"The Separation of Marriage and State"

[galtgulch]

>>>"Jerry Salcido is a trial and appellate lawyer in the San Francisco Bay Area and serves as the legal chair for the HomeSchool Association of California.

The Separation of Marriage and State

By Jerry Salcido

Published 05/21/09

On March 5, 2009, the California Supreme Court heard oral argument in five consolidated lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the controversial November 2008 California ballot initiative, Proposition 8, which added an amendment to the California Constitution to limit "marriage" between one man and one woman. Lawyers who represent public interest groups, universities, official campaigns, individuals, companies, churches, and various other organizations who advocate and oppose Proposition 8 offered their best arguments to the seven justice panel regarding why Proposition 8 should or should not be overturned. Regardless of how the court ends up ruling, however, only one winner will clearly emerge from the courthouse -- the State.

Proposition 8 was a hotly contested issue during the weeks and months leading up to the November California election. Proponents warned about the negative implications that same sex marriage would have on children in public schools and society in general. Opponents argued that Proposition 8 denied gays and lesbians equal treatment under the law. Opponents even invented clever epithets such as "Don't h8" and "Let me choose my m8," all ending with the admonition to "Vote No on Prop 8."

Proposition 8 passed with 52.3% of the total vote, by about 600,000 more yea votes than nays. The day after Proposition 8 passed, its opponents began filing lawsuits challenging its validity and more than 40 amicus briefs (friend of the court briefs) were subsequently filed.

In addition to the lawsuits, Prop 8's foes immediately expressed their ire on the streets of Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Diego, and even Manhattan, Chicago, and Seattle and various other venues throughout the United States. They marched in front of Mormon temples and other Christian worship centers and through city streets. City police departments were placed on riot alert, private property was defaced, and multiple arrests were made.

While Mormons bore the brunt of the No Crowd's displeasure, Prop 8's opponents also cast blame on blacks (another group that overwhelmingly voted in favor of the Proposition) and even religion in general. Notably, however, adversaries of Proposition 8, in all of their finger pointing, have blindingly passed over their primary antagonist -- the state of California.

California, like the other 49 states and most countries in the world, holds a monopoly over marriage. Who can get married and un-married is at its sole discretion, through the granting and revocation of the marriage license -- that fiat currency, if you will, whose only value derives from the powers and privileges that accompany it at the behest of the State, but which nonetheless is required to consummate human relationships.

The state's involvement with marriage is rarely questioned. Advocates and enemies of same sex marriage alike all seek the endorsement of the state, never stopping to ask why the states approval is needed at all. The reason behind this submission appears simple enough -- the philosophy ascribed by our society today which has led to the displacement of the private sector with the substitution of the state in nearly all facets concerning the rights of life, liberty, and property has taken root in the marriage issue.

Thanks to the state, marriage is no longer a covenant between two people or between two people and God. No, marriage is a state classification, which connotes state-provided benefits or detriments. Marriage is married to the state imposed tax structure and the state created probate system, and in many instances marriage defines the powers of the state over the married individuals.

This unholy union between the state and marriage has transformed marriage from an inalienable or natural right in which government's only place was as protector of that right, to a civil right in which the state became the creator of the right.

Some, including California's attorney general Jerry Brown, have even reclassified marriage into a newly created type of right -- the offspring of a marriage between a civil right and a natural right. A naturvil or civatural right perhaps?

Jerry Brown, representing California's (and his own political) interests in the Prop 8 battle argued in his legal brief and at oral argument that since the California Supreme Court (that is, the State) has determined that "the right of same sex couples to marry" is "part of fundamental human liberty," and an "'inalienable' right,'" California voters cannot amend the California Constitution to intentionally withdraw that right "from a class of persons by an initiative amendment."

Mr. Brown correctly pointed out that inalienable rights are "beyond the power of the Legislature or the Executive to abrogate" and "'antedate' the constitution as inherent in human nature. . . ," but the attorney general's understanding of natural rights stops there, because he then paradoxically asserted that "the scope of liberty interests evolves over time as determined by the Supreme Court." In other words, inalienable rights exist, but at the whim of the state.

With this tortured logic the California AG, like any good representative of the state, moved to the next logical step and suggested that the real question which the Court should address is whether Proposition 8 "sufficiently furthers the public health, safety, or welfare" of the state of California. Thus, Mr. Brown opined that the interest at issue is not that of an individual natural right, but the interest of the state.

One wonders why Mr. Brown bothered to discuss inalienable rights at all.

The state attorney general's argument is indicative of the tainted philosophy that has enveloped modern society, infected our state and federal legislatures, and permeated our judicial system. First, the State declares what are and are not rights. Second, even if the State recognizes that something is a right, the State can abrogate that right so long as the State has a sufficient interest. Gone is the day when government's role was to protect the individual's natural rights.

By transitioning away from a protector of rights to a provider of rights, the state has laid the groundwork for the problems that are so evident in the same sex marriage issue. If the government were to take its proper place as a protector of rights then a private union between a same sex couple which the couple calls "marriage" would be inconsequential to same sex marriage opponents, even though it may be morally repugnant to some and nonsensical to others. Likewise, refusal to recognize a private same sex union as "marriage" would be inconsequential to gays and lesbians, even though such refusal may personally offend the practitioners of same sex unions. In a free society any individual could "marry" whomever he wants by whatever procedure he desires, and the government's only role would be to make sure that in doing so he does not violate the natural rights of others.

Such a scenario, of course, assumes that the state would be acting in its proper role as protector of rights in all regards, which would mean that private contractual relationships would replace the state created systems of benefits. Marriage, in that situation, would be relevant only where the contracting parties made it so; and, the state's only role with regards to such contracts would be to ensure that the contract is enforced or to protect the parties against the other's fraud.

A free society based on private contractual or covenantal relationships, however, is not what either side of Proposition 8 advocates. Proposition 8's supporters have used the state to solidify what they consider to be the appropriate private relationship. Proposition 8's opponents, on the other hand, want all of the state-provided benefits that come with being "married" and with that end in mind have used the state to force everyone to accept their relationships as equal.

Until we divorce marriage from the state, the right to marry will never be protected and the problems associated with Proposition 8 will be repeated throughout the world. Both sides of the Proposition, therefore, should agree to truly protect their natural rights by removing the state from the equation. In the meantime the world will wait to see how California protects its interests in the Proposition 8 lawsuits.

The outcome of the Proposition 8 lawsuits -- which we will know by June 3 -- may result in maintaining the status quo of marriage or it could cement the earlier judicially-created civil right to same sex marriage, but in the end marriage will not be strengthened -- only California's power over what otherwise should be a private covenant will. Indeed, Proposition 8, like the current economic problems, 9/11, or any other "crisis" has unfortunately served as a medium to expand the state's power at the expense of individual liberty.

Thus, to the advocates and opponents of Proposition 8 alike, the deb8 on Prop 8 is not about h8, choosing your m8, determining your f8, or whether it has come too l8, but whether we should give in to its b8 to infl8 the control of the st8. "<<<

Edited May 24, 2009 by galtgulch

[BaalChatzaf]

There are really two kinds of marriage: one with issue (children) and one without. If a bunch of people of whatever gender who cannot or will not have children wish to form a sexual menage, the State should have nothing to say about it except that the participation be among people old and competent enough to know what they are doing and that the participation be voluntary and terminable at will.

Where children are involved the State finds itself in locus parenti if the child is not properly protected for cared for. If you can think of a better form of default protection for young children not being properly nurtured please propose it. Any menage that produces children can be regulated by the State as long as it is the default party in locus parenti.

Since marriage is constituted as a kind of contract, the State is involved to the extent that it monitors and sometimes enforces contracts or sees to it that the contracting parties live up to their word.

I agree with your sentiment entirely, but when children are involved, I do insist that some socially acceptable provision be made to protect helpless children from mistreatment or neglect. None of these kids asked to be brought into the world. If they were and they are badly treated they are victims whose rights must be protects and therein lies the role of the State.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Michelle]

I have two friends who are both men and married to oneanother. They make a great couple. They're happy, productive people who fell in love. But because of the inordinate amount of attention the statists have been paying to this gay marriage issue, they're constantly having to battle to be recognized as a married couple. It is shameful. The state needs to just stay the hell away from it and let individual churches work out whatever issues they have with homosexuality.

[Selene]

"...I do insist that some socially acceptable provision be made to protect helpless children from mistreatment or neglect."

Your in loco parenti theory is correct, in principle, as the state does have the implied power to protect the life, health and safety of a minor.

As with any government movement, a loss of individual power can occur.

Additionally, the definition of "mistreatment, maltreatment or neglect" are both state and federal issues.

"Child" protective agencies are, frankly, one step shy of SS units or Red Guard units.

They should never be allowed in your home unless they have a warrant and frankly, should be shot on sight.

Adam

Edited May 25, 2009 by Selene

[Christopher]

Well here's the funny thing: who cares whether the State recognizes a marriage or not? An Objectivist wouldn't give a damn what the State thought, nor would an Objectivist need the State to confirm a marriage. The only legitimate issue related to gay marriage is really unfair tax-filing opportunities that "normal married couples" have the option to receive.

[kiaer.ts]

First, thanks, gulch, for an actually interesting thread starter for once.

Second, it's in loco (ablative) parentis (genitive). In the locus of the parent. Parenti isn't even a Latin word, but it is a type of lizard.

Third, the gay marriage debate is an assault on reason. Sure, whoever wants to shack up should be allowed to do so. Calling the relation a marriage is a mockery so far as I am concerned. If gay people want to get married they are free to do so, just like Jim Mcgreevy. No law forbids a gay man from marrying a woman or fathering a child on her. If two men wish to shack up, and appoint each other's next of kin status that is like adoption, Roman style. I believe Caesar adopted Octavian when Octavian was already 21.

The whole point of the gay marriage "right" "debate" is what comes next - the "right" to be a parent, presumably at state expense. Leftists will argue that homosexual couples are infertile through no fault of their own, and that the state must provide...well, you name it, up to and including gender reassignment surgery for welfare wards.

I do agree with the separation of marriage and state. But I also think it is an attack on reason even to call homosexual cohabitation marriage.

[Michelle]

First, thanks, gulch, for an actually interesting thread starter for once.

Second, it's in loco (ablative) parentis (genitive). In the locus of the parent. Parenti isn't even a Latin word, but it is a type of lizard.

Third, the gay marriage debate is an assault on reason. Sure, whoever wants to shack up should be allowed to do so. Calling the relation a marriage is a mockery so far as I am concerned. If gay people want to get married they are free to do so, just like Jim Mcgreevy. No law forbids a gay man from marrying a woman or fathering a child on her. If two men wish to shack up, and appoint each other's next of kin status that is like adoption, Roman style. I believe Caesar adopted Octavian when Octavian was already 21.

The whole point of the gay marriage "right" "debate" is what comes next - the "right" to be a parent, presumably at state expense. Leftists will argue that homosexual couples are infertile through no fault of their own, and that the state must provide...well, you name it, up to and including gender reassignment surgery for welfare wards.

I do agree with the separation of marriage and state. But I also think it is an attack on reason even to call homosexual cohabitation marriage.

A few questions:

1) Why should it be marriage for heterosexual couples, but only "shacking up" for homosexual couples?

2) Why should heterosexual and homosexual couples be treated differently when it comes to a legal recognition of their marriages?

3) On what grounds should homosexual couples be denied the same adoption opportunities that are available to heterosexual couples?

4) Gender reassignment surgery (which, if properly understood, should be called "gender correction surgery" anyhow) falls under the same category as any other medical procedure. Why bring it up here when the topic has nothing to do with it?

And one comment:

"If gay people want to get married they are free to do so, just like Jim Mcgreevy. No law forbids a gay man from marrying a woman or fathering a child on her."

This is a cowardly evasion and you damn well know it. The issue is homosexuals being unable to marry other people of their own sex.

[Dragonfly]

Second, it's in loco (ablative) parentis (genitive). In the locus of the parent. Parenti isn't even a Latin word, but it is a type of lizard.

"Parenti" does exist in Latin, it's the dative case of "parens".

[kiaer.ts]

First, thanks, gulch, for an actually interesting thread starter for once.

Second, it's in loco (ablative) parentis (genitive). In the locus of the parent. Parenti isn't even a Latin word, but it is a type of lizard.

Third, the gay marriage debate is an assault on reason. Sure, whoever wants to shack up should be allowed to do so. Calling the relation a marriage is a mockery so far as I am concerned. If gay people want to get married they are free to do so, just like Jim Mcgreevy. No law forbids a gay man from marrying a woman or fathering a child on her. If two men wish to shack up, and appoint each other's next of kin status that is like adoption, Roman style. I believe Caesar adopted Octavian when Octavian was already 21.

The whole point of the gay marriage "right" "debate" is what comes next - the "right" to be a parent, presumably at state expense. Leftists will argue that homosexual couples are infertile through no fault of their own, and that the state must provide...well, you name it, up to and including gender reassignment surgery for welfare wards.

I do agree with the separation of marriage and state. But I also think it is an attack on reason even to call homosexual cohabitation marriage.

A few questions:

1) Why should it be marriage for heterosexual couples, but only "shacking up" for homosexual couples?

2) Why should heterosexual and homosexual couples be treated differently when it comes to a legal recognition of their marriages?

3) On what grounds should homosexual couples be denied the same adoption opportunities that are available to heterosexual couples?

4) Gender reassignment surgery (which, if properly understood, should be called "gender correction surgery" anyhow) falls under the same category as any other medical procedure. Why bring it up here when the topic has nothing to do with it?

And one comment:

"If gay people want to get married they are free to do so, just like Jim Mcgreevy. No law forbids a gay man from marrying a woman or fathering a child on her."

This is a cowardly evasion and you damn well know it. The issue is homosexuals being unable to marry other people of their own sex.

1) Marriage has one objective non-religious legal meaning of which I am aware. A woman who lives with a man and bares his children is in a state of common-law marriage regardless of religious ceremony and has legal protections from that state of being. When homosexual couples start producing children, then...

2) They shouldn't. That was the whole point of the article, I thought. But, of course, you are simply asserting that two homosexuals living together and having sex is a marriage, and that's the point of debate. I would simply say that a married heterosexual like Donald Trump and a married homosexual like Jim Mcgreevy should be treated equally before the law.

3) On the grounds that a biological couple is preferable for a child, just as a biolgical couple is preferable to a single parent. I am not an expert, and so long as single people can adopt I see no reason why single homosexuals should not adopt. The important thing is the welfare of the child, not the vanity of the couple.

4) Then why call it marriage, and not adoption? Or some other term? I am not in favor of abusing language in order to get legal force used to pay for people's surgeries, elective or otherwise.

"This is a cowardly evasion and you damn well know it. The issue is homosexuals being unable to marry other people of their own sex."

Heterosexuals are also denied the legal recognition of their same sex couplings as marriages. Where's the inequality?

I don't care what private religious ceremonies people want to engage in. But since it is a biological fact that it takes one male and one female to produce one offspring, I see an obvious objective reason for singling out that central fact of our existence with a special name. The fact that I cannot marry myself, a fish, an underage child, a dead person, or someone of my own sex is no cosmic injustice. I can still masturbate, maintain a fishtank, be a foster or godparent, visit a cemetary or enjoy all the sodomy I like. You would have just as much a right to call your relationship with anther woman a marriage as I would to say that your language makes me laugh.

BTW, nice to meet you. I write this without rancor, and hope you do have a romantic love.

[BaalChatzaf]

1) Marriage has one objective non-religious legal meaning of which I am aware. A woman who lives with a man and bares his children is in a state of common-law marriage regardless of religious ceremony and has legal protections from that state of being.

Only when changing the diapers.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Dragonfly]

Or when bathing them.

[Michelle]

First, thanks, gulch, for an actually interesting thread starter for once.

Second, it's in loco (ablative) parentis (genitive). In the locus of the parent. Parenti isn't even a Latin word, but it is a type of lizard.

Third, the gay marriage debate is an assault on reason. Sure, whoever wants to shack up should be allowed to do so. Calling the relation a marriage is a mockery so far as I am concerned. If gay people want to get married they are free to do so, just like Jim Mcgreevy. No law forbids a gay man from marrying a woman or fathering a child on her. If two men wish to shack up, and appoint each other's next of kin status that is like adoption, Roman style. I believe Caesar adopted Octavian when Octavian was already 21.

The whole point of the gay marriage "right" "debate" is what comes next - the "right" to be a parent, presumably at state expense. Leftists will argue that homosexual couples are infertile through no fault of their own, and that the state must provide...well, you name it, up to and including gender reassignment surgery for welfare wards.

I do agree with the separation of marriage and state. But I also think it is an attack on reason even to call homosexual cohabitation marriage.

A few questions:

1) Why should it be marriage for heterosexual couples, but only "shacking up" for homosexual couples?

2) Why should heterosexual and homosexual couples be treated differently when it comes to a legal recognition of their marriages?

3) On what grounds should homosexual couples be denied the same adoption opportunities that are available to heterosexual couples?

4) Gender reassignment surgery (which, if properly understood, should be called "gender correction surgery" anyhow) falls under the same category as any other medical procedure. Why bring it up here when the topic has nothing to do with it?

And one comment:

"If gay people want to get married they are free to do so, just like Jim Mcgreevy. No law forbids a gay man from marrying a woman or fathering a child on her."

This is a cowardly evasion and you damn well know it. The issue is homosexuals being unable to marry other people of their own sex.

1) Marriage has one objective non-religious legal meaning of which I am aware. A woman who lives with a man and bares his children is in a state of common-law marriage regardless of religious ceremony and has legal protections from that state of being. When homosexual couples start producing children, then...

2) They shouldn't. That was the whole point of the article, I thought. But, of course, you are simply asserting that two homosexuals living together and having sex is a marriage, and that's the point of debate. I would simply say that a married heterosexual like Donald Trump and a married homosexual like Jim Mcgreevy should be treated equally before the law.

3) On the grounds that a biological couple is preferable for a child, just as a biolgical couple is preferable to a single parent. I am not an expert, and so long as single people can adopt I see no reason why single homosexuals should not adopt. The important thing is the welfare of the child, not the vanity of the couple.

4) Then why call it marriage, and not adoption? Or some other term? I am not in favor of abusing language in order to get legal force used to pay for people's surgeries, elective or otherwise.

"This is a cowardly evasion and you damn well know it. The issue is homosexuals being unable to marry other people of their own sex."

Heterosexuals are also denied the legal recognition of their same sex couplings as marriages. Where's the inequality?

I don't care what private religious ceremonies people want to engage in. But since it is a biological fact that it takes one male and one female to produce one offspring, I see an obvious objective reason for singling out that central fact of our existence with a special name. The fact that I cannot marry myself, a fish, an underage child, a dead person, or someone of my own sex is no cosmic injustice. I can still masturbate, maintain a fishtank, be a foster or godparent, visit a cemetary or enjoy all the sodomy I like. You would have just as much a right to call your relationship with anther woman a marriage as I would to say that your language makes me laugh.

BTW, nice to meet you. I write this without rancor, and hope you do have a romantic love.

1. Then, yes, we fall back to the old problem of non-fertility in this case. Why should men and women who are unable to conceive a child be allowed to get married?

2. A marriage is a legal contract between two consenting adults. Why should it include only opposite gender couples, in that case? Personally, I see no use for it, and have no idea why homosexuals would want to. But they do, and I see no logical reason why we should deny them that.

3. This is simply a statement I cannot agree with. Are you saying that it is a preferable situation for a child to live with his biological parents when the biological parents are unfit to act as parents, rather than with, say, a gay man or a gay couple who could love the child and raise it properly? Of course, until they relinquish their right to the child to the state, the biological parents should have full hold of the child. But the disparity of living standards and parental readiness is so great for so many categories of people seeking to adopt children that you cannot say that a male and female would furnish a better home for the child than two men or two women or a single parent. Does it often happen that the heterosexual couple would make a better home for the child than any potential homosexual couples? Many times, I'm sure. But many times it will be the reverse. The same standards should be applied to all potential applicants in order to find the home where the child would receive the most love and care. As you said, it's about the child's welfare.

4. As far as I'm aware, nobody confuses the words "marriage" and "adoption." They have quite distinct meanings. So I am unsure what you are saying here.

I suppose I should have asked earlier...

define for me "marriage" in your own words

"Heterosexuals are also denied the legal recognition of their same sex couplings as marriages. Where's the inequality?"

Again, you're evading the issue. There is no reason heterosexuals would want to marry people of their own gender, and every reason for homosexuals to want to marry people of their own gender. It's absurd, like saying abortion applies equally to men and to women as abortion laws would allow men to get abortions too. But men are unable to get pregnant, and heterosexuals have no same-sex orientation. Thus, the issue is not about them. The issue is about women and homosexuals and their rights to pursue their own happiness and live in the manner they desire.

There is no necessary logical connection between marriage and childbearing. Again, you'd also have to deny marriage opportunities to infertile heterosexual couples as well. Plenty of married couples make the decision to not bear children, but if you apply your logic toward the law in this regard consistently, these marriages would be forced to either rear and raise a child or dissolve their marriage.

Also, as a marriage is a legal contract between two consenting adults, it is quite a bit different for a man to marry another man than a fish, a cadaver, himself, a child, and whatever else it was you mentioned.

I will never have any desire to marry or sleep with another woman. I'm not a lesbian. But if I was, I would say only one thing to you in this regard, and anybody else who would wish to prevent my marriage to the other hypothetical female: "Get the hell out of my way!"

It's nice to meet you too. And thanks. I disagree with you profoundly, but I have no desire to be unfriendly with you.

[kiaer.ts]

1.

Then, yes, we fall back to the old problem of non-fertility in this

case. Why should men and women who are unable to conceive a child be

allowed to get married?

2. A marriage is a legal contract between two consenting adults. Why

should it include only opposite gender couples, in that case?

Personally, I see no use for it, and have no idea why homosexuals would

want to. But they do, and I see no logical reason why we should deny

them that.

3. This is simply a statement I cannot agree with.

Are you saying that it is a preferable situation for a child to live

with his biological parents when the biological parents are unfit to

act as parents, rather than with, say, a gay man or a gay couple who

could love the child and raise it properly? Of course, until they

relinquish their right to the child to the state, the biological

parents should have full hold of the child. But the disparity of living

standards and parental readiness is so great for so many categories of

people seeking to adopt children that you cannot say that a male and

female would furnish a better home for the child than two men or two

women or a single parent. Does it often happen that the heterosexual

couple would make a better home for the child than any potential

homosexual couples? Many times, I'm sure. But many times it will be the

reverse. The same standards should be applied to all potential

applicants in order to find the home where the child would receive the

most love and care. As you said, it's about the child's welfare.

4. As far as I'm aware, nobody confuses the words "marriage" and

"adoption." They have quite distinct meanings. So I am unsure what you

are saying here.

I suppose I should have asked earlier...

define for me "marriage" in your own words

"Heterosexuals are also denied the legal recognition of their same sex couplings as marriages. Where's the inequality?"

Again, you're evading the issue. There is no reason heterosexuals would

want to marry people of their own gender, and every reason for

homosexuals to want to marry people of their own gender. It's absurd,

like saying abortion applies equally to men and to women as abortion

laws would allow men to get abortions too. But men are unable to get

pregnant, and heterosexuals have no same-sex orientation. Thus, the

issue is not about them. The issue is about women and homosexuals and

their rights to pursue their own happiness and live in the manner they

desire.

There is no necessary logical connection between

marriage and childbearing. Again, you'd also have to deny marriage

opportunities to infertile heterosexual couples as well. Plenty of

married couples make the decision to not bear children, but if you

apply your logic toward the law in this regard consistently, these

marriages would be forced to either rear and raise a child or dissolve

their marriage.

Also, as a marriage is a legal contract between

two consenting adults, it is quite a bit different for a man to marry

another man than a fish, a cadaver, himself, a child, and whatever else

it was you mentioned.

I will never have any desire to marry or sleep

with another woman. I'm not a lesbian. But if I was, I would say only

one thing to you in this regard, and anybody else who would wish to

prevent my marriage to the other hypothetical female: "Get the hell out

of my way!"

It's nice to meet you too. And thanks. I disagree with you profoundly, but I have no desire to be unfriendly with you.

1) What do you mean "allowed" to get married? No one allows anyone to get married in a system where the state is not involved in marriage. I am not talking of not allowing anyone to get married. I am talking about the state not having the power to regulate marriage and of the absurdity of calling two men chosing each other as next of kin a marriage. If the men want to call what they have a marriage, or a banana republic, or a flapdoodle, they can do what they like, I won't prosecute them, but I may laugh at and belittle them for their abuse of language.

2) Oh, so if I hire you to clean my toilets at a certain rate, then we are married, because we are consenting adults in a contract? Of course not, there is more to it than there being a contract. And I have not said that I oppose anyone entering into any type of contract. Marriage is a contract where the man becomes responsible for his wife's children conceived in marriage. If I marry Joe, and Joe gets Susan pregnant, does that make me the legal father of Joe's child because I am "married" to him? Or likewise, If Mary and Beth are "married" and Beth gets pregnant by Dick does Dick have no rights to his child, but Mary does? That is the absurdity of this so called gay "marriage."

.

3) The matter depends upon the circumstances which best benefit the child, and you can no more say a priori that being adopted by a homosexual couple is better for a child than I can say the child's being adopted by a white couple is best. I do say that a priori being adopted by a natural heterosexual couple is best. But since I don't necessarily oppose adoption by an individual, who may be gay, and who may have a lover, I would not say that I oppose "gay" adoption. But the gayness here would be a matter of accident, not essence. Whatever is best for the child. NOT, whatever makes the best fashion accesory for two men playing house.

4) Study history. Romans adopted each other as adults, making each other their heirs and next of kin. This is a rational system for us to adopt. It allows people to name their next of kin regardless of sexual relationship. Or are you only in favor of allowing people to enter this sort of relationship if they are sodomizing one another? I am much more liberal than that. I think people should be free to enter into next of kin relationships without having to swap bodily fluids.

I suggest you specifically consider that I am not making the same underlying assumptions about this issue as most people on either side of what I see as a confused and muddled divide. If you can do that, and reread what I have said myself, as opposed to assuming I make the same wrong assumptions as the religious (republican) or the gay identity politics (democrat) crowds, you will see that what I am saying is rational and liberating.

You make the case for me best here:

"Heterosexuals are also denied the legal recognition of their same sex couplings as marriages. Where's the inequality?"

Again, you're evading the issue. There is no reason heterosexuals would want to marry people of their own gender, and every reason for homosexuals to want to marry people of their own gender. It's absurd, like saying abortion applies equally to men and to women as abortion laws would allow men to get abortions too. But men are unable to get pregnant, and heterosexuals have no same-sex orientation. Thus, the issue is not about them. The issue is about women and homosexuals and their rights to pursue their own happiness and live in the manner they desire.

It is precisely those who want two men to have the "right" to get married who are the ones who are adovcating something as absurd as a man's right to have an abortion. (

) Common law marriage (see here in case you do not know what this is) exists to protect the rights of parents and esspecially children to support in such a case where a cohabitating man and woman conceive a child. This is the natural state of affairs which led to there being such a legal state as marriage in the first place. Even birds and dormice cohabitate and produce offspring. It is a fact of our nature. Accdording to the "gay marriage" theory of marriage, in the beginnning, anyone who wanted was free to dress up in a gown and a tux and stuff cake in each other's throats. Then, presumably, some wicked homophobe came along and arbitrarily said marriage would be restricted to couples with complimentary, not matching genitalia. This theory of marriage is the absurdity. Marriage reflects a biological reality, that a pregnant woman in the state of nature becomes dependent upon the father of her children for support. Marriage is a biological condition first, a political fiat second. The left knows this. It wants to subvert the meaning of marriage for the further purpose of inventing legal rights to adoption, "infertility treatment" for homosexual couples, and so forth.

Once the gay "marriage" debate is won by the left

. Their infertility will be treated as if it were a disease and were no fault of their own, and hence the state will be obliged to treat it and provide them with children. This is the motivation of the left. Libertarians should not fall for such nonsense. The libertarian can call for the legal right of adult adoption for all people regardless of sex or sexual intercourse. Homosexuals could adopt each other as they like, or even groups of people or close friends. If they want, in private, to call that arrangement "marriage" who cares? Indeed, why else does it matter so much for the left what this relationship is called?

[thomtg]

[...]

4) Study history. Romans adopted each other as adults, making each other their heirs and next of kin. This is a rational system for us to adopt. It allows people to name their next of kin regardless of sexual relationship. Or are you only in favor of allowing people to enter this sort of relationship if they are sodomizing one another? I am much more liberal than that. I think people should be free to enter into next of kin relationships without having to swap bodily fluids.

[...]

It is precisely those who want two men to have the "right" to get married who aree the ones who are adovcating something as absurd as a man's right to have an abortion. Common law marriage (do you know what this is?) exists to protect the rights of parents and esspecially children to support in such a case where a cohabitating man and woman conceive a child. This is the natural state of affairs which led to there being such a legal state as marriage in the first place. Even birds and dormice cohabitate and produce offspring. It is a fact of our nature. Accdording to the "gay marriage" theory of marriage, in the beginnning, anyone who wanted was free to dress up in a gown and a tux and stuff cake in each other's thorats. Then, presumably, some wicked homophobe came along and arbitrarily said marriage would be restricted to couples with complimentary, not matching genitalia. This is the absurdity. Marriage reflects a biological reality, that a pregnant woman in the state of nature becomes dependant upon the father of her children for support. Marriage is a biological condition first, a political fiat second. The left knows this. It wants to subvert the meaning of marriage for the further purpose of inventing legal rights to adoption, "infertility treatment" for homosexual couples, and so forth.

[...]

I am beginning to see your point of view, Ted.

[Christopher]

Once the gay "marriage" debate is won by the left

. Their infertility will be treated as if it were a disease and were no fault of their own, and hence the state will be obliged to treat it and provide them with children. This is the motivation of the left. Libertarians should not fall for such nonsense. The libertarian can call for the legal right of adult adoption for all people regardless of sex or sexual intercourse. Homosexuals could adopt each other as they like, or even groups of people or close friends. If they want, in private, to call that arrangement "marriage" who cares? Indeed, why else does it matter so much for the left what this relationship is called?

Ah... interesting. So you're saying that if we grant gay couples the legal status of "marriage," then any state social programs that are written to target "married couples" with a focus on supporting male/female biological coupling could be abused. Do any such laws/programs exist?

Second, couldn't we reverse the argument and say that if such programs exist, gay couples are being taxed to support these programs unjustly (they cannot receive these benefits given their disposition), and they should have equal right to the social programs as well?

Christopher

[kiaer.ts]

Once the gay "marriage" debate is won by the left

. Their infertility will be treated as if it were a disease and were no fault of their own, and hence the state will be obliged to treat it and provide them with children. This is the motivation of the left. Libertarians should not fall for such nonsense. The libertarian can call for the legal right of adult adoption for all people regardless of sex or sexual intercourse. Homosexuals could adopt each other as they like, or even groups of people or close friends. If they want, in private, to call that arrangement "marriage" who cares? Indeed, why else does it matter so much for the left what this relationship is called?

Ah... interesting. So you're saying that if we grant gay couples the legal status of "marriage," then any state social programs that are written to target "married couples" with a focus on supporting male/female biological coupling could be abused. Do any such laws/programs exist?

Second, couldn't we reverse the argument and say that if such programs exist, gay couples are being taxed to support these programs unjustly (they cannot receive these benefits given their disposition), and they should have equal right to the social programs as well?

Christopher

No, I am being more fundamental than that, and saying that the concept of marriage derives from the natural procreative state, and that regardless of politics, it's an abuse of reason to think or talk this way.

It's a fundamental mistake to begin your reasoning midstream. You can't take a given absurd political situation as given, and then ask whether we should define a word based on its effect within that political system.

If I were to play your game, I could say that we shouldn't define Mexicans as individuals, because individuals can receive welfare, and we don't want Mexicans coming here to vet welfare. But that's just bassackwards.

I oppose the anti-concept of gay marriage because it has no basis in reality. It happens to lead to a lot of political nonsense. But it is the abuse of reason, not politics, which is fundamental.

[Christopher]

Ted,

I wasn't trying to play a game. I was focused on individual freedoms, not languages. Individual freedoms necessarily implicate laws and the State.

As for linguistics, the foundation of marriage has changed throughout the years. In the middle ages, marriage was certainly between a man and a woman, but it was underwritten as a duty. Marriage was, in essence, a duty to family, estate, country, etc. These roots of marriage are archaic.

Today, marriage as commonly used is a coupling between a man and a woman that is built from the emotion of (romantic) love. "Gay marriage" is merely removing the male/female part and basing the relationship on a commitment in regards to the underlying emotion of love. If you noticed in California recently, the vote to ban gay marriage only lost by a small fraction of the population (the difference was 600,000 votes). Now, a language is merely the words that people agree to use between each other with a common definition. If almost 50% of the California population vote that marriage should extend to gay couples, then the word "marriage" to these people means a commitment focused on romantic love and not biological coupling. You are free to maintain your definition, but it sounds like you are now arguing to push your definition of the word on to other people without negotiation or mutual agreement. You support your definition using biology, but marriage is a sociocultural phenomenon, it has nothing to do with nature. There is no other animal in the known universe that gets married.

Chris

[kiaer.ts]

Ted,

I wasn't trying to play a game. I was focused on individual freedoms, not languages. Individual freedoms necessarily implicate laws and the State.

What individual freedom am I denying? What freedom is guaranteed by the state creating the institution of gay marriage?

As for linguistics, the foundation of marriage has changed throughout the years. In the middle ages, marriage was certainly between a man and a woman, but it was underwritten as a duty. Marriage was, in essence, a duty to family, estate, country, etc. These roots of marriage are archaic.

This is linguistic relativism. Use changes, so reality changes. You yourself say that the roots of marriage are archaic. Yes, they are biological, and result from the male-female pair bond that produces children.

Today, marriage as commonly used is a coupling between a man and a woman that is built from the emotion of (romantic) love. "Gay marriage" is merely removing the male/female part and basing the relationship on a commitment in regards to the underlying emotion of love. If you noticed in California recently, the vote to ban gay marriage only lost by a small fraction of the population (the difference was 600,000 votes). Now, a language is merely the words that people agree to use between each other with a common definition. If almost 50% of the California population vote that marriage should extend to gay couples, then the word "marriage" to these people means a commitment focused on romantic love and not biological coupling. You are free to maintain your definition, but it sounds like you are now arguing to push your definition of the word on to other people without negotiation or mutual agreement. You support your definition using biology, but marriage is a sociocultural phenomenon, it has nothing to do with nature. There is no other animal in the known universe that gets married.

Exactly, the notion of "gay marriage" is based on emotion with the underlying reality removed. If you noticed in California recently, the state is bankrupt. What does this or any vote have to do with the price of tea in China? How does passing a law validate romantic love? How am I "pushing" my definition on people? It is you who (I presume) wants the state to use force to establish the institution of "gay marriage." And can you name any other animal in the universe that gets gayly married?

The first problem is that you cannot start arguing in mid stream. You have to start from first principles and definitions. You want to take all sorts of problematic notions as given. I ask where marriage comes from, and show that it has a biological basis. You treat marriage as some sort of cultural creation as if it was invented in the middle ages. The reality which marriage as an institution reflects is a biological one that predates silly modern notions such as gay identity which treat such things as fashion sense, a penchant for leather, or voting democrat as part of what it is to be non-exclusively heterosexual.

The second problem is that concepts are objective. They have meanings, and these meanings come from a reality which pre-exists the word used to describe them. You have not answered what you would call a relationship where a man provides for his children and pregnant female. You have not explained how you would deal with the rights of a man to the child he fathered on one female of a lesbian couple nor the rights of that child to a relationship with his father.

I don't know what your familiarity is with Objectivist epistemology, but you not only need to study human history and anthropology in a much wider context than the legal system of California since the 1960's, you have to understand the hierarchical nature of knowledge and concepts. A proper context for discussion would include knowledge of such things as berdaches, Antinous, bonobos, male pair-bonds and rape in dolphins, and the initiation practices of young males in New guinea. I reject your unexamined givens, and will not argue on that basis.

[Selene]

Chris:

"Ah... interesting. So you're saying that if we grant gay couples the legal status of "marriage," then any state social programs that are written to target "married couples" with a focus on supporting male/female biological coupling could be abused. Do any such laws/programs exist?

Second, couldn't we reverse the argument and say that if such programs exist, gay couples are being taxed to support these programs unjustly (they cannot receive these benefits given their disposition), and they should have equal right to the social programs as well?"

Programs exist wherein your "potential" income can be imputed to you without a trial. When you cannot possibly achieve the imputed numbers, you can be incarcerated a jury trial for up to six months. In Kansas, the state had a criminal non-support statute going back to 1903 wherein non-support was punishable by up to two years in prison.

A very famous case that I was involved in to a small degree was Feiock v. Feiock which involved a conflict of diversity jurisdiction, the states enforcement provisions and the federal enforcement provisions.

There are so many unconstitutional powers ceded by statute under Domestic Relations Law and "Family Law" would curl your little premises to a crisp lol.

Ted is absolutely correct in his conclusions on gay marriage. I also agree that it would be nuts to voluntarily give the state more control over your relationships.

Your second concept Chris, if I understand it, is not a good idea. All of our positions should be towards decentralization to the individual period, end of sentence.

Playing with government is like playing Russian roulette with 5 bullets in the six chambers.

Adam

[Darrell Hougen]

3) On what grounds should homosexual couples be denied the same adoption opportunities that are available to heterosexual couples?

Hi Michelle,

There are two aspects of this question that are generally ignored. First, children are not objects that can be owned. Therefore, they should be treated differently under the law.

Generally, it would be correct to assume that if there was no good reason for the state to prevent a person from owning something, then he should have the right to own it. The default is always that the person has the right to do something unless there is some compelling reason why he doesn't have that right. For example, a person arguably has the right to own a stereo or a car or a house if he paid for it. He also has the right to drive the car, but not in a reckless manner. Driving it in a reckless manner would put other people's lives at risk and therefore there is a compelling reason for not considering reckless driving a right. So, you would be right in asking the question the way you did if it were only inert objects that were at stake. But that is not the case here.

A parent and child exist in a relationship involving the use of force as a natural consequence of the nature of parents and children. A child is a dependent on the parent and the parent must sometimes control the child for his/her own good. The child, at a young age at least, is unable to care for himself/herself and therefore does not enjoy all of the rights that accrue to adults. Therefore, it is proper for the adult to force the child to do certain things and forcibly prevent him from doing others. For example, the parent may forcibly prevent a small child from running out into the street into traffic.

Given the above considerations, it is just as proper to ask, why should the state allow gay couples to adopt children as it is to ask why the state should disallow gay couples from adopting children. In allowing a gay couple to adopt a child, the state is assigning to the gay couple the power to control the child in a forcible manner. So, it is proper for the representatives of the state to ask whether the couple would be suitable stewards of the rights and responsibilities of parenthood.

Now, it may be the case that some gay couples would be fine parents and that some non-gay couples would not, but --- and this is the second aspect that is usually ignored --- it is not always possible for whomever is working for the state to make an accurate determination of who would or would not make a good parent. It is therefore sometimes necessary to observe general characteristics of groups rather than individual characteristics.

At first, this may seem antithetical to the notion of individuality, but consider age-of-consent laws. It may be that some individuals are ready to enter into sexual relationships at the age of 14 while others are not ready until they are 20. However, without age-of-consent laws, it is very difficult to prevent children from being exploited by sexual predators. Therefore, we arbitrarily draw a line and say that an adult (over 22, say) cannot have sex with anyone younger than a certain age (17, for example) and that no person 22 or younger can have sex with a person more than five years younger. The law may not fairly treat everyone, but laws must be based on realistic considerations.

The same is true for adoption. The media like to trot out really nice looking homosexual couples when discussing adoption and you may know a very nice couple, but if, on average, homosexual couples are significantly worse potential parents, and if it is difficult to determine that by looking at other factors such as income and criminal history, then it might make sense to restrict homosexual couples from adopting, even though that might be unfair to some such couples.

I am not an expert on the issue, so I don't know what the statistics are or if anyone has even bothered to collect them, but my experiences, just looking at personals for gay and straight relationships, is that people seeking heterosexual relationships tend to be much more responsible than those seeking gay relationships. The ads by women seeking men, for example, tend to be much more responsible than other kinds of ads. Also, I happen to know that married men tend to earn more money than single men. Therefore, since women are typically the primary child care providers in heterosexual relationships and men tend to earn most of the money, I would make an educated guess that heterosexual couples would, on average, make better parents then homosexuals. At least, I think it is a legitimate consideration.

Darrell

[kiaer.ts]

3) On what grounds should homosexual couples be denied the same adoption opportunities that are available to heterosexual couples?

Hi Michelle,

There are two aspects of this question that are generally ignored. First, children are not objects that can be owned. Therefore, they should be treated differently under the law.

Generally, it would be correct to assume that if there was no good reason for the state to prevent a person from owning something, then he should have the right to own it. The default is always that the person has the right to do something unless there is some compelling reason why he doesn't have that right. For example, a person arguably has the right to own a stereo or a car or a house if he paid for it. He also has the right to drive the car, but not in a reckless manner. Driving it in a reckless manner would put other people's lives at risk and therefore there is a compelling reason for not considering reckless driving a right. So, you would be right in asking the question the way you did if it were only inert objects that were at stake. But that is not the case here.

A parent and child exist in a relationship involving the use of force as a natural consequence of the nature of parents and children. A child is a dependent on the parent and the parent must sometimes control the child for his/her own good. The child, at a young age at least, is unable to care for himself/herself and therefore does not enjoy all of the rights that accrue to adults. Therefore, it is proper for the adult to force the child to do certain things and forcibly prevent him from doing others. For example, the parent may forcibly prevent a small child from running out into the street into traffic.

Given the above considerations, it is just as proper to ask, why should the state allow gay couples to adopt children as it is to ask why the state should disallow gay couples from adopting children. In allowing a gay couple to adopt a child, the state is assigning to the gay couple the power to control the child in a forcible manner. So, it is proper for the representatives of the state to ask whether the couple would be suitable stewards of the rights and responsibilities of parenthood.

Now, it may be the case that some gay couples would be fine parents and that some non-gay couples would not, but --- and this is the second aspect that is usually ignored --- it is not always possible for whomever is working for the state to make an accurate determination of who would or would not make a good parent. It is therefore sometimes necessary to observe general characteristics of groups rather than individual characteristics.

At first, this may seem antithetical to the notion of individuality, but consider age-of-consent laws. It may be that some individuals are ready to enter into sexual relationships at the age of 14 while others are not ready until they are 20. However, without age-of-consent laws, it is very difficult to prevent children from being exploited by sexual predators. Therefore, we arbitrarily draw a line and say that an adult (over 22, say) cannot have sex with anyone younger than a certain age (17, for example) and that no person 22 or younger can have sex with a person more than five years younger. The law may not fairly treat everyone, but laws must be based on realistic considerations.

The same is true for adoption. The media like to trot out really nice looking homosexual couples when discussing adoption and you may know a very nice couple, but if, on average, homosexual couples are significantly worse potential parents, and if it is difficult to determine that by looking at other factors such as income and criminal history, then it might make sense to restrict homosexual couples from adopting, even though that might be unfair to some such couples.

I am not an expert on the issue, so I don't know what the statistics are or if anyone has even bothered to collect them, but my experiences, just looking at personals for gay and straight relationships, is that people seeking heterosexual relationships tend to be much more responsible than those seeking gay relationships. The ads by women seeking men, for example, tend to be much more responsible than other kinds of ads. Also, I happen to know that married men tend to earn more money than single men. Therefore, since women are typically the primary child care providers in heterosexual relationships and men tend to earn most of the money, I would make an educated guess that heterosexual couples would, on average, make better parents then homosexuals. At least, I think it is a legitimate consideration.

Darrell

Very well put. One implication I think Objectivists must assent to is that the state must regulate adoption of minors in order to protect their rights.

[thomtg]

3) On what grounds should homosexual couples be denied the same adoption opportunities that are available to heterosexual couples?

Hi Michelle,

There are two aspects of this question that are generally ignored. First, children are not objects that can be owned. Therefore, they should be treated differently under the law.

Generally, it would be correct to assume that if there was no good reason for the state to prevent a person from owning something, then he should have the right to own it. The default is always that the person has the right to do something unless there is some compelling reason why he doesn't have that right. For example, a person arguably has the right to own a stereo or a car or a house if he paid for it. He also has the right to drive the car, but not in a reckless manner. Driving it in a reckless manner would put other people's lives at risk and therefore there is a compelling reason for not considering reckless driving a right. So, you would be right in asking the question the way you did if it were only inert objects that were at stake. But that is not the case here.

A parent and child exist in a relationship involving the use of force as a natural consequence of the nature of parents and children. A child is a dependent on the parent and the parent must sometimes control the child for his/her own good. The child, at a young age at least, is unable to care for himself/herself and therefore does not enjoy all of the rights that accrue to adults. Therefore, it is proper for the adult to force the child to do certain things and forcibly prevent him from doing others. For example, the parent may forcibly prevent a small child from running out into the street into traffic.

Given the above considerations, it is just as proper to ask, why should the state allow gay couples to adopt children as it is to ask why the state should disallow gay couples from adopting children. In allowing a gay couple to adopt a child, the state is assigning to the gay couple the power to control the child in a forcible manner. So, it is proper for the representatives of the state to ask whether the couple would be suitable stewards of the rights and responsibilities of parenthood.

Now, it may be the case that some gay couples would be fine parents and that some non-gay couples would not, but --- and this is the second aspect that is usually ignored --- it is not always possible for whomever is working for the state to make an accurate determination of who would or would not make a good parent. It is therefore sometimes necessary to observe general characteristics of groups rather than individual characteristics.

At first, this may seem antithetical to the notion of individuality, but consider age-of-consent laws. It may be that some individuals are ready to enter into sexual relationships at the age of 14 while others are not ready until they are 20. However, without age-of-consent laws, it is very difficult to prevent children from being exploited by sexual predators. Therefore, we arbitrarily draw a line and say that an adult (over 22, say) cannot have sex with anyone younger than a certain age (17, for example) and that no person 22 or younger can have sex with a person more than five years younger. The law may not fairly treat everyone, but laws must be based on realistic considerations.

The same is true for adoption. The media like to trot out really nice looking homosexual couples when discussing adoption and you may know a very nice couple, but if, on average, homosexual couples are significantly worse potential parents, and if it is difficult to determine that by looking at other factors such as income and criminal history, then it might make sense to restrict homosexual couples from adopting, even though that might be unfair to some such couples.

I am not an expert on the issue, so I don't know what the statistics are or if anyone has even bothered to collect them, but my experiences, just looking at personals for gay and straight relationships, is that people seeking heterosexual relationships tend to be much more responsible than those seeking gay relationships. The ads by women seeking men, for example, tend to be much more responsible than other kinds of ads. Also, I happen to know that married men tend to earn more money than single men. Therefore, since women are typically the primary child care providers in heterosexual relationships and men tend to earn most of the money, I would make an educated guess that heterosexual couples would, on average, make better parents then homosexuals. At least, I think it is a legitimate consideration.

Darrell

Very well put. One implication I think Objectivists must assent to is that the state must regulate adoption of minors in order to protect their rights.

Another implication on this view is that the state cannot regulate adoption of adults among adults, because an adult-to-adult reltionship is not a depend-to-independent relationship, not a child-to-parent relationship.

[Selene]

Darrell:

"Now, it may be the case that some gay couples would be fine parents and that some non-gay couples would not, but --- and this is the second aspect that is usually ignored

--- it is not always possible for whomever is working for the state to make an accurate determination of who would or would not make a good parent.

It is therefore sometimes necessary to observe general characteristics of groups rather than individual characteristics."

I am not agreeing with the last sentence, but the point you are making is critical to individual freedom and it is an extremely thorny issue because, as Ted pointed out, the implied power of the state under the in loco parentis common law understanding of the balance between the individual and the state easily conflicts with the absolute right of the actual parent to direct the child.

"Therefore, since women are typically the primary child care providers in heterosexual relationships and men tend to earn most of the money, I would make an educated guess that heterosexual couples would, on average, make better parents then homosexuals. At least, I think it is a legitimate consideration."

I do not believe that this is an accurate statement anymore. Furthermore, being a great parent is not proportional to the amount of money that you earn. I believe that in many examples it is disproportionate to the level of quality parenting.

Good points Darrell.

Adam

[kiaer.ts]

Okay, this is getting scary. Michelle, you and I seem to agree on everything except, perhaps, gay "marriage" and assuming you see the superiority of my proposal of adult adoption to gay marriage then....

I'm still contemplating how I should respond to that thread.

My major concern is gay couples being denied benefits heterosexual married couples have access to:

http://www.nolo.com/article.cfm/ObjectID/E...BA/118/304/ART/

Really, is it right to now allow a homosexual to visit his/her partner in an intensive care unit because they're unable to get married to receive these benefits?

With adult adoption, anyone you adopt automatically becomes next of kin. With judicially imposed "gay marriage" businesses and private individuals will be forced to treat homosexual couples as the same as heterosexual couples. This is the leftist agenda, to force companies to provide benefits and so forth. The demands will not end there.

And as has been said, although the roots of marriage are found in the married couple's ability to care for a child, this is really a peripheral issue in modern-day society. The modern conception of marriage seems to be aimed at promoting social stability. The modern root of marriage is found in romantic love.

Romantic love needs no license. I would do away with any state regulation of marriage. The defacto state of common law marriage would exist - and its existence is solely for the protection of minor children and pregnant women.

Unless you're going to force married couples to sign a legal document telling them that they must conceive a child, I don't see how you can refuse to extend marriage benefits to homosexual couples. If the issue of conception is the catch, then this has to extend equally to heterosexual and homosexual couples.

A marriage contract would simply default to an adoption in the case that no children were conceived. The legal concept of marriage has always been about children, not about love. It is become a floating abstraction in modern society, that is why there is this mistaken idea that marriage is about the state blessing a romantic relationship. Study world wide history a man marries a woman to establish his claim to the child.

Also, you said that it can be a priori deduced that heterosexual couples would make better parents for a child than homosexual couples, from what I remember.

How exactly can a complex psychological/sociological question be answered a priori? Most of the research I've read on this issue has concluded that the matter of the child's healthy psychological growth depends upon the amount and manner of attention he receives in the household.

I explicitly said that the child's welfare comes first. reread everything I have written above. You keep making the same objections to stands I haven't taken, or based on the status quo when I have said I would make adult adoption the standard.

As for the a priori preferability of being raised by a heterosexual couple, all other things being equal, I stand by it. Keep in mind this is a side issue and a matter of research and debate. The example of both a male and female adult in a household is beneficial to a child. It's not like gay children are deaf and need deaf parents. The parents are not having sex with the children. I have never heard a gay man say he was traumatized because his father slept with a woman. I assume something like 99.99% of gay people have not been raised by gay couples.

Each case will differ and should be judged on the merits. I would have to trust experts and study the matter, but I think a homosexual couple that is adopting because they cannot have kids (surprise, surprise) would rank lower on the list than a heterosexual couple that has been married ten years and found that they cannot conceive at all. Since in most states singles can adopt, I see no reason to treat a single gay man as any less eligible to be a parent than a single straight man. The bottom line is that there is no right to adopt. Adoption is for the welfare of the child.

[Guyau]

On Abortion

On Gay Marriage

Thanks, Michelle.

[For sensitive thinking in defense of gay marriage,

thinking I appreciate and on which

I don't want to spend my own composition time

(re: #28 below).]

Stephen

Edited May 31, 2009 by Stephen Boydstun