Home > Marriage Redefinition, Marxism, Sex Radicals, Uncategorized > Another Word on Terminology

Another Word on Terminology

August 19th, 2011

The response to my post, A Word on Terminology has confirmed my intuition that I am correct to abstain from using the term “same sex marriage.”  Three things have led me to conclude that my instincts are correct about this:

1. The wailing, weeping and general indignation meeting being held all around the Left side of the Blogosphere.

2. My friend, Bill May, of Catholics for the Common Good, confirms my opinion. (I always listen when Bill talks.) He pointed me to a tract that his organization has written on the subject, a tract which I highly recommend to all Regular Ruth Readers, Friends with Wrong or Right Ideas.

3. Finally, and most importantly, in the aforesaid wailing and indignation, advocates of the redefinition of marriage have, perhaps inadvertently, revealed just how radical they really are.  See for instance, comment #12, which states  in part:

“the assertion that some ideal pairing of gendered individuals is essential to marriage rests on gender stereotypes. It also conflates sex with gender and assumes that there is some magical combination of certain gendered characteristics belonging to each sex that can never belong to the other sex. This is patently false.”

The complaint here is that ANY gender differences at all are no different than mere stereotypes.  The fact that women contribute the egg, men contribute the sperm and that each contributes distinct genetic material to their child, is considered no more significant than pink and blue booties. I have said for some time that the advocates of marriage redefinition are attacking the very concept of sex differences. Here we have someone flat out saying so.

See also comment # 32,

The definition of marriage that you are using has not existed for centuries. But only for half a century. Until 1967 – it meant not marrying someone of a different race. Marriage has evolved as society has evolved. Its just taking the next logical step.

This basically equates the dual gender requirement for marriage, with the racial restrictions which existed in some place at some times, evidently forgetting  that in most times and places no racial restrictions existed.  Hence, racial separation is absolutely not crucial to the understanding of marriage.

Likewise, see comment # 41:

Restore marriage to men owning women? To women legally subordinated to their husbands? To the impossibility of marital rape?

Evidently, the commenter thinks these are essential, even defining features of marriage. These folks don’t really seem to like marriage very much, if these are their primary images of marriage.

But this is the revolutionary mindset on display: describe existing institutions and their past, in the most heinous way, in order to justify abolishing them. David Horowitz points out in his pamphlet “Barack Obama’s Rules for Revolution,” that Marx himself summed up the passion of the radicals, saying, “Everything that exists deserves to perish.”

All these factors reassure me that I am doing the right thing to refrain from using the terminology invented by the Other Side.  We surrender far too much intellectual and philosophical territory by using their language.

Print Friendly
Be Sociable, Share!
  1. Leo
    August 20th, 2011 at 10:54 | #1

    The tract from Catholics for the Common Good is so spot on that each point deserves its own separate post on this blog. Thank you for sharing this and for the rest of your comments.

  2. August 20th, 2011 at 16:38 | #2

    I think the person you are quoting is simply making the argument, which is pretty obvious and even you should recognize it, that marriage evolves constantly and becomes more enlightened with each generation. He or she is not saying that he or she considers those things to be the pillars of marriage, but rather that they were once a PART of it and now seem archaic. How exactly is that wrong?

    Society evolves. Humans evolve. Marriage evolves. That’s just how it works.

  3. August 21st, 2011 at 05:55 | #3

    @Emma Humans do not evolve. Never have, never will. It is an unproven, unscientific claim. The idea of human evolution is nothing but a religious philosophy. Marriage also doesn’t evolve. It has always been the union of opposite sex people. Never anything different, never will be. The idea that marriage evolves is leftist ideology.

  4. Anne
    August 21st, 2011 at 12:34 | #4

    @Emma

    “Society evolves. Humans evolve. Marriage evolves. That’s just how it works.”

    Not even a little. People are as smart and stupid and as good and bad and as humble and proud as they have ever been. And people are still mortal: they ALL still die.

    Humanity doesn’t evolve, because the purpose of life and the basic human condition don’t change.

    We still kill each other in the name of righteousness or greed or whatever suits us. Slavery still exists in the world. Poverty still exists in the world. Religion, prayer, charity all still exist. Washing machines and computers and spaceships and sexual revolutions don’t change what is eternal.

    Homosexuality will fall into history where it belongs. If people fail to recognize it as the atrocity that it is, they will invite it back to cause more damage just as they do war and slavery and all other perpetually excentric oppressive behaviours, none of which are “evolutionary” or justified simply because they exist.

  5. Sean
    August 21st, 2011 at 18:40 | #5

    I think that, as marriage continues to evolve, and human relationships evolve, society is stronger for including more, not fewer, couples.

    @Anne
    There is nothing wrong with being gay. You may not like it, and may find many kindred spirits who agree, but there’s nothing wrong with it. It is not at all atrocious.

  6. Leo
    August 21st, 2011 at 20:46 | #6

    @Emma
    You have hardly proven that marriage is becoming “more enlightened with each generation.” The increase in divorce and illegitimacy rates does not suggest progress, it rather suggests the opposite. Not all change is progress.

    As for evolution, societies that fall below the replacement fertility level are at an extreme evolutionary disadvantage. That’s just how it works. Just try and find your local Shaker congregation. The were big believers in gender equality and didn’t practice procreation. They were big on adoption, however.

  7. Heidi
    August 22nd, 2011 at 07:32 | #7

    While I am quite flattered that you have quoted me, I am disappointed that you misunderstood what I was talking about.

    “The complaint here is that ANY gender differences at all are no different than mere stereotypes. The fact that women contribute the egg, men contribute the sperm and that each contributes distinct genetic material to their child, is considered no more significant than pink and blue booties. I have said for some time that the advocates of marriage redefinition are attacking the very concept of sex differences. Here we have someone flat out saying so.”

    Wrong. I never said that gender differences do not exist. Instead, I have asserted that there is no magical combination of gendered differences that is essential to the meaning of marriage. There are “masculine” men and “masculine” women, just as there are “feminine” women and “feminine” men. There are also androgynous gendered individuals who may be male or female. Do you see how you have again conflated sex with gender? Also, where in my quoted language did I say anything about procreation? We are talking about marriage and what is essential to it. Procreation is not essential to marriage and marriage is not essential to procreation. Both can and do exist independently of each other. But your statement that men contribute sperm and women contribute eggs to create children has nothing whatsover to do with what I was talking about. Biologically-based sex differences between men and women do not guarantee any particular gendered combination of individuals in a marriage. And gender differences (please remember that even same-sex couples may have gender differences) are not essential to marriage. It really is that simple.

  8. Anne
    August 22nd, 2011 at 08:58 | #8

    @Sean
    “I think that, as marriage continues to evolve, and human relationships evolve, society is stronger for including more, not fewer, couples.”

    Deviation isn’t evolution.

    “@Anne
    There is nothing wrong with being gay.”

    There is plenty wrong with it.

    “You may not like it, and may find many kindred spirits who agree, but there’s nothing wrong with it. It is not at all atrocious.”

    You may like it and find many kindred spirits who agree, but that doesn’t mean there’s nothing wrong with it or that it isn’t atrocious.

    It is a self oriented, impulse based activity with no rational purpose which ultimately causes confusion to innocent victims (children created as orphans and children refused the truth about the natural order). It is atrocious.

  9. Sean
    August 22nd, 2011 at 15:20 | #9

    “Deviation isn’t evolution.”

    Actually, it is the basis of evolution.

    “It is a self oriented, impulse based activity with no rational purpose which ultimately causes confusion to innocent victims (children created as orphans and children refused the truth about the natural order). It is atrocious.”

    There’s no evidence that there is anything wrong with being gay. All sex is self-oriented, impulse-based. There is nothing about gay people that confuses anyone: gay people are people who love and have sex with the same sex that they are. It’s pretty simple, actually.

    Being gay is perfectly natural, just like being straight.

  10. Ken
    August 22nd, 2011 at 15:49 | #10

    Heterosexuals have been having anal sex throughout all of human history and yet the fact that heterosexuals can legally marry, hasn’t resulted in your arrest for saying it’s icky. It’s absurd to suggest that marriage equality will.

  11. Anne
    August 22nd, 2011 at 20:24 | #11

    @Sean
    ““Deviation isn’t evolution.”

    Actually, it is the basis of evolution.”

    Yes, I know Sean, and “divorce is the evolution of marriage”, and cancer the evolution of the body.

    So I’m wondering what your answer to Glenn’s question is: “How many gallons are there in a mile?” You really don’t make rational discussion easy.

  12. Leo
    August 22nd, 2011 at 20:41 | #12

    This thread is about terminology.

    We already have marriage equality. There is no racial test for marriage, and their is no orientation test for marriage. You don’t have to state or declare your orientation. You aren’t tested for the gay gene. You aren’t asked if you think being gay is good or bad. You aren’t even asked about what varieties of sexual activity you might be contemplating. It is really quite liberal. All fifty states have marriage equality.

  13. Ken
    August 23rd, 2011 at 07:07 | #13

    @Leo
    Leo: The claim that gays and lesbians already have marriage equality because they’re free to marry someone of the opposite sex is absurd and has been shot down countless times. It’s a bit like having a society that only allows the Islamic religion and claiming that Christians aren’t being discriminated against because they’re free to participate in the Islamic religion just like everyone else. Only that example is more palatable because, unlike sexual orientation, religion is just a behavioral choice.

    The Iowa Supreme Court, in “Varnum” directly addressed your argument when they wrote:
    “It is true the marriage statute does not expressly prohibit gay and lesbian persons from marrying; it does, however, require that if they marry, it must be to someone of the opposite sex. Viewed in the complete context of marriage, including intimacy, civil marriage with a person of the opposite sex is as unappealing to a gay or lesbian person as civil marriage with a person of the same sex is to a heterosexual. Thus, the right of a gay or lesbian person under the marriage statute to enter into a civil marriage only with a
    person of the opposite sex is no right at all. Under such a law, gay or lesbian individuals cannot simultaneously fulfill their deeply felt need for a committed personal relationship, as influenced by their sexual orientation, and gain the civil status and attendant benefits granted by the statute. Instead, a gay or lesbian person can only gain the same rights under the statute as a heterosexual person by negating the very trait that defines gay
    and lesbian people as a class—their sexual orientation.”

  14. August 23rd, 2011 at 08:20 | #14

    Anne, I’m glad you are being honest, and that you are open about your belief that gay people are “atrocious.” Because most people disagree with that, and the more open and honest you guys are, the more marginalized you become.

    Even the majority of people who do not support civil marriage rights for gay couples refrain from using this kind of language. Most of us have friends / neighbors / loved ones who partake in things we personally do not agree with, but to call them atrocious takes a certain kind of hubris most of us, thank God, lack.

  15. Anne
    August 23rd, 2011 at 12:23 | #15

    @Emma
    “Anne, I’m glad you are being honest, and that you are open about your belief that gay people are “atrocious.” ”

    I wish I could say the same about your “honesty” Emma. Of course, I can’t say for cetain that you “honestly” thought that I said I believe “gay people are atrocious”, so I will give you the benefit of the doubt and not assume that you were being deliberately dishonest.

    What I said was that homosexuality (as a lifestyle and social “norm”) is an atrocity.

    “Because most people disagree with that, and the more open and honest you guys are, the more marginalized you become.”

    Naziism and Communism were popular atrocities too, based the “marginalizing” people.

    “Most of us have friends / neighbors / loved ones who partake in things we personally do not agree with, but to call them atrocious takes a certain kind of hubris most of us, thank God, lack.”

    Pretty melodramatic and condescending Emma. Especially since it’s not what I actually said.

    Examples of other modern day atrocities would include things like drug or alcohol abuse, or drinking and driving or promiscuous sex. When people I know and love ‘friends/neighbors/loved ones’, partake in these atrocities, I don’t refer to the people as atrocities. But the activity doesn’t become less atrocious because someone I love chooses to do it.

    I love my friends and family too much to pretend that dangerous or inappropriate behaviour is OK. I point to the dangers for their sake and the sake of other people they may harm.

  16. Leo
    August 24th, 2011 at 08:14 | #16

    @Ken
    No Islamic country claims Christianity is not a religion, which would be necessary for your analogy to apply. A more appropriate analogy would be bimetallists claiming to be a religion and demanding that their political party be given the status of a church.

    The citizens of Iowa were so at odd with this decision their court that every one of those judges that was up for a vote on the retention of their position was removed from their office. It is only a matter of time before the citizens of Iowa are able to pass a DOMA amendment so that Iowa’s laws resemble federal law, the laws of most states, and the definition of marriage used by the Supreme Court in Murphy v. Ramsey.

    “Deeply felt needs” for a marriage-like institution are properly addressed as a case of intimate cohabitation governed by private contract law, just like deeply felt needs to promote bimetallism are appropriately classified as political not religious. I wonder if this is the first case in the history of Iowa where the court’s decision turned on redefining something to satisfy “deeply felt needs” and where that line of reasoning might ultimately end.

  17. August 24th, 2011 at 11:40 | #17

    Anne, okay, so you don’t think gay people are atrocious, but rather their loves, their families, their lives are atrocious. Is that a fair assessment?

  18. August 24th, 2011 at 11:46 | #18

    (Also, comparing gay people and their lives and families to the Nazis will further marginalize your viewpoint.)

  19. bman
    August 24th, 2011 at 14:31 | #19

    @Leo : Deeply felt needs” for a marriage-like institution are properly addressed as a case of intimate cohabitation governed by private contract law, just like deeply felt needs to promote bimetallism are appropriately classified as political not religious. I wonder if this is the first case in the history of Iowa where the court’s decision turned on redefining something to satisfy “deeply felt needs” and where that line of reasoning might ultimately end.

    Good response on that on all points.

    The key Varnum principle is that people should not have to “negate the very trait that defines their class.”

    As you noted, a key question to ask is whether this principle is taken from case law, or is it novel to the Varnum court. It appears to be a novel principle. It differs from, say, a racial classification where a maladaptive sexual behavior would be considered a private moral choice. In Varnum, maladaptive gay sexual behavior is given public accommodation at law. The principle seems to be the novelty of a court engaged in social engineering.

    The second question is what happens when other groups claim that their “class definition” is being violated by some moral principle embedded in the law? It supposes, for
    example, the nudist class can claim public decency laws are unconstitutional because they are based on morality that requires them to “negate the trait that defines their class.”

    If law must bend so gays need not, “negate the very trait that defines their class” then it seems law must bend for every “class definition.”

    Its a recipe for chaos.

    Consider, too, that marriage law presumes a moral principle of monogamy, which is why
    why a person can only marry one other person instead of many.

    But suppose a bisexual man wants to marry and does not want to “negate the very trait that defines his class.”

    If we apply Varnum in principle, the law must allow him to marry a man and a woman, also known as a trio marriage.

    Let’s further suppose he chose a bisexual woman. She, too, does not want to “negate the very trait that defines her class.” Under the Varnum principle, she must be allowed to marry him and another woman. Otherwise, her class trait would be “negated” by marriage law.

    So, now there is a 4 way marriage, two men and two women.

    However, is the second bisexual man now married to both women plus the first man, or is he only married to the man and none of the women?

    If he is not married to either of the women, then he can choose a different woman, now making it a 5 way marriage. But that number can keep climbing when the woman he marries wants to marry a woman, making it 6, and so on, to infinity.

    So, this thing appears novel and it can take a lot of weird directions as you noted.

    One counter point on the private contract law idea, though, is that something would need to be done to prevent it from turning into to contractual polygamy.

  20. Sean
    August 24th, 2011 at 16:34 | #20

    “There is no racial test for marriage, and their is no orientation test for marriage.”

    Actually, there is a test for sexual orientation: most states require couples to be different-sexed, which is a surrogate for “straight.”

  21. Sean
    August 24th, 2011 at 16:36 | #21

    “What I said was that homosexuality (as a lifestyle and social “norm”) is an atrocity.”

    Sounds like splitting hairs to me. Can I say I think having dark skin is an atrocity, but that doesn’t mean I think African-Americans are atrocious?

  22. Sean
    August 24th, 2011 at 16:50 | #22

    @Leo
    “The citizens of Iowa were so at odd with this [same-sex marriage] decision their court that every one of those judges that was up for a vote on the retention of their position was removed from their office.”

    Which tells us that a majority of voters in Iowa in 2010:

    1. Believed what outside hate groups like the National Organization for Marriage said about “activist” judges wanting to take their guns away from them (the primary message in NOM’s advertising, not anything to do with constitutional law or same-sex marriage), and
    2. Have no idea what the role of judges in Iowa is, which is to interpret the constitutionality of laws, and,
    3. Are hatefully vengeful in ways that one normally associates with anti-Christians, the Christian God, but not Christians themselves, and,
    4. Are so unbelievably stubborn that they would reject as illegitimate a UNANIMOUS court decision.

    “It is only a matter of time before the citizens of Iowa are able to pass a DOMA amendment so that Iowa’s laws resemble federal law”

    In light of popular opinion trends on the topic, it is highly unlikely that Iowa will pass a DOMA amendment, ever.

    ““Deeply felt needs” for a marriage-like institution are properly addressed as a case of intimate cohabitation governed by private contract law”

    There is no rational basis for distinguishing between the legal needs of same-sex couples and the legal needs of different-sex couples.

    “I wonder if this is the first case in the history of Iowa where the court’s decision turned on redefining something to satisfy “deeply felt needs” and where that line of reasoning might ultimately end.”

    It might help you if you actually read the Varnum decision.

  23. Sean
    August 24th, 2011 at 17:21 | #23

    @bman

    “The key Varnum principle is that people should not have to “negate the very trait that defines their class.””

    That’s not the “key” Varnum principle, if one exists (the entire opinion contains a number of principles, including a rather big one that the Iowa legislature passed earlier laws saying the gays and lesbians are not to be discriminated against). But if you must, if the very trait that brings different-sex couples together is to merit state recognition, on what basis is the very trait that brings same-sex couples together to be denied state recognition? If the state wants to give special rights to straight couples, why does it want to exclude special rights for gay couples?

    “As you noted, a key question to ask is whether this principle is taken from case law, or is it novel to the Varnum court.”

    This may be a key question in your mind, but not in anybody else’s, that I’ve read. There is nothing novel, in any event, about courts opposing special rights for one group, but not for a similarly situated group. That’s why so many courts have struck down discriminatory marriage laws, or in more lenient situations, upheld discriminatory marriage laws with instructions to legislatures to fix those laws. Treating different groups equally, or the same, has been a tenet of US law since at least the passage of the 14th Amendment to the US law. Implying that the Varnum decision created something new is simply incorrect.

    “In Varnum, maladaptive gay sexual behavior is given public accommodation at law.”

    First, there’s nothing “maladaptive” about being gay, or expressing your gayness. That you don’t like, or approve of, or practice a religion that doesn’t like, or disapproves of, gay people, has not one iota of importance in the crafting of laws. The US Supreme Court, in Roemer v. Evans, has already specifically rejected voter attempts to create laws that marginalized gay people, even though they hate gay people, or their religions instruct them to hate gay people.

    Why did the Iowa legislature pass several statutes specifically referring to gays and lesbians in prohibiting discrimination against them?

    “It supposes, for example, the nudist class can claim public decency laws are unconstitutional because they are based on morality that requires them to “negate the trait that defines their class.””

    This is so silly a line of “thinking” that I’m kind of surprised you keep bringing it up. First, being nude is a desired state of undress, not a characteristic of who one is. It is not an immutable condition. The “nudist” visiting the Arctic might suddenly find he is not so much of a nudist after all, eh? Second, there is no evidence of any special rights given to people who are not nude, that is, who wear clothes, on the part of the government.

    Ironically, the nudist is remarkably free to practice his clothes-free desires as he wishes, without government interference or suppression. It is probably possible in some warmer parts of the country to live continuously in the nude. And yes, nudist couples can marry, in the nude, so long as they’re straight.

    “If law must bend so gays need not, “negate the very trait that defines their class” then it seems law must bend for every “class definition.””

    No, every group is not defined by an immutable trait like sexual orientation or race.

    “Its a recipe for chaos.”

    Of course, the predictable “the sky is falling!” proclamation, in case nothing else stated made any sense or swayed the reader.

    “But suppose a bisexual man wants to marry and does not want to “negate the very trait that defines his class.””

    There is nothing about bisexuality that means that someone wants to have sex with, or marry, more than one person at a time.

    “If we apply Varnum in principle, the law must allow him to marry a man and a woman, also known as a trio marriage.”

    Not at all. Varnum specifically identified “similarly situated” persons as requiring equal treatment. A trio is not similarly situated to a couple.

    I’d like to ask you something. Varnum was decided by a unanimous court. Not one judge dissented, which is an extremely uncommon occurrence in Supreme Court decisions, especially controversial ones. Although you reveal your lack of understanding of the Varnum decision, and how the courts work in general, what explanation do you offer that all seven Supreme Court judges, as well as an Appeals Court judge, made an incorrect decision? Eight judges, on the ground in Iowa, experienced and expert on the Iowa Constitution and Iowa case law, made a bad decision in this case. How did that happen?

  24. Sean
    August 24th, 2011 at 17:41 | #24

    I’d like to take this opportunity to put in a plug for Iowans and their keen sense of decency and fair play:

    “….Iowa has a long history of progressive thought on civil rights. Seventeen years before Dred Scott was deemed merely property of his owner, the Iowa Supreme Court “refused to treat a human being as property to enforce a contract for slavery and held our laws must extend equal protection to persons of all races and conditions.”[10] Eighty-six years before “separate but equal” was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in Brown v. Board of Education, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled such practices unconstitutional in Iowa.[10] In 1869, Iowa was also the first state in the union to admit women to the bar and allow them to practice law. [10] Three years later the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the State of Illinois’ decision to deny women admission to the bar.[10]

    from Wikipedia.org

  25. Leo
    August 25th, 2011 at 00:47 | #25

    @bman

    Thank you. Excellent points in your post as well.
    .

  26. Anne
    August 25th, 2011 at 06:18 | #26

    @Emma
    “Anne, okay, so you don’t think gay people are atrocious, but rather their loves, their families, their lives are atrocious. Is that a fair assessment?”

    No.

    I’ll try another example:

    Divorce is an atrocity. It causes devastation to people. Especially to children. A limited number of divorces are necessary when there is genuine abuse.

    We are all human and imperfect, so a simple accusation that someone is “being mean” is not actually abuse it’s just a reality (sometimes merely a perception) in virtually every relationship.

    My brother and sister-in-law are getting a divorce. My brother is one of the most decent, compassionate, intelligent people I know. So is his wife. Neither of them is atrocious. They have simply lost the ability to see the beauty in each other. And they have lost sight of the beauty and true purpose of their marriage. They each love their children so much that they are indulging them in worldly gifts and activities in order to compensate them for what they are losing in terms of their family bond.

    If you ask them how the children are doing, they will tell you they are fine. Their children are broken (NOT atrocious). My brother and sister-in-law are broken. Marriage has an eternal purpose inhernt in the children it bears. The people who I love have fallen into the confusion that the challenges to the vows they made are cause to dissolve them rather than opportunities to grow in love. They have been encouraged by those who came before and along side of them, who have gotten divorced because they look outside of the marriage for the answer to their problems when the answer is within it.

    Because people have been so conditioned to the brokenness of families, they have come to anesthetize themselves to the beauty they have been denied. “If the beauty of marriage and the natural family isn’t really there, then I am not harmed for the lack of it” is a cry of consolation. A lie necessary to sustain the poor victims of the atrocity.

    Atrocity claims victims. Victims are not atrocious.

  27. Anne
    August 25th, 2011 at 09:11 | #27

    “A lie necessary to sustain the poor victims of the atrocity.”

    Correction: A lie adopted to sustain the poor victims. It is not necessary: The victims are not bound by it. They can and should break free of it in order to recognize and experience the true beauty of the natural family that they were made to know.

  28. Ken
    August 25th, 2011 at 10:41 | #28

    @Leo
    A couple of things Leo. First, whether or not there is and” Islamic country [that] claims Christianity is not a religion” is irrelevant. It was a hypothetical example to challenge the logic. I see that you had no interest in debating that point. Maybe you saw my that point was valid.

    Second, whether or not citizens of Iowa were swayed by a group of well funded out-of-state activists to vote out judges does not negate the fact that the court directly and successfully addressed the claims that gays and lesbians aren’t being discriminated against because they’re free to marry someone of the opposite sex. We know gays and lesbians are free to do that – hundreds of thousands have throughout the history of civilization. Those of use who advocate for marriage equality maintain the notion that one must enter into sham marriages and living in the closet in order to access the rights, benefits and responsibilities of marriage is wrong and unacceptable. The citizens of Iowa can pass a DOMA amendment but the reality is that DOMA is on its death bed.

    Third, when you state that ““Deeply felt needs” for a marriage-like institution are properly addressed as a case of intimate cohabitation governed by private contract law” you’re only partially correct and are simply restating one of the major issues at the heart of the marriage equality movement. Gay and lesbian couples should not be required to jump through hoops creating costly legal contracts in order to *only partially* obtain the protections that are granted *by state government* to straight couples through a simple marriage license.

  29. bman
    August 25th, 2011 at 20:48 | #29

    @Anne “Atrocity claims victims. Victims are not atrocious.”

    Great post, Anne.

  30. Anne
    August 26th, 2011 at 08:20 | #30

    @bman

    Thank you bman. I’m enjoying your impressive and powerful posts as well. Such intelligent and well stated arguments in defense of marriage are cause for great hope.

  31. Sean
    August 27th, 2011 at 06:45 | #31

    “…the [Iowa] court directly and successfully addressed the claims that gays and lesbians aren’t being discriminated against because they’re free to marry someone of the opposite sex.”

    And they did rather gracefully, by reminding straight people that if marriage were limited to same-sex couples, they would not be so quick to embrace what they like to advocate for gay people: follow the existing law, even if it violates the very essence of your romantic/sexual self. It’s hard to imagine straight people, under that new circumstance, agreeing to take same-sex partners for marriage.

    No legal defense that I can find of marriage discrimination has used the “but they can marry an opposite-sex person, like everyone else!” argument. I’d like to think that’s because they know no court would fall for that, having rejected similarly burdensome laws in the past.

    So for the all the folks who think that’s their clever ace-up-their-sleeves argument, evidently it’s not.

  32. Rich
    August 27th, 2011 at 18:52 | #32

    @Glenn E. Chatfield
    Glenn, “Humans do not evolve. Never have, never will.” Good Lord man, do you have any education at all?

  33. Anne
    August 29th, 2011 at 05:48 | #33

    @Rich

    “Glenn, “Humans do not evolve. Never have, never will.” Good Lord man, do you have any education at all?”

    My good friend, a University Professor of Micro-Biology (who went to college on a full academic scholarship) challenges her students every semester to debate each other on the concepts of Evolution vs. Intelligent Design. She says on average each semester she has at least one or two students who debated for evolution leave the class considering Intelligent Design.

    “In short, University Professors take a narrow mind and widen its scope. Some refer to this as elitism but that is just a throw-off term used by the intellectually insecure.” -Rich from another thread.

    You aren’t so intellectually insecure as to not be able to consider Intelligent Design, are you?

    As for me, I have but a measley Bachelor of Science Degree, but if you’re at all interested, my personal perspective on evolution is in post #s 4 & 8.

  34. bman
    August 29th, 2011 at 12:11 | #34

    @Anne : My good friend, a University Professor of Micro-Biology…challenges her students every semester to debate each other on the concepts of Evolution vs. Intelligent Design. She says on average each semester she has at least one or two students who debated for evolution leave the class considering Intelligent Design.

    Indeed, the are only two choices, intelligent design or unintelligent design.

    And the problem with unintelligent design is that, well, its unintelligent.

Comments are closed.