Archive

Archive for the ‘Marriage Equality’ Category

AB 1951, the “Gay Birth Certificate” bill

August 27th, 2014 Comments off

natural marriage limits the stateI have always tried to argue that there is a very serious civil outcome to redefining marriage, and it has nothing to do with religious liberty or the idea of “sacramental marriage.”

Since marriage is society’s primary way of acknowledging and understanding parenthood, redefining marriage redefines parenthood. Here in California, the affects of “SSM” and redefining parenthood are rapidly making their way through the legislature. Last year, Gov. Brown signed a bill allowing three or more legal parents for children, which was inspired by a “SSM” custody dispute.

Now we have this: AB 1951. This bill will change birth certificates to allow for a gender neutral option for parents. Gay couples will be able to list both of themselves on the child’s birth certificate. California recently did away with the terms “husband” and “wife,” because of “SSM,” and the lead legislator for that measure said that those terms were outdated and biased. I suppose we can infer the same thing for “mother” and “father.”  Read more…

Print Friendly

Debunking the “right side of history” claim

July 30th, 2014 Comments off

interracial marriage banIf you’re debating marriage with somebody and they bring up the interracial marriage ban (which was struck down by SCOTUS in a famous decision called Loving v. Virginia), show them this graphic and start talking about what the interracial marriage ban actually DID. 

The interracial marriage ban enforced the separation of men from women, based on race. It used marriage policy to keep the sexes away from each other, in certain instances.

Same sex marriage is doing something similar. It does not enforce a separation, but it does endorse  and foster a separation of men from women, based on sexual orientation. It is using marriage policy to encourage the sexes to separate from each other, in certain instances.

Same sex marriage supporters claim to be “on the right side of history.” But as Loving v. Virginia shows us, history did NOT side with those who were using marriage policy in order to separate the sexes from each other. Remind your debate opponent of this fact.

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

Are “marriage equality” and gender segregation compatible?

January 24th, 2014 Comments off

by Kelly Bartlett

I grew up in a predominately white suburb in Connecticut. Our school was so monochromatic that the powers-that-be decided to bus in blacks from Hartford.

One of the blacks that got off the bus at my school was Joy, with her fluffy side ponytail and glorious smile. Joy said things I never heard spoken out loud before such as, “Lordy, Lordy” in our English class. The black girls taught me Double Dutch jump rope, after which there’s no going back to single. And at our school dances, we were all awed by the skill and grace of the African Americans; even the guys could bust a move. Read more…

Print Friendly

Marriage rites: what’s blood got to do with it?

November 25th, 2013 Comments off
The marriage equality slippery slope logically ends in legalised incest.

When marriage laws are amended to bring same-sex couples within their ambit, those couples become subject to the existing restrictions imposed by blood and family ties (consanguinity and affinity) which forbid people from marrying someone too close to them. So if a woman cannot marry her brother, uncle or nephew, neither can she marry her sister, aunt or niece. Simple, right? As far as it goes, yes. But not once we consider the rationale behind consanguinity restrictions and what the application of the “marriage equality” paradigm to them is likely to lead to. Read more…

Print Friendly

To the Log Cabin Republicans: Natural Marriage Policy is Best

August 8th, 2013 Comments off
By Jennifer Thieme, CP Op-Ed Contributor and Director of Finance & Advancement for the Ruth Institute.
This article was first published August 8, 2013, at ChristianPost.com.
Note: Ms. Thieme’s initial column on Log Cabin Republicans and Abraham Lincoln can be seen here. Gregory T. Angelo of the Log Cabin Republicans responded with a column that can be read here.

The Log Cabin Republicans did not address the central point I made, which is how same sex marriage changes the status between parents and their children. The claims for “marriage equality” pale in comparison to the vast transfer of authority from natural families to the state. It’s a case of the good being the enemy of the best. Read more…

Print Friendly

Why do we need marriage to be happy?

May 29th, 2013 Comments off

by Michael Cook

Sorry, guys, we missed this, and it happened here in Sydney. At the 2012 Sydney Writers Festival four gay writers on a public panel were asked, “Why get married when you could be happy?” There was a consensus that gays did not want to be married, as gays do not aspire after bourgeois respectability.

ABC Radio recorded the panel discussion which you can hear below. Read more…

Print Friendly