commenter-thread

Yesterday, 4/29, at secularright.org John Derbyshire posted "A Secular Case Against Gay Marriage?"

Ed (and all interested in this topic) if you're still reading this blog I recommend the post as well as the comments.

Good-by, Ed.

Ed, I have re-read all your comments after your comment at #125. You are really an angry insecure man.

Yeah Ed, I "missed the boat" I "missed the point." But when you bring up nonexistent "sodomy laws" you are arguing in bad faith.

Ed, when you say, "You might want to change your fight to sodomy laws to be accurate in your arguments," you are being inaccurate. The Supreme Court struck down all sodomy laws in Lawrence v Texas, 2003.

"Please read it and refute."

Ed, not sure I can refute, prove wrong, the points Adam K. made in his post but I will dispute them.

Adam's first point, state regulation of marriage, is only descriptive. He provides a very short history of marriage laws in some states. Clearly such laws prove nothing regarding a universal truth regarding marriage. Laws change and vary from culture to culture. So to argue against SSM on account of history of state laws is very weak. Societies attitudes change and when they change laws must often be changed to come into compliance with the change. Recognizing SSM is a political question fraught with cultural and religious issues. For me state involvement in marriage should be only contractual, provide rules for entering the contract and ending the contract. In 2009 a political controversy exists with regard to who may sign such contracts, it's that simple and that difficult.

Adam also makes an economic argument against SSM, it will deprive governments of tax revenues. I'm willing to give this argument some credence but governments are not without tools to correct any short fall. Governments change tax laws and tax rates all the time to meet needs and changing conditions. If SSM proves to be a drain on the treasuries Congress and state legislatures can correct the situation. Have any studies been made regarding the cost, lost revenues, to governments if SSM becomes recognized? What has been the economic impact on European governments that recognize SSM?

With regard to procreation I'd like to associate myself with the comment made by Dave in #126. Overt encouragement, tax breaks, for procreation by governments seem wrong-headed in the 21st century. I will grant that several west European countries and Russia have low, maybe, negative birth rates but lack of population is not a problem world wide.

I find the arguments Adam offer without merit, I'm suprised you find them note-worthy.

OK, I read your reply. Can't say anything at this point.

I'm going to regret this, but please explain, "...am in favor of throwing out the fourteenth amendment all together. " Is it the fourteenth or the incorporation doctrine?

"That there is no path from one to the other, seems blatantly wrong."

Cascadian, I never never never said that. I maintain that Griswald did not overturn sodomy laws. Bowers upheld sodomy laws. I'm only saying (1) it took Lawrence do overturn sodomy laws (2) there is no straight line from Griswald to Lawerance.

And beside that was not my original point. You wrote in #103, "The LGBT community has had better luck arguing that the gov should be out of everyone’s bedroom than sodomy in particular should be legal." Well that is factually incorrect since Bowers struck down all sodomy laws. I know I know you say that is not what you meant, but that is what you wrote. What you wrote was incorrect.

I'm in no way denying the import of Griswald, it has been more than helpful in establishing and expanding the right to privacy, but as you well know the Right hates Griswald and would probably overturn it given the right case.

Ed writes in # 113"...now some very small group of people claim that they should have a new right recognized under the existing laws that has never been recognized before in the known history of mankind...."

Not exactly.

Same sex marriage is known in history. It would be more accurate to say the same sex marriage is rare. But to assert that it "...has never been recognized before in the known history of mankind..." is inaccurate.

Consult the Wikipedia article on Same-sex marriage, history.

Cascadian, wrong wrong wrong.

Griswald did not stop the Court from upholding sodomy laws in Bowers v. Hardwick. Lawrance specifically overturned Bowers and the Court apologized for Bowers. There is no straight line from Griswald to Lawrance.

Cascadian, both Griwald and Lawrence upheld the right of privacy. Griswald was largely about contraceptives. Lawrence v. Texas overturned the sodomy laws of Texas and hence all sodomy laws.

The following are the first two paragraphs from the NYTimes article reporting the decision. "The Supreme Court issued a sweeping declaration of constitutional liberty for gay men and lesbians today, overruling a Texas sodomy law in the broadest possible terms and effectively apologizing for a contrary 1986 decision that the majority said ''demeans the lives of homosexual persons.'' The vote was 6 to 3.

"Gays are 'entitled to respect for their private lives,' Justice Anthony M. Kennedy said for the court. 'The state cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime.' ''

The only point I was making was that in message #103 you said the LGBT community had little success in fighting against sodomy laws. Once again, the Supreme Court has overturned all sodomy laws. I would call that very succesful.

Perhaps I miss understand what you were saying.

Ed the following is from your message # 72, "My nature argument is that marriage is an idealization of the male-female relationship that bascally exists in all living things except for rare times like asexual reproduction." You said further on in that message, "Marriage is mans’ codification of that union with additional motivation including bloodline, property, etc. But it is a codification of male-female unions that exist in nature. I am not arguing that marriage is nature but that it is mans’ codifying of behavior that exists in nature."

The above is the reason I say you have a narrow view of nature. There are no "male-female unions" on the flora side of nature. Pollination occurs as blind chance. The birds bees or the breeze that spread pollen is hard to define as unions. Sexual reproduction? Sure. Unions? Not so much. Or take the example of spawning Salmon. The females lay eggs and males swim over the eggs and and release their sperm. Sexual reproduction but difficult for me to see this as any kind of union especially as it might apply to human intuitions.

I just can't accept, do not see, how nature has anything to say about marriage. Nature is diverse.

Ed, this is my last word on this particular subject. I will read any response you might post, but I think I have expressed by position as best I can.

Cascadian you write,"The LGBT community has had better luck arguing that the gov should be out of everyone’s bedroom than sodomy in particular should be legal."

Wrong. The U.S. Supreme struck down all sodomy laws in 2003, Lawrence v.Texas.

Cascadian, I don't think there is a lot of day light between our positions.

Yogi, it's love not logic. Your daughater has a great Dad.

Casadian, the "gov [can't get] out altogether ." Property is involved. No matter if it is marriage or civil union division of property must be decided upon death or divorce.

Ed, no response necessary from my point of view. We have both had our say. I really do respect what you say. We just don't agree.

Dan, let me me clear. I reject, I said reject, Ed's nature argument. Marriage is a cultural concept. Nature has nothing to do with it. Just ask a plant which plant is the father of the seed. Ed has a very narrow definition of nature. But since I see "marriage" as cultural I see any resolution of the marriage question as a cultural/political question. Hence, compromise. If equal right are granted under the rubric "civil unions" or "marriage" I really don't care. Once again, let me be clear, I would want "marriage" for all, but "civil union" for is a realistic compromise.

Dan, I agree to some extent, perhaps a large extant. There will always be the "dead endears," those that will never accept any sort of gay reorganization, unions. But I hope those dead endears are a minority, and a minority that diminishes as time goes by. Younger people seem more accepting of diversity. So will Kemic's propasial be accepted tomorror? No. Will it be accepted over time? I hope so.

Hey Ed, Hey Dan, I have been enjoying the dialog. Ed, we had many exchanges a few days/weeks back. Enjoyed "talking" with you.

So guys what do you think of this proposal?

Last week, on National Public Radio, Doug Kmiec, a cultural conservative but a supporter of Obama during the election, made this suggestion, an attempt to "end" the culture wars.

States should only recognize civil unions. Marriage should be a religious ceremony. To be clear, both straight and gay couples enjoy government sanctioned unions. Marriage would be optional, a religious choice.

This sounds good to me, as long as Federal benefits follow. Social Security, tax benefits, etc.

Ed? Dan?

Ed, thaks to you. Yeah, we both remained civil, no small accomplishment. Maybe we will cross swords another day. It has been fun.

Ed, you really need to re-read my comment, #68. There is NO way for you to argue that I am arguing against “traffic signals” or any other law. Buddy, it’s just not there.

I think you have pretty much conceded that marriage is cultural, not nature, so I’m satisfied with that. I could pick at your last post, for example, your “all life” is dependent on male female “intersexual activity," since asexual reproduction continues and that type of reproduction is very important for the world to go on "as we now (sic) it...."

But I think we have pretty much exhausted this whole thing.

"It does all go back to the hoped-for ability to reproduce and continue the bloodline."

Two questions Ed,

1. In the historical context where do you place this "hoped-for" outcome?

2. Isn't this "hoped-for" out come a function of culture, especially as it relates to marriage? Marriage being a really really recent development of human history and prehistory I just cant buy you nature argument.

The genus homo dates to about 2.5 million years ago. Modern humans to about 200, 000 years ago. The intuition of marriage, state sanctioned marriage, is at best several thousand years old. I grant that neither anthropology or history provides us with reliable information regarding marriage, but history does show that church/state interest in marriage is of recent vintage. Again undercutting your nature argument.

"By your implication and not by my statement, we should have no laws like traffic signals since they don't exist in nature."

Ed, where did the above come from?

Well as a highly educated person living in NYC you should know there is a little something called asexual reproduction. So when you write "...basically every living organism requires a member of the opposite sex to procreate." you are wrong. Now, now, don't think for a minuet I think that asexual reproduction counters your marriages arises in nature argument. It does not. I bring it up only to show that nature is much more diverse than your argument seems to allow. And I still do not accept your sexual reproduction equals marriage position. Marriage has more to do with property rights, the female being the property, than science.

Ed, I have no idea what you are saying when you write, "The argument that I made for marriage being nature based...." I will grant that mating is nature based, and some species mate for life but to assert that marriage is nature based is very strange. What exactly, or where exactly is the marriage ceremony in nature? Would you assert that divorce is nature based since many species only stay together long enough to raise their young? And what about reptiles, say snakes, that don't have any sort of parental relationship, neither the male or female? Same with fish, no parental relationship. I ask these questions without any reference to gay marriage or civil unions, I just need (?) an explanation of the words quoted above.

Jake, for your edification I want to point out the the term of "separate but equal" originated in the 1896 Plessy v. Ferguson decision. There the Court established the dubious concept that the state could establish separate institutions, based on race, just as long as they provided equal service. Brown v. Board over tuned Plessy, a decision I am sure you agree with.

So with that bit of history, does the argument the Freddie offers have any more weight for you?

Jake, your response to me is below, just there to refresh your memory. First, the fact that all married people do not benefit by IRS rules dose not negate the fact that some do. So to state the obvious, some same sex married might benefit, some might not. Same rules for every one, equality. Two, SS benefits to survivors is the law. Your injection of some rather nebulous term, "fundamental right," is way off the mark. Define fundamental right and we can discuss that. Short of that definition I will only point out that governments confer rights that may fall short of any definition of fundamental rights and SS benefits may fall into that category. Again, only a plea for equality.

But Jake, I have a question for you. Now that several of us have give you the examples you requested have you changed your mind?

=========

Many married couples pay higher taxes than they would if they were to file separately. Remember the “marriage penalty”? In fact, if two people making roughly the same salary as one another enter into a civil union, they will reap huge tax benefits by maintaining their separate filing status.

You are right that SS benefits are not available for those people in civil unions. But is the right to collect someone else’s social security a fundamental right? Is this what everyone is worked up about?

Jake, you write, "The question is what rights are conferred by marriage that are not conferred by civil unions. So what are they?"

I'll give you two:

1. Tax advantages given to married people by the federal government.

2.Survivor benefits under social security.

Jake, you write, "The question is what rights are conferred by marriage that are not conferred by civil unions. So what are they?"

I'll give you two:

1. Tax advantages given to married people by the federal government.

2.Survivor benefits under social security.

Freddie, with regard to your original post "knowing when...."

Your arguments for pursuing legal remedies first are reasoned, and I have no major quibble with them. I have given my opinion in other comments in this discussion, and will not repeat them here.

I just want to say that it is because of cultural factors that even discussing gay marriage is on the table, and recognized one state. (From what I read New York might be next.) Any way, I think it is clear that all the small cultural steps have brought us to the place where this issue can be legitimately debated.

I think I would prefer "Equality under the law shall not be abridged on account of gender or sex"

Josh, I'm not going to debate the merits of your short history of marriage, because right or wrong, it is history, or sociology, or anthropology, the way it has been.

But when you say the argument is improperly framed I am going to take issue. The debate is status quo vs. change. And I think it is clear you stand for the status quo. Fine.

The question is framed exactly right. Will government treat it's citizens equally with respect to marriage? The notion of equality, thank god, evolves. It does not take a lot of historical knowledge to recognize that fact.

Governmental privileges given to married people number in the hundreds, as Freddie said. I have seen figures that get into the thousand range. No matter the number it is without question that government is picking winners and losers here. And so the question, is this equality before the law? I'm saying no.