Codifying The Sanctity Of Marriage

Andy Warhol's "Marilyn 1967"

 

"Marriage is a union between a man and a woman". Nothing wrong with that statement from the President. Despite accusations flying in from the left, he has been saying this for some time, this is nothing new.

Jack Cafferty is leading the charge, but it's never advisable to throw stones when sitting in a glass house: "But if you can appeal to the hatred, bigotry, or discrimination in some people, you might move them to the polls to vote against that big, bad gay married couple that one day might in down the street."

The President has taken a courageous stand in favor of traditional marriage at a moment in American history when the courts are conspiring with anti-family extremists to undermine our nation's most vital institution. This is true, but what about the homosexual and lesbian population who feel the President is codifying discrimination into law by suggesting a constitutional amendment?

From the President's address:

Marriage is the most enduring and important human institution, honored and encouraged in all cultures and by every religious faith. Ages of experience have taught us that the commitment of a husband and a wife to love and to serve one another promotes the welfare of children and the stability of society. Marriage cannot be cut off from its cultural, religious, and natural roots without weakening this good influence on society. Government, by recognizing and protecting marriage, serves the interests of all.

In our free society, people have the right to choose how they live their lives. And in a free society, decisions about such a fundamental social institution as marriage should be made by the people -- not by the courts. The American people have spoken clearly on this issue, both through their representatives and at the ballot box. In 1996, Congress approved the Defense of Marriage Act by overwhelming bipartisan majorities in both the House and Senate, and President Clinton signed it into law. And since then, voters in 19 states have approved amendments to their state constitutions that protect the traditional definition of marriage. And today, 45 of the 50 states have either a state constitutional amendment or statute defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman. These amendments and laws express a broad consensus in our country for protecting the institution of marriage.

Unfortunately, activist judges and some local officials have made an aggressive attempt to redefine marriage in recent years. Since 2004, state courts in Washington, California, Maryland, and New York have overturned laws protecting marriage in those states. And in Nebraska, a federal judge overturned a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.

Is it the hedonistic aspect of gay marriage that we find so disturbing, or do we really believe that we will extinguish all traces of homosexual and lesbian behavior by outlawing their very unity? The sanctity of marriage needs our protection, but does it have to be protected at the expense of discriminating against a vast number of our population. The problem is, if we choose that path, where do we start and where do we stop?

If the President simply wants to say he is still the man we elected in 2004, perhaps there is a better way of saying it. If he is trying to make up for his stand on the immigration issue, he is treading on some bigger corns there, and those don't heal so quickly. Either way pushing this issue right now seems like a bad move, as far as I am concerned. New York, Washington and the State of California will be up in arms just for starters.

UPDATE: Mary Katherine Ham points us to a long and thoughtful post from Jane Galt which is a must read. and does not support one side or the other. Jane posts a second one here, dealing with the "state out of the marriage argument"

Comments

[Ghost Dansing]

The "Marriage definition" problem arises from a fundamental failure to separate Church and State. Is "Marriage" a union between two people in the eyes of God, mediated or witnessed by someone;s Church/Clergy? Is a "Civil Union" a legal contract between two people in the eyes of the State; granted and administered by the State? Do the two necessarily equate?

What the State has done was recognize the religious ceremony of "Marriage". Marriage should not be "sanctified" by the State, nor should Civil Union be administered by a church.

Because the State in most cases recognizes a Marriage by Church or Clergy as a legal Civil Union, Gays can find a Church to marry them, but are not universally afforded the benefits of Civil Union under the Law.

This is codified discrimination...on a State-by-State level, and would be discrimination on a Federal level should the Constitution be amended.

The State should stop recognizing Church ordinated "Marriages" as Civil Unions for ANYBODY. If people want to get "Married", find a Church and get "Married"...if they want Legal status as a "Civil Union", they should pay their fee, and sign a legally binding contract administered and honored by the State and Federal Government.

The Laws, Policies and Regulations bounding the benefits and responsiblities of Civil Union can then be administered by the State as a practical matter of governance, and not as a defacto State adjudication of morality.

ALL couples, for example, might have to be investigated and licensed by the State to be qualified for the foster care and adoption of children...based on conditions and ability to provide.

Certainly, there are "Married" couples that should have been subjected to investigation and licensure before having children...however the State can do little about that.

At any rate, Church/State separation is at the root of the controversy, and a more rigorous application of our American principles in this area would go far to diminish the controversy.

If the State cannot extend Law to accomodate ALL marriages as a Civil Union, it should not recognized ANY marriage as a Civil Union.

[epaminondas]

I do believe this...marriage is a religious state..not a civil one. The state is free to call unions it's sanctions anything it wants, however.

That said...under NO circustances....NONE do I want to see the word marriage in the constitution in ANY WAY

NONE

Pandora's box.

This attempt is the antithesis of what real conservatism should be. It is as false to that idea as the current crop of liberals (who are in fact socialist critical progressives with scant believe in provate property..except their personal property) are false to what Hubert Humphrey, and Harry Truman were.

[Angel]

Alexandra, I do see this as part of the socialist agenda to eliminate God from this country...the issue is tremendously complex ,wrought with the ultimate question..can man marry his sister or pet if he so "chooses" and be recognized under our Law?..what next?

[Alexandra]

Let's try to put the liberal conspiracy theories aside, although I agree with you in principal as you know, and look at the naked issue. Homosexuals are that way wheteher by choice or genetic infusion, and they wish to marry. How do we deny this freedom of choice to so many. They will be turned away from the State and the Church. That is not a healthy status, but then neither is the Constitution amendment proposed.

There has to be another way.

Same-sex marriage stabilizes individuals, couples, communities, and society by extending marriage to many who now lack it, as oposed to Polygamy which destabilizes individuals, couples, communities, and society. More than likely it only increases the weekly shrink bill, and certainly does absolutely nothing to encourage the already dwindling faith within a society which has already abandoned the idea of following the teachings of the New Testament.

[Liquid]

"Alexandra, I do see this as part of the socialist agenda to eliminate God from this country...the issue is tremendously complex ,wrought with the ultimate question..can man marry his sister or pet if he so "chooses" and be recognized under our Law?..what next?

Posted by: Angel | Sunday, June 04, 2006 at 10:17 AM"

----------------

I totally agree with you Angel on this subject because it's all about removing the authority of God from our society and our family structure's future.

Many will not like what I am about to share and so I will say 'I am sorry for having offended you, but it's my personal belief and if you don't like it, well please do remember we are here to share and exchange ideas and so this is mine...

I personally do not feel that "marriage" or any "union" between the same sex offends me since I am not sharing a sexual experience/bonded union with any "couple" but before I go any further, I want to share that I do have "gay" friends that I do love and I will admit my interaction with them is sometimes difficult when it comes to certain issues as we do not see eye to eye on many things and as for their lifestyle, I would not ever choose it for myself not would I wish for any of my children in the future to choose it...with that said, that on the other hand, on a global scale, it does have a deeper effect and IMHO, this lifestyle being brought in the political arena just paves a road for unseen perversions to come. We need Men and Women union to create our future. Not just eggs and sperms --but family examples and role models in our lives.

Now when progressive science manages to mass produce babies in test tubes and artifical wombs as a common accepted practice, more convienant choices are going to become available to humans, but unfortunately, the values and learning experiences will get very blurry right along with all the artificial procedures, because the more we move away from what God intended for us and the more we become shells of emptiness because we haven't gone through the rituals of "mom and daddy family strutures" and the type of joyous and sacrificial learning experiences that brings, we might indeed move wonderfully in motion with alot of quantity and sterilized production from all of that, but IMHO, I think all that 'container of material abundance' and 'convienance of choice' which will be labelled "progression" will be so porous that it won't ever hold anything of true value inside it. Things like true love and emotions from living and feeling those experiences will be replaced with fake ones. We will become like stiff silk flowers in a vase that don't really need to breathe--no real intake or exhale. Again, on an individual basis, I don't care what anyone does in their bedroom...but on a social level of a grander scale, I don't like it shoved in my face or used to strip or undermine the male and female marriage which God created for a purpose. The union is even more than two becoming one in flesh...its about a union of ideas of the mind and emotions of the heart and a true and real covenant with God. In my veiw, God performed the first marriage when He gave Adam the first woman Eve! That was the beginning of a 'God made' marriage. IMHO, anything else outside of that is man made and brings with it it's own consequences outside of God's blessings of what marriage brings.

[The Ugly American]

I simply can not understand why GWB is spending time and effort on this right now, with the two active fronts in the war against Islamafascism, Illegal immigration, and the looming Iranian nuclear crisis.

Maybe he feels it is an easy win based on poll numbers and the results of huge margins of victory for every marriage ammendment offered at the state level.

[Crusader.NoRegrets.]

First we need to drop the whole "separation of Church and State" argument, since it is mostly misunderstood. I don't believe the Church of England is ever again going to be a constitutional threat to any former Colonial government.

Marriage is simply what it has been by and large for thousands of years. You can redefine it in any way you like, to include any number/gender/species. Whatever floats your boat.

But you'd have to be an IDIOT to think that tampering with a millenia-old cultural practise like marriage will not have catastrophic, unintended consequences. I don't care at all whether gay people marry or not. But if straight people (ie the people that generate the people that pay the taxes to enable the gay lifestyle - I'm thinking more Europe here) decide that marriage has become a political statement above all else, heck, why bother?

Wait, that's already happening....And let us not trot out the old "well, straight folks have made such a hash of it, might as well let the gay people have a go" argument either. Straight people have made a hash of it for the same reasons most gay people will make a hash of it. Everyone's too busy worshipping at the altar in the Church of Self. One does not blame the institution for the insanity of the inmates.

[Valerie Alexander]

This "controversy" has nothing to do with anybody trying to deprive others of anything. It has to do with sassy queens determined to publicize what should otherwise be a very private matter. More conservative people react, and we go 'round and 'round. The truth is, that arrangements can be privately and quietly made for homosexuals to demonstrate their commitment to one another if they so choose. The rest of us do not have to be involved.

[Scott in CA]

I am a conservative gay man. I am a Republican. I have lived with the same man for 16 years. We are registered Domestic Partners here in California. That law gives us the same rights as spouses for state purposes. We have community property and shared assets. This law protects us from having our wishes denied if something happens to one of us. This law was voted into existence by the Legislature and signed by the governor. There is some resistance to the law here from some, but essentially the vast majority of the population probably doesnt' even know it exists. Why is any of this the business of the federal government? Every reasonable gay person I know would be perfectly happy with a civil union or other "non-marriage" status. "Marriage" can be reserved for heterosexual couples. But it really makes no sense to deprive us of the ability to take care of each other and jointly manage what is ours. And we shouldn't have to carry around a briefcase full of legal papers to do so.

[Alexandra]

Scott,

This is the sort of discussion I was looking for. It makes sense to me that the marriage status is reserved for the heterosexual couples and yet we could find a reasonable solution for the gay community which cannot be simply ignored. I agree with the solution that California has come up with, and it feels right.

"Marriage between one man and one woman does a better job protecting children better than any other institution humankind has devised," said Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn. "As such, marriage as an institution should be protected, not redefined."

Why would we be attacking the sanctity of marriage or redefining it if we allow a legal unity in the form of a civil union (private arrangements do not make sense when you are serious about each other and have assets and rights to consider)

[Kenny Pierce]

Alexandra,

I have hesitated to post on this subject because it is simply too complex, in my opinion, for anything except a very serious and long and detailed discussion indeed.

I don't think much of Frist generally but he has put his finger on what is, to me, the nub of the issue so far as the government goes. The government's fundamental mission (i.e., to create a sphere within which people can form cooperative ventures with reasonable confidence that they will not be victimized by fraud or violence) cannot be fulfilled in the long term if a society does not:

a. Have lots of kids.

b. Raise those kids to be happy, hard-working, honest, generous, respectful of the rights of others, and ready to come (with violent force and self-sacrifice should either or both be necessary) to the defense of others' rights when those rights are endangered.

As a generalization (despite the fact that we all know disastrously bad marriages and many of us know homosexual or polygamous "marriages" that have proved unusually stable), by far the most generally successful private structure in terms of both (a) and (b), is a family structure based on a lifelong monogamous heterosexual couple and that couple's children. And given the necessity of both (a) and (b) if society is to avoid a drastic collapse -- a necessity only grossly magnified if the government has foolishly gone beyond its proper function and has gotten itself entangled as a pension provider in a Social-Security-style pyramid scheme -- given that necessity, it is not just legitimate for a government to heavily encourage a predominance of such a family structure, it is imperative.

It is necessary for this ideal form of marriage to be set dramatically apart from alternative structures, by the state, because of this compelling interest the state has. I understand that Scott is homosexual and is not going to father children and that there isn't much he can do about that, and (as a father of eight who has found parenthood incredibly rewarding) I feel for him. Indeed, if Scott and his partner would like to adopt a child I can and bloody well will help that happen; I've got a long list of Kazakh orphans who would undoubtedly be better of with Scott than they would be growing up and aging out of the Kazakh orphanage system. Yet I would think that intellectual honesty would compel Scott to admit that when he is old and cannot take care of himself, somebody else's children will have to fund his care unless he has saved enough money to pay people to look after him; and that as soon as he becomes too old to fight effectively, he will have to entrust the whole social order in which he lives to children born to and raised by other Americans.

A society without young people, or a society whose young people have grown up with the sorts of social pathologies that grossly disproportionately are found in children born and raised out of wedlock, ends up being a hellish society for anybody to live in. It is, I think, exceptionally short-sighted for people who desire the benefits of living in a peaceful and orderly and economically vibrant society, to attack the social norms that are most conducive to the long-term prospects that their society will be that sort of society -- which is what you do when you attempt to weaken either the cultural or the legal support for a social norm of lifelong heterosexual monogamous childbearing marriage.

That is a hopelessly inadequate introduction to a viciously complex question; but it is, I think, where one has to start.

[North by Northwest]

Kenny,

Everything you say makes perfect sense, and you know where I stand on all these issues including the religious order of a heterosexual marriage, but what is the problem with Scott's state of California's solution with the "domestic partners"? Surely a relationship such as his, of some 16 years standing has to live within the realms of the civil statute? What is he supposed to do in a society which does not allow him to be legally joined in whichever way possible? He is not going to stop being a homosexual, therefore no one is discouraging actions this way. I don't now, I am simply not satisfied that making his union legal in the way of a "domestic partner" is in any way affecting my marriage or marriage of future generations. We are not going to extinguish homosexuality, and it seems to me that in this day and age, rife with aids we should be encouraging the Scotts of this world to make their stability an example to the rest of the homosexual community. We cannot simply condemn and ignore. This was not the Jesus' way.

[Mark T.]

Alexandra you never fail to amaze me. I have been reading your blog for some time now, but I rarely comment. Whenever I think you will come out strong on any given subject, like this one for example, you pleasantly surprise me and often do the opposite. Your views are incredibly fair and you are never judgmental (the islamofascists deserve all the flack they get from you) which is what I love about reading your blog, well not to mention that a day does not go by without checking the artwork on the main page. You are a delight of a person and a force to be admired.

[RunningRoach]

Alexandra,

Well, see what happens when you take the lid off the great pot and stir it up a bit. But…I’m sure that was your aim. It’s interesting to note that I can agree with you and many of the diverse views of those who have commented on the subject. But, before I join in the debate let me attempt to point out the objective of the President's position. And by the way, this position has been consistent throughout his tenure in the W.H., and, in my opinion, with conservative values. From his speech;

“And in a free society, decisions about such a fundamental social institution as marriage should be made by the people -- not by the courts. The American people have spoken clearly on this issue, both through their representatives and at the ballot box.”

One of the most insidious issues we have faced over the past two to three decades has been the courts deciding public policy in this country, and it is wrong. Congress has increasingly allowed the courts to usurp, by politically motivated inaction, the right to make decisions that belong with congressional representatives of the people. Judges were not voted into their positions on the court nor are they obligated to answer to anyone for the decisions they make. You like the results of the Kelo decision? Or how about Roe?

I do question the timing of this effort by the President. There is so much more on our platters to solve first.

I’ll come back to the question of marriage vs. civil unions, church vs. state, straight vs. gay etc. a bit later.

Regards, JCC

[Ann]

Scott in CA
do you feel the same civil union privileges should be extended to polygamists or do you feel they should be included in the marriage basket with the rest of us?

[Alexandra]

Running Roach,

You know if he really was after some confidence building he might have kept us a little happier with the immigration bill. When you say the timing of this, I know what you mean but quite honestly he has been on the back of the issue for some 3 years now. Bringing it up again now though, after the immigration fiasco is a bit of a "closing the door after the horse has bolted" syndrome, so that is not going to have much of an effect.

But do you know what, sod it, I am not so interested in his motives, how do we solve this problem. That is what I want to know. Just sticking the old middle finger up in the air (which you know I ordinarily love to do on some other subjects) at homosexual couples just is not going to cut it.

[RunningRoach]

Alexandra,

Forgive me if I sound a bit obtuse, but we need to agree on what the problem is first. (Immigration reform was forced down his throat, and odds are 50-50 we'll have a compromise bill this year.) In Washington politics there is no such thing as wysiwyg, particularily when you are dealing with a social issue of this magnitude. The implications and concequences are potentially far reaching. (Do I sound like a politician yet?) One of the major stumbling stones in addressing the whole marriage issue is "process". Another is prejudice. Then we have stuff like values, religon, culture, homophobia...and on and on.

So...Let me sleep on it. I'll give ya an answer in the morning.

JCC

[Scott in CA]

Anne - no, I don't. In Western culture, we have couples. Western culture has never tolerated polygamy. Gay people, like straight people, tend to form couples, not groups. I see no reason to change that. I also understand the point of view that "marriage" is something special. Like I said, I am a conservative person. Unlike so many of the noisy radical gay groups, I understand that some things are just NOT equal for everybody. The radical gay folks insist that we must have "marriage" or we are not "equal". That's ridiculous. Civil unions for gay couples are about legal protections. We don't need them to be in love.

[Liquid]

RunningRoach I think you explained it very well...it's been the crazy judges that have been deciding this issue in America....not the people! That is why there needs to be debate and education on a national level instead of a state...the question is: Should the judges have the last word? Because that is who has had the last word in the past.

[North by Northwest]

Scott,

To quote Kenny:

Scott is homosexual and is not going to father children and that there isn't much he can do about that, and (as a father of eight who has found parenthood incredibly rewarding) I feel for him. Indeed, if Scott and his partner would like to adopt a child I can and bloody well will help that happen; I've got a long list of Kazakh orphans who would undoubtedly be better of with Scott than they would be growing up and aging out of the Kazakh orphanage system.

You better be careful otherwise you may be leaving this thread a little heavier then when you arrived. Like a Kazakh orphan or two heavier...

[Scott in CA]

Kazakh orphans!? I'm too old now to start being a parent! Kenny is right, however, when he says that I will be dependent on someone else's children in my dotage. Of course I will. Sadly, there a lot of people out there whose kids won't be there for them, either. My partner has an uncle in his 80s with Alzheimer's. His wife is devoted to his care, but his own grown kids from another marriage are always "too busy" to help out. The oldest son got himself transfered to Virginia so he can refuse to deal with it from 3000 miles away. Kenny makes another point as well. Common sense will tell us that married couples raising children are the backbone of our culture. But 30 years of leftist indoctrination has given us "single mothers", and serial monogamy with assorted children raised by assorted ex-wives. Every study done has shown that kids raised by "single moms" are many times more likely to end up poor or have criminal problems. The facts are there. But still, we go on assuring women that having a child without a father is just peachy. It's not. I work in the social service field and I deal with these moms every day. They are poor, badly educated, and have no skills. Their kids are often neglected or raised in childcare with no one to guide their lives. The result is unsocialized children, especially boys, that are the core of our criminal justice system. But one does not dare criticize single motherhood for fear of being called "racist" or "patriarchal".

[Ann]

Scott in CA
that makes sense, the problem is that many are under the impression that this would lead to polygamy, as you cannot support one without allowing for the other at some stage. Once you go down that slippery path it is difficult to sustain the position of marriage being between man and woman only. It seems that gay marriage is debatable simply because it is not procreative. Children are after all one of the main reasons to protect the institution of marriage, despite all the negative aspects you mentioned.

[Kenny Pierce]

Scott,

Just for the record, there are many things about both our culture and our government that I think are much more devastating to the family structure than gay marriage would be, much less gay civil unions -- which (due caveats being made for implementation details) I would probably support more often than not, so long as a suitably clear distinction was made between such unions and marriage. For example, Social Security strikes, in my opinion, directly to the heart of the long-term family structure in two ways: (1) It removes the single greatest incentive to make the time-and-money investment of having children and raising them to be unselfish and responsible. (2) It replaces the human race's historical cultural expectation that children would be responsible for their parents' care (as a reasonable return for the care the parents provided when the children needed it) with an expectation that the state would be responsible and the children could go do as they please. You mention the callous selfishness of your partner's cousin; I submit that such attitudes are far more widely prevalent today than they would have been had not the state spent the last century telling us that the care of the old is the business of the state. Where the cultural role of the state in this regard is even more deeply established, as in France, you get even worse widespread horror stories -- for example, when a nasty heatwave struck Paris a few years back, not only had large numbers of Parisians tooled off to the Mediterranean leaving their aged parents to languish and ultimately die in non-air-conditioned Paris apartments, but the morgues filled up with corpses -- because the selfish bastards couldn't even be bothered to interrupt their vacations to come home and deal with their parents' deaths. "Stick her in the freezer and I'll deal with it when I get home..." Unthinkable to most Americans, but it happened, and not just in one or two isolated incidents, in Paris...what, five years ago? (If I have this wrong, working as I am from memory, I will apologize sincerely to anybody who points me to the contradictory documentation.)

Then, of course, the welfare programs to which you obliquely refer have been immediately devastating to the poor urban black family.

In short (too late, I suppose), I would point to a long-standing and severe failure of American and a forteriori European government, at all levels, to recognize the degree to which government is dependent for its long-term success on healthy families, and to recognize the concomitant imperative to factor into the discussion of any proposed legislation the possible side effects on family structure and birth rates. Gay marriage, insofar as current proposals threaten the family, is just the latest in a line of what I have long considered to be steps in the process of societal suicide-by-degrees. That Europe is much further along the line in this process than we are is no reason for us to think highly of ourselves; on the contrary, we who ought to be learning from Europe's example have the less excuse if we refuse to do so.

About that orphan: don't be too sure you're too old -- it's quite common for people in their fifties to adopt orphans out of Kazakhstan...I'll send you some pictures... ;-)

[Kenny Pierce]

By the way, may I please point something out to any and all lurkers-from-the-left whose knee-jerk reaction to a position opposed in any way to gay marriage is "Theocracy! Theocracy! E-e-e-e-vil-l-l-l theocrat alert"?

I have not yet mentioned, nor do I have intention in future of mentioning, God in this discussion. My take on the subject is an entirely pragmatic one. Insofar as I have an opinion on God and government, it is that the more the government gets involved in enforcing the Church's requirements at gunpoint (and the government never does a single damn thing without implying that guns can and will be brought to bear if necessary), it poisons the Church and gladdens the heart of Satan.

Clear enough? I don't see how I could make it any clearer. That particular red herring is off bounds if you want me even to be so polite as to respond to you at all.

That is all.

[Liquid]

Take the time to read Stanley Kurtz over at The Weekly Standard

[Alexandra]

UPDATE: Mary Katherine Ham points us to a long and thoughtful post from Jane Galt which is a must read. and does not support one side or the other. Jane posts a second one here, dealing with the "state out of the marriage argument"

[Old Dad]

I'm with California Scott's policy solution.

For many Americans, despite our manifest failures, marriages are Sacramental unions between a man and a woman, blessed by God, and witnessed by the community. Those who hold such a belief are free to vote that belief without endangering the First Amendment.

Scott's solution strikes a nice balance. "Marriages" are Sacramental, unions are civil. I disagree with Ghost Dansing in that I see no harm in the state recognizing marriages as civil unions. Marriages are authorized by churches outside the authority of the state. The state authorizes civil unions, or not.

I believe it is the purview of each state to debate the wisdom of same sex civil unions, and that the FMA would be very bad law. On the other hand, I can understand the frustration of many with the courts.

[Scott in CA]

This whole issue often gets bogged down in legalities of "marriage" and "civil union" and "sacrament". First of all, the STATE has no business being involved with "sacraments" of any kinds. That's the realm of religion. The state is responsible for issuing marriage licenses or civil union licenses, or, in the case of California, Domestic Partnership certificates. You pay your fee and you are "married" or "union-ed" or DP'd or whatever. In our society, you may go get "married" in as many churces or temples as you like, but the thing is not "marriage" until you have the license and pay the fee. Gay couples get "married" in churches and temples all the time, but they are "married" as there is no license from the state. Personally, I prefer the method used in France: you get a civil union license from the state. You then have the choice to do nothing, or have a Catholic wedding, or a pagan wedding or whatever. The French state has no interest in any of that. It just issues the license. As I have said above, no gay couples I know really care about "marriage" as opposed to civil unions. We just want a way to protect our assets and be legally responsible for each other under the law. Please do not be misled by self-styled "leaders" of the gay community who are howling about "marriage equality" for gay couples. We don't need it and don't care. This is strictly a legal issue for us.

[probligo]

Way out of this forum, I am at present corresponding with a Mormon Preacher for whom both "Church=State" and the heterosexual sanctity of marriage are totally non-negotiable.

It is a fascinating topic. I have posted on it myself in the past when NZ was debating "Civil Union" legislation.

[RunningRoach]

Alexandra,

Let’s, for the sake of discussion, break this pernicious issue into two parts. The first part, as I alluded to the other day, I’ll call “process”. The second, Judeo Christian Morality, which this country was founded upon. Let’s just call that “public morality” (Not to be confused or equated with religiosity.)

Process is the means by witch laws are passed. In yesterday’s post, “Crystal Ball Glazing”, you linked to the President’s speech. He did a pretty good job describing the need for a Constitutional Amendment that would, if adopted, follow the will of a majority of the American people in defining marriage to be a union between one man and one woman. Then, why now?

Well, let’s take a quick view at some recent history. In 1996, under the Clinton administration, congress passed the “The Defense of Marriage Act”, HR 3396. The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) does two things. First, it provides that no State shall be required to give effect to a law of any other State with respect to a same-sex "marriage." Second, it defines the words "marriage" and "spouse" for purposes of Federal law. This is a problem most properly resolved by invoking Congress' authority under the Constitution to declare what "effect" one State's acts, records, and judicial proceedings shall have in another State.

The second substantive section of the bill amends the U.S. Code to make explicit what has been understood under federal law for over 200 years; that a marriage is the legal union of a man and a woman as husband and wife, and a spouse is a husband or wife of the opposite sex. The DOMA definition of marriage is derived most immediately from a Washington
state case from 1974, Singer v. Hara. More than a century ago, the U.S. Supreme Court spoke of the "union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony." Murphy v. Ramsey.

DOMA is not meant to affect the definition of "spouse" (which under the Social Security law, for example, runs to dozens of lines). It ensures that whatever definition of "spouse" may be used in Federal law, the word refers only to a person of the opposite sex.

This act passed by an overwhelming majority in both houses. (As a point of reference, 85 senators out of 100 voted for it, including Sen. Reid and Sen. Biden and a host of other Democrat Senators.)

What this act did in essence was pass on to the states the right (obligation) of deciding what to do with the issue of defining marriage and not to be required to recognize the laws of any other state. The need for a Constitutional Amendment was discussed at that time but not pursued. Congress and President Clinton decided to “punt” the issue back to the states. ( Remember, I said that in Washington politics there is no such thing as “wysiwyg”.)

Since then, 45 out of 50 states adopted, within their State Constitutions, the definition of marriage to be between one man and one woman. Twenty of the 45 states did this by voter referendums, and the average result for this definition was 71% in favor.

More states have since adopted this definition. Last week Pennsylvania announced that it would adopt this definition. Yesterday, Alabama.

So, what’s all the hoopla about? Well, remember Roe vs. Wade? At the time several states had anti- abortion laws in place, however, The Constitution of The United States always trumps state law on the basis of the “constitutionality” of that law. Since the Constitution was “silent” on the right to have an abortion, the law of the land was left to 5 out of 9 SCOTUS lawyers to decide for the rest of us. So 5 lawyers essentially “amended” the Constitution. Through the “magical” language of “emanations and penumbras” SCOTUS found a “right to privacy” in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. There has been a lot of that going on in recent years, and most of Americans have had enough.

More recent voting results and numerous polls show that more than 80% of Americans are in favor of this definition, and as a result, much pressure has been aimed at Congress and the President for a Constitutional Amendment. This pressure has not been widely played up in the MSM.

The gay and lesbian lobbies, along with the ACLU, are pursuing cases in Federal Court in Massachusetts that would move through the Appellate Courts up to SCOTUS, so that again, all it will take is 5 lawyers to amend our Constitution and in this case our moral and cultural values.

This move was inevitable, and was anticipated at the time DOMA passed. Knowing this, none of the politicians who voted for it were putting themselves in jeopardy with their constituents or the special interest lobbing groups. Cute. Right?

That is the answer to: Why now?

I know, I only gave an opinion on the first part of your question. More to follow as I find the time.

Regards. JCC

[RunningRoach]

Alexandra,

As a P.S. to my above quote.

"A constitutional amendment seeking a national ban on gay marriage, strongly backed by US President George W. Bush and conservative Christian groups, failed to pass the US Senate.

The Republican-controlled upper chamber failed to endorse the amendment despite a majority of senators backing the proposal in a 49 to 48 vote. The measure required the backing of two-thirds of the Senate for it to be approved and taken forward to a formal vote."

Sen Reid, commenting on Sen. Frist bringing the vote to the floor said, (he)"has chosen to put the politics of division ahead of real progress by pushing for a debate on a divisive amendment that will write discrimination into the Constitution."

I hardly agree on this....but more to come

[gringoman]

Scott of CA:

I'd like to ask you a simple question re the matter of property, assets, rights or whatever else you believe requires a state-recognized union for a homosexual couple. First, on the "marriage" question in general, I beg off for now. There's just too much that could be said, even after all that has been said in this thread already. But I will mention Kenny Pierce, a paterfamilias whose background must be very different from mine, and Alexandra, a woman whose European sophistication I admire: KP says no to homosexual marriage or "civil union." Alexandra posits a "third way," that would still require state intervention, and says maybe, or Why not? I totally agree with one of them. Can you guess which? Yes? No?.......Well, it's Kenny Pierce. Too late right now to expatiate (which he's done well enough anyway, taking this bull by both horns---the children's sake and society's sake) or to answer Alexandra's why not(?) So let's go right to the above mentioned query.

Scott, you gave reasons for wanting some kind of "civil union," (By the way, I commend you for being so level-headed on the ultimate futility and nonsense of "same-sex marriage." Too bad that the gays with the biggest mouths seem to be getting all the platforms and access to politicians, so that even types like myself, who have always been very tolerant, will now be called "homophobic" if we dare to differ with the drama queens and their Kultur Kops and their elite hetero "allies.")

Okay, my point (at last). Is a state-sanctioned "civil union" really the only way to get the protections etc? What about a "pre-nuptial." I guess I mean de jure rather than de facto, i.e. a pre-nuptial without the ensuing "nuptial." In other words, what are lawyers for if they can't work out arrangements suitable to you and your partner, and without state intervention? By the way, I'm harping on "state intervention" or "state-sanctioned" for a reason. The reason is that I suspect it would open a very dangerous can of worms, and that those worms would come crawling out slowly into society, and not all at once, allowing even today's sentimentalists to ignore a lot of unintended consequences of their compassion. It's got to do with a lot more than polygamy or bestiality. But that's another story for another post.