Marriage “Equality?” Or Granny Angst?
February 14th, 2007 by Peter
It’s February in Connecticut, with all the usual signs to prove it: snow on the ground, kids home from school, and Courant columnist Susan Campbell raging against “bigots” who stand athwart her crusade to erode the meaning of marriage.
We’re accustomed to Campbell’s usual fallacies: pretending 1) that same-sex “marriage” has legal portability when it doesn’t; 2) that clergy support for same-sex “marriage” represents religious division on the issue rather than a tiny fringe within the community of faith; 3) that “prejudice and fear” motivate the pro-family side while making no mention of the death threat against Connecticut Catholic lobbyist Marie Hilliard and other hate crimes committed against pro-family churches by same-sex “marriage” supporters; 4) that the slippery slope to polygamy is ”a cheap and very nasty rhetorical trick” while making no mention of the “Beyond Gay Marriage” statement in which prominent same-sex “marriage” supporters like Gloria Steinem and Cornell West endorse polygamy; and 5) that it is the Christian opponents of same-sex “marriage” that rely on “shoddy Biblical scholarship” rather than Campbell’s own clergy buddies.
Yes, it’s all there, as well as the usual tactic of propagandizing-by-pull-at-the-heartstrings-storytelling. This one will be familiar to those who followed the television coverage of our opponents’ press conference:
To start the discussion on Connecticut’s marriage-equality bill, let’s turn to Alexandrina Sergio of Glastonbury. In closing her impassioned speech in support of the bill’s launch last month, Sergio held up a family Christmas picture of her daughter Lauren; her daughter’s spouse, Margaret; and their children (Sergio’s grandchildren), Lindsay, 21/2, and Alistair, 4 months.
“We have met the enemy,” Sergio said over the cheers, “and this is not it.”
Earlier, Sergio read a portion of a letter she wrote to Gov. M. Jodi Rell - proud grandmother of Tyler - who has vowed to veto any marriage-equality bill passed by the legislature this session.
“I fear for Lindsay and Alistair if they must grow up in a society where their family cannot enjoy the respect, the rights, the benefits and the protections enjoyed by Tyler’s family,” Sergio wrote. (Last week, she received a reply from the governor’s office that said, in part, “The Governor opposes any form of discrimination against any person or group.”)
But check out the next paragraph:
What Sergio didn’t mention in her speech, husband David said later, is that their daughter and her family live in Canada, which recognizes same-sex marriages. As long as the family stays north, they will continue to enjoy an environment similar to that of Tyler’s family - but not here.
So the people for whom we ought to redefine marriage in this anecdote already live in a place where it’s happened–”but not here.” Sounds like Grandma wants the grandkids to move to Connecticut and blames Jodi Rell because they won’t. What Campbell–and supposedly objective media outlets–covered as an impassioned plea for same-sex “marriage” seems actually to have been your run-of-the-mill case of granny angst.
The state will hear much more of this “tell our stories” tactic by same-sex ”marriage” proponents in the weeks ahead. Reporters could do a service to the truth by checking their accuracy instead of merely passing them along as fact.
Do you want us to believe you’re really this obtuse? And so completely lacking in human empathy?
Or maybe you really are.
Maybe FIC people could tell their stories. I’m really eager to know how, exactly, civil unions have harmed their individual marriages. (State Senator DeLuca is on the record saying it hasn’t.)
That’s exactly the problem in a society that is programmed to react to “sound bites”. It’s very quick and easy to prop up a sympathy-provoking story of someone who feels that they have been deprived of their rights. It’s a much more difficult thing to convey the deep and pervasive harm that inures to our entire state by re-defining the fundamental building block of civilization, the family unit. It’s not so much that my individual marriage is harmed by the existence of civil unions, but that every child in future generations is placed at risk of developing a warped understanding of life and their role within it. It’s the subtle yet powerful impact of children being raised without a proper balance of both male and female influences in their formative years. And most importantly it is that our government has no business granting the special privileges of marriage (or its equivalent) to a type of relationship that does not serve the interests of our society in perpetuating itself through the creation of successive generations.
Just because someone cries out and says “that’s not fair, I should have the same rights” doesn’t mean we should take the argument at face value. The case needs to proven on more than emotion. That doesn’t mean we’re personally lacking in empathy, it just means a change of this magnitude needs in the legislative arena needs to be justified by more than a “gut feel”.
Chele, do you want us to believe that you don’t secretly work for FIC. YOU ARE AWSOME! To every fact, you have an anecdote; to every insight, a scoff; to each lighthearted moment, a lead balloon. You stick to the 1996 liberal talking points so closely, it’s like, . . . like, you are a MACHINE. You keep this blog interesting and FIC can always count on you to be there, with a taunt, a jab, a whisper, a sneer . . . we can almost see you rolling your eyes, exhaling deeply, your upper lip curled in disgust. Whatever you are being paid, it simply isn’t enough. I say Happy Valentine’s Day! . . . even to those who practice it without a marriage license.
Dave -
our government has no business granting the special privileges of marriage (or its equivalent) to a type of relationship that does not serve the interests of our society in perpetuating itself through the creation of successive generations.
Do I have to get divorced if I get a vasectomy?
You’re a hoot, ModernFemme. When is the last time the FIC Blog offered a “lighthearted moment” — intentionally?
BTW, love the nick — although I am quite surprised to find a FIC poster with a name referencing alternate gender/sexuality.
And when did it become necessary to have a marriage licence to celebrate Valentine’s Day?
More of those unintentional lighthearted moments, no doubt.
Not divorced, Gabe. Probably annulled.
What we need is legislation similar to what is being proposed in Washington state — which limits marriage to couples who can and will procreate, and annuls marriages after three years if they have not.
As has been pointed out here, marriage isn’t about anything so frivolous as love, comfort and support. It is about the perpetuation of our society. Marriage is not a right, it’s a privilege bestowed by the state, and as such it should be regulated.
Here’s a fun story. The latest Q-Poll shows that 39% of registered voters favor same-sex marriage (I’m not going to include the quotation marks, I’ll leave the loaded language to you, Peter), 33% favor civil unions, while a tiny 22% favors no recognition of same-sex couples at all.
That’s 72% for some kind of legal recognition. And, better yet, the younger the voter, the more likely it is that he or she will favor marriage. 56% of voters aged 18-34 favor marriage.
All we have to do is wait.
Uh, Genghis. That’s a whopping 55% who are against same-sex ‘marriage.’ (You used the word “tiny” when referring to 22%, so I thought it only appropriate that I use the word “whopping.” I’ve included the quotes because there is no such thing as same-sex ‘marriage’ in this state.)
The poll is just as telling for what it does not ask. It may be that the 33% who responded that gays “should be allowed legally to form civil unions, but not marry” were simply recognizing the fact that civil unions are legal in this state and saying, in effect, “that is as far as I will go.” The poll does not ask if they would prefer to reverse the civil unions bill.
The Quinnipiac poll summary states that “the older people are, the more opposed they are to same-sex marriage.” So, Genghis, maybe you are right. All we have to do is wait . . . for them to mature.
Consider that a great many of the older people polled are part of the flower-child generation. They grew up with the notions of “free love” and all that entails, yet they still ended up rejecting same-sex ‘marriage.’
The poll does not break responses down by marital status, but other polls have and indicate that married people are far more likely to support traditional marriage and far more likely to reject same-sex ‘marriage.’ The older people are, the more likely they are to be married.
As for the young unmarried people, I believe that many of them have bought in to the propaganda they are spoon fed on our one-sided college campuses and in the major media. That is one of the reasons I support the educational mission of the FIC, which attempts to counter that propaganda with facts and insightful analysis.
One of the primary areas of interest on this blog is the bias in the major media. Yet when Peter post stories about that bias, there is the inevitable pooh-poohing by posters who favor same-sex ‘marriage.’ That indicates to me that this blog is targeting the correct problems.
Thanks, Peter!
According to the Rutgers’ National Marriage Project, as stated in their 2006 report on the social health of marriage in America, “Throughout history marriage has first and foremost been an institution for procreation and raising children.” The report also includes many troubling statistics on the rate in divorce, unmarried cohabitation, and declining birth rates. Nevertheless, they say, “A central purpose of the institution of marriage is to ensure the responsible and long-term involvement of both biological parents in the difficult and time consuming task of raising the next generation.”
Keep in mind that Rutgers’ National Marriage Project is a nonpartisan, nonsectarian effort to document statistical trends in marriage. Their findings are not linked with any religious factors. And yet they arrive at the same inescapable conclusion – that civil marriage has always been about our society extending the extra support that is necessary to promote the furtherance of each successive generation.
Critics within the same-sex marriage movement are quick to point out that sometimes there are individual cases where opposite-sex married couples do not have any children. And it’s exactly this thinking that inspired the disingenuous “Initiative 957” in the state of Washington, whereby same-sex activists have proposed that all marriages be annulled if they do not produce children during the first 3 years. Of course it’s not that they truly want marriage to be so limited in scope, but they’re trying to make a point that the Washington Supreme Court’s rationale for denying same-sex marriage is flawed.
These critics miss the point entirely. The government’s rationale for providing special benefits to (opposite-sex) married couples is based upon the overall trend of outcomes that can be expected for this category of persons. In other words, it is the INSTITUTION of marriage that justifies the government’s blessings upon these unions, rather than the individual couple’s circumstances.
Yes, it is true, some couples sadly do not conceive despite many years of effort. Some couples ultimately choose to adopt, thereby doing a great service to society by caring for children that might otherwise lack a father and mother. Others find that, as the circumstances of their lives unfold, they choose not to have any children at all.
Yet none of these individual outcomes can be known with certainty at the point when marriage first occurs. Each such marriage has the potential, at least, for conceiving and raising a child. And failing that, these marriages still have the potential for adopting a child and providing both a father’s and mother’s influence as originally intended by nature. And while we cannot readily predict the future outcome of individual marriages, each of them remains an example that encourages the formation of similarly valuable unions by others; in this sense, all such marriages contribute to promoting the furtherance of each successive generation.
Increasingly, women are waiting longer before conceiving and bearing their first child. In 1960, 71 percent of married women had a first child born during the first three years of marriage. By 1990, such occurrences fell to only 37 percent (based on US Census data). Does this mean we should annul the other 63 percent of marriages, by deeming them “non-productive”? By no means! Even though an increasing number of women are not having any children during their lifetime, approximately 80% of them are still having children by their early forties. They difference is that unlike past generations, women are having fewer children in their teens and early 20’s.
National adoption statistics are just estimates because the government does not require private domestic adoptions to be reported, according to the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute. But extrapolating from US Census data, we can at least get an approximation – since adopted children constitute roughly 2% of the total number of children in the United States.
So let’s consider this as way of judging the relative success of the institution of marriage in accomplishing its central purpose. With opposite-sex marriages, suppose 80% have children. And within the remaining 20% who do not conceive and give birth, suppose that 4% adopt a child into the complementary and supportive framework of a relationship that provides both a father’s and mother’s influence during the child’s upbringing, as intended by nature … leaving perhaps 16% of marriages without any children whatsoever. That’s still an impressive 84% success rate.
In contrast, let’s consider the proposed institution of “same-sex marriage.” Zero percent of such couples are capable of combining their genetic material to conceive and bear a child. Moreover, by definition, every child conceived by a partner in a same-sex marriage is deprived of either the male of female parent. Zero percent of same-sex couples are capable of adopting a child into the complementary and supportive framework of a relationship that provides both a father’s and mother’s influence during the child’s upbringing, as intended by nature. All of which is very unsurprising news, but it begs the question as to what compelling purpose this alternative institution serves. And is that purpose worthy enough, for the interest of our society as a whole, to justify the government awarding it special benefits?
Gabe, how old are you? We know how old chele is roughly so youth is not her excuse for this haranguing sound always in her words. Gabe, you are just oh so clever aren’t you? Please, stop. If you are an adult you are not showing it very well.
TrueBlueCT, your tactic today is in the same vein as those used by less experienced debaters when they ask a huge list of questions thus greatly burdening their opponents with regaling the lengthy answers (in your case, all FIC’s people’s personal stories), while not making any specific point. It’s meant to tie up FIC folks’ time thus wasting it, while you enjoy watching having made them waste their time on a pointless endeavor that is not relevant. Don’t take my word for it: if you want to be taken seriously, you’d seriously consider learning how to do so, here: http://www.therebelution.com/blog/2005/08/you-read-it-right-complete-blog-commenting-guidelines
Genghis conn, after you and cgg dismissed the secular Journal of the American Medical Association and the secular, respected World Health Organization (of which the International Agency for Research on Cancer is part) as both putting forth “shoddy science,” “junk science” and “crap crappity crap crap crap,”
AND after you also ignored all the truthful science I further showed you in response to your taunting and erroneous “science” quotes in this post on your blog, http://connecticutlocalpolitics.blogspot.com/2006/12/ct-planned-parenthood-to-offer-free.html ,
you also fail to have much credibility with anything you might post here either.
You all are dangerously close to being trolls, and I suppose that like ModernFemme I ought to be as amused. I will try. You have no clue how silly you all have made yourselves continue to appear. I really wish you wouldn’t continue in the path you’ve all chosen, for your own sakes.
chele, as you told us to do in the other thread today, “Let’s try to stay on topic.” When you’ve gone back and “stayed on topics” you confronted us on here in earlier posts, then maybe I can take your current and future comments seriously. ModernFemme is right: you are like a machine in your karaoke -like parroting back.
For your convenience, I listed the major points yesterday here: http://www.ctfamily.org/blog/2007/02/09/anti-christian-bigotry-and-the-left
Did any one else “chuckle” when the “Family” “Institute” of Connecticut’s “blog” “wrote” this:
that clergy support for same-sex “marriage” represents religious division on the issue rather than a tiny fringe within the community of faith?
“Emphasis” “mine”
NaCN,
I can outwait you, too.
NaCN, thank YOU–and Dave, Modern Femme and Annie too!
Genghis, if you really believe the public supports same-sex “marriage” then let’s put it to a vote. In every state but one where this has been voted on the defenders of traditional marriage win, usually by about 70%. Even Oregon–a state so liberal it legalized assisted suicide–understands that marriage is between a man and a woman.
If you believe Connecticut is different, have the guts to put it to the test and let the people decide.
Annie, I’m seven, so I guess I’ll keep going (and yes, I am oh so clever, thanks for noticing). I would like to welcome you to posting on a thread before its a week old, however.
Peter - As you well know, Connecticut has no mechanism for state-wide referenda of the type that you are suggesting. No “guts” are required to call for something that is not going to happen because it constitutionally cannot happen.
Just in case though, I hereby call for pigs to grow wings and fly.
Wow. Feel the “guts”.
Gabe, as you probably don’t know because you limit yourself to repeating the same lame mantras ad nauseum, Sen. DeLuca and others have cited a previous nonbinding referendum held in the early 90’s on spending caps as a precedent for what FIC is seeking. Even Sen. McDonald admitted in the pro same-sex “marriage” press conference that there is a difference of opinion between the secretary of state and the attorney general over the legality of nonbinding referendums. And in 2008 a question will appear on the ballot asking voters if they want to hold a constitutional convention…which opens up a whole bunch of possibilities.
So it seems the question of guts–or lack thereof–among those of you citing polls is very much in play…
Peter,
Except, of course, that in Connecticut we have no tradition of ballot initiatives. Why is this “too important” for representative democracy?
But fine, let’s vote. Vote away. In another decade, we’ll vote again. And then again, until marriage rights are extended to everyone. Eventually, it will happen.
um, Gabe, foot in your mouth again, I see:
http://www.ctfamily.org/blog/2007/01/26/courants-2007-priorities-redefine-marriage-attack-religious-liberty
http://www.ctfamily.org/blog/2007/01/24/bills-good-and-bad
I guess since you’re 7 years old you don’t know yet that my commenting on a same-day post and a 2-day-old post is sooner than on “week-old” ones.
Genghis Conn, no reply from you either to my comment to you?
Do you two even realize how you sound? I mean, really?
Snarkiness may be cool among your friends but wow, you two really do yourselves a disservice here that’s becoming almost comical. Do your high school or college professors think that’s “cute” coming from you?
Genghis, while we’re noodling around about your “latest” Q-poll quote, here’s the URL for that which you didn’t share with us (”He who asserts must prove”): http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1296.xml?ReleaseID=1017
This page ( http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm ) gives a whole treasure trove of polls to peruse. The Q-poll you reference isn’t on there.
The reason it isn’t on there is because that poll you quoted above–”39% of registered voters favor same-sex marriage”–references not national polling but CONNECTICUT voters only.
The latest national Q-poll, 11/2006, doesn’t break out by age: http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?ReleaseID=989 .
Keep in mind that you quoted above that “56% of voters aged 18-34 favor marriage” (again, that’s for Connecticut voters only).
This Dec. 2004 national Q-poll is the latest one available which breaks out age groups: http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?ReleaseID=596 , and it actually goes one step further, reporting that:
52% of 18-29 year-olds nationally support allowing same-sex couples to get married, while 46% oppose and 3% don’t know.
Only 34% of 30-44 year-olds support same, while 61% oppose and 4% don’t know.
The Margin of Error for this survey is “+/- 2.5 percentage points.”
That means that, nationally in 2004, as few as 49.5% of 18-29 year-olds nationally supported allowing same-sex couples to get married, and conversely as many as 54.5% did.
Your Connecticut-only poll had a MoE of +/- 3 percentage points, so as low as 53% of Connecticut’s 18-34 y-o’s favored same sex marriage.
I’m just pointing out how polls really need to be reported accurately, by professionals and amateurs like both of us, and then examined and understood accurately and not just tossed out there to be taken without backup.
Also, it’s really a tossup as to whether younger voters will retain their opinions or change as they get older, as NaCN stated.
What we may need to factor in is how many 18-29 year-olds are there in Connecticut and in the nation, vs. how many 30-44 y-o’s and on up.
The U.S. Census data from 2003, http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/04statab/pop.pdf indicates the age population like this:
(If this “chart” doesn’t come out well, I’ll try it again in a subsequent comment:)
age, … pop in 03, …%supSSM, %oppSSM, #suppSSM, #oppSSM
20-29, 39,896,000, 52%, 46%, 20,745,920, 18,352,160
30-44, 65,076,000, 34%, 61%, 22,125,840, 39,696,360
45-64, 68,704,000, 30%, 66%, 20,611,200, 45,344,640
65+, 31,206,000, 10%, 84%, 3,120,600, 26,213,040
tot.ad.pop: 204,882,000 66,603,560, 129,606,200
% of totpop 32.5%, 63.3%
So that national poll then means that, across the entire adult population, 32.5% favor SSM while 66.3% are opposed.
Even removing the 65+ crowd, “adding” the age 0-19 cohort with similar poll rates as the 20-29 group and “aging” everyone ten to twenty years to approximate age groupings over the next 20 to 30 years, the total split across the entire adult population will be more like 41.5% in favor of SSM and 55.2% opposed.
age, popul, #%supSSM, %oppSSM, #suppSSM, #oppSSM
0-19, 81,214,000, 52%, 46%, 42,231,280, 37,358,440
20-29, 39,896,000, 52%, 46%, 20,745,920, 18,352,160
30-44, 65,076,000, 34%, 61%, 22,125,840, 39,696,360
45-64, 68,704,000, 30%, 66%, 20,611,200, 45,344,640
tot.ad.pop: 254,890,000 105,714,240, 140,751,600,
% of totpop 41.5%, 55.2%
And with abortion continuing to abort the younger cohort at the rate of 1.3 million a year, the Roe Effect of reducing the “indigenous” U.S. population could reduce the younger cohorts even further.
Going more broadly at 3 of the latest national polls:
1) The December 15, 2004 national Q-poll found this: “American voters oppose 51 - 45 percent a law to legalize same sex civil unions. By an even bigger 65 - 31 percent margin, voters oppose a law allowing for same sex marriages. ”
2) Jan. 16-18, 2007 (Associated Press/AOL poll conducted by Ipsos Public Affairs): 51% favored a law “ban[ning] gay marriage, requiring that marriage should be between a man and a woman” and 4% were unsure,
3) Nov. 13-19, 2006 (the 11/06 Q-poll): 63% “oppose a law that would allow same-sex couples to get married” with another 4% being unsure. http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?ReleaseID=989
Ghengis: “Except, of course, that in Connecticut we have no tradition of ballot initiatives.”
Except, of course, I already cited one precedent from the early 90’s for the nonbinding referendum we seek. There is also the normal process for amending the state constitution, which involves public referendum. As recently as the late 90’s the public approved at ballot–over the vociferous opposition of the Courant–a law allowing victims to say something in court to those convicted of certain crimes against them. And our state constitution mandates that every 20 years the voters be asked if they want to hold a constitutional convention.
Ghengis: “Why is this “too important” for representative democracy?”
If we had a real one in Connecticut, instead of the gerrymandered mess so well described by Judge Robert Satter, author of Under the Gold Dome, same-sex “marriage” would be dead on arrival in the LOB. Radically redefining society’s most precious social institution is too important not to let the people decide. But you already knew that answer–it’s just that you don’t like it.
And NaCN very astutely connected your “waiting us out” stuff to FIC Blog’s focus on media bias. The same folks who are “shocked! shocked!” at any suggestion of liberal media bias are gleefully awaiting the fruits it may bear in the altering of public opinion and behavior.
Peter -
Given that 72% of Connecticut voters disagree with the “Family” “Institute” of Connecticut’s position on the legal recognition of same-sex couples, I would think that being condescending would hurt the cause.
After consultation with my sources (teh Google and teh Lexis), I cannot find a reference to a non-binding statewide referendum on the spending cap in the early nineties. I did find extensive coverage of the 1992 referendum on the Constitutional Amendment to enact the spending cap, but that, of course, is a Constitutional Amendment whose procedure is laid out in the Constitution. Please provide a cite to the nonbinding statewide referendum - I could have missed it, but I don’t think I did.
Both referendums for Constitutional Amendments and for calling a Constitutional Convention every twenty years have their mechanisms explicit in Connecticut’s Constitution, Articles Twelfth (amended by Article VI of Amendments) and Thirteenth respectively.
While there may be a rift between the SoS and the AG on the legality of a nonbinding statewide referendum, I cannot find any mention of it (or a formal opinion from the AG). If you have more information, please provide it so we can all see!
Regardless of any rift, I do stand by my statement that there is no mechanism in Connecticut law for a statewide referendum (other than those mentioned in the Constitution and above). In fact, Conn. Gen. Stat. 9-1 specifically defines “referendum” as local or municipality-wide.
Likewise, Chapter 152 of Title 9, entitled “Referenda” makes specific mention, several times, of local and/or municipal referenda, but makes no mention in any provision of an alteration in the definition of “Referendum” in 9-1 that would allow for statewide referenda other than as written in the Constitution.
Unless I am missing something, I do not see any mechanism for providing voters with a statewide nonbinding referendum outside of the Constitution. Please let me know where you think such a mechanism is located in Connecticut law.
Annie - I formally apologize; I did not realize that you were sarcasm-deficient. To be clear, that was sarcasm as well.
My elementary school teachers do think I am adorable. They shouldn’t encourage me.
:(
Gabe, see NACN’s comment (#9) above on the poll. You know the only issue in play this year is same-sex “marriage,” not civil unions, and even in this poll a majority supports our position. And again, if you believe it’s otherwise, have the guts to put it to a vote.
And about that: I’ll see what I can get you on the nonbinding referendum Sen. DeLuca was citing during the 2005 Senate vote on holding another one. In the meantime, as I’ve already said and even you have now noted, there is the constitutional convention question that’s on the ballot every 20 years and the normal referenda for Constituional amendment (again, the victims thing from the 90’s–passed over strenuous editorial objections from the Courant).
I’m not surprised you can’t find anything on SoS/AG split. It’s something McDonald revealed when (slightly) pressed by a reporter. And, of course, even though there were a legion of media present, it was never reported. If I hadn’t been in the room no one would ever have known he had said it.
(sigh) Gabe, again with the ad hominem attacks. “Nothing more quickly degenerates a discussion than when people start attacking those making the arguments rather than refuting the arguments themselves.
“The key to respectful, profitable argumentation is to respect others and to be respected. You respect others by acting civilly and arguing reasonably. You cause others to respect you by not acting like a fool in your manner or in your argumentation.”
But you choose instead to act uncivilly and like a glib fool, to quickly degenerate any discussion, rather than refute the arguments intelligently, with substance, as an adult. You can’t do the latter, as you’ve proven once again. It’s rather tiresome, gabe, to watch you (or anyone) throw away all your credibility as you’ve chosen to do.
What, no FIC stories about how civil unions have “hurt” their marriages? Senator DeLuca must have been right when he freely admitted that marriage hasn’t been harmed one iota by the civil rights legislation.
Annie, who attacked whom?
This is what started our “conversation”:
Gabe, how old are you? We know how old chele is roughly so youth is not her excuse for this haranguing sound always in her words. Gabe, you are just oh so clever aren’t you? Please, stop. If you are an adult you are not showing it very well.
Peter, I noted the two ways that the Constitution allows for statewide referendum to highlight the fact that neither of them are for nonbinding statewide referendum - it is either for a Constitutional Amendment, or it is the mandated question regarding a Constitutional Convention, or it isn’t written in the Constitution.
Or in the General Statutes. Lets say 100% of the state wanted to have a nonbinding statewide referendum on same-sex marriage. How would it get on the ballot? Please point me to the procedure that the FIC suggests we use to get the question on the ballot.
Our goal *is* a Marriage Protection Amendment. The nonbinding referendum is what we seek for this session because this present legislature will not approve an MPA. Yes, I know that you think the state Constitution’s not mentioning nonbinding referendum makes it somehow illegal or something. As I already said in #23, above, McDonald himself says the SoS and the AG disagree on that & I’ll see what else I can get on the topic.
Peter - I’m not sure where you are getting the idea that I am arguing that a nonbinding referendum is illegal. What I am saying is that there is no procedure for placing a nonbinding statewide referendum on the ballot in either the Connecticut Constitution or in the Connecticut General Statutes.
If I want to run as a petitioning candidate, I go to Title 9, read the procedures, get my signatures and file them. You guys want a nonbinding referendum. My simple question is, how do you get the referendum on the ballot? What is the mechanism? This is my third time asking and I am very interested in your answer (not the least because I am an election law dork who loves creative solutions).
Also, don’t forget about the early 90s spending cap referendum; I am very curious to see what Sen. DeLuca was referring to.
We’re looking into it. It may be that our legislation would have to 1st create a mechanism for non-binding referenda and then schedule one.
As we say on our blog, “Recognize that nearly everyone who reads comments on blogs has the horse-sense to recognize when someone is offending against charity, being provocative, or engaging in verbal behavior that is damaging and destructive.” That horse-sense appears to be lacking in you, Gabe, purposely or intentionally.
And no, Gabe, this is what started our conversation: “Oh, Gabe? It looks like all my comments above ought to have been addressed to you as well, since you chimed in rather smugly too.” (http://www.ctfamily.org/blog/2007/01/18/tr-rowes-pro-life-pro-woman-bill)
Since we’re quoting each other…
“Annie, I’m seven, so I guess I’ll keep going (and yes, I am oh so clever, thanks for noticing).”
“I would like to welcome you to posting on a thread before its a week old, however.”
Earlier you asked the immature, yuk-yuk question “Do I have to get divorced if I get a vasectomy?”
Later you quipped “and yes, I am oh so clever, thanks for noticing” and “My elementary school teachers do think I am adorable.”
I guess you’re right. I didn’t have to ask how old you were. Your choice of words and tone said it all. Sarcastically or not, you’re being provocative in almost all you write, and calling me sarcasm-deficient is an ad hominem attack because that’s just your funny sarcastic opinion, you see. It is not my opinion that you’re smugly being provocative. It’s what you’re being.
The definition of “smug” includes “self-important,” “self-satisfied.” Sarcastically said or seriously, your words and tone still drip those definitions.
If it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck, then it’s a duck.
If you don’t want to be called smug or immature, don’t prove that you are by your actions and words.
Lastly (since you said that you refuse to go back to page two threads): I’m not surprised that you hold an anti-Catholic double standard that supports forcing Catholic doctors to give EC to a rape victim who might be pregnant but refuses the equally-grievous religious restriction of forcing a Muslim doctor to perform an abortion if it was after 120 days of pregnancy. I expected you to respond exactly as you did. You are the double standard bearer.
Annie, lets agree to disagree on whether I am a big jerk.
That said, you have put words in my mouth. In that thread, I rejected your analogy specificly because the EC bill does not force a Catholic MD to distribute EC. It only requires that EC be available for distribution. It can be distributed by anyone, even someone who is not employed by the hospital, as long as it is available. Here is what I actually said, so there is no confusion:
This is nothing like a law that would force a Muslim doctor to perform abortions. The EC bill would only require that EC be available and distributed in every hospital, but says nothing about who does the distributing - it could (and should) be done by someone who does not have to violate a religious belief to do so.
Annie, since you apparenlty know exactly what I am going to write before I write it, please feel free to carry on this discussion without me, I refuse to be called a bigot by someone who doesn’t know the slightest bit about me.
Gabe,
You have stated a number of times that “the EC bill would only require that EC be available and distributed in every hospital, but says nothing about who does the distributing - it could (and should) be done by someone who does not have to violate a religious belief to do so.” You have not explained, however, how that would eliminate the moral dilemma.
It is clear that you perceive a moral dilemma when you state that the abortifacient “should” be distributed by “someone who does not have to violate a religious belief to do so.” However, I am not sure that you have thoroughly considered the moral implications of that approach. For example, if someone objects to the death penalty, they probably would object to being forced to buy bullets for the firing squad. Further, they would most certainly object to being forced to host the execution at their place of business. I doubt it would assuage them to have one of their employees pull the trigger.
You probably do not consider abortion to be equivalent to murder, but what of those who do? Do you have another suggestion for addressing the moral dilemma?
NaCN, to be frank, I don’t really have a suggestion. I just perceive there to be a difference between forcing a specific individual to do something that violates their religious beliefs and forcing an organization to make a substance available to be distributed by a specific individual who doesn’t have a religious objection to that distribution.
Perhaps, and I am just thinking out loud here, the state could bear the cost of paying for EC and the people who distribute it.
Without getting into a discussion about my personal feelings about abortion, I should state that I don’t view an equivalency between EC and abortion.
Also, I would love to hear someone explain why the CT Church is at odds with the NY and NJ Churches and the American orginization of Bishops on this issue…
I apologize to anyone who finds this discussion of EC to be off-topic, BTW.
A crucial difference in the New Jersey law is that is contains the following exception: “An emergency health care facility shall not be required to provide emergency contraception to a sexual assault victim who is pregnant.”
Ditto for New York’s law: “No hospital may be required to provide emergency contraception to a rape survivor who is pregnant”.
For a state-by-state review of Emergency Contraception laws, see http://www.ncsl.org/programs/health/ECleg.htm
Gabe,
If I have correctly understood others’ postings, the Catholic hospitals agree with you that providing emergency contraception and performing an abortion are not equivalent. The hospitals perform a pregnancy test and, if the woman is not pregnant, provide drugs to prevent conception. If, however, the test shows that the woman has conceived, they will not provide an abortifacient but will refer the woman to other sources.
I believe that your “thinking out loud” proposals come close to solving the moral dilemma posed by the proposed legislation. In addition to having the state 1) purchase the drugs and 2) pay for the employees who administer them, as you suggest, I believe one further small step would resolve the problem. 3) The state should provide its own facility. It could be in the same neighborhood as the hospital and, I suspect, needn’t be more than a small room. Almost certainly there are clinics by the hospitals that would be more than happy to provide that service to the state. If the state pays for the drugs and the personnel, it seems reasonable to me that they also pay for the facility.
Back on January 25 I made that suggestion to you on another thread and added the following:
“That solution should be acceptable to any rational person. However, it probably would not fly at the legislature for two reasons. First, the legislators would say, ‘Why set up a clinic when all they have to do is drive to a pharmacy?’ . . . ”
So, in reality, pharmacies already serve as separate facilities. Thus, when I look at the bill I see a solution in search of a problem. Put another way, no one has stated that women have not been able to get the drug. This leads me to the second conclusion I stated on January 25:
“Second, and related to the first, this bill never has been about ready access to an abortion. It is all about shutting down opposition to abortion in Connecticut. Period.”
That is where all of the evidence points me. If you do not agree, at least you are two thirds of the way to a solution. If you are willing to take that last step and ask that the state also provide the facility, then we have a solution. Perhaps the hospitals in NY and NJ have reached an accommodation involving some form of these elements. Regardless, if you would agree on that final element for CT, at least there would be a bit less disagreement on this forum on one issue.
The state constitution would have to be amended to allow for non-binding referenda. This is unlikely in the extreme.
Just commission a poll already, if that’s the information you want.
By the way, it’s a shame that My Left Nutmeg hasn’t made the enemies list yet… we’re trying like hell over there, and FIC folks are clearly reading the site, so what do we have to do to make the list?
“Catholic hospitals agree with you that providing emergency contraception and performing an abortion are not equivalent. The hospitals perform a pregnancy test and, if the woman is not pregnant, provide drugs to prevent conception.”
Pregnancy test? What test can determine pregnancy within hours of intercourse? Please enlighten us.
No, they will test to see if the rape victim is ovulating. If she is ovulating, she will not be given the drug. So that she CAN become pregnant.
NaCN - As long as the “facility” provided by the state is in the hospital where the sraoe victims are brought, I don’t have a problem with it - if we are requiring rape victims to travel further, than I do. It sounds like accounting gimmickry (sp?) could solve the problem…
chele,
As I mentioned, my description of the protocol was based on my understanding of others’ posts. Now that the protocol has been posted I amend my first paragraph as follows:
“The Catholic hospitals agree with you that providing emergency contraception and performing an abortion are not equivalent. The hospitals perform a [luteinizing hormone] test and, if the woman is not pregnant, provide drugs to prevent conception. If, however, the test shows that the woman [potentially] has conceived, they will not provide an abortifacient but will refer the woman to other sources.”
I hope that clears things up for anyone who was unable to understand my point.
Now, you have not commented on the rest of my post. Do you agree or disagree with the proposals put forth by Gabe and by me, and why?
Also, your dissection of the hospitals’ financial statements; how’s that going. Please enlighten us.
Gabe,
I disagree that it amounts to only accounting gimmickry. As you have allowed relative to the drugs, the personnel, and now for the facility, who pays for the things has moral implications.
I would go one step further than you and arrange for transport to other facilities in the community. I do not believe that places any additional burden on the woman and completely solves the moral dilemma. (I suspect that in some instances that would result in sooner administration of the abortifacient, without the counseling to the contrary that would occur at the hospital. That is, unless there is a follow-up bill that would gag the hospital counselors.)
This blended dicsussion of 2 topics (same-sex marriage, and emergency contraception) is getting difficult to follow. May I suggest that further EC-related comments be posted on the separate thread entitled “Pro-Abortion Attack on Religious Liberty” … and that we leave the realm of “Granny Angst”.
No, they will test to see if the rape victim is ovulating. If she is ovulating, she will not be given the drug. So that she CAN become pregnant.
It never occurred to me until this description how creepy the whole fraud being perpetrated by these hospitals is… giving birth control drugs to people who don’t need it, while keeping it from people who do.
The only thing more perverse would be if the doctor returned to the ovulating rape victim with a big gift-box and a “Somebody’s Going to Be a Mommy!” card.
First, I agree with Dave in #41. Further Plan B comments should be posted in the new thread.
Second, to Gabe in #28 and Matt in #36:
The more we research it the more it seems the mechanism for a non-binding state referendum may actually be quite straight-forward. It would be put on the ballot as outlined in the amendment below offered in 1991 that would have required a non-binding referendum on the income tax. Note at the bottom that Governor Rell co-sponsored this non-binding referendum when she was a state rep. More importantly read the fiscal analysis. While the Secretary of the State lays out the cost, there was clearly no mention in the fiscal analysis or anywhere else that there is “no mechanism” to do this. The legislature can do this simply by passing this sort of bill and asking the people’s opinion on the question.
Gabe notes that he’s not arguing it’s illegal. Fair enough. The reason gay-marriage supporters are arguing that there is “no process” to do this has nothing to do with the legality of a non-binding referendum and everything to do with one simple fact: proponents of same-sex “marriage” know that they will lose at the ballot box. They will do everything in their power to stop any sort of direct vote on same-sex “marriage”–even a non-binding one.
Even Quinnipiac University’s ridiculously biased poll (Lumping civil unions and same-sex marriage into one question–come on guys, can’t you do better than that?) found a majority oppose same-sex marriage. Given that the same sort of biased polls showed Michigan voters almost split evenly a day before Michigan voters voted 59%-41% against same-sex marriage, you can pretty safely assume that our margins would be much larger in a statewide vote.
There’s much more to be said on this, and we will at the Rally and after.
AMENDMENT BILL NUMBER:
FISCAL NOTE(Form 2) FILE NUMBER:
(Office of Fiscal Analysis) AMENDMENTS: LCO #4824
Analyst: (To sSB 459, File 444)
tc Cal. 320
Version: 3
TITLE: “AN ACT CONCERNING THE PAYMENT OF ESTIMATED PERSONAL
INCOME TAX.”
FAVORABLY REPORTED BY
SUMMARY: The amendment provides that a non-binding referendum
be conducted on January 5, 1992. The question to be used on
the voting machine ballot labels shall be the Connecticut
General Assembly can make changes to the state’s tax
structure this year. Should the General Assembly: 1) Repeal
the income tax and increase the taxes on sales, unearned
income and business to replace lost revenue? 2) change the
income tax to reduce taxes for families earning less than
114,000 dollars, heads of households earning less than 85,000
dollars and individuals earning less than 57,000 dollars and
raising tax rates for families, heads of households and
individuals earning more than such amounts? 3) make no change
in the income tax. 4) sunset the present tax code and adopt a
restructured code by June 30, 1995?
EFFECTIVE DATE:
* * * * *
FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENT - BILL NUMBER sSB 459
STATE IMPACT Cost, see explanation below
MUNICIPAL IMPACT Cost, see explanation below
STATE AGENCY(S) Office of the Secretary of the
State
EXPLANATION OF ESTIMATES:
The Office of the Secretary of the State will incur a
cost of approximately $10,000 for the printing of
materials (explanatory texts, posters, etc.) associated
with the referendum.
MUNICIPAL IMPACT: It is anticipated that passage of
this amendment will result in additional costs to
municipalities. The extent of the additional costs is
indeterminate.
“THIS DOCUMENT IS PREPARED FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE
MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY, SOLELY FOR PURPOSES OF
INFORMATION, SUMMARIZATION AND EXPLANATION. IT DOES NOT
REPRESENT THE INTENT OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OR EITHER
HOUSE THEREOF FOR ANY PURPOSE.”
TITLE:
AN ACT CONCERNING A NONBINDING REFERENDUM ON THE STATE INCOME TAX.
STATEMENT:
To require a nonbinding referendum on the income tax.
ACTIONS:
03-11 REF. TO JOINT COMM. ON Government Administration and Elections
03-12 PUBLIC HEARING 03/16 (PH0316)
03-30 FILED WITH LEG. COMMISSIONER
04-01 RPTD. OUT OF L.C.
04-01 FAV. CHG. OF REF., HO. TO COMM.ON Finance, Revenue and Bonding
04-01 FAV. CHG. OF REF., SEN. TO COMM. ON Finance, Revenue and Bonding
CO-SPONSORS:
REP. MUNNS, 9th DIST.; REP. NORTON, 48th DIST.
REP. KRAWIECKI, 78th DIST.; REP. RELL, 107th DIST.
REP. WARD, 86th DIST.; REP. O’NEILL, 69th DIST.
REP. CARUSO, 134th DIST.; REP. TAYLOR, 79th DIST.
REP. VARESE, 112th DIST.; REP. LUNDFELT, 37th DIST.
REP. METSOPOULOS, 132nd DIST.; REP. DANDROW, 30th DIST.
REP. FAHRBACH, 61st DIST.; REP. WINKLER, 41st DIST.
REP. HOLBROOK, 35th DIST.; REP. BURNHAM, 147th DIST.
Gabe, I replied to you in the newer, more appropriate thread, as requested: http://www.ctfamily.org/blog/2007/02/18/church-responds-to-pro-abortion-attack-on-religious-liberty/
Dave, in Note 10 you write
“Yet none of these individual outcomes can be known with certainty at the point when marriage first occurs.”
But surely you can agree that statement is not true. Many couples are well aware at the time they are married that one or both partners is infertile. So saying that “none” of these individual outcomes is knowable is incorrect.
Annie, in Note 30, you write
“Earlier you asked the immature, yuk-yuk question “Do I have to get divorced if I get a vasectomy?” (”)
I’m not sure that his question (rhetorical or not) can be immediately dismissed just because it is funny. It seems like a pretty reasonable example of reductio ad absurdum; if the infertility of the relationship is cited as a reason to prevent marriage, why is that standard not consistently applied?
Instead of answering the question, you criticized the questioner, which made the question, given its sarcastic tone, more potent.
Dave, I’m intrigued by this phrase in Note 3–
“It’s the subtle yet powerful impact of children being raised without a proper balance of both male and female influences in their formative years.”
I’m curious what is the proper balance of male and female influences? Are you talking here about masculinity and femininity, or is it just the bodies of the parents that must reflect their gender?
Phil, the government does not inquire as to the fertility of prospective married couples. Hence from the perspective of the government, every man and woman who marry have the potential for conceiving and raising a child. And, as I said before, even if a marriage fails to produce children due to infertility, it nevertheless retains the potential for adopting a child and providing both a father’s and mother’s influence as originally intended by nature. Finally, even marriages than neither produce nor adopt children are beneficial to society in as much as they exemplify the exclusive male/female partnering model of the family unit, which promotes the furtherance of successive generations by encouraging other couples to marry. In this sense, none of the individual outcomes are known in advance by the government at the point when marriage first occurs. But all 3 of them are beneficial to society. And none of them can be replicated by same-sex marriage.
Even if a man and woman marry knowing there are infertile, we do not know whether their hearts will ever be moved to consider adoption. Nor do we know if some medical advances might occur to mitigate their apparent infertility. Miracles can happen. People of faith will remember the Bible story of Zacharias and Elizabeth, who seemed too old to have a child, and yet they had a son who was later known as John the Baptist. Sometimes miracles can be facilitated in our times through the hands of doctors and researchers, as many couples have happily discovered in conceiving a child despite apparent infertility.
Even a vasectomy does not permanently end the potential for conceiving a child. Each year about 30,000 men in the USA have their vasectomy reversed. Statistically the odds of conceiving a child afterwards are good, with natural pregnancy resulting in 2/3 of the cases. If vasectomy reversal fails to restore fertility, an alternative procedure called “vasoepididymostomy” can be done to extract sperm for use in impregnating the mother through either “intrcytoplasmri sperm injection” or “in vitro-fertilization”. As we have seen through the determination of seemingly infertile couples in employing the assistance of advanced medical techniques in conceiving a child, it certainly can be done.
The real underlying question is whether a married couple truly wants to have a child, either through natural pregnancy or adoption. And this is actually one of the deepest unknown factors at the point when they enter into the marriage contract. Some people initially feel they don’t want children, for the sake of their career or personal freedom, and then later find as the years pass that they have a change of heart. This in fact is a very common phenomenon. Feelings on this subject tend to evolve and change during the course of one’s life. Consequently, it would be unwise to prejudge a marriage as “unproductive” simply because they haven’t had any children … yet.
As to your 2nd question, in speaking of the male and female influence that nature intended as the complementary and supportive framework for raising a child, I mean exactly that – a biologically male parent, and a biologically female parent. This is exactly as intended by the naturally operating principles that are at work in the creation of each child, which must necessarily arise through the fusion of material from each sex. Imitation parenting by a female acting as “father”, or by a male acting as “mother”, is contrary to the natural order, and deprives a child of its natural inherent right to be raised by a true father and mother. Isn’t it time we stopping thinking so selfishly and exclusively about the rights of adults to pursue their preferred sexual lifestyle, and started thinking about the rights of children to be raised in a manner and environment that best meets their natural needs?
Phil, it is “more potent” to you and to many here in this state perhaps but not to most. His question isn’t dismissable because it “is funny” (which it isn’t except to those who think like you and Gabe, I suppose), but because it is dismissably provocative and purposely obtuse. Let me explain.
Dave had made the point, which Gabe was replying to, that “our government has no business granting the special privileges of marriage (or its equivalent) to a type of relationship that does not serve the interests of our society in perpetuating itself through the creation of successive generations.”
Marriage is a privilege, not a human civil right, contrary to what so many have put forth. If it were a civil right, then we couldn’t disallow marrying babies, or toddlers or grade school kids because age doesn’t matter in civil rights. Even many black civil rights folks have been quoted as pointing out this distinction.
“The infertility of the relationship” isn’t what is being cited by Dave. Dave’s point, clear to me but apparently not to you or Gabe, is that any given couple’s infertility or deliberate choice or infertility simply is not in the same category as clearcut, from-the-get-go, 100% impossibility.
It was an interesting attempt at a “straw man”*, Phil, but it doesn’t stand up, not from you or from Gabe, as I pointed out. (* “describes a point of view that was created in order to be easily defeated in argument; the creator of a “straw man” argument does not accurately reflect the best arguments of his or her opponents, but instead sidesteps or mischaracterizes them so as to make the opposing view appear weak or ridiculous.”)
I’ll say it again: “Nearly everyone who reads comments on blogs has the horse-sense to recognize when someone is offending against charity, being provocative, or engaging in verbal behavior that is damaging and destructive.”
(typo should read: “deliberate choice OF infertility…”
“Miracles can happen.”
I really don’t understand, if one of your underlying assumptions is that miracles can happen, why you would presume that a lesbian partner cannot get her partner pregnant (for example). Certainly, that would be miraculous.
Annie,
“If it were a civil right, then we couldn’t disallow marrying babies, or toddlers or grade school kids because age doesn’t matter in civil rights.”
Does that mean that, in your view, voting is not a civil right?
TrueBlueCT said, “What, no FIC stories about how civil unions have ‘hurt’ their marriages? Senator DeLuca must have been right when he freely admitted that marriage hasn’t been harmed one iota by the civil rights legislation.”
In response, I want to refer you to an excellent treatise on this subject by John Horvat II, entitled “Why Homosexual ‘Marriage’ Hurts Us”. You can find this article at http://www.tfp.org/TFPForum/catholic_perspective/why_homosexual_marriage_hurts_us.htm
Before you dismiss Mr. Horvat’s arguments, simply because he is associated with the Catholic faith, it is worth reading through to understand the viewpoint that same-sex marriage is contrary to natural order (i.e. the laws of nature). Even for those who profess a difference of beliefs - or a complete lack of belief - in God, there are nevertheless certain undeniable principles made manifest in nature that we can all witness and experience. It is a biological fact that we are made as distinctly male and female, and that both sexes must combine to generate new life. Whether you are Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, or atheist, on this we can all agree because it is plainly evident in the laws of nature. Marriage, being the societal institution by which we ensure the creation of each successive generation, cannot help but be inextricably tied with the definition that it is between a man and woman. Same-sex marriage is an oxymoron.
Phil, you should know that when I wrote “miracles can happen” I was merely using ornate language to describe (1) the fact that unexpected pregnancies have occurred to women thought to be past their childbearing years, and (2) the fact that medical advances continue to develop in ways that enable men and women to overcome ailments that would otherwise have prevented them from having a child.
In both such cases, the natural outcome – the conception of new life by the union of male and female gametes – is being achieved through unexplained or unorthodox means. Perhaps it would have made you happier if I had simply said, “Sometimes wonderful and marvelous things happen, despite our expectations to the contrary”.
But let’s keep it in perspective, shall we? Throughout the course of human history, billions and billions of children have been born through the everyday, run-of-the-mill, natural processes conception. And thousands upon thousands of children have been born in circumstances that were somehow out of the ordinary, in ways that might seem inexplicable or amazing. Nevertheless, in every case, the results have always been consistent with the natural intent that new life arises from the combination of male and female genetic material.
Far from being miraculous, your suggestion of a lesbian getting her partner pregnant sounds diabolical and un-natural. If nature had ever intended such an event to occur, we ought to have seen it by now. Obviously we haven’t. (Although perhaps as Bill O’Reilly suggests, we just need to find the right cupcake to do the trick). The odds of making it occur artificially seem pretty slim. Plus it sounds downright unethical to be performing such experimentation on human cells, to attempt such a “lesbian conception”. But why am I surprised by the suggestion … you folks to keep discovering new ways to offend against the natural order!
The far likelier event is when a lesbian partner becomes impregnated by a sperm donor, who is actually the true biological parent. As we have already discussed, this deprives the child of its natural inherent right to be raised a true father and mother, and is not much different from the outcome when an adopted child is being raised by two “mommies”.
On the question of whether something constitutes a “civil” right, some of the examples recently cited have confused the distinction between (1) those rights granted to all citizens by the government, and (2) those inalienable rights which we posses as human beings. Take a quick look at Wikipedia to learn more about the distinction. Type 1 above would normally be called “civil rights”, whereas type 2 above would be called “human rights”.
How does this relate to same-sex marriage?
If it’s alleged to be a “human right” then one would have to appeal to the laws of nature to find its justification. But the laws of nature obviously argue otherwise, because of the procreative aspect in marriage which is biologically impossible for same-sex couples.
Failing that, some may allege that it is a “civil right”, by which is meant a privilege extended by the sovereign state to all of its citizens by the power of law. In other words, not an inalienable right, but one that may come and go depending upon a number of factors (e.g. where you live, and when you lived in history). It is in this way that a civil right differs from a “human” or “natural” right.
To clarify with respect to the recently cited examples, voting is a civil right because it is a power granted to citizens by the government. The government decides who enjoys the right, based upon criteria that can be universally applied across its citizenry. That is why the law can set a specific age at which one becomes eligible to vote.
Marriage as a relationship is a human right, but it uniquely applies to male/female couples by the nature of the procreative act.
Marriage as a contract is a civil right, which makes it subject to the authority of the state in determining the qualifications of those who are eligible. The criteria which are universally applied to the citizenry are that male/female couples who are biologically compatible for procreation (e.g. not too closely related, like brothers and sisters or other inter-familial relations) can be married, in the furtherance of the societal goal which is the creation of successive generations.
What then are we to make of same-sex couples? Nobody is stopping you from living together. Pursue your inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Just don’t ask us to consider your relationship as equivalent to marriage, because it’s not.
I think the church as well as other forms of discrimination and hatred due to a lack of understanding and relevant coherent information should stay away from the law. Your ignorance and the ignorance of this group saddens me. I hope one day you will learn to love everyone as a human being and not through the blinded eyes of your false convictions. Can’t wait to see all of the misinformed faces tm, how sick you all will make me!! And just for the record polygamy, bestiality, and whatever other sick thing you can think of has nothing to do with gay marriage!! Stop hiding behind lies!
Dave,
You raise some interesting points. I’m going to quote you and then respond in sequence, if that’s all right.
“Phil, you should know that when I wrote “miracles can happen” I was merely using ornate language to describe…”
It sounds like I made an inaccurate assumption about your use of the word miracle. I’ve heard people say “miracles can happen” when talking about the possibility of women who’ve had total hysterectomies to conceive, for example, but your usage was more colloquial. That’s fine; I stand corrected.
“…you folks to keep discovering new ways to offend against the natural order!”
I’m sorry–who are “you folks?”
“But the laws of nature obviously argue otherwise, because of the procreative aspect in marriage which is biologically impossible for same-sex couples.”
This is a surprisingly Darwinian argument. Do you believe we should follow all of the laws of nature, all of the time, or do we pick and choose?
“The government decides who enjoys the right, based upon criteria that can be universally applied across its citizenry.”
Would you agree, then, that Anne was wrong when she said “Age doesn’t matter in civil rights?”
Anne,
I think the reason that it’s not a straw man is thus:
It seems like the argument being put forth by you and Dave is that same-sex marriages do not deserve state support because they are infertile–the language that Dave used was “a type of relationship that does not serve the interests of our society in perpetuating itself.“ Now if infertility itself were a bright line (in debate, a “bright line” is a clearly defined rule or standard), then the state has a legitimate interest in preventing other infertile marriages as well.
But Dave makes it very clear that when he talks about a non-perpetuating relationship, he is not talking about heterosexual relationships. In fact, he lists many examples of heterosexual relationships that do _not_ meet his criteria of non-perpetuation. Whether a couple is physically incapable of having a child, or chooses not to have a child, Dave is adamant that those are not to be included in the category of non-perpetuating relationships.
The only relationships that _do_ meet the criteria presented are same-sex relationships. And in fact, if you read Dave’s posts, you’ll see that _all_ same-sex relationships fall into this category of non-perpetuating, whether both partners adopt or one partner creates a child biologically.
If we presented this in logical terms, then, Dave’s term “a type of relationship that does not serve the interests of society in perpetuating itself” is exactly equal to “a same-sex relationship.” They terms, as Dave uses them, are synonymous. In math, we would say that A is a set, and B is a set, and they contain exactly the same data, so A=B.
The argument Dave makes is that same-sex marriage (or civil unions) should not be recognized by the state because they do “not serve the interests of our society in perpetuating itself through the creation of successive generations.”
But, since A=B, what Dave is really saying is same-sex relationships should not be recognized by the state because they are same-sex relationships. Dave is making a circular argument. It’s a fallacy.
Gabe’s yuk-yuk question alludes to the absurdity of this argument.
Excellent analysis, Dave. Thanks.
Phil,
I believe I have made it exceedingly clear that the “bright line” is based upon the qualities of the INSTITUTION of marriage, as traditionally known between a man and woman, rather than the qualities of a particular individual relationship between a specific man and woman. As you quoted me on it, it is the TYPE of relationship that merits special privileges to be granted by the state.
Considered as an entire category, opposite sex marriages produce several beneficial results that promote the furtherance of successive generations. Same-sex couples, viewed as an entire category, cannot replicate these particular beneficial qualities. Therefore they ought not to be viewed as equivalent.
The reason the argument seems circular to you is that you refuse to accept the validity of viewing this issue on the basis of these 2 categories.
I know our fundamental disagreement on this point must seem frustrating and irreconcilable. We could probably keep posting back and forth ad infinitum. But let me at least offer you this much. While my line of reasoning is that same-sex couples cannot “take a free ride” on qualifying for special privileges based on an argument of marriage equivalence, this still leaves the door open for some kind of justification to recognize these relationships on their own merits independent from the concept of marriage. Of course, it would be up to those advocating on behalf of these relationships to demonstrate some other qualities that are sufficiently beneficial to society as a whole. And quite honestly, it is this aspect of the dialogue that has been so obviously missing from the advocates of recognition for same-sex couples.
As to your argument of set-equivalence (A=B), that is simply not true. The set of persons who are ineligible to marry (A) does not strictly equal the set of persons within same-sex relationships (B). In fact, the set A is larger than B, because there are also opposite sex couples who are barred from marriage. I have provided examples of opposite sex couples that ought not to qualify for marriage benefits, because they are biologically incompatible for the furtherance of successive generations … inter-familial relationships. Mothers and sons cannot marry. Fathers and daughters cannot marry. Brothers and sisters cannot marry. Why is that? Surely if there were a case where any two persons truly loved one another, what business does the state have in stopping that? After all, doesn’t love make a family? And yet we accept this as law, because it serves a compelling societal interest. We know that inbreeding produces genetic defects and is ill-suited to the furtherance of successive generations. We also exclude opposite-sex couples below a certain age from marrying, further expanding the set A without any effect on set B. We also exclude opposite-sex couples who are already married to other people (and not yet divorced) from marrying, because of the disruptive effect that such would inflict upon an orderly society. Once again, this further expands the set A without any effect on set B.
So I reject your claim, and stand behind my original position. The institution of marriage is recognized and granted special privileges by government precisely because it serves the interest of our society in perpetuating itself through the creation of successive generations. There are many other types of relationships between persons that do not qualify as equivalent to marriage because they fail to support this societal goal. Same-sex couples are among those who do not qualify, but are not the only ones.
Doesn’t it seem silly to you that our current law prohibits civil unions between two sisters, two brothers, or other closely-related persons of the same sex? Obviously this is a remnant copied from the marriage concept, but in this new context – absent the procreative element – it seems absurd. I believe this further illustrates the fallacy of the marriage equivalence argument.
I am intrigued by your remark, “Do you believe we should follow all of the laws of nature, all of the time, or do we pick and choose?” Perhaps you can elaborate on this to clarify. Are there some aspects of natural law you feel we ought to set aside? If so, why?
Someone finally gets me!
“In fact, the set A is larger than B, because there are also opposite sex couples who are barred from marriage.”
My contention was not that there were no opposite-sex couples barred from marriage, but that none of them met your criteria of non-perpetuating relationships.
The closest you come to an example is incestuous relationships, but you do acknowledge that they are capable of having children.
“Of course, it would be up to those advocating on behalf of these relationships to demonstrate some other qualities that are sufficiently beneficial to society as a whole.”
There’s no reason to believe that same-sex marriage would not have the positive effect on same-sex relationships that mixed-sex marriages do. In addition to strengthening the relationships, the institution, due to its public declarations and legal recognition, can have the effect of reducing infidelity in the gay community.
Moreover, since it is perfectly legal for partners in a same sex relationship to produce or to raise children, legal SSM would provide those children with the benefits of married parents.
Legal same-sex marriage would be optional, not mandatory, so it would not decrease the freedom of any citizen. Nor would it have any impact on churches which perform marriages, since they would still be able to set their own rules. It would actually increase religious freedom, since many religions today bless same-sex unions.
Finally, legalizing same-sex marriage will help to protect the institution of marriage for future generations. You seem to think that it is an extremist liberal position, but history will show that legalizing SSM is actually a moderate compromise. The opposite of “strictly heterosexual” marriage is not “optional gay marriage.” The continuum can stretch much farther than that, to “strictly gay marriage” (a ludicrous notion, I’m sure we both agree), to “complete elimination of state marriage.”
Right now, only the fringers of both liberal and conservative movements advocate eliminating (and/or privatizing) state marriages altogether. But if you have an issue where both libertarians and religious extremists agree with the far-far-far-left, you’re not looking at something outside the realm of possibility. If you really want to protect the institution of marriage, you would open it up to consenting adult couples who are being discriminated against without good reason.
“Are there some aspects of natural law you feel we ought to set aside? If so, why?”
Earlier you used the phrase “the laws of nature,” and now you use the term “natural law.” From a philosophical standpoint, the two are not synonymous.
“Natural law” refers to the religious belief that many religious tenets can be inferred philosophically without resorting to belief in God.
“The laws of nature” refers to the way that evolutionary processes play out in an environment.
Phil wrote: “In addition to strengthening the relationships, the institution [of marriage], due to its public declarations and legal recognition, can have the effect of reducing infidelity in the gay community.”
Most opposite-sex couples are sexually faithful to one another. By contrast, David P. McWhirter, M.D. and Andrew M. Mattison, M.S.W., PhD, found that the notion of sexual fidelity is anathema to long-term male homosexual relationships. McWhirter and Mattison are themselves homosexual and a male couple. In their book The Male Couple (Prentice-Hall) they report the results of their study of 157 male couples. They concluded that “all couples with a relationship lasting more than five years have incorporated some provision for outside sexual activity in their relationships,” that “fidelity is not defined in terms of sexual behavior but rather by their emotional commitment to each other,” and that “the single most important factor that keeps couples together past the ten-year mark is the lack of possessiveness they feel.”
Of particular interest are the following parts of their analysis. From pages 253 and 254:
“When we ask the men in this study why they want sex outside the relationship, their answers include the following responses:
“1. ‘All my sexual needs are not met by my partner. Sex together gets boring at times, and I need new material for my fantasies.’
“2. ‘My partner is not really my sexual type. I still like to have sex with a certain type of man.’
“3. ‘It’s fun and adventure. The more variety and number of partners, the more adventure and fun.’
“4. ‘I have some kinky sexual interests that my partner doesn’t share.’
“5. ‘We have found that having sex with others often enhances our sex together afterwards.’
“6. ‘Sometimes I do it with another guy because I’m so angry at my lover.’
“7. ‘At times I get scared with how emotionally tied to each other we are. Having outside sex at times gives me a temporary distance I feel I need to have from my lover.’ . . .
” ‘We’ve never felt that either of us should be sexual only with the other. From the beginning that was absurd. He knew as well as I that we would trick out, so why start our relationship by making rules and denying the probability?’ ”
Page 255:
“Many couples in the earliest years together linked faithfulness with sexual exclusivity, while couples with a longer history think faithfulness has little or nothing to do with sex.”
Page 256:
“As a result of this study, we believe that the single most important factor that keeps couples together past the ten-year mark is the lack of possessiveness they feel . . . by the end of the fifth year or relationship more than 95 percent are in this group [of ’sexual nonexclusivity’]. Bell and Weinberg warn: ‘Moreover, it should be recognized that what has survival value in a heterosexual context may be destructive in a homosexual context, and vice versa . . . .’ ”
McWhirter and Mattison conclude their discussion on page 259 by stating, “We do not trust it [the ’sexual monster’] in our partners, and least of all in ourselves.”
Intellectual honesty requires serious consideration of how these very real differences between heterosexual marriage and male couples affect the institution of marriage; whether that which “has survival value in a heterosexual context may be destructive in a homosexual context, and vice versa.” For just one example, should adultery be excluded from the reasons for divorces of male couples? The answer appears to be, yes. If the marriage laws apply equally to everyone, then adultery also must be excluded as a reason for divorce among heterosexuals. This also raises the very real question of why male couples should be excluded from marrying as many men as they would like.
Intellectual honesty also requires serious consideration of how these very real differences between heterosexual marriage and male couples affect the children raised in that environment. Accounts from those raised in environments of sexual licentiousness indicate that such an environment is very harmful to development.
Phil wrote: “Right now, only the fringers of both liberal and conservative movements advocate eliminating (and/or privatizing) state marriages altogether. . . If you really want to protect the institution of marriage, you would open it up to consenting adult couples who are being discriminated against without good reason”
In February 1972 the National Coalition of Gay Organizations met in Chicago to prepare a “gay stance for the 1972 elections.” About 200 individuals from 18 states representing 85 organizations showed up for the two-day event and adopted a list of 17 federal and state “demands,” including the following:
· “Repeal of all laws governing the age of sexual consent.”
· “Repeal of all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into a marriage unit; and the extension of legal benefits to all persons who cohabit regardless of sex or numbers.” (Note that it refers to “all” persons.)
On July 26, 2006 the Beyond Same-Sex Marriage manifesto was issued. It calls for extending all of the benefits of marriage to, among other relationships, the following:
· “Committed, loving households in which there is more than one conjugal partner”
· “Queer couples who decide to jointly create and raise a child with another queer person or couple, in two households”
The people putting out this manifesto are not fringe figures. The more than 300 signatories include feminist icon Gloria Steinem, NYU sociologist Judith Stacey, Columbia University anthropologist Elizabeth Povinelli, Georgetown law professors Robin West and Chai Feldblum, the Rev. Cecil Charles Prescod of Love Makes a Family, Inc., Yale law professor Kenji Yoshino, Princeton religion professor Cornel West, writer Barbara Ehrenreich, and Pat Clark, former executive director of the Fellowship of Reconciliation.
The intended result of all of these proposals, as some homosexual rights activists have admitted, is the effectual elimination of marriage as an institution.
Phil wrote to Dave: “Earlier you used the phrase ‘the laws of nature,’ and now you use the term ‘natural law.’ From a philosophical standpoint, the two are not synonymous.”
It is clear to any casual reader that Dave was not referring to a philosophical construct. In post #45 above you said something that is applicable here: “Instead of answering the question, you criticized the questioner, which made the question, given its sarcastic tone, more potent.”
You have shown that you are deft at changing the subject to avoid answering. I’m curious as to whether you are capable of answering Dave’s question.
Sodium Cyanide–
Was the book you mention in Note 61 a study of homosexual couples who were legally married? It’s not clear.
In Note 62, you cite the “National Coalition of Gay Organizations,” which no longer exists, but has become a conservative talking point. Since you claim that elimination of marriage is not a fringer position, would you agree with my contention that legalizing same-sex marriage is a way to protect the institution.
Note 63: “It is clear to any casual reader that Dave was not referring to a philosophical construct.”
I really don’t think that’s the case (that it’s clear.) Before answering an ambiguous question, it is important to clarify what is being asked.
Advocates of same-sex “marriage” will always be frustrated by linkage between the concept of marriage and the necessity of the procreative act in enabling society to survive through successive generations. It’s an argument they just can’t win. You may as well argue against the sun coming up in the morning.
They say it’s a circular argument. But the only circle in there is the “circle of life”. (OK, let’s all sing along, in the style of “The Lion King”)
They say it is an inherently unfair axiom that we impose to artificially exclude a whole category of people. But the axiom does not arise as a man-made creation. It is a fundamental truth of nature itself that male/female partnering is necessary for the continuance of the human race. When societies choose to place special importance and value upon those male/female partnerships, it is as a direct consequence of the natural order of things.
And yet when faced with this undeniable truth, they react like spoiled children by stomping their feet, pouting, and crying out, “it’s not fair!” (Hence the “granny angst”)
Stubbornly they refuse to admit the non-equivalence of opposite-sex unions and same-sex unions. And they continue onward in making their charges of bigotry and discrimination to any and all who disagree with their point of view.
I refuse to participate anymore in a circular meta-argument about an alleged circular argument. The fact that opposite-sex unions and same-sex unions are not equivalent is plain for all who have eyes to see. Those who persist in denial on this point are likely to remain hopelessly separated from a meaningful dialogue with us. Chalk it up to irreconcilable differences. There will always be some minority of people who chafe against the restrictions imposed by the rest of society, on any issue. Why should the question of same-sex unions be any different? Fortunately, the momentum is with the defenders of traditional marriage. Already 26 states have safeguarded marriage with constitutional amendments. And here in Connecticut we had an encouraging step in the right direction yesterday, with twice as many folks taking a stand for traditional marriage as the number who showed up to advocate for same-sex “marriage”.
In my view, the civil unions legislation passed last year already went too far in granting rights to same-sex couples, because it confers exactly the same rights as marriage except the name itself. The very language of our laws defines civil unions in terms of the pre-existing statutes for marriage. If there was to have been a category of recognition for same-sex couples, it should have been crafted as an independent body of statutes to address the specific issues pertinent when two people desire to enter into a contract of mutual commitment and support, without any implied notion of a sexual relationship. Why not allow two elderly sisters to create a legal union for mutual support? If the government truly has no business in one’s bedroom, then why is the existence of any sexual relationship relevant to the subject of such unions? The body of rights that arguably would have been appropriate for such unions ought to have been strictly confined to the nature of the contract between the two persons, and it should not have included additional rights with respect to children. Yes, share your money and property. Yes, designate inheritance rights. Yes, enable your partner to participate in health care decisions when you are incapacitated. But no, you ought not to receive the same preferential categorization with respect to taxes. And no, you ought not to be granted rights pertaining to children that approximate the qualities and characteristics of marriage.
Critics will say this is “separate and unequal” treatment. And I would admit this is true. But separate and unequal does not imply that it is unfair. The nature of same-sex unions and opposite-sex unions are not equal to begin with, and therefore the privileges granted by the government for these two uniquely different types of relationships have no need to be equal.
I will admit that there is a plausible ring of truth in the idea that committed relationships between same-sex couples might reduce infidelity within the gay community, and that this might produce some societal benefits – reductions in STDs, and perhaps even reductions in illegitimate births (from those who might have a propensity for bi-sexual affairs).
But regarding the notion of legitimizing same-sex couples with respect to child rearing, this does not seem a wise approach. Every child raised in such an environment is being deprived of its inherent right to either a father or mother. It seems the potential harm to children is the factor to which ought to give the most weight, notwithstanding the same-sex couples’ desire to have the freedom to share custody and responsibility for children.
Some have said that legalizing same-sex unions would increase religious freedom, since some religions currently have rites to bless such relationships. This is a spurious claim. All such faiths are free to act in this way under existing law, and indeed were able to do so even before our civil union legislation was passed.
I’m sure that the people who desire to create a same-sex union believe that the arrangement will be mutually beneficial in many ways – to themselves. But that’s not enough of a reason for their union to be elevated above the status of an ordinary contract. What really matters, in justifying the special privileges to be granted by the government, is demonstrating the benefits to society at large. So far, the one credible societal benefit we’ve heard is the notion of same-sex fidelity within such unions. Statistics currently suggest otherwise in situations lacking the formal memorialization of such a union, but it is at least plausible that those figures might change in the light of a sincere and legal commitment. Nevertheless, that’s only one societal benefit, which in no way compares with the scope of societal benefits derived from traditional marriages. Consequently it seems perfectly reasonable to consider same-sex unions as being less deserving of special privileges than opposite-sex unions.
I still eagerly await Phil’s elucidation with respect to either the laws of nature, or the aspects of natural law, that he feels we ought to set aside. By the way, the phrase “natural law” is not inherently coupled with a religious viewpoint. It is merely a reference to ethics and principles of law that are operative universally. It was actually the Greek philosophers Socrates, Plato and Aristotle who posited the existence of these principles. So I see no reason to object to the question regardless of the nomenclature. But if you see a difference between the two, just take your pick, and elaborate or whatever it was in nature that you implied we ought to set aside.
Phil,
Before answering an ambiguous question, it is important to clarify what is being asked. Which specific conclusions and behaviors discussed by McWhirter and Mattison in post #61 do you believe would be dependent on whether or not the male couples were legally married? Are you claiming that the homosexual couples who lobbied so hard for marriage in Massachusetts changed their sexual behavior after the court imposed same-sex ‘marriage’? If so, how?
Also, you state that the National Coalition of Gay Organizations no longer exists and has become “a conservative talking point.” You say that apropos of nothing. Are you claiming that they and their platform developed by about 200 individuals from 18 states and 85 organizations represent “only the fringers”? Is it your position that tenets of a homosexual rights group cease to be acceptable if they become a conservative talking point? Do you claim that the group’s successors have rejected the prior platform? Is so, where is that documented?
You ask “would you agree with my contention that legalizing same-sex marriage is a way to protect the institution[?]” Would you agree that pulling the plug on a sick patient is a way to protect the patient’s health?
Finally, given that Dave was responding to your remark, “Do you believe we should follow all of the laws of nature, all of the time, or do we pick and choose?” which in turn was in response to Dave’s discussion of the biological nature of marriage, please explain how you conclude that he was potentially discussing something else entirely? Are we to infer that you are not intelligent enough to put a discussion into its logical context? Whether or not you can do that, I’m still curious as to whether you are capable of answering Dave’s question. Well?
Advocates of same-sex “marriage” will always be frustrated by linkage between the concept of marriage and the necessity of the procreative act in enabling society to survive through successive generations. It’s an argument they just can’t win. You may as well argue against the sun coming up in the morning.
There are loads of species that propagate through the ages quite successfully without the institution of marriage. Most without even acknowledging monogamy. Marriage establishes a socially-constructed institution that by no means requires child-producing, and child-producing by no means requires marriage. You just spent 1100 words making a fool of yourself, prattling on about “natural law” and marriage.
But all that aside, isn’t it more than just a little perverse to be arguing that we face a serious threat of underpopulation? One might say that increased homosexuality is a natural response to dwindling natural resources and overpopulation.
“Do you, Fido, take thee, Rover, to be your lawfully wedded pooch?”
Matt thinks the absence of marriage in the animal kingdom is an argument against natural law…and then calls other people fools. You gotta love it.
For more about the secular arguments against same-sex marriage, I would like to suggest the following articles:
Adam Kolasinski, “The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage” (M.I.T.’s newspaper, “The Tech”) — http://www-tech.mit.edu/V124/N5/kolasinski.5c.html
Prof. Margaret Somerville (McGill University), “The Case Against Same-Sex Marriage” — http://www.marriageinstitute.ca/images/somerville.pdf
Compare these well-reasoned positions to the ravings of the Left in desiring to undermine public morality. It is amusing to observe how differently the folks on the Left seem to work through their thinking processes.
Hey NaCn,
While I don’t have time right now to answer all of your eleven questions, I’ll try to quickly answer the one that pops up multiple times. When you say “Are you claiming…[insert supposition here]?” –the answer is generally no. A question is not a claim, especially if it’s a genuine effort to seek more information.
Re: The National Coalition of Gay Organizations. My point that it’s a Republican talking point is that the only people who seem to be taking them very seriously are conservatives. The general gay populace isn’t quite so extreme. For comparison, both the KKK and Fred Phelps oppose gay marriage, and yet it would be unfair to act as if they represent all conservatives.
Phil,
In post #60 you wrote that “only the fringers . . . advocate eliminating (and/or privatizing) state marriages altogether.” Now you state in #70 that the “general gay populace” isn’t quite so extreme as the National Coalition of Gay Organizations. Then in the same paragraph you move the target yet again by complaining that it is not fair to state that groups “represent all.”
Your moving the target appears to be a tacit concession that your “only the fringers” argument is unsustainable. This, together with the facts in post #62, leads to the inescapable conclusion that a significant part of the gay-marriage movement wants to eliminate marriage, and completely unmans your argument that granting same-sex ‘marriage’ would in any way protect marriage. It appears you owe Dave an apology.
As to my questions, I took my lead from you: “It seems like a pretty reasonable [application] of reductio ad absurdum.” Great tool. Thanks.
One more thing. I’m still waiting for you to answer Dave’s question.
Dave,
Just a quick note–
Having read Kolasinki’s essay, I thought I’d point out a logic error he makes because it’s common to SSM foes. He cites David Popenoe’s Life Without Father as a publication which provides evidence that children need a male influence while growing up.
In actuality, the studies Popenoe writes about compared the lives of children who had a mother and a father to children who were raised by a single mother. He does not have the data to make a comparison between children raised by single mothers versus children raised in a two-parent home consisting of two mothers.
It’s easy to engage in fallacious reasoning when working from statistical data. For example, I might note that 50% of heterosexual marriages end in divorce, while only 25% of gay couples raise children.
So, if our concern is that we don’t want a child to be raised without a father, we can see that heterosexual marriages are twice as likely to lead to fatherless children as are gay marriages.
I know it might sound like strong evidence against heterosexual marriage, but I caution you that it would be just as wrong to discriminate against heterosexuals as it would to discriminate against homosexuals.
Phil,
I share your concern about children being raised without a father.
However, I do not agree with your inference that a 50% divorce rate equates to 50% of those children being raised without a father … because many fathers remain involved in their children’s lives after a divorce. In some cases, arrangements are made for shared custody; and in other cases, there is at least some mutually agreed schedule of visitations. It is not as though the father (or the mother, if the primary custody is determined in the reverse direction by the terms of the divorce) simply vanishes from any relationship with his (or her) children. And even if the father were to be removed from the child’s life altogether in the wake of the divorce, the child still had the benefit of a father in the years preceding the divorce. Hence the impact would depend upon the age of children at the time of divorce, which could bring them into their teenage years. We would probably need to consider input from child psychologists on this point, but I’d argue that it is in fact during the earliest years of life – as an infant, toddler, and preschool youth – that a child is most influenced by their parents. Finally, we haven’t even considered the statistics of remarriage in this analysis. The majority of divorced women actually remarry afterwards. Step-fathers can also provide a beneficial influence to children, in the absence of their natural father.
You are right in saying there is not