Archive

Archive for the ‘“Marriage Equality”’ Category

Rugby buddies get married: what’s the problem?

September 11th, 2014 No comments

In this story from New Zealand, two male friends (who are not gay, by the way) are about to marry each other.  Part of their motive:

Engineering student Mr. McIntosh, 23, and teacher Mr. McCormick, 24, will tie the knot to win a “The Edge” radio station competition and a trip to the 2015 Rugby World Cup in England.

BFF! Let's get married! Why Not?

BFF! Let’s get married! Why Not?

Also, they really like each other. They have been best buds since they were six years old.  They expect the marriage to last at least 2 years.  Marriage has been an “easy in, easy out” proposition throughout the industrialized world since the advent of no-fault divorce. So why shouldn’t these guys get married for a chance to win a cool prize?

Gay rights groups are offended.

Otago University Students’ Association Queer Support coordinator Neill Ballantyne, of Dunedin, said the wedding was an “insult” because marriage equality was a “hard fought” battle for gay people. “Something like this trivializes what we fought for.”

Sorry Neill. No go. You evidently did not realize that when you changed the law, you changed it for everyone. Two men can get married for any reason they want.  The law does not require them to prove that they are actually “gay,” or that they “love each Read more…

Print Friendly

The inequality of “marriage equality”

July 22nd, 2014 Comments off

the inequality of marriage equalityNote: since “equality” is paramount for “marriage equality” supporters, next time you are discussing the marriage issue with them, point out their unequal arguments and also how “marriage equality” is contributing to children’s inequality. See what their response is.

“Marriage equality” relies on unequal arguments. When it comes to “rights,” “marriage equality” supporters make arguments based on gay rights, but they refuse to accept arguments based on children’s rights. When it comes to “outcomes,” they refuse to argue about the outcomes of gay sexual activity, but will argue about the various studies regarding children’s outcomes under various family structures. Not only do they argue unequally, “marriage equality” is contributing to children being treated unequally under the law. Read more…

Print Friendly

Asking the Right Questions about Marriage

July 21st, 2014 Comments off

Over at The Public Discourse, Professor Emeritus Jameson W. Doig of Princeton began a dialogue with Professor Robert George also of Princeton on the proper definition of marriage today. Professor Doig’s point appears to be that Professor George has not been consistent in his views. My point is not to defend Professor George: he is a big boy and can take care of himself.

My point is that Professor Doig’s entire article avoids some important questions. How will redefining marriage redefine parenthood? Are we happy with that redefinition? And do we really want to change the relationship between the State and the citizen in the way that this redefinition really entails?

The problem begins with Professor Doig’s very first paragraph.

I want to begin with two Vermonters, Ann and Ellen, who have been together as a couple for more than thirty years. They have three children—Bert, who has graduated from college and is now married (to Maria) and working in a small business in Vermont, and Alison and Beth, who are in high school, both doing well in their academic work and excelling in soccer. One of the three is adopted, and Ann is the birth-mother of the other two.

Ripped out of the picture, by design.

Ripped out of the picture, by design.

Do you see who is missing from this equation?  Without knowing anything else about this family, we know that the father of Ann’s biological children has been safely and legally escorted off the stage. The children will never have the opportunity to have a relationship with their father.

Most children have a legally recognized right to know and be cared for by both of their Read more…

Print Friendly

No more husbands and wives

July 9th, 2014 Comments off

Under California law, there are no longer husbands and wives. Only spouses.

I hate to say I told you so, but I told you so. I have been saying this in debates for some time. A few years ago, I was in a debate at UCLA, with Prof Gary Gates of the Williams Institute. He took offense at the fact that I referred to his partner as well, as “partner.”  “He is not my partner. He is my husband!” Dr. Gates said indignantly.

To which I replied, “Dr. Gates, under the laws you advocate, there will be no husbands or wives. I won’t have a husband. No one will have a husband. Everyone will have generic “spouses.”  (His comment is around 42 minutes. My response is around 52 – 55 minutes. You can’t see his facial expression, but he did seem to be surprised by this news.)

Today it happened: Governor Jerry Brown signed into law, a bill that would remove the gendered terms from the law and replace

No more husbands and wives: thus saith The State, through the pen of Jerry Brown.

No more husbands and wives: thus saith The State, through the pen of Jerry Brown.

them with generic “spouse” terms.

Sex radical Mark Leno, is of course, delighted.

“I am pleased Governor Brown has recognized the importance of this bill, which makes it explicitly clear in state law that every loving couple has the right to marry in California,” Leno said. “This legislation removes outdated and biased language from state codes and recognizes all married spouses equally, regardless of their gender.”

Outdated and biased language. Sorry Gary Gates, you don’t get to have a husband and neither do I.

I hate to say I told you so, but I told you so.

 

 

Print Friendly

Gay Parenting: A whole new batch of Victims of the Sexual Revolution

June 27th, 2014 Comments off

Every stage of the Sexual Revolution has produced victims. No-fault divorce produced children scarred in ways no one predicted in 1968.  “Kids are resilient: they will be fine as long as their parents are happy.”  No-fault divorce also produced The Reluctantly Divorced: those millions of unseen and unacknowledged souls who wanted to stay married, but their spouses wanted divorce.  The government takes sides with the partner who wants the marriage the least.

Going from house to house every week, the kids aren't fine.

Going from house to house every week, the kids aren’t fine.

It may not sound plausible, at least not at first. But genderless marriage, that newest edge in the cutting edge of social change, will also produce another whole new batch of victims.  These victims will not be entirely innocent, the way so many victims of divorce were. They are adults, taking steps of their own free will.  But they will be victims just the same: they are being lied to by the culture.

Exhibit A: Sperm Donor Diary.

This New York Times series is an exploration into the personal meaning of being a known sperm donor to a lesbian couple. David Dodge is uncertain what it means to be a bio-dad.

David writes about being on the Cutting Edge of Gay Family Law. Traditionally, (if I may be so bold as to use such a retro term) “presumption of paternity” answered the question “who’s your daddy?” by saying “the mother’s husband.”  The Read more…

Print Friendly

Same-sex marriage: coercion dolled up as civil rights

May 9th, 2014 Comments off

Stop treating Brendan Eich as a one-off – gay marriage is inherently illiberal.

Brendan O’Neill

It’s six weeks since Javascript inventor Brendan Eich was hounded out of his job at Mozilla by a virtual mob of intolerant tweeters and campaigners. His crime? Failing to genuflect at the altar of gay marriage, which is now the closest thing our otherwise godless, belief-lite, morally vacuous societies have to a sacred value. For refusing to bow down before this new sainted institution, and for having the temerity to donate money to a campaign group opposed to it, Eich was found guilty by the mob of sacrilege and was hounded out of public life as a modern-day heretic. Read more…

Print Friendly

Have we lost our ability to disagree?

April 17th, 2014 Comments off

We have devolved.

That’s not news, except to those people who haven’t been paying attention. How long ago did we actually exercise our right to disagree with facility and reason, in this representative republic, this exercise in democracy? And especially, with dignity? Read more…

Print Friendly

“I was jeered and spat at for defending marriage”

April 9th, 2014 Comments off

by CAROLINE FARROW

Recently I appeared in the audience of BBC’s Question Time in my home town of Brighton after a friend asked me to take their place at short notice.

When Marilyn Barmer stood up and nervously asked whether the first gay marriages due to take place in the city in the next 24 hours were a necessary piece of legislation, the temperature in the auditorium plummeted, the warm glow of good-natured yet passionate debate replaced by a glacial hostility. Read more…

Print Friendly

Nabisco: Sex discrimination is ‘wholesome’

April 9th, 2014 Comments off
BY KELLY BARTLETT

Scientists agree that breastfeeding is best for infants. Breastmilk is considered so important and nutritious, that hospitals now offer lactation consultants on site to birthing mothers to offer advice and support to moms.

Although infant formula makers work hard to make their product as nutritious as possible, how can powdered formula beat Mother Nature? (Spoiler alert: it can’t.) Read more…

Print Friendly

The Equality Battering Ram

April 4th, 2014 Comments off

Brendan Eich has just resigned as CEO of Mozilla, maker of one of the most popular web browsers. He made a $1,000 donation to Proposition 8, back in 2008, an insubstantial sum really, to a campaign that is 6 years old. The Gay Lobby, the current shock troops of the Sexual Revolution,  demanded his resignation, or a show trial in which he repudiates his actions, or preferably, both. 

Listen to this short statement from one of the principals in the dispute, Geoffrey MacDougall, the Head of Development for Mozilla.  He pitches this as a conflict of rights, without taking sides as to which right should predominate. Read more…

Print Friendly