common on blogs. I would appreciate being allowed to engage in this hopefully civil and respectful dialog without interference. Thank you.
8.10.2012 | 12:07pm
Diogenes says:
@Frank,
Your most recent post (at 7:56 a.m.) was not posted when I posted my most recent one (of 8:18 a.m.). I can assure you that I have not "made-up [this] argument] and have no desire to "excluding folks [I] don't like from" marriage. I know many gays and lesbians who like very much and several married couples who I really don't like much at all. And, as I have already stated above, I favor domestic partnership laws to address what I believe are very legitimate concerns for those who cannot or don't choose to marry, whether in a sexual relationship or not and have no objection to calling those unions by some other name. My sole objection is to treating relationships which are different-in-kind in a very fundamental way as if they are the same.
Marriage law had developed (I agree it has not been static) over the centuries to support and defend potentially sexually reproductive unions for the sake of the children who may be procreated and for the sake of the partners, not either/or, but both. Marriage law was designed to assure that children have parents who will procreate them, care for them and rear them to be happy and productive adults and to assure women that they will not find themselves raising children alone after the man who sired them decides to move on. The changes we have had in divorce law over the past half-century has undermined both those benefits of the old marriage laws, by making it easier for the father to leave his children and his wife. The solution to that problem is not to make marriage open to additional kinds of relationships, but to make divorces more difficult to obtain again.
The argument that this connect between marriage, sex and procreation is what a marriage is is not a novelty. It is clearly one that has existed for time immemorial. It can be proven by looking at the Rite of Matrimony from the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, a rite which was based on more ancient rites and which was authorized long before same-sex marriage was ever an issue. It read, in relevant part:
"DEARLY beloved, we are gathered together here in the sight of God, and in the face of this congregation, to join together this Man and this Woman in holy Matrimony . . .duly considering the causes for which Matrimony was ordained.
First, It was ordained for the procreation of children . . . .
Secondly, It was ordained for a remedy against sin, and to avoid fornication; that such persons as have not the gift of continency might marry, and keep themselves undefiled . . . .
Thirdly, It was ordained for the mutual society, help, and comfort, that the one ought to have of the other, both in prosperity and adversity."
And the law supported this first cause for which Matrimony was ordained by providing for an annulment (a finding that no marriage had ever come into existence) when the couple failed to consummate the marriage by coitus, the act by which a child may be procreated. That is still the law in many jurisdictions and, again, is based on laws that long predate any consideration of same-sex marriage and, so, cannot be found to be put in place to prevent same-sex marriages. For example, see Ohio Revise Code § 3105.31
"A marriage may be annulled for any of the following causes existing at the time of the marriage:
* * *
(F) That the marriage between the parties was never consummated although otherwise valid."
To my knowledge, this has been the law in Ohio long before the same-sex marriage debate was even raised. And the same can be seen in English law:
"Grounds on which a marriage is voidable.
A marriage celebrated after 31st July 1971 shall be voidable on the following grounds only, that is to say—
(a)that the marriage has not been consummated owing to the incapacity of either party to consummate it;
(b)that the marriage has not been consummated owing to the wilful refusal of the respondent to consummate it;
* * *"
This is consistent with an older English case, Cowen v. Cowen, [1945] 2 All Eng. 197 (C. A.), in which the court annulled a marriage in which the husband refused to have children, employing various means to that end.
I understand that you reject this connection, but it certainly is not novel and it certainly was created to exclude homosexuals from marrying. It was the age old understand of what a marriage is. It's not about forcing anyone to have children in order to be married, its about recognizing what a marriage is. It is a recognition of that distinctiveness and importance of a union which may be procreative, unions that will exist a distinctive and important in its distinctiveness even if our language and our laws cease to recognize them as distinctive, but begin to treat them as if they are no different in any fundamental and essential way from other relationships. It is not even to judge the importance and distinctiveness of other relationships; it is simply to treat relationships which are different-in-kind in fundamental and essential ways as different, not the same.
Your most recent post (at 7:56 a.m.) was not posted when I posted my most recent one (of 8:18 a.m.). I can assure you that I have not "made-up [this] argument] and have no desire to "excluding folks [I] don't like from" marriage. I know many gays and lesbians who like very much and several married couples who I really don't like much at all. And, as I have already stated above, I favor domestic partnership laws to address what I believe are very legitimate concerns for those who cannot or don't choose to marry, whether in a sexual relationship or not and have no objection to calling those unions by some other name. My sole objection is to treating relationships which are different-in-kind in a very fundamental way as if they are the same.
Marriage law had developed (I agree it has not been static) over the centuries to support and defend potentially sexually reproductive unions for the sake of the children who may be procreated and for the sake of the partners, not either/or, but both. Marriage law was designed to assure that children have parents who will procreate them, care for them and rear them to be happy and productive adults and to assure women that they will not find themselves raising children alone after the man who sired them decides to move on. The changes we have had in divorce law over the past half-century has undermined both those benefits of the old marriage laws, by making it easier for the father to leave his children and his wife. The solution to that problem is not to make marriage open to additional kinds of relationships, but to make divorces more difficult to obtain again.
The argument that this connect between marriage, sex and procreation is what a marriage is is not a novelty. It is clearly one that has existed for time immemorial. It can be proven by looking at the Rite of Matrimony from the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, a rite which was based on more ancient rites and which was authorized long before same-sex marriage was ever an issue. It read, in relevant part:
"DEARLY beloved, we are gathered together here in the sight of God, and in the face of this congregation, to join together this Man and this Woman in holy Matrimony . . .duly considering the causes for which Matrimony was ordained.
First, It was ordained for the procreation of children . . . .
Secondly, It was ordained for a remedy against sin, and to avoid fornication; that such persons as have not the gift of continency might marry, and keep themselves undefiled . . . .
Thirdly, It was ordained for the mutual society, help, and comfort, that the one ought to have of the other, both in prosperity and adversity."
And the law supported this first cause for which Matrimony was ordained by providing for an annulment (a finding that no marriage had ever come into existence) when the couple failed to consummate the marriage by coitus, the act by which a child may be procreated. That is still the law in many jurisdictions and, again, is based on laws that long predate any consideration of same-sex marriage and, so, cannot be found to be put in place to prevent same-sex marriages. For example, see Ohio Revise Code § 3105.31
"A marriage may be annulled for any of the following causes existing at the time of the marriage:
* * *
(F) That the marriage between the parties was never consummated although otherwise valid."
To my knowledge, this has been the law in Ohio long before the same-sex marriage debate was even raised. And the same can be seen in English law:
"Grounds on which a marriage is voidable.
A marriage celebrated after 31st July 1971 shall be voidable on the following grounds only, that is to say—
(a)that the marriage has not been consummated owing to the incapacity of either party to consummate it;
(b)that the marriage has not been consummated owing to the wilful refusal of the respondent to consummate it;
* * *"
This is consistent with an older English case, Cowen v. Cowen, [1945] 2 All Eng. 197 (C. A.), in which the court annulled a marriage in which the husband refused to have children, employing various means to that end.
I understand that you reject this connection, but it certainly is not novel and it certainly was created to exclude homosexuals from marrying. It was the age old understand of what a marriage is. It's not about forcing anyone to have children in order to be married, its about recognizing what a marriage is. It is a recognition of that distinctiveness and importance of a union which may be procreative, unions that will exist a distinctive and important in its distinctiveness even if our language and our laws cease to recognize them as distinctive, but begin to treat them as if they are no different in any fundamental and essential way from other relationships. It is not even to judge the importance and distinctiveness of other relationships; it is simply to treat relationships which are different-in-kind in fundamental and essential ways as different, not the same.
8.10.2012 | 12:27pm
patricksarsfield says:
Frank argues that there is a purpose to marriage unrelated to children:
"Marriage provides a public stated love. Its benefits include taxes, and spousal protections that have nothing to do with children. "
While ity is true that marriage does provide spousal protections they are not unrelated to children. More importantly, Frank offers no reason why the State should be encouraging "public stated love and companionship in life" that would be relvant to Marriage apart from children. Why the State should favor two person coupling for life when it is necessarily unrelated to child-bearing rearing and family definition (as it is in the case of "gay marriage") is unexplained. The state's intervention in the copulation arrangements of "loving couples" of indeterminate sex and restriction of their copulation options to exclusive two person arrangements more or less for life seems to be an interference with their privacy rights since there is no need to provide a framework for the gestation of children from their copulation.
Now it is true that opposite sex couples end up never having children for volitional or fertility reasons but those decisions/conditions often change. Simply put, it will NEVER CHANGE that same-sex couples can EVER produce the necessary opposite sex genetic material from their coupling.
"Marriage provides a public stated love. Its benefits include taxes, and spousal protections that have nothing to do with children. "
While ity is true that marriage does provide spousal protections they are not unrelated to children. More importantly, Frank offers no reason why the State should be encouraging "public stated love and companionship in life" that would be relvant to Marriage apart from children. Why the State should favor two person coupling for life when it is necessarily unrelated to child-bearing rearing and family definition (as it is in the case of "gay marriage") is unexplained. The state's intervention in the copulation arrangements of "loving couples" of indeterminate sex and restriction of their copulation options to exclusive two person arrangements more or less for life seems to be an interference with their privacy rights since there is no need to provide a framework for the gestation of children from their copulation.
Now it is true that opposite sex couples end up never having children for volitional or fertility reasons but those decisions/conditions often change. Simply put, it will NEVER CHANGE that same-sex couples can EVER produce the necessary opposite sex genetic material from their coupling.
8.10.2012 | 12:34pm
Diogenes says:
The last paragraph should have read:
"I understand that you reject this connection, but it certainly is not novel and it certainly was not created to exclude homosexuals from marrying. It was the age old understand of what a marriage is. It's not about forcing anyone to have children in order to be married, its about recognizing what a marriage is. It is a recognition of that distinctiveness and importance of a union which may be procreative, unions that will exist as distinctive and important in its distinctiveness even if our language and our laws cease to recognize them as distinctive, but begin to treat them as if they are no different in any fundamental and essential way from other relationships. It is not even to judge the importance and distinctiveness of other relationships; it is simply to treat relationships which are different-in-kind in fundamental and essential ways as different, not the same."
I noted other typos which I will not correct as they are not substantive.
"I understand that you reject this connection, but it certainly is not novel and it certainly was not created to exclude homosexuals from marrying. It was the age old understand of what a marriage is. It's not about forcing anyone to have children in order to be married, its about recognizing what a marriage is. It is a recognition of that distinctiveness and importance of a union which may be procreative, unions that will exist as distinctive and important in its distinctiveness even if our language and our laws cease to recognize them as distinctive, but begin to treat them as if they are no different in any fundamental and essential way from other relationships. It is not even to judge the importance and distinctiveness of other relationships; it is simply to treat relationships which are different-in-kind in fundamental and essential ways as different, not the same."
I noted other typos which I will not correct as they are not substantive.
8.10.2012 | 1:21pm
Steve says:
For all you folks out there that think you're somehow 'protecting' marriage or helping children, do you mind that these laws do neither? There's no direct benefit to any of those things.
These laws do not encourage responsible procreation or hinder irresponsible procreation. They don't help couples with children. The do nothing but exclude a disliked class of people for no reason whatsoever.
Please enlighten me. How do these laws accomplish any policy objective? The reason why these laws pass is pure animus toward an unpopular group.
These laws do not encourage responsible procreation or hinder irresponsible procreation. They don't help couples with children. The do nothing but exclude a disliked class of people for no reason whatsoever.
Please enlighten me. How do these laws accomplish any policy objective? The reason why these laws pass is pure animus toward an unpopular group.
8.10.2012 | 1:24pm
Steve says:
ML, please tell me how you're protecting or helping children when the laws don't even mention children or child rearing? Are you comfortable passing laws that don't do what you expet them to do?
8.10.2012 | 1:32pm
Steve says:
Fitz writes: "The legal test that court are presented with is whether or not the public policy interest itself is rational. Not whether the purposed change necessarily effects the desired public policy goal."
So, you agree that the policy goal isn't achieved by these laws? But somehow we call it 'protecting marriage' in name only and that's enough to pass the rational basis test? Interesting. I think the judicial system is a little more intelligent than that. How long are you going to be able to pull the wool over peoples' eyes? As long as the prejudice remains and no one likes this group of people, I guess.
So, you agree that the policy goal isn't achieved by these laws? But somehow we call it 'protecting marriage' in name only and that's enough to pass the rational basis test? Interesting. I think the judicial system is a little more intelligent than that. How long are you going to be able to pull the wool over peoples' eyes? As long as the prejudice remains and no one likes this group of people, I guess.
8.10.2012 | 2:21pm
anon says:
Argument by assertion?
Circular reasoning?
Some things are simply self-evident. No complicated philosophical proof is necessary. Only the confused post modern mind asks for proof of what any senible person knows as a matter of common sense.
Now even the most basic truth requires a defense. The problem we have is not want of logic or argument. No, the problem is that some minds are so conformed to moral relativism and materialism that no proof will be acceptable.
Circular reasoning?
Some things are simply self-evident. No complicated philosophical proof is necessary. Only the confused post modern mind asks for proof of what any senible person knows as a matter of common sense.
Now even the most basic truth requires a defense. The problem we have is not want of logic or argument. No, the problem is that some minds are so conformed to moral relativism and materialism that no proof will be acceptable.
8.10.2012 | 3:02pm
M. Haller says:
@ Mike Melendez statement:"The culture chages over time. The biology does not"
Actually, Biology does change at the genetic haplogroup level, if people miscegenate.
Actually, Biology does change at the genetic haplogroup level, if people miscegenate.
8.10.2012 | 3:36pm
Fitzgerald says:
Steve:
I'm sorry if you dont like the limited nature of the rational basis test. However, that is the test & it is well established.
Perhaps the recent Federal court ruling in Hawaii will help. Here the court engages the hypthetical you purpose and still finds rationality in not changing marriages definition.
Jackson v. Abercrombie, the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii concluded,
“Throughout history and societies, marriage has been connected with procreation and childrearing…. It follows that it is not beyond rational speculation to conclude that fundamentally altering the definition of marriage to include same-sex unions might result in undermining the societal understanding of the link between marriage, procreation, and family structure.”
I'm sorry if you dont like the limited nature of the rational basis test. However, that is the test & it is well established.
Perhaps the recent Federal court ruling in Hawaii will help. Here the court engages the hypthetical you purpose and still finds rationality in not changing marriages definition.
Jackson v. Abercrombie, the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii concluded,
“Throughout history and societies, marriage has been connected with procreation and childrearing…. It follows that it is not beyond rational speculation to conclude that fundamentally altering the definition of marriage to include same-sex unions might result in undermining the societal understanding of the link between marriage, procreation, and family structure.”
8.10.2012 | 4:02pm
Leroy Huizenga says:
@Diana Swancutt: Hi! Remember me? We met when Yale admitted me to it's New Testament program. I chose Duke. In fact, if I'm not wrong, we have the same Doktorvater.
Be that as it may, I think "bunk" is a bit strong. Whatever the natural law tradition is and whatever its strengths and weaknesses, it's worthy of study and interaction. And in any event, my point here -- however obscured -- was simply to suggest that arguments based on revelation alone don't get very far in the public square.
Be that as it may, I think "bunk" is a bit strong. Whatever the natural law tradition is and whatever its strengths and weaknesses, it's worthy of study and interaction. And in any event, my point here -- however obscured -- was simply to suggest that arguments based on revelation alone don't get very far in the public square.
8.10.2012 | 4:22pm
Ye Olde Statistician says:
"Marriage existed before Church and state. Therefore, 'Neither Church nor state invented marriage, and neither can change its nature.' "
Felapton says:
This is nonsense. Dogs existed before Church or state; this does not invalidate animal control laws.
YOS
The statement still stands. No animal control law can change the nature of "dog."
The State has an interest in regulating marriage because of the potential of such a couple to produce offspring. (Note: potential, not actuality.) The secular state seeks some assurance that people indulging their sexual appetites do not burden the king's purse with sundry uncared-for offspring running wild. It is less the procreation as such -- rape can result in procreation; so can incest -- is it is a stable environment for the raising of such offspring that may spring off from the behavior.
It is only since marriage has been destroyed through adultery, easy divorce, cohabitation, etc. that anyone else has wanted to come around and play dress-up in the ruins. Already we have read news articles about a woman who "married" he Eiffel Tower or a man who "married" his golden retriever. (The Seattle woman who "married" a warehouse was engaged in political theatrics.)
Felapton says:
This is nonsense. Dogs existed before Church or state; this does not invalidate animal control laws.
YOS
The statement still stands. No animal control law can change the nature of "dog."
The State has an interest in regulating marriage because of the potential of such a couple to produce offspring. (Note: potential, not actuality.) The secular state seeks some assurance that people indulging their sexual appetites do not burden the king's purse with sundry uncared-for offspring running wild. It is less the procreation as such -- rape can result in procreation; so can incest -- is it is a stable environment for the raising of such offspring that may spring off from the behavior.
It is only since marriage has been destroyed through adultery, easy divorce, cohabitation, etc. that anyone else has wanted to come around and play dress-up in the ruins. Already we have read news articles about a woman who "married" he Eiffel Tower or a man who "married" his golden retriever. (The Seattle woman who "married" a warehouse was engaged in political theatrics.)
8.10.2012 | 5:58pm
Steve says:
Fitz, so you're okay with that? You're okay with passing laws that accomplish no policy objective or provide no social good (they don't help children or heterosexual families) and only exist to demean a class of individuals? You don't find that repugnant?
8.10.2012 | 10:09pm
Steve says:
YOS: You can argue all you want about 'regulating offspring' but none of the laws (or constitutional amendments!) mention anything about 'offspring'. So you may think you're somehow 'that people indulging their sexual appetites do not burden the king's purse with sundry uncared-for offspring running wild.' But the laws do no such thing!
Think about it. They're useless laws that lead to no public policy direction. They do no help children or couples with children. All they do is eliminate one group of people from getting married. No one benefits, only one group of folks lose.
Think about it.
Think about it. They're useless laws that lead to no public policy direction. They do no help children or couples with children. All they do is eliminate one group of people from getting married. No one benefits, only one group of folks lose.
Think about it.
8.11.2012 | 7:23am
Michael PS says:
Michelle says
“Marriage has always existed as is for the benefit of the couple, the children they bring into this world, and society at large”
True enough, but as Le doyen Carbonnier points out, “[“The heart of marriage is not the couple, but the presumption of paternity.”
As the French Senate pointed out, The presumption of paternity of the husband rests on the obligation of fidelity between spouses and reflects the commitment made by the husband during the celebration of marriage, to raise the couple's children... it is, in the words of Dean Carbonnier, the ‘heart of marriage,’ and cannot be questioned without losing for this institution its meaning and value."
Steve
The laws do mention offspring - "the child conceived or born in marriage has the husband for father." That is Carbonnier's point
“Marriage has always existed as is for the benefit of the couple, the children they bring into this world, and society at large”
True enough, but as Le doyen Carbonnier points out, “[“The heart of marriage is not the couple, but the presumption of paternity.”
As the French Senate pointed out, The presumption of paternity of the husband rests on the obligation of fidelity between spouses and reflects the commitment made by the husband during the celebration of marriage, to raise the couple's children... it is, in the words of Dean Carbonnier, the ‘heart of marriage,’ and cannot be questioned without losing for this institution its meaning and value."
Steve
The laws do mention offspring - "the child conceived or born in marriage has the husband for father." That is Carbonnier's point
8.11.2012 | 7:31am
Michael PS says:
(1) Mandatory civil marriage - the rule that no church, but only the state can perform a marriage - makes the institution a pillar of the secular Republic, standing clear of the religious sacrament (2) The institution of republican marriage is inconceivable, absent the idea of filiation – the rule that the child conceived or born in marriage has the husband for father – enshrined, not in Church dogma, but in the Civil Code (3) The sex difference is central to filiation.
8.11.2012 | 9:45pm
Ye Olde Statistician says:
But the laws do no such thing!
See the Code of Khamurapi or Plato's The Laws, Book IV iirc. Civilly, marriage is a contract between the couple and the State that they will raise and ensure the well-being of any children that result from their conjugal activities. But the State did not seize control of the institution until the mid 1800s, requiring a license in order to live together. (They seized control of education about the same time.) And like everything else subject to the Iron Law of Bureaucracy, they couldn't resist fiddling with it and eventually broke it in the name of the Triumph of the Will.
See the Code of Khamurapi or Plato's The Laws, Book IV iirc. Civilly, marriage is a contract between the couple and the State that they will raise and ensure the well-being of any children that result from their conjugal activities. But the State did not seize control of the institution until the mid 1800s, requiring a license in order to live together. (They seized control of education about the same time.) And like everything else subject to the Iron Law of Bureaucracy, they couldn't resist fiddling with it and eventually broke it in the name of the Triumph of the Will.
8.11.2012 | 11:34pm
Steve says:
Michael PS: It's called a paternity test. If the child is yours, you are obligated to care for it or provide material assistance. Marriage is not mentioned. Fathers aren't forced to marry the woman they got pregnant. And none of the laws (or amendments!) defining marriage still don't say anything about children.
8.12.2012 | 9:06am
Michael in Cincinnati says:
When we engage in Catholic Apologetics, we insist on many things in a charitable manner, such as the discussion on the Eucharist. In the debate over marriage, we must insist on not using the vocabulary of those who oppose what Christ gave us as a Sacrament. Remember that plural marriage [one man, many women] existed with the Hebrews until the influence of Christians changed that. Many cultures in the world, such as Islam still have plural marriage, in fact, our current U.S. President, is the son of wife #3, of a Muslim plural marriage. The President’s father was not a was not a U.S. Citizen, but his mother was.
We must not allow those opposing God’s plan for marriage to get to “half-court” without an early challenge. Watching one of our sons’ [we have seven] basketball games can be frustrating when the other team "presses" and our team allows the opposition to get to half-court without effort. It is time to begin the Catholic [and we welcome non-Catholic Christians and others of good faith] "press" and not even utter or acknowledge the vocabulary of those opposed to God's plan for marriage.
Always with charity and love, our responses must begin with "God is not wrong on marriage" and when slammed with "bigot" and other hate speech, we must respond with "God is not wrong." Many of those opposing God's plan (in this country and the world) for marriage are baptized or call themselves Christians, either of the ancient Church or post reformation. If they are challenged on this, they will have to question their position or their claim to be Christians.
As we insist on the discussion of the Eucharist when discussing Catholic Apologetics with protestants, we must challenge those who oppose God's plan [or go along for the ride, wearing this “Mark of the Beast"), even dare them to publicly acknowledge that they are saying that they think God is wrong (Which is NEVER the case).
Catholic Media [internet, television, radio, newspaper] must not aid secular media by rehashing what is fed to the public by the secular media. For instance, the "Cincinnati Enquirer," whose subscription I previously cancelled, reported last week the headline "Rally backs work of US nuns- Enquirer in-depth: After criticism by Vatican, orders consider a response." Catholic Media would INSTEAD report "Vatican to address concerns of some nuns who support abortion, energy healing, so-called same sex marriage." See the difference? Fix the wording!!!
Let us get to the heart of the matter immediately with charity, truth and courage.
We must not allow those opposing God’s plan for marriage to get to “half-court” without an early challenge. Watching one of our sons’ [we have seven] basketball games can be frustrating when the other team "presses" and our team allows the opposition to get to half-court without effort. It is time to begin the Catholic [and we welcome non-Catholic Christians and others of good faith] "press" and not even utter or acknowledge the vocabulary of those opposed to God's plan for marriage.
Always with charity and love, our responses must begin with "God is not wrong on marriage" and when slammed with "bigot" and other hate speech, we must respond with "God is not wrong." Many of those opposing God's plan (in this country and the world) for marriage are baptized or call themselves Christians, either of the ancient Church or post reformation. If they are challenged on this, they will have to question their position or their claim to be Christians.
As we insist on the discussion of the Eucharist when discussing Catholic Apologetics with protestants, we must challenge those who oppose God's plan [or go along for the ride, wearing this “Mark of the Beast"), even dare them to publicly acknowledge that they are saying that they think God is wrong (Which is NEVER the case).
Catholic Media [internet, television, radio, newspaper] must not aid secular media by rehashing what is fed to the public by the secular media. For instance, the "Cincinnati Enquirer," whose subscription I previously cancelled, reported last week the headline "Rally backs work of US nuns- Enquirer in-depth: After criticism by Vatican, orders consider a response." Catholic Media would INSTEAD report "Vatican to address concerns of some nuns who support abortion, energy healing, so-called same sex marriage." See the difference? Fix the wording!!!
Let us get to the heart of the matter immediately with charity, truth and courage.
8.12.2012 | 4:28pm
Fitz says:
Steve (writes)
"Fitz, so you're okay with that? You're okay with passing laws that accomplish no policy objective or provide no social good (they don't help children or heterosexual families) and only exist to demean a class of individuals? You don't find that repugnant?"
This is clearly your characterization of what these laws "don't accomplish".
I could explain in detail how they do accomplish this...but you can do your own reading if you don't understand your opponents arguments.
Don't..."think about it",,,rather...read more...incredulousness is not an argument; nor does it demonstrate a command of the subject.
"Fitz, so you're okay with that? You're okay with passing laws that accomplish no policy objective or provide no social good (they don't help children or heterosexual families) and only exist to demean a class of individuals? You don't find that repugnant?"
This is clearly your characterization of what these laws "don't accomplish".
I could explain in detail how they do accomplish this...but you can do your own reading if you don't understand your opponents arguments.
Don't..."think about it",,,rather...read more...incredulousness is not an argument; nor does it demonstrate a command of the subject.
8.12.2012 | 5:49pm
Diogenes says:
Steve writes, "none of the laws (or amendments!) defining marriage still don't say anything about children."
I cited as examples two statues, one from an American state, Ohio, and one from England, which each provide that failure to consummate the marriage is grounds for an annulment, a declaration that no marriage had occurred. That would seem to provide strong evidence that marriage is about a union between a man and woman who engage in the sexual act, coitus, by which children are conceived. No coitus, no marriage. Of course, the state will not declare an annulment unless one of the two parties seeks it, but if one does and if the state finds no consummation (i.e., no coitus), it finds that there never has been a marriage.
I notice that you've failed to address my citations, but instead keep asserting that the laws defining marriage have nothing do with children. I've cited two examples which prove otherwise. Further, I cited the matrimonial rite from the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, demonstrating that this is not a novel concept, but that 350 years ago, all couples married in the Church of England took vows in a ceremony in which the first purpose for which marriage is ordained was declared the procreation of children.
Oh, and then there is that word, "matrimony". Even without my going into the etymology, it ought to be pretty clear the derivation of that word, but I'll do so to not leave any doubt. From the Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd Ed., the origins of the word are listed as follows: "OF. matremoine, -oyne, -oigne, a. L. matrimonium wedlock, marriage, f. matr-em mother." Likewise, from the Online Etymology Dictionary, "matrimony: c.1300, from O.Fr. matremoine "matrimony, marriage" and directly from L. matrimonium "wedlock, marriage," from matrem (nom. mater) "mother" (see mother (n.1)) + -monium, suffix signifying "action, state, condition." Thus, the word matrimony derives from Latin and means the action, state or condition by which a woman becomes a mother.
The law, the ancient rites and even the origins of the word "matrimony" demonstrate that marriage is about the union of a man and a woman who engage in the act of coitus with the expectation that children will be procreated.
I've presented evidence for the position which I take. I'm still waiting for evidence, rather than mere assertions, to show otherwise.
I cited as examples two statues, one from an American state, Ohio, and one from England, which each provide that failure to consummate the marriage is grounds for an annulment, a declaration that no marriage had occurred. That would seem to provide strong evidence that marriage is about a union between a man and woman who engage in the sexual act, coitus, by which children are conceived. No coitus, no marriage. Of course, the state will not declare an annulment unless one of the two parties seeks it, but if one does and if the state finds no consummation (i.e., no coitus), it finds that there never has been a marriage.
I notice that you've failed to address my citations, but instead keep asserting that the laws defining marriage have nothing do with children. I've cited two examples which prove otherwise. Further, I cited the matrimonial rite from the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, demonstrating that this is not a novel concept, but that 350 years ago, all couples married in the Church of England took vows in a ceremony in which the first purpose for which marriage is ordained was declared the procreation of children.
Oh, and then there is that word, "matrimony". Even without my going into the etymology, it ought to be pretty clear the derivation of that word, but I'll do so to not leave any doubt. From the Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd Ed., the origins of the word are listed as follows: "OF. matremoine, -oyne, -oigne, a. L. matrimonium wedlock, marriage, f. matr-em mother." Likewise, from the Online Etymology Dictionary, "matrimony: c.1300, from O.Fr. matremoine "matrimony, marriage" and directly from L. matrimonium "wedlock, marriage," from matrem (nom. mater) "mother" (see mother (n.1)) + -monium, suffix signifying "action, state, condition." Thus, the word matrimony derives from Latin and means the action, state or condition by which a woman becomes a mother.
The law, the ancient rites and even the origins of the word "matrimony" demonstrate that marriage is about the union of a man and a woman who engage in the act of coitus with the expectation that children will be procreated.
I've presented evidence for the position which I take. I'm still waiting for evidence, rather than mere assertions, to show otherwise.
8.12.2012 | 10:57pm
Steve says:
Fitz: But don't feel too bad though. You're in good company. No one seems to be able to answer that question either. Including Maggie Gallagher and her ilk.
8.13.2012 | 4:26am
Manuel Little says:
Many of the comments on this thread prove the following:
"And so the irony of the gay marriage debate is that traditionalists are making arguments based on reason and nature, while secular culture is now largely irrational in spite of its trumpeting of reason, as the severing of faith and reason has led to a nihilism wherein the greatest good is the fulfillment of whatever desires among consenting adults. "
And this one is easy to refute:
By Gian (first comment): "In short, humans are cultural animals, not biological [sic.] and argument needs to reflect this."
a) if humans are animals, then obviously they are biological.
b) how can there be culture without biology (instincts)?
c) what all can be justified by the word or concept of 'culture'. Based on 'culture' i could argue for anything i want (my instinct)
This post is a lot more philosophical and logical than a lot of people can fathom, including myself. Takes a few readings and re-readings. Thanks.
"And so the irony of the gay marriage debate is that traditionalists are making arguments based on reason and nature, while secular culture is now largely irrational in spite of its trumpeting of reason, as the severing of faith and reason has led to a nihilism wherein the greatest good is the fulfillment of whatever desires among consenting adults. "
And this one is easy to refute:
By Gian (first comment): "In short, humans are cultural animals, not biological [sic.] and argument needs to reflect this."
a) if humans are animals, then obviously they are biological.
b) how can there be culture without biology (instincts)?
c) what all can be justified by the word or concept of 'culture'. Based on 'culture' i could argue for anything i want (my instinct)
This post is a lot more philosophical and logical than a lot of people can fathom, including myself. Takes a few readings and re-readings. Thanks.
8.13.2012 | 6:57am
Michael PS says:
Steve writes
“And none of the laws (or amendments!) defining marriage still don't say anything about children.”
The whole point is that the law contains no definition of marriage; its definition has to be inferred from other provisions.
The law does define the duties and rights of the spouses. It requires the following articles of the Civil Code to be read to the spouses, during the marriage ceremony, before they give their consent
Art 212 Spouses owe each other respect, fidelity, succour and, support.
Art 213 The spouses are jointly responsible for the moral and material direction of the family. They provide for the education of the children and prepare their future.
Art 214 If the marriage covenants do not address the contribution of spouses to the marriage expenses, they contribute in proportion to their respective means.
Art 215 The spouses are mutually obligated to a community of life. The family residence is the place they choose by mutual agreement.
Art 371 Parental authority is a set of rights and duties whose purpose is the interest of the child. It belongs to the father and mother, until the majority or emancipation of the child to protect his or her safety, health and morals, his or her education and to ensure the child's development, with due respect to his or her personality. Parents involve the child in decisions that affect him or her, according to his or her age and maturity.
Note that two of the five articles deal expressly with children.
“And none of the laws (or amendments!) defining marriage still don't say anything about children.”
The whole point is that the law contains no definition of marriage; its definition has to be inferred from other provisions.
The law does define the duties and rights of the spouses. It requires the following articles of the Civil Code to be read to the spouses, during the marriage ceremony, before they give their consent
Art 212 Spouses owe each other respect, fidelity, succour and, support.
Art 213 The spouses are jointly responsible for the moral and material direction of the family. They provide for the education of the children and prepare their future.
Art 214 If the marriage covenants do not address the contribution of spouses to the marriage expenses, they contribute in proportion to their respective means.
Art 215 The spouses are mutually obligated to a community of life. The family residence is the place they choose by mutual agreement.
Art 371 Parental authority is a set of rights and duties whose purpose is the interest of the child. It belongs to the father and mother, until the majority or emancipation of the child to protect his or her safety, health and morals, his or her education and to ensure the child's development, with due respect to his or her personality. Parents involve the child in decisions that affect him or her, according to his or her age and maturity.
Note that two of the five articles deal expressly with children.
8.13.2012 | 8:49am
Steve says:
Diogenes: Thanks for he response. I think you would agree that couples control their own roductive destiny. And the government has never annulled a marriage if children haven't been produced (everyone seems to be arguing marriage is for the 'common good'). Like you said, the state won't annul unless one of the parties seeks it. So, why isn't the state annulling childless marriages? Since this is all for the 'common good' perhaps we should be annulling childless marriages (since those aren't really marriages.). But maybe that's the next step here. But I think you would agree that this would be a major violation of the couple's right to control their own reproduction. Again, I appreciate the response.
8.13.2012 | 10:50am
Diogenes says:
@Steve,
First, thanks for responding.
You ask, " So, why isn't the state annulling childless marriages?"
This seems to be a point over which a lot of confusion on both sides exists. Infertility and childlessness has never been grounds for an annulment; failure to engage in the act, coitus, by which a child might be conceived has been for centuries. To be a marriage, the couple need not have children, but their union must be ordered toward the procreation of children.
You say, "I think you would agree that couples control their own [p]roductive destiny." Yes, we agree that they do that and we agree that to some extent they have a right to do that, though the law in at least some states and nations provide that if they means to that end is to deny the other spouse coitus, that is grounds for an annulment (if coitus never occurs) or a divorces (on grounds of abandonment, if it ceases to occur). And, frankly, absent serious justification (for example, risk of death to the wife should she become pregnant), a couple who order their marriage so as to never have any children are, in fact, acting against the very purpose for which marriage is ordered, even if they do so by mutual consent. There really is no way for the state to establish that a man and a woman have no children because of a mutual choice rather than as a result of infertility without invading very private matters precisely because by their nature, typical healthy, young men and women are fertile and, so, the state may assume that. That is not true for unions of men and men or women and women. Of course, that does leave one category of men and women for whom the same can be said, those in which at least one of the two are known to be infertile. Yet, law has always been based on the presumption of fertility because of the nature of men and women and not infrequently, supposedly infertile couples conceive. I have a cousin who adopted a family of orphans after more than a decade of infertility. shortly afterwards, she conceived and had a child.
I know some commentators here disagree, but I support domestic partnership laws for people who for whatever reason can't or choose not to marry. What I oppose is changing the definition of marriage. Consistent with that, however, I do believe that many of the changes made in family law in the 20th century need to be rolled back or new provisions put in their place to again make it more explicit that marriage is a relationship which is ordered toward procreation and rearing of children, including making divorce more difficult once a child has been conceived until all children of a marriage are emancipated, and making the use of contraception or sterilization by one of the parties without the others consent if no live children are already born to the couple a grounds for annulment. On our side of the argument, we need to be consistent in not merely objecting to same-sex "marriages" because they are by nature sterile, but we must also object to opposite-sex "marriages" which are by choice (excluding medical exigencies) sterile. That does not exclude marriage from those involuntarily sterile.
While I disagree with your position, I do recognize that the changes in marriage law and in the behavior of opposite-sex couples over the past several decades (willfully childless and even sexless marriage, easy, no-fault divorce, decriminalization of adultery, rejection of the civil cause of action for alienation of affection, artificial means of reproduction, among others) has led to the observation that if that is what a marriage is, why can't same-sex couples marry. In fairness, many on my side of the argument have argued against those earlier changes in law and practice. This is not a new position for many of us. To conclude, I would assert that anyone who opposes state recognition of same-sex marriage must also address these other issues if he is to be consistent. (Religious freedom, of course, dictates that if a same-sex couple belongs to a religious community that performs and recognizes within its tradition same-sex "marriage", that is not the state's business; I am only addressing state recognition.)
Thanks again for responding.
First, thanks for responding.
You ask, " So, why isn't the state annulling childless marriages?"
This seems to be a point over which a lot of confusion on both sides exists. Infertility and childlessness has never been grounds for an annulment; failure to engage in the act, coitus, by which a child might be conceived has been for centuries. To be a marriage, the couple need not have children, but their union must be ordered toward the procreation of children.
You say, "I think you would agree that couples control their own [p]roductive destiny." Yes, we agree that they do that and we agree that to some extent they have a right to do that, though the law in at least some states and nations provide that if they means to that end is to deny the other spouse coitus, that is grounds for an annulment (if coitus never occurs) or a divorces (on grounds of abandonment, if it ceases to occur). And, frankly, absent serious justification (for example, risk of death to the wife should she become pregnant), a couple who order their marriage so as to never have any children are, in fact, acting against the very purpose for which marriage is ordered, even if they do so by mutual consent. There really is no way for the state to establish that a man and a woman have no children because of a mutual choice rather than as a result of infertility without invading very private matters precisely because by their nature, typical healthy, young men and women are fertile and, so, the state may assume that. That is not true for unions of men and men or women and women. Of course, that does leave one category of men and women for whom the same can be said, those in which at least one of the two are known to be infertile. Yet, law has always been based on the presumption of fertility because of the nature of men and women and not infrequently, supposedly infertile couples conceive. I have a cousin who adopted a family of orphans after more than a decade of infertility. shortly afterwards, she conceived and had a child.
I know some commentators here disagree, but I support domestic partnership laws for people who for whatever reason can't or choose not to marry. What I oppose is changing the definition of marriage. Consistent with that, however, I do believe that many of the changes made in family law in the 20th century need to be rolled back or new provisions put in their place to again make it more explicit that marriage is a relationship which is ordered toward procreation and rearing of children, including making divorce more difficult once a child has been conceived until all children of a marriage are emancipated, and making the use of contraception or sterilization by one of the parties without the others consent if no live children are already born to the couple a grounds for annulment. On our side of the argument, we need to be consistent in not merely objecting to same-sex "marriages" because they are by nature sterile, but we must also object to opposite-sex "marriages" which are by choice (excluding medical exigencies) sterile. That does not exclude marriage from those involuntarily sterile.
While I disagree with your position, I do recognize that the changes in marriage law and in the behavior of opposite-sex couples over the past several decades (willfully childless and even sexless marriage, easy, no-fault divorce, decriminalization of adultery, rejection of the civil cause of action for alienation of affection, artificial means of reproduction, among others) has led to the observation that if that is what a marriage is, why can't same-sex couples marry. In fairness, many on my side of the argument have argued against those earlier changes in law and practice. This is not a new position for many of us. To conclude, I would assert that anyone who opposes state recognition of same-sex marriage must also address these other issues if he is to be consistent. (Religious freedom, of course, dictates that if a same-sex couple belongs to a religious community that performs and recognizes within its tradition same-sex "marriage", that is not the state's business; I am only addressing state recognition.)
Thanks again for responding.
8.13.2012 | 12:12pm
Steve says:
Micheal PS: Thanks again for the response. The fundamental claim from marriage equality opponents seems to be that the state has a vested interest in bringing together mothers and fathers (eventhough none of the laws or amendments mention children at all.) I'm not sure where you're pulling that information from, but I can tell you the government has never annulled a marriage that hasn't produced children or forced a couple, who has just given birth, to get married. If the government really had a vested interest in bringing together mothers and fathers, we should start there. And denying a gay couple the ability to get married won't change either of those situations. It's just simply not 'rational'.
8.13.2012 | 3:30pm
Steve says:
Diogenes: Thanks for the thoughful response. I appreciate the dialogue.
You say: " There really is no way for the state to establish that a man and a woman have no children because of a mutual choice rather than as a result of infertility without invading very private matters", which is precisely my point. And no one would have voted for these laws if they felt their rights were being infringed upon (to have or not have children, that is.) But thankfully we can short-circuit or eliminate the rights of an unpopular minority group in the name of ensuring men and women make babies and no one will be upset (except the unpopular minority group...but since they only make up a fraction of the population, it's okay.)
And you asked earlier: "I honestly would like an explanation as to why we as a society could not meet your desire for legal rights, protections and benefits without denying the distinction between unions which by their nature are ordered toward procreation (which is, after all, an extremely important matter) and ones which are not."
And I'll give you my opinion. Because it's about preserving the American sense of equality and fairness. It's about sticking up for that unpopular minority group. If we continue to highlight meaningless differences (in this case sexual orientation), we will never move ahead. And we've tried the 'separate but equal' idea in the past and I think you can agree it didn't work. So let's put aside these meaningless differences and expand the definition of marriage. No one is hurt (neither children nor couples with children) and we help preserve those American ideals of equality and fairness.
You say: " There really is no way for the state to establish that a man and a woman have no children because of a mutual choice rather than as a result of infertility without invading very private matters", which is precisely my point. And no one would have voted for these laws if they felt their rights were being infringed upon (to have or not have children, that is.) But thankfully we can short-circuit or eliminate the rights of an unpopular minority group in the name of ensuring men and women make babies and no one will be upset (except the unpopular minority group...but since they only make up a fraction of the population, it's okay.)
And you asked earlier: "I honestly would like an explanation as to why we as a society could not meet your desire for legal rights, protections and benefits without denying the distinction between unions which by their nature are ordered toward procreation (which is, after all, an extremely important matter) and ones which are not."
And I'll give you my opinion. Because it's about preserving the American sense of equality and fairness. It's about sticking up for that unpopular minority group. If we continue to highlight meaningless differences (in this case sexual orientation), we will never move ahead. And we've tried the 'separate but equal' idea in the past and I think you can agree it didn't work. So let's put aside these meaningless differences and expand the definition of marriage. No one is hurt (neither children nor couples with children) and we help preserve those American ideals of equality and fairness.
8.13.2012 | 5:10pm
Diogenes says:
@Steve,
First, thanks for engaging with me in a civil and respectful manner. I hope you feel I have treated you in the same fashion. Too often, people on both sides of this issue treat anyone who disagrees as a bigot. I think you're wrong and you think I'm wrong, but I don't sense any hostility toward me and I certainly have none toward you.
Second, I know that neither of us are going to be convinced to change our views so this will not continue the back and forth, but I do want to address some of your points because I believe (1) they are well taken and (2) I believe there are reasonable answer from my perspective to address them.
As to the privacy matter, the state cannot determine in most cases whether an opposite-sex couple is infertile by choice or involuntarily without invading privacy. It will, in fact, invade that privacy if one of the pair seeks and annulment on grounds of lack of consummation and did so in the days before no fault divorce when the one seeking divorce did so on grounds of abandonment by refusal of coitus. But, again, the issue is not whether children are procreated, but whether the marriage is ordered toward procreation. That is in fact what the issue was for centuries and it is not sophistry when people today make that distinction.
As to the equality matter, that is precisely where our disagreement lies, that is, you assert that a same-sex union is the same-in-essence as an opposite-sex union ordered to procreation. I assert is not. They are different and, to the extent of those differences, should be treated differently. The Equal Protection clause requires that people in the same situation must be treated the same; it does not require that people in different situations must be treated the same when those differences are the bases for different treatment. I believe that American ideals can best be advanced by domestic partnership laws that are available to anyone who cannot or chooses not to marry. Expanding the definition of marriage so that we deny essential differences between unions of men and women open to procreation from all other unions is neither necessary nor required under the 14th amendment. Indeed, quite the opposite: the law needs to strengthen the connection between marriage and openness to children in the ways I've described above.
I'll leave to you the last word. Thanks again for your engaging with me.
First, thanks for engaging with me in a civil and respectful manner. I hope you feel I have treated you in the same fashion. Too often, people on both sides of this issue treat anyone who disagrees as a bigot. I think you're wrong and you think I'm wrong, but I don't sense any hostility toward me and I certainly have none toward you.
Second, I know that neither of us are going to be convinced to change our views so this will not continue the back and forth, but I do want to address some of your points because I believe (1) they are well taken and (2) I believe there are reasonable answer from my perspective to address them.
As to the privacy matter, the state cannot determine in most cases whether an opposite-sex couple is infertile by choice or involuntarily without invading privacy. It will, in fact, invade that privacy if one of the pair seeks and annulment on grounds of lack of consummation and did so in the days before no fault divorce when the one seeking divorce did so on grounds of abandonment by refusal of coitus. But, again, the issue is not whether children are procreated, but whether the marriage is ordered toward procreation. That is in fact what the issue was for centuries and it is not sophistry when people today make that distinction.
As to the equality matter, that is precisely where our disagreement lies, that is, you assert that a same-sex union is the same-in-essence as an opposite-sex union ordered to procreation. I assert is not. They are different and, to the extent of those differences, should be treated differently. The Equal Protection clause requires that people in the same situation must be treated the same; it does not require that people in different situations must be treated the same when those differences are the bases for different treatment. I believe that American ideals can best be advanced by domestic partnership laws that are available to anyone who cannot or chooses not to marry. Expanding the definition of marriage so that we deny essential differences between unions of men and women open to procreation from all other unions is neither necessary nor required under the 14th amendment. Indeed, quite the opposite: the law needs to strengthen the connection between marriage and openness to children in the ways I've described above.
I'll leave to you the last word. Thanks again for your engaging with me.
8.13.2012 | 6:29pm
JohnE says:
Steve, you said "none of the laws or amendments mention children at all". If they don't mention children then they don't exclude children either. The legislation I've seen does mention children and specifically includes mention of adoption rights. (http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics/clics2012a/csl.nsf/fsbillcont3/F952C7C4927957FA87257981007CC33C?open&file=002_01.pdf). I find it difficult to believe that ANY civil union or same-sex marriage legislation would have no mention of children.
If the well-being of children is not the primary interest of the state, and rights concerning adoption is not the primary right being sought by same-sex couples, then what is? What is the benefit to the common good that would compel the state to give the same legal rights and benefits to committed same-sex couples as it does currently to naturally married couples?
If the well-being of children is not the primary interest of the state, and rights concerning adoption is not the primary right being sought by same-sex couples, then what is? What is the benefit to the common good that would compel the state to give the same legal rights and benefits to committed same-sex couples as it does currently to naturally married couples?
8.14.2012 | 12:21pm
Karol W says:
The problem that we have with arguing against SSM is that we have perverted the purpose of and occasion for marriage. Marriage must be expressly for procreation and the raising of children. Once you start allowing marriage of people who can't procreate (and both state and church marriage law allows for annulment if the marriage can't be or isn't consummated), people who are beyond the age of procreation, people who have no intention of procreating, etc... then you lose the only valid argument against SSM (that doesn't rely on a moral argument against homosexual sex). The fact is that most people who oppose SSM would not support the narrow definition of marriage that I am suggesting here. They don't see the hypocrisy of their beliefs.
A narrow definition of the purpose and occasion for marriage (only being for procreation and the raising of children) is difficult and very conservative. It is most certainly not in line with the general consensus on marriage today. I think that this is why the wisdom of the church over time (and from the beginning) has concluded that people should instead wed the church when they are beyond child rearing age or if they are infertile. This is certainly a strong argument for monastic life with its historic vow of celibacy.
Now having said this, I'm not so sure what decision I would make myself if put in this situation, ie. my children all raised, no intention of having more, and single (horrible to think of this). But I am starting to think that if I married it would be for selfish reasons and no different than someone who wants SSM. I am at least acknowledging that I see the potential hypocrisy of my own beliefs and my own potential actions. Do you get points for this?
I have purposely ignored the question of the "morality" of homosexual activity. I personally believe that it is immoral but I also believe that sex outside of the context of openness to procreation (birth control) is immoral and that adultery is immoral. However I don't think that the state should outlaw these activities. But my main reason for ignoring it is that it will never be accepted by non religious as a valid argument against SSM so it does nothing to advance the present argument.
This is an extremely difficult subject.
A narrow definition of the purpose and occasion for marriage (only being for procreation and the raising of children) is difficult and very conservative. It is most certainly not in line with the general consensus on marriage today. I think that this is why the wisdom of the church over time (and from the beginning) has concluded that people should instead wed the church when they are beyond child rearing age or if they are infertile. This is certainly a strong argument for monastic life with its historic vow of celibacy.
Now having said this, I'm not so sure what decision I would make myself if put in this situation, ie. my children all raised, no intention of having more, and single (horrible to think of this). But I am starting to think that if I married it would be for selfish reasons and no different than someone who wants SSM. I am at least acknowledging that I see the potential hypocrisy of my own beliefs and my own potential actions. Do you get points for this?
I have purposely ignored the question of the "morality" of homosexual activity. I personally believe that it is immoral but I also believe that sex outside of the context of openness to procreation (birth control) is immoral and that adultery is immoral. However I don't think that the state should outlaw these activities. But my main reason for ignoring it is that it will never be accepted by non religious as a valid argument against SSM so it does nothing to advance the present argument.
This is an extremely difficult subject.
8.14.2012 | 1:00pm
Steve says:
Diogenes: Thanks again for the response and civil dialogue. I agree, there's too much venom in these converstations. And I don't think the traditional marriage folks are bad people. They're just trying to help families and children. And what's so wrong with that? I just think a lot of their effort is wasted focusing on gay couples.
And please don't misunderstand me. I don't think gay couples and straight couples are the same. Obviously they're not. I simply said the differences between straight couples and gay couples were meaningless. There are differences, they just don't matter. At the end of the day, whether it's a same-sex couple or an opposite-sex couple, everyone really wants the same things: protection for their families, protection for their children (if they have children), an ability to care for each other in sickness and in health, being able to pay their fair share of taxes, and being treated fairly. And denying a gay couple the right to marry won't save another couple's marriage or help a child. It just won't happen.
America has been able to overcome many social differences over time (national origin, religion, gender, race, etc.) And I think sexual orientation is just another step along that path. So, I'm not worried. I think we'll be able to spread a little equality around. Especially since allowing gays to marry won't detract from anyone else being able marry, have children, and live their own life.
Thanks again for the opportunity to hear your side. I appreciate the civil discourse. I've learned something and I hope you have too.
And please don't misunderstand me. I don't think gay couples and straight couples are the same. Obviously they're not. I simply said the differences between straight couples and gay couples were meaningless. There are differences, they just don't matter. At the end of the day, whether it's a same-sex couple or an opposite-sex couple, everyone really wants the same things: protection for their families, protection for their children (if they have children), an ability to care for each other in sickness and in health, being able to pay their fair share of taxes, and being treated fairly. And denying a gay couple the right to marry won't save another couple's marriage or help a child. It just won't happen.
America has been able to overcome many social differences over time (national origin, religion, gender, race, etc.) And I think sexual orientation is just another step along that path. So, I'm not worried. I think we'll be able to spread a little equality around. Especially since allowing gays to marry won't detract from anyone else being able marry, have children, and live their own life.
Thanks again for the opportunity to hear your side. I appreciate the civil discourse. I've learned something and I hope you have too.
8.14.2012 | 1:05pm
Steve says:
JohnE: Thanks for the comment. No, it's not just about adoption. Gay and lesbian couples can already adopt in different places around the country. There are hundreds and hundreds of other rights and obligations that marriage conveys. The ability to file taxes jointly, inheritance, immigration, social security, etc. A whole bunch of things that would help a gay or lesbian couple protect themselves, their families, and/or their children (if they have children...could be adopted children.)
8.14.2012 | 6:56pm
Diogenes says:
@Karol W,
I would agree with narrowing the legal definition of marriage back what it historical was: a union of a man and a woman who order their union toward procreation AND provide lifelong companionship and help to one another. For those who cannot or choose not to enter such a marriage, I support domestic partnership laws, open to any two people without regard to their being in a sexual relationship or not to deal with the various legal issues that such people face (next-of-kin for health care, end-of-life issues, inheritance, property ownership, etc.
I would agree with narrowing the legal definition of marriage back what it historical was: a union of a man and a woman who order their union toward procreation AND provide lifelong companionship and help to one another. For those who cannot or choose not to enter such a marriage, I support domestic partnership laws, open to any two people without regard to their being in a sexual relationship or not to deal with the various legal issues that such people face (next-of-kin for health care, end-of-life issues, inheritance, property ownership, etc.
8.15.2012 | 7:14pm
JohnE says:
Here are some of my reasons for opposing gay marriage:
-- laws should not promote or encourage immoral behavior; the immorality of homosexual activity is a religious argument, but is also supported in natural law -- what is plain to see in the complementarity of a man and woman and procreation as a natural purpose of sex. Our government laws also serve as statements for a society as to what we believe is moral or immoral behavior. Conflicting views of morality cannot both be accommodated. I think this may be the heart of the matter for many pro-gay-marriage advocates. Supporting gay marriage in law would be a clear statement that we as a society view homosexual sex (even if limited to a committed monogamous relationship) as a good and moral activity, or as a morally neutral activity.
-- gay marriage would shift the focus of marriage from being primarily the well-being of children to primarily being a legal arrangement between adults that has children as a secondary concern. Children always have a biological father and mother, but in some unfortunate circumstances, a child may not know their father or mother. Children of a gay marriage are intentionally put into these unfortunate circumstances.
-- gay marriage must deny (no matter how strong the research is to the contrary) that there are important differences and unique contributions of a father and mother in the raising of children. Thus you see many skewed studies like those that compare children of gay marriage to children of single households, or tightly control what is viewed as "well-being".
-- gay marriage will marginalize those who believe in traditional marriage and the immorality of gay sexual activity (ex. Catholic Charities having to shut down adoption services because they only adopt to those who are naturally married, public schools required to specifically teach about figures in history who were gay, businesses providing wedding-related services being punished for refusing to provide their services for gay weddings, etc.). There is no "equality" of viewpoints here.
That many traditional marriages have been failures is an argument by pro-gay-marriage advocates that is well taken. The question is, are we going to give up on the ideals of marriage by redefining it and promoting marriages that are contrary to it, or continue to promote the ideal despite the failures.
-- laws should not promote or encourage immoral behavior; the immorality of homosexual activity is a religious argument, but is also supported in natural law -- what is plain to see in the complementarity of a man and woman and procreation as a natural purpose of sex. Our government laws also serve as statements for a society as to what we believe is moral or immoral behavior. Conflicting views of morality cannot both be accommodated. I think this may be the heart of the matter for many pro-gay-marriage advocates. Supporting gay marriage in law would be a clear statement that we as a society view homosexual sex (even if limited to a committed monogamous relationship) as a good and moral activity, or as a morally neutral activity.
-- gay marriage would shift the focus of marriage from being primarily the well-being of children to primarily being a legal arrangement between adults that has children as a secondary concern. Children always have a biological father and mother, but in some unfortunate circumstances, a child may not know their father or mother. Children of a gay marriage are intentionally put into these unfortunate circumstances.
-- gay marriage must deny (no matter how strong the research is to the contrary) that there are important differences and unique contributions of a father and mother in the raising of children. Thus you see many skewed studies like those that compare children of gay marriage to children of single households, or tightly control what is viewed as "well-being".
-- gay marriage will marginalize those who believe in traditional marriage and the immorality of gay sexual activity (ex. Catholic Charities having to shut down adoption services because they only adopt to those who are naturally married, public schools required to specifically teach about figures in history who were gay, businesses providing wedding-related services being punished for refusing to provide their services for gay weddings, etc.). There is no "equality" of viewpoints here.
That many traditional marriages have been failures is an argument by pro-gay-marriage advocates that is well taken. The question is, are we going to give up on the ideals of marriage by redefining it and promoting marriages that are contrary to it, or continue to promote the ideal despite the failures.
8.16.2012 | 7:36am
casper says:
Why the huge disparity? Most people know from their life experiences that male sexuality is inherently promiscuous, unless young men are raised taught to restrain themselves by their fathers. Single mothers usually do a bad job restraining their sons; just look at the out-of-wedlock birthrate in any large inner city. So unleashed from traditional inhibitions, the culture of male homosexuality is inherently promiscuous. HIV is also easily spread by men through gay sex – ask any doctor off the record who all tell their patients to avoid gay sex. The data proves it. Why else would a tiny 2% of the population be getting 2/3 of new HIV cases? Gay men don’t like using condoms? No man likes to use condoms: it’s why there are about 4 million babies born in the US every year. So would a piece of paper, a marriage certificate, turn two men into chaste bridesmaids? Not likely. Marriage to a woman appears to be the only institution that civilizes men and forces them into monogamy. What is more likely is that gay-marriage and gay adoption would legitimize homosexuality & thus encourage the spread of STDs, lethal & otherwise, especially among young men. Gay marriage & adoption would also be harmful to the children raised by such couples, who would never learn how to relate to the absent, other-sex parent – which would probably create more homosexuals (which is what the gay lobby wants). And our secular, amoral courts will certainly force school administrators to tell 12 and 13 year olds, uncertain in their newly awakened sexuality, to try it out (it’s just another valid lifestyle choice once gay marriage is approved!). And for the final abuse, the Public will get to pay for their HIV & AIDs treatment through Obamacare! Given the staggering, often lethal health implications, it’s shocking this data is never reported in the media. It’s insanity to legitimize homosexual conduct by approving same-sex marriage and gay adoption.
8.16.2012 | 11:40am
Steve says:
JohnE: I would like to respond to the points you brought up. Although thoughtful and interesting, I find it difficult to square the circle on these arguments.
-- The immorality of homosexuality seems to be an issue between you and your church or you and your God. Since Lawrence vs. Texas, it's hard to legislate away that type of behavior. I would suggest you speak to a close friend or family member who is gay (or who has a gay son or daughter) to get their opinion before you make up your mind.
-- Since the government can't force married couples to have children, why are you forcing gay couples to have children? If gay couples agreed not to have children, would you tolerate gay marriage? It seems your issue is with adoption by gay couples and not gay marriage.
-- Same argument. When a gay couple gets married, the government doesn't grant them a child. So no child is being denied a father and a mother when a gay couple gets married. And, as far as I know, the government hasn't forcebly removed a child from its parents and given it to a gay couple. That's not going to happen and doesn't seem logical.
One thing to notice too is that none of the laws or amendments defining marriage say anything about children (who can have children, how those children are raised, etc.). So, again, I think most traditional marriage folks are reading too much into the laws passed.
-- Organizations that accept federal and state money can't discriminate. If it's a private organization, you can do what you want. But you can't accept federal and state money and then choose not to serve Jewish people, or blacks, or native Americans, etc. Same goes for businesses. You can't pick and choose who you serve (which is why Chick-fil-A announced everyone was welcome.)
One logical question that I think we need to ask is this: If these constitutional amendments defining marriage are really about ensuring that every child has a mother and father, does this mean we can outlaw single motherhood? Since she's obviously denying the child a father, perhaps we can pass a law removing these children from their single moms. Better still, since we have a constitutional amendment on the books that seems to be about ensuring children have mothers and fathers, the law should withstand constitutional scrutiny. 40% of all children these days are born to single mothers.
-- The immorality of homosexuality seems to be an issue between you and your church or you and your God. Since Lawrence vs. Texas, it's hard to legislate away that type of behavior. I would suggest you speak to a close friend or family member who is gay (or who has a gay son or daughter) to get their opinion before you make up your mind.
-- Since the government can't force married couples to have children, why are you forcing gay couples to have children? If gay couples agreed not to have children, would you tolerate gay marriage? It seems your issue is with adoption by gay couples and not gay marriage.
-- Same argument. When a gay couple gets married, the government doesn't grant them a child. So no child is being denied a father and a mother when a gay couple gets married. And, as far as I know, the government hasn't forcebly removed a child from its parents and given it to a gay couple. That's not going to happen and doesn't seem logical.
One thing to notice too is that none of the laws or amendments defining marriage say anything about children (who can have children, how those children are raised, etc.). So, again, I think most traditional marriage folks are reading too much into the laws passed.
-- Organizations that accept federal and state money can't discriminate. If it's a private organization, you can do what you want. But you can't accept federal and state money and then choose not to serve Jewish people, or blacks, or native Americans, etc. Same goes for businesses. You can't pick and choose who you serve (which is why Chick-fil-A announced everyone was welcome.)
One logical question that I think we need to ask is this: If these constitutional amendments defining marriage are really about ensuring that every child has a mother and father, does this mean we can outlaw single motherhood? Since she's obviously denying the child a father, perhaps we can pass a law removing these children from their single moms. Better still, since we have a constitutional amendment on the books that seems to be about ensuring children have mothers and fathers, the law should withstand constitutional scrutiny. 40% of all children these days are born to single mothers.
8.16.2012 | 6:49pm
JohnE says:
Steve, you bring up some good points as well. I admit that I cannot completely "square the circle", either for myself and definitely not for you. However, I think I'm far closer to squaring the circle than I would be in circling the square.
While immoral behavior may not always be something that can or should be made illegal, it is also not something that should be encouraged (harmful behavior like smoking is legal, but we shouldn't allow a tax write-off for cigarettes). Religious citizens have a say, informed by their religious beliefs, as to our laws and legislation that encourage or discourage certain behaviors. There aren't morally-indifferent laws.
I agree with you that the government shouldn't force married couples to have children. That would be an invasion of privacy. Children aren't the ONLY focus of marriage, but it is the primary focus -- a focus that gay marriage would render unimportant since such sexual unions do not even pretend to be fertile. You don't need an invasion of privacy to know that two of the same sex can't produce children. A third party must be involved, usually with illicit means such as in-vitro fertilization or adultery. Traditional marriage recognizes the fact that children always come from a father and a mother and encourages the norm to be that the father and mother who co-created that child are also the ones who raise that child and provide the irreplaceable contributions that a father and mother make.
The case of an unwed mother (whether in a relationship or not, gay or not) is difficult due to the fact that she IS one of the co-creators of that child. So normally she should be one to raise that child if she is able to. Some make the difficult decision to allow the child to be adopted by a married father and mother, recognizing the difficulty of raising a child without a father, and the better environment that a married father and mother provide. But I would never say that a child should be taken away, no matter what form of relationship the mother may be in. Rather, we should generally discourage children from being placed in such a household in the first place.
You are correct that my main concern is with children and adoption. Our laws should reflect the great value in having children raised by their natural father and mother. Adoption recognizes the fact that this isn't always possible, but still attempts (or should attempt) to provide the child with a father and mother.
If you can point me to gay marriage or civil union legislation that has no mention of children or adoption, I'd be interested to see it. If some sort of civil union legislation could be crafted that is not just another name for marriage, is not just available to unrelated persons of the same sex, and excludes equal consideration with married couples for adopting a child, then that might be something that could be considered. Still might not be a good idea if it puts excessive strain on businesses, but it might be workable. My understanding is that many of the rights being sought are already available, they just aren't as conveniently obtained as they are with marriage.
"Organizations that accept federal and state money can't discriminate. If it's a private organization, you can do what you want. But you can't accept federal and state money and then choose not to serve Jewish people, or blacks, or native Americans, etc. Same goes for businesses. You can't pick and choose who you serve (which is why Chick-fil-A announced everyone was welcome.)"
I think a distinction can be made here. It would be wrong for Chick-fil-A to refuse to serve someone who is gay, because that has nothing to do with the service they're providing and does not in itself support or encourage behavior the business owners object to. But it would be wrong to force Chick-fil-A to provide catering to a Gay Pride event, because that DOES imply such support and encouragement. Whether such "discrimination" is legal, I don't know. If it isn't legal, then it seems we agree all the more: allowing gay marriage will indeed marginalize (or further marginalize) those who believe in traditional marriage. We just seem to disagree as to whether that is good or bad.
While immoral behavior may not always be something that can or should be made illegal, it is also not something that should be encouraged (harmful behavior like smoking is legal, but we shouldn't allow a tax write-off for cigarettes). Religious citizens have a say, informed by their religious beliefs, as to our laws and legislation that encourage or discourage certain behaviors. There aren't morally-indifferent laws.
I agree with you that the government shouldn't force married couples to have children. That would be an invasion of privacy. Children aren't the ONLY focus of marriage, but it is the primary focus -- a focus that gay marriage would render unimportant since such sexual unions do not even pretend to be fertile. You don't need an invasion of privacy to know that two of the same sex can't produce children. A third party must be involved, usually with illicit means such as in-vitro fertilization or adultery. Traditional marriage recognizes the fact that children always come from a father and a mother and encourages the norm to be that the father and mother who co-created that child are also the ones who raise that child and provide the irreplaceable contributions that a father and mother make.
The case of an unwed mother (whether in a relationship or not, gay or not) is difficult due to the fact that she IS one of the co-creators of that child. So normally she should be one to raise that child if she is able to. Some make the difficult decision to allow the child to be adopted by a married father and mother, recognizing the difficulty of raising a child without a father, and the better environment that a married father and mother provide. But I would never say that a child should be taken away, no matter what form of relationship the mother may be in. Rather, we should generally discourage children from being placed in such a household in the first place.
You are correct that my main concern is with children and adoption. Our laws should reflect the great value in having children raised by their natural father and mother. Adoption recognizes the fact that this isn't always possible, but still attempts (or should attempt) to provide the child with a father and mother.
If you can point me to gay marriage or civil union legislation that has no mention of children or adoption, I'd be interested to see it. If some sort of civil union legislation could be crafted that is not just another name for marriage, is not just available to unrelated persons of the same sex, and excludes equal consideration with married couples for adopting a child, then that might be something that could be considered. Still might not be a good idea if it puts excessive strain on businesses, but it might be workable. My understanding is that many of the rights being sought are already available, they just aren't as conveniently obtained as they are with marriage.
"Organizations that accept federal and state money can't discriminate. If it's a private organization, you can do what you want. But you can't accept federal and state money and then choose not to serve Jewish people, or blacks, or native Americans, etc. Same goes for businesses. You can't pick and choose who you serve (which is why Chick-fil-A announced everyone was welcome.)"
I think a distinction can be made here. It would be wrong for Chick-fil-A to refuse to serve someone who is gay, because that has nothing to do with the service they're providing and does not in itself support or encourage behavior the business owners object to. But it would be wrong to force Chick-fil-A to provide catering to a Gay Pride event, because that DOES imply such support and encouragement. Whether such "discrimination" is legal, I don't know. If it isn't legal, then it seems we agree all the more: allowing gay marriage will indeed marginalize (or further marginalize) those who believe in traditional marriage. We just seem to disagree as to whether that is good or bad.
8.17.2012 | 3:28pm
Steve says:
JohnE: Thanks for the response. I appreciate the discussion.
First, about immorality. You say: "Religious citizens have a say, informed by their religious beliefs, as to our laws and legislation that encourage or discourage certain behaviors." I agree. Religion, as a method of regulating societies, has always colored the laws we make. Very true. It was an early way to manage society and help us all get along. But I think we can go too far. Case in point, I live in Brooklyn, NY and there's a large Ultra-Orthodox Jewish population. The ultra-orthodox women feel it's immoral to show their hair and so wear wigs. If they were a larger portion of the population, they could pass a law (and be able to do so in a democracy) dictating that all women need to cover their hair. I think we have to watch ourselves about how far we're going to 'encourage or discourage' certain behaviors in a free society. There are a lot of religious points of view out there with a lot of different views on what's moral and immoral. And if we start to pick and choose, we'll get into trouble.
And I think I wasn't too clear about any of the marriage amendments or laws mentioning children. I'm not concerned about civil union legislation mentioning children, just the legislation keeping gay and lesbian couples from marrying. Let's take, for example, the Federal Marriage Amendment that some folks are still trying to pass. This is what the amendment says:
"Marriage in the United States shall consist solely of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman."
Or, if we consider the text of Amendment One just recently passed in North Carolina:
"Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State. This section does not prohibit a private party from entering into contracts with another private party; nor does this section prohibit courts from adjudicating the rights of private parties pursuant to such contracts."
Notice neither mention anything about ensuring a child's biological parents raise them? And it doesn't say who can't raise the child, who's allowed to have children, who's expected to care for children, etc. Nothing about children. You would think that if folks were going to amend the constitution (state or federal) to help children they would get it right, right? I find that particularly odd. I almost feel like everyone was duped into believing this whole issue is about children because the amendments don't mention children at all. Don't you find that odd?
And I think you brought up a good poing about further marginalizing those who believe in traditional marriage. The problem is that it IS illegal for Chik-fil-A to refuse to cater a gay pride event. If the gay pride party were to ask Chik-fi-A, Chik-fil-A would be required to cater the event. Just like they couldn't refuse a Hindu wedding or a Bar Mitvah. I can see how you would feel your views weren't being respected or heard if you were forced to serve these folks. But perhaps we shouldn't expect businesses to be the ones encouraging or discouraging activities or behaviors?
Thanks JonhE, I appreciate your insights and discussion.
First, about immorality. You say: "Religious citizens have a say, informed by their religious beliefs, as to our laws and legislation that encourage or discourage certain behaviors." I agree. Religion, as a method of regulating societies, has always colored the laws we make. Very true. It was an early way to manage society and help us all get along. But I think we can go too far. Case in point, I live in Brooklyn, NY and there's a large Ultra-Orthodox Jewish population. The ultra-orthodox women feel it's immoral to show their hair and so wear wigs. If they were a larger portion of the population, they could pass a law (and be able to do so in a democracy) dictating that all women need to cover their hair. I think we have to watch ourselves about how far we're going to 'encourage or discourage' certain behaviors in a free society. There are a lot of religious points of view out there with a lot of different views on what's moral and immoral. And if we start to pick and choose, we'll get into trouble.
And I think I wasn't too clear about any of the marriage amendments or laws mentioning children. I'm not concerned about civil union legislation mentioning children, just the legislation keeping gay and lesbian couples from marrying. Let's take, for example, the Federal Marriage Amendment that some folks are still trying to pass. This is what the amendment says:
"Marriage in the United States shall consist solely of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman."
Or, if we consider the text of Amendment One just recently passed in North Carolina:
"Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State. This section does not prohibit a private party from entering into contracts with another private party; nor does this section prohibit courts from adjudicating the rights of private parties pursuant to such contracts."
Notice neither mention anything about ensuring a child's biological parents raise them? And it doesn't say who can't raise the child, who's allowed to have children, who's expected to care for children, etc. Nothing about children. You would think that if folks were going to amend the constitution (state or federal) to help children they would get it right, right? I find that particularly odd. I almost feel like everyone was duped into believing this whole issue is about children because the amendments don't mention children at all. Don't you find that odd?
And I think you brought up a good poing about further marginalizing those who believe in traditional marriage. The problem is that it IS illegal for Chik-fil-A to refuse to cater a gay pride event. If the gay pride party were to ask Chik-fi-A, Chik-fil-A would be required to cater the event. Just like they couldn't refuse a Hindu wedding or a Bar Mitvah. I can see how you would feel your views weren't being respected or heard if you were forced to serve these folks. But perhaps we shouldn't expect businesses to be the ones encouraging or discouraging activities or behaviors?
Thanks JonhE, I appreciate your insights and discussion.
8.26.2012 | 10:27pm
Diana Swancutt says:
To the author (who responded to me): I have no intention of having a comment war with you in this thread. You want to meet me in person, we'll talk.
As for your reference to yale and duke: I'm glad you enjoyed Duke. And I don't care (at all) that you chose not to go to Yale.
Your identity and university affiliation is irrelevant to the matter, except that going to Duke indicates that you intentionally chose a conservative theological environment in which to engage this material (having been educated there myself, I would know).
The best writings on this subject (both rational and religious) are, without question, the essays in the volume, Sex and the Single Savior, by Dale B. Martin. They deal, quite well, with the faux-certainty of the rational argument. I highly recommend them to you.
This essay, on the other hand, seeks to effect a sleight of hand I'm would hope the author is unaware of: to separate "religion" from "rationality" (because rationality is more highly prized as an argumentative frame in a culture that, btw, has moved far past the outdated notion "I think therefore I am" or even "I think and nothing cultural or religious impacts my rationality, which remains pure and unadulterated...") and, having secured this faux-"secure" secular ground from which to argue, proceeds to argue (poorly) a point made over and over and over (badly) by certain Christian religious groups about "gay marriage."
(which, by the way, it's not. It's just marriage....)
This and similar points (about the utter ridiculousness of thoroughly distinguishing religion from rationality) have been demonstrated, time and again, by any number of scholars, poets, scientists, cultural critiques, ideological analysts....etcetera.
What's relevant: bad argumentation that affects innocent peoples' lives adversely. Bad argumentation that parades as logic unimpacted by a-, ill- and otherwise-logical cares and interests and biases that an author holds. When the author holds those cares and interests and biases and instead of honestly claiming them, honestly seeing how they impact the "rationality" (or irrationality) of the argument so argued, instead tosses down the rationality card as if it were a free pass to truth, we find ourselves back in the days of the Cartesian split between body and mind.
And that's not a world where embodied human beings can deeply and abidingly flourish--whether they are straight, gay, bi, queer, omni-, asexual, or purple people eaters.
As for your reference to yale and duke: I'm glad you enjoyed Duke. And I don't care (at all) that you chose not to go to Yale.
Your identity and university affiliation is irrelevant to the matter, except that going to Duke indicates that you intentionally chose a conservative theological environment in which to engage this material (having been educated there myself, I would know).
The best writings on this subject (both rational and religious) are, without question, the essays in the volume, Sex and the Single Savior, by Dale B. Martin. They deal, quite well, with the faux-certainty of the rational argument. I highly recommend them to you.
This essay, on the other hand, seeks to effect a sleight of hand I'm would hope the author is unaware of: to separate "religion" from "rationality" (because rationality is more highly prized as an argumentative frame in a culture that, btw, has moved far past the outdated notion "I think therefore I am" or even "I think and nothing cultural or religious impacts my rationality, which remains pure and unadulterated...") and, having secured this faux-"secure" secular ground from which to argue, proceeds to argue (poorly) a point made over and over and over (badly) by certain Christian religious groups about "gay marriage."
(which, by the way, it's not. It's just marriage....)
This and similar points (about the utter ridiculousness of thoroughly distinguishing religion from rationality) have been demonstrated, time and again, by any number of scholars, poets, scientists, cultural critiques, ideological analysts....etcetera.
What's relevant: bad argumentation that affects innocent peoples' lives adversely. Bad argumentation that parades as logic unimpacted by a-, ill- and otherwise-logical cares and interests and biases that an author holds. When the author holds those cares and interests and biases and instead of honestly claiming them, honestly seeing how they impact the "rationality" (or irrationality) of the argument so argued, instead tosses down the rationality card as if it were a free pass to truth, we find ourselves back in the days of the Cartesian split between body and mind.
And that's not a world where embodied human beings can deeply and abidingly flourish--whether they are straight, gay, bi, queer, omni-, asexual, or purple people eaters.
10.16.2012 | 9:26pm
Terence Clark says:
This article tries very hard to bury its lack of actual defense in a very wordy reasoning why religion shouldn't hold a monopoly on the position. I absolutely agree. If there is sound logic to support the position, there's no reason religious justifications need to be employed. Given the well reasoned discussion on that portion, I expected a firm and logical non-religious defense. In all that, all I got was the following:
"Even though marriage precedes the state, the state has an interest in regulating marriage, which is a public institution, to the end of “assur[ing] stability in society and the proper protection and raising of the next generation of citizens.” "
I'd argue that is a needlessly narrow and cynical definition of marriage. Numerous people marry who are unable to have children and no one bats and eye. Many marry who can have children, but choose not to. In rare cases there are partners that choose to be entirely celibate.
Further the converse also argues against this point. Gay couples can, and do, freely adopt children in many states and countries. And children are readily raised by single parents, grandparents, end even friends of the family. Further the problem of runaway parents, most commonly fathers, in nearly epidemic in the US and elsewhere, leaving the mother to marry someone else or raise the child or children as a single mother (and less common, though not unheard of single fathers, as well).
There are, in fact, so many exceptions to the rule that society barely raises a protest over that it would hard to call heterosexual, child-bearing couples as the rule at all.
Marriage is many things to many people. To most in the US, it is a bond of love. In some societies it is a political compact or a financial transaction (not that I agree with that, but it is what it is). Rarely can it be merely distilled to a singular purpose of child-rearing with no other motive (eg romantic love).
In short, this article expends considerable time commenting on how it is unfair that the religious hold sole sway over opposition to same sex marriage, and yet is woefully deficient in nonreligious reasoning to defend the stance otherwise.
"Even though marriage precedes the state, the state has an interest in regulating marriage, which is a public institution, to the end of “assur[ing] stability in society and the proper protection and raising of the next generation of citizens.” "
I'd argue that is a needlessly narrow and cynical definition of marriage. Numerous people marry who are unable to have children and no one bats and eye. Many marry who can have children, but choose not to. In rare cases there are partners that choose to be entirely celibate.
Further the converse also argues against this point. Gay couples can, and do, freely adopt children in many states and countries. And children are readily raised by single parents, grandparents, end even friends of the family. Further the problem of runaway parents, most commonly fathers, in nearly epidemic in the US and elsewhere, leaving the mother to marry someone else or raise the child or children as a single mother (and less common, though not unheard of single fathers, as well).
There are, in fact, so many exceptions to the rule that society barely raises a protest over that it would hard to call heterosexual, child-bearing couples as the rule at all.
Marriage is many things to many people. To most in the US, it is a bond of love. In some societies it is a political compact or a financial transaction (not that I agree with that, but it is what it is). Rarely can it be merely distilled to a singular purpose of child-rearing with no other motive (eg romantic love).
In short, this article expends considerable time commenting on how it is unfair that the religious hold sole sway over opposition to same sex marriage, and yet is woefully deficient in nonreligious reasoning to defend the stance otherwise.
12.3.2012 | 3:36am
WM says:
Your first argument calls for laws for the sake of laws, which is ridiculous. The purpose of legislature is to protect society and people. If neither ar harmed, laws are unnecessary.
Secondly, your second argument is categorically a logical fallacy, that of both the appeal to nature and the appeal to tradition (argumentum ad antiquitatem).
Also, stating that marriage predates religion or state is irrelevant, because homosexuality predates all of them.
Lastly, you call for the argument to not be based on religion, but then most of your argument is based on your own religious beliefs or faith-inspired ideas.
I find it incredibly arrogant for anyone to believe that their opinions are so much greater than others, and use that idea to take away others rights and freedoms. If you don't want a gay marriage, don't get one, and look away. I don't want to be religious, but you can if you want. I won't vote to take that right away. :)
Secondly, your second argument is categorically a logical fallacy, that of both the appeal to nature and the appeal to tradition (argumentum ad antiquitatem).
Also, stating that marriage predates religion or state is irrelevant, because homosexuality predates all of them.
Lastly, you call for the argument to not be based on religion, but then most of your argument is based on your own religious beliefs or faith-inspired ideas.
I find it incredibly arrogant for anyone to believe that their opinions are so much greater than others, and use that idea to take away others rights and freedoms. If you don't want a gay marriage, don't get one, and look away. I don't want to be religious, but you can if you want. I won't vote to take that right away. :)
12.31.2012 | 7:08am
Lakshaman says:
Writer assumes that faith & reason can co-exist. Faith induces tunnel vision and a single worldview, as imposed by a doctrine. Faith obliterates human capacity for inquiry & reasoning
The writer’s assertion that reason is inspired by faith is illogical.
Marriage is a social institution. It evolves, like any other social, political and religious institutions, as the human consciousness evolves. If not civilization would be trapped forever in pre-historic practices.
State does interfere with customs and traditions as the civilization evolves. Take for example the dowry system in India. In old days, it served a real purpose. However, as the dowry system was widely abused, Ghandi government made it illegal.
The physical complementarity is just one dimension of marriage and the marriage serves something beyond sexual needs and procreation. Every single human being should have the right to decide with whom he/she engage in a life-long union to serve their needs.
Pro-creation is not possible through a gay marriage. However, even 100% of LGBTs have same-sex marriage the survival of mankind is not threatened as they represent only a minority.
Are 2 dads or 2 mums worst parents than a mum and dad combination? Why do we consider them as less parental compared to heterosexual parents?
The domestic violence is quite common in all parts of the world. May be same-sex couple could take care of the children of those broken families of heterosexuals.
The writer vainly attempts to project gay-marriage as a political issue. They belong to all hues of political and economic spectrum.
Just because certain political parties are pro- gar rights, doesn’t make gay-rights a political issue.
The writer’s assertion that reason is inspired by faith is illogical.
Marriage is a social institution. It evolves, like any other social, political and religious institutions, as the human consciousness evolves. If not civilization would be trapped forever in pre-historic practices.
State does interfere with customs and traditions as the civilization evolves. Take for example the dowry system in India. In old days, it served a real purpose. However, as the dowry system was widely abused, Ghandi government made it illegal.
The physical complementarity is just one dimension of marriage and the marriage serves something beyond sexual needs and procreation. Every single human being should have the right to decide with whom he/she engage in a life-long union to serve their needs.
Pro-creation is not possible through a gay marriage. However, even 100% of LGBTs have same-sex marriage the survival of mankind is not threatened as they represent only a minority.
Are 2 dads or 2 mums worst parents than a mum and dad combination? Why do we consider them as less parental compared to heterosexual parents?
The domestic violence is quite common in all parts of the world. May be same-sex couple could take care of the children of those broken families of heterosexuals.
The writer vainly attempts to project gay-marriage as a political issue. They belong to all hues of political and economic spectrum.
Just because certain political parties are pro- gar rights, doesn’t make gay-rights a political issue.
1.15.2013 | 4:23pm
Tony says:
I completely agree with Cardinal George. People that cannot engage in sexual union should not be permitted to marry. Homosexuals, men with erectile dysfunction, paralyzed individuals, and women with vaginismus can not consummate the marriage and they should not be permitted to defile real matrimony by calling their union a marriage.
I personally believe that infertile women and men should still be allowed to marry, even though their sexual union is not exactly what nature intended it to be. I am open to discussion though because this is an issue I have often struggled with.
I personally believe that infertile women and men should still be allowed to marry, even though their sexual union is not exactly what nature intended it to be. I am open to discussion though because this is an issue I have often struggled with.
3.15.2013 | 11:28pm
John Shrader says:
I was hoping to read about what the rationality behind opposition to same-sex marriage is. The closest thing I got was an argument from complimentary-ness of the physical sexes. But this seems to be just an assertion. I think most people would think of marriage as the creation of a new family unit between consenting and willing adults.
So I'm curious what justification you have to limit marriage to your perception of *only* physical complimentary-ness. Why not emotional and psychological complimentary-ness? Are there other non-religious reasons to oppose marriage?
So I'm curious what justification you have to limit marriage to your perception of *only* physical complimentary-ness. Why not emotional and psychological complimentary-ness? Are there other non-religious reasons to oppose marriage?
3.21.2013 | 6:13pm
Jackson MacDougal says:
FREEDOM and LIBERTY always prevail in our great country. Today, the majority of Americans including Republicans under 50 believe in marriage equality. Why? Because FREEDOM and LIBERTY are what we as Americans value most. If you can't marry the person you love, you LOSE FREEDOM. Today most Americans believe that their fellow citizens should be able to LIVE FREE and marry the person they love. FREEDOM wins. Exclusionary policies and bigotry lose.
3.27.2013 | 5:51pm
Nix says:
I just read that entire thing waiting for the rational reasoning, but there wasn't any... The entirety of that wasn't even about marriage, but about faith. His only reasoning was that marriage predates Christianity and our government, which is true, but neglects that "gay" marriage was perfectly okay in much of Europe for centuries. It wasn't called gay though, it was called normal -_-
5.23.2013 | 10:33pm
Capryl says:
In history, in some major religions, and in biology, polygamy has a more rational basis than homosexual marriage. So what are the arguments against it if three people love each other?
"Marriage concerns the physical complementarity of the sexes. “The sexual union of a man and woman is called the marital act because the two become physically one in a way that is impossible between two men or two women."
Well, gays don't deny that male and female are required to reproduce; they just deny that it defines "marriage".
To them, your argument is question begging, i.e. no argument at all.
The correct way to go about is
Marriage is union of a man and a woman is an intellectual truth and not a product of ratiocination, esp proceeding from biology.
Human biology does not determine human family, human nature does, of which biology is a part. Can we not conceive of alternative family arrangements, each respecting biology, but in obvious violation of human nature?. Such as communal living with children of each couple being reared communally, or arrangements with no stable coupling and again children being reared by maternal grandparents.
The proper way is to define Human Nature broadly and not reduce it to physical facts of biology. One needs to demonstrate a cross-cultural argument. Look marriage has always and everywhere been so. Even the pederasty-loving Greeks never had same-sex marriage.
In short, humans are cultural animals, not biological and argument needs to reflect this.