(I Am) Definitely Inarticulate on this Marriage Thing

Let me state again. I am against the state recognizing 'marriage'. Civil unions should be recognized under the law, marriage should be something between the parties involved and their religion if applicable.

I understand your point but, to me, it borders on semantics. Okay, the State, using the tools and incentives at its disposal, has chosen to promote what it sees as the ideal civil union.

The brief focuses heavily on the aspect of procreation and raising children which it states by definition excludes same sex couples form 'marriage'. But what about those same sex couples who adopt kids? This has to be addressed. If you don't think they should be able to adopt, then come out and say it. Fine.

I am deeply conflicted on this point myself. So far as I can tell, I am not against the adoption of children by gay couples (and I wonder what the laws are here... Is it really an adoption by ONE member of the gay couple--given that in most states gays cannot form a legal "couple?" If so, why not, then, adoption by gay groups? Or heterosexual groups? Or polygamists? etc.); I agree with the idea that adoption by a gay couple likely leads to better outcomes for the adoptee--especially vis-a-vis, e.g., single mothers (I think statistics bears this out).

That said: what other entities can adopt? Can a single parent adopt? Can a cohabitiating but unmarried couple adopt? If so--and I know that to be the case--then it is proven that adopting does not require marriage.

Recall that the ideal expressed by the State is that of a child raised in a stable, low-volatility marriage and by its own biological parents. By definition (under current technology), any gay couple will be missing at least one of the child's biological parents.

So, I am conflicted there, but so far I do not think that the ability of any family unit to adopt requires that that family unit also be required to form a legal marriage.

Finally, I think the most important thing for children is to be in a house with happy and loving parents.

Agreed.

Any Specialist will say this. I did not grow up in the happiest household. I wanted my parents to divorce if it would make them happier. Seeing your parents as happy residents of our planet has the greatest positive effect.

I agree in principle; hower, divorce has been shown to be devastating to children. Indeed, apparently a "cold" marriage (as distinct from an abusive home, by the way) is better than a broken marriage. Another great stat has to do with happiness following divorce--one major study (and forgive me for not providing a link; I am going off memory, but that is why G-d made G--gle, right?) showed something like that among couples planning divorce, five years after the decision, those choosing divorce were not happier (and we all know the stats about women suffering financially and men suffering emotionally and physically...); the SURPRISE finding was that those who decided to stay together (usually "for the sake of the children") were much HAPPIER than at the time of the crisis... Now, of course there may be specific cases and details--e.g., perhaps those choosing to stay together simply had more willpower, I dunno--but more generally it seems that happiness in marriage has more to do with commitment to the MARRIAGE (as opposed to the SPOUSE) than is generally understood. Happiness is a funny thing...

I am for reformation of marriage and divorce laws: marriage should be harder and divorce more difficult... (i.e., take responsibility for your choices), but that is another story.

I'm against affirmative action, flat out.

It is my view that affirmative action has, on balance, done more damage than good. It seems to benefit disproportionately those who did not really need it, while making life more difficult for those who should objectively benefit. There is often a disconnect between philosophy and reality, between concept and execution.

This is easy and it is consistent with my philosophy, but help me understand why I should be for state sanctioned marriage that simultaneously opposes same sex couples.

• I consider homosexuality to be one of many "natural" modes of human existence. (Hence, Nature has some effect on one's sexuality.)
• I consider sexuality to exist in a continuum, and not in a binary form. (Hence, Nurture--or choice--has some effect on one's sexuality.)
• Consenting adults should be largely free to conduct themselves as they see fit in the privacy of their homes (this extends along quite a spectrum of human activity).
• Opting out of whatever the society in which one operates deems "ideal" (or worthy of promotion or of incentives or tax breaks or what have you) is certainly a right, but with that right comes responsibility and, hence, the consequences are not always fully protected (i.e., do not and should not benefit from the incentives and promotions put in place by society; in other words, because something is NOT ILLEGAL does not make it worthy of REWARD).

Society sets limits around certain activities, e.g., murder (generally bad, although revenge killings were protected at times, and honor killings are still common in some societies), underage drinking (variable over time and place), exploitation of children (variable over time and place), driving (age limits and certain testable, mental, and physical requirements), and marriage (another regulated activity).

We set certain limits on marriage, e.g., marriage to children (variable over time, but generally with some lower limit in the U.S.), blood relations (variable by state but with some lower limit), one spouse at a time (even advocates of so-called gay marriage do not, at this time, seek to overturn the one-per-customer rule; as an aside, it seems absurd to me that we allow all the activities of polygamy--indeed, some "celebrities" brag about it--but refuse legal recognition, but I find it important that we DO exclude polygamy, at least in the U.S., from what is acceptable). So, we have the generally accepted power to limit certain classes of people from "marrying."

What, then, are the classes we allow and why?

My arguments are rather banal, but settle still on the idea that babies will be born regardless of all other considerations, and that to the extent possible, we would do well to promote the vehicle proven optimal for those children and, for other reasons still under debate and attack, for the parties involved and for the nation as a whole, i.e., a stable, low-conflict marriage consisting of that child's biological parents.

• YES other modes exist--and should be allowed to exist (although society's acceptance of single-parent households is, like affirmative action, ultimately and on balance.
• YES families disintergrate and re-form (although we should really work on this, for everyone's benefit)
• YES children adopted by non-traditional families are likely better off than remaining unadopted
  Given that we set limits (do you agree that we should?), how do we define those limits? In other words (and once again) what is marriage for and why do we care?

Currently, I take the stance opposite yours: you posit that ALL units (btw, do you exclude ANY configurations? If so, which and why?) should receive government recognition, leaving it to the non-governmental organizations (e.g., churches) to pick and choose what they will permit or deny.*I* say, get "married" (or whatever verb you want to use) in whatever non-governmental faciltiy you choose (Wiccan, Unitarian, Gaian, Druid, Atheist, Forest of Arden, WHATEVER), but reserve governmental sanction for that which has been proven ideal for children and, hence eventually, society in general.

I remain unconvinced that marriage is irrelevant, unsalvagable, or dead. Instead of furthering its demise, however, I would prefer to bolster it.
--
Getting long-winded here. Let me summarize your questions and my response:
You asked "what about adoptions by same-sex units"; I say "Fine: lump 'em in with all other non-marriages, gotta be better'n the orphanage..."

You asked "aren't happy parents better than unhappy parents?"; I say "Sure: ideally, a child's biological parents would be in a happy marriage; I am against outlawing other sub-optimal configurations, but denying that they are sub-optimal does not stop them from being so."
You stated that you are against affirmative action; I agree, generally, but ask that you expand your lens of "enhanced individual/civil rights" to examine, e.g., the effect of the weakening of marriage. By "empowering" (some) women, women are more apt to choose out-of-wedlock motherhood, a proven path (at the macro level) to sub-optimal outcomes for ALL involved. BTW, not only does single motherhood hurt women and children, it hurts MEN as well, as they are "free" to remain the boorish children that they would like to be and are stripped of the proven health and financial benefits of marriage and fatherhood. My take is that this is a vicious cycle, and I am concerned about the end-point. But these ideas require much more space to examine and develop...

This is a collective good versus individual rights thing... and the tilt over the last few decades has been decidedly towards the individual, and now the group (the U.S., society, humankind, whatever) is suffering. JUST AS AFFIRMATIVE ACTION has led to unintended and detrimental macro-outcomes, so has the emphasis on "individual rights" generally (to include the weakening of marriage).

The rest of my stance is that A)any group can use the legal (contract) system to protect rights and wealth; no one (of import) is seeking to outlaw homosexuality or the right of individuals to consort with whom they choose and B)if we are going to expand the franchise then, please, let's be honest and either expand it universally (which we are not) or dissolve it (which you, among others, appear to seek).

I, for one, perceive societal value in the institution of marriage, hence I choose not to promote its dissolution; further, I do not perceive that any marginal benefit obtained through expansion of the franchise outweighs any potential long-term damage, either direct (via further weakening of the bonds between men and women or between progenitors and their children) or indirectly (through losing the ability to logically defend "marriage" against further expansion to other interested parties).

Marrying My Father (The First of the "Defining Moments" Series

What is the limit of the father/son bond? How far should one be willing to go for one's father?

For certain reasons, my father came to live with me when I was a graduate student. He was elderly, destitute, and in failing health. My school had a policy of extending health benefits to same-sex partners. The two written conditions were that the two parties be "emotionally and financially intertwined." Despite meeting the stated requirements, the school's position was that father-son relationships did not qualify. (I will also spare you the disdain, humiliation and, ultmately, the threat of legal action that I withstood in pursuit of health care for my ailing father.)

Had the state had some sort of civil union statute and I had pursued the matter, should I have been allowed to "marry" my father? If not, why not? What if he were my stepfather, i.e., no blood relation, what then?

Pesky Marriage "Debate"

Some people are not legally married, but go to a priest or minister or rabbi or whatever and become married "in their hearts" as they like to say. Is that a marriage? A civil union? Both? Neither?
Without government imprimatur, it is not a legal marriage (even common-law marriages require legal imprimatur, even if only post hoc, i.e., they are deemed, retroactively, to have been legal marriages). How people "feel" (even "in their hearts") is irrelevant to the law.
It can't be a civil union, because it was not a legal union, but a religious one. So...is it a marriage or not?
Do you include two non-religious folks who pledge fidelity in, say, a Shaman ceremony? Wiccan? Gaian? Klingon? How about two children? The requirements of a legal marriage are clearly specified in the laws of each state. Once again, a marriage outside of government sanction is not a legal marriage (you know, that whole separation of church and state thing...)
If there is no difference between a marriage and a civil union, then what is the debate about?
Who said there is no difference?
Are you really committed to understanding the mainstream point of view vis-a-vis marriage? Let us find out!

Defining marriage (outside of the federal definition of a legal and state-sanctioned union between one man and one woman who meet eligibility standards) is not easy, and anti-marriage activists use that difficulty to their advantage, claiming that "universal marriage" is about equal rights, which it isn't. Examples include polygamy (although it is perfectly legal to father children among multiple women simultaneously, the U.S. government chooses not to sanction it, not even if all other "common law" definitions have been met; conversely, one woman can bear several men's children--sometimes simultaneously, believe it or not--yet these men will not be classed as her husbands) and marriage between certain blood relations (although this varies by state). My point here is that we (generally) agree that certain classes of adult-consented unions do not meet our definition of marriage (even an unspecified definition, i.e., we just know "that ain't right"). Right? So it is *not* strictly an "equal rights" issue.

So, what is marriage then or, rather, why do we care to define it at the federal level?
Because the State has an interest in promoting certain behaviors. Think broadly: the State rewards you for all sorts of things--charitable donations comes to mind. The government also encourages certain behaviors ("be wise, ex-er-cise, move a-round, have some fun"; "It's a matter of life--and breath"; etc.) because the State has an interest in promoting positive behaviors (a cynic might add--to increase lifetime tax revenues, but I digress...).

Let us shoot up to the macro-level; ready? First, remember that our government is of, by, and for the people. Our government (and, hence, we as a nation) recognize and have decided to codify that:

• Children represent the future (literally), and thus,
• Societies need babies.
• Men and women, despite any and all technological (e.g., birth control) or governmental (e.g., China) controls, are GOING TO MAKE BABIES.
• Currently (and for the preceding millenia) babies can ONLY BE MADE BY ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN.
• Ideally (and I am not pulling this out of my butt, I am merely reminding you of the concepts underlying oru marriage laws, i.e., what marriage is and why it is important--I repeat, IDEALLY), any and all children will be raised in a family structure headed by two biological parents in a low-conflict marriage.
  

Children in single-parent families, children born to unmarried mothers, and children in stepfamilies or cohabiting relationships face higher risks of poor outcomes; while such sub-optimal structures exist should--and not bring condemnation per se--the fact remains that FROM THE STATE'S PERSPECTIVE, there is value in promoting strong, stable marriages between biological parents.

And before you get going on the "not all marriages produce children," YES, THE STATE IS AWARE OF THAT, but the State is (thankfully) not in the business of figuring out whether any individual is fertile or not--it is unimportant from the macro level. Further, before you get going on the "marriage is not about children," uh, yes, from the State's perspective, it IS about family (to include children). Let us delve a little further; remember, the State ALLOWS other formats, but it holds out as IDEAL(via benefits and incentives) the one man/one woman set-up.
Remember: you are ALLOWED to be a lousy driver, but the BEST drivers enjoy premium rates. You are ALLOWED to cohabitate with whomever (or however many) you choose (and praise be!), but if you seek the State's Stamp of Approval, you're gonna play by thesociety's (current) rules as enforced via the mechanism of government.

So...why is the State against so-called gay marriage? Because it falls away from the ideal. Just as homosexuality is not "normal" (in the statistical sense), only ONE format (of anything, really) can be ideal. I am not saying that gay couples represent worse outcomes than any other variation (e.g., heterosexual cohabitiation, serial marriage, or whatever), I am saying that only ONE is IDEAL (and our society and government--and most of the world--have decided, based on experience, research, and Darwin, that the IDEAL is one man + one woman).

Sure, marriages suffer all sorts of problems--so does any human endeavor. Ideals, by their nature, are difficult to achieve. By including same-sex couples (and excluding other viable alternatives, by the way), the government would be inluding that format in its espoused ideal.
Whew! hope that made sense.

By the way--if you actually read what I wrote, and chose to understand the reasoning, congrats! Believe me, I understand the opposing view, I even empathize with the mechanics of the argument at the individual level. Where I differ is that weigh the societal good (large) differently than the perceived marginal individual "good" in this case.

Further reading: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=2939&R=1136C2029D