No wedding, no benefits

Only the union of a man and a woman can result in the natural reproduction that is essential literally to continue the human race.

So, let me make sure I understand; Only those who are capable of procreating and / or are currently raising their own children qualify for 'marriage benefits'?

What of those who either intend to never have children, or those who are either by choice or by accident, or by nature, unable to have children, such as those who have had surgery which makes them sterile, or have had an accident rendering them incapable of having children, or have reached the age where having children is no longer possible? Shall we issue a law preventing them from marriage? What of those who are married, but have no children at home, and don't intend to have any more? Should they be forced to divorce, or at least abdicate all 'benefits' such as the ability to visit in the hospital, make decisions for their medical treatment, or inherit their partner's estates?

What of those who adopt? You are quite clear that only the biological parents are capable of providing the best possible environment. Obviously, adopted children can not benefit from this, and thus, those who adopt orphans or abandoned children should not receive the benefits that a married man and woman raising their own child are entitled to.

I see that only approved entries will be posted. I don't expect that this, pointing out the fallacies of your argument, will ever see the light of day.

1. As has been pointed out many times before, those who argue that gays should not be permitted to marry because they are unable to reproduce without assistance are strangely reluctant to apply exactly the same reasoning to sterile heterosexual couples - and they never even bother to provide an excuse, only remain silent in my experience.

2. Sprigg *explicitly* states that biological parents are more fit to raise children than adoptive parents. Not only does he provide not one shread of evidence for this, but its in stark contrast to his policies regarding adoption, which I have seen elsewhere to be broadly in favor.

3. The whole argument given by Sprigg is circular: Only heterosexuals can marry because only heterosexuals are entitled to marry. Only heterosexuals are entitled to marry because only heterosexuals can marry. The whole thing is then wrapped up in some pious-sounding but ultimately meaningless appeal to the idea of 'authentic' marriage - which is, again, circular, when 'authentic' is taken to mean 'status quo.'

It is refreshing to hear someone speak their mind in regards to the institution of marriage. I wholeheartedly agree that marriage should only be recognized as the legal union between a man and a woman. Afterall, the Lord created Adam and Eve, man and woman.

In regards to children, I do not feel they are a necessity in order for spouses to receive benefits. However, the Lord commanded Adam and Eve to "be fruitful and multiply." Therefore, one of the goals of marriage should be to raise a family, if at all possible. When a couple does not have children due to nature or accidents and does not have the opportunity to adopt, that is understandable. I personally know a wonderful couple in that situation who have helped in raising many children in their neighborhood and church. However, should a couple choose to not have children, this is one of the most selfish choices any two people can make.

The partners in so-called "domestic unions" - whether homosexual or heterosexual - should not be entitled to the same benefits as legally married couples. We who believe in the traditional Christian values of marriage and family must stand up and be heard to prevent this nation from undermining the very institution which is central to our Creator's plan for His children.

I am grateful for the opportunity to voice my opinion and hope that many more will do the same.

Hopkins and Raven essentially make the same arguments. Here are some responses.

Regarding infertile heterosexual couples being permitted to marry, allow me to quote my book Outrage:

"[L]imiting marriage to fertile heterosexual couples who intend to have children would require an oppressive government bureaucracy. Do we want the government to ask every young couple applying for a marriage license about their intention to have children? Not only would this be a significant invasion of the couple's privacy, it is a question that many couples couldn't answer. Apart from the question of the couple's intent, do we want the state evaluating a couple's fertility" . . .

"Rather than determine eligibility for marriage in terms of the actual procreative intent or capacity of any one couple, we simply define the structure of marriage as being open to the entire class of couples that are even theoretically capable of natural reproduction--namely, opposite-sex ones--and we exclude an entire class of couples that are intrinsically infertile--namely, same-sex ones. Drawing the line in this way is not at all arbitrary?it is simple logic."

--Peter Sprigg, Outrage: How Gay Activists and Liberal Judges Are Trashing Democracy to Redefine Marriage (Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing, Inc., 2004), pp. 61-62

Regarding biological parents:

Family scholar David Popenoe has written, "Few propositions have more empirical support in the social sciences than this one: Compared to all other family forms, families headed by married, biological parents are best for children." The nonpartisan research center Child Trends has said that "research clearly demonstrates that family structure matters for children, and the family structure that helps children the most is a family headed by two biological parents in a low-conflict marriage," adding that "it is not simply the presence of two parents, as some have assumed, but the presence of two biological parents that seems to support children's development."

Regarding adoption:

It is true that the Family Research Council strongly supports adoption, particularly as an alternative to abortion or to single parenthood. However, we believe that every effort should be made to provide adoptive children with a married mother and father, in order to reproduce as closely as possible the circumstances of the natural family. The distinction made regarding biological parents is primarily because the research has identified significant problems in stepparent households, not in adoptive ones. (Most homosexual couples raising children constitute, in effect, "stepparent households," because most such children are the biological child of one partner who was conceived in a previous heterosexual relationship).

Regarding "circular" arguments:

My argument is that only opposite-sex couples can marry because only opposite-sex couples can reproduce by natural means and only opposite-sex couples can provide a child with both a mother and a father. This is simply a biological fact?there is nothing circular about it.

Incidentally, not only "heterosexuals" can marry. Many people who currently identify themselves as "homosexual" have previously been married to people of the opposite sex. Many people who once identified themselves as homosexual have abandoned that identification and are currently married to people of the opposite sex. I reject altogether the premise that there is a fixed class of people for whom being "homosexual" is an immutable and innate part of their inherent identity. Marriage laws make no distinction based on "sexual orientation," but they do make them based on gender. The public purpose of marriage is to bridge the gender gap within the human race by bringing men and women together.

Thank you for taking the time to reply, Sprigg. I do not agree with your arguments, but I can see you have given much thought to them.

Firstly, regarding infertile couples, you have pointed out that there would be a lot of practical and privacy-related difficulties in screening couples for fertility and intent prior to marriage. I would be interested to hear your position in the hypothetical situation of these being solved. The means is unimportant - imagine perhaps a magic black box was invented that would determine in seconds if someone is fertile. With the practical problems out the way, what would your policy regarding couples with one or both members infertile be? Allow them to marry, or not? I am curious if presenting this (unrealistic) scenario might highlight the contradiction in your position.

Secondly, regarding both biological parents and adoption, something odd catches my attention. You argue that the ideal situation in which to raise children is with their two biological parents. Failing this, adoption is a second prefered option. 'Stepparent' families, in which one parent is biological and the other adoptive, would be expected to fall somewhere between these. Yet you seem to rank them last. It seems strange. It also presents the problem that this class of family is quite common amoung heterosexuals, produced as a result of a divorce or death of one parent and later remarriage - there seems no reason to treat the children any differently if their remaining parent chooses to marry a same or opposite gender partner.

Also, you claim research has identified problems in stepparent households over adoptive ones. I am not familiar with this research, but would it not produced the rather unpleasant consequence that the best interests of a child of divorced parents would be served by seperating them from both parents, and resettling them with an adoptive couple? Assuming one could be found, of course.

As part of your arguments, you summarise that "only opposite-sex couples can marry because only opposite-sex couples can reproduce by natural means and only opposite-sex couples can provide a child with both a mother and a father." This is true, but it is not sufficient to justify the conclusions you reach from it. Firstly, you imply that natural means are to be considered seperate from artificial means. Homosexual couples are capable of producing children, though only one member of the couple would be a biological parent, and assistance is required. Genetically, this would be equivilent to the stepparent household which is produced as a consequence of broken heterosexual marriage. Since you consider these marriages valid, it implies that you should consider the equivilent homosexual couple and child of similar status. (Personally, I would consider it more socially responsible to adopt an existing child as there is a bit of an excess of those, but this is not relivent to our argument.)

Secondly, you claim that it is important that a couple can provide children with both a mother and a father. You do not show why is is important that the parents be of differing gender.

Regarding your last paragraph, it does seem that bisexuals are frequently overlooked in these debates. Unfortunate for them, perhaps, as they are those most likely to be placed in the awkward situation of wishing to enter a homosexual relationship while trying to raise children from a previous heterosexual relationship. I do believe that sexual orientation can change, very rarely, but do not believe it can be changed by deliberate attempt - were this the case, there would be very few homosexuals, as their is no apparent reason someone would 'choose' that orientation after considering the social disadvantages it brings.

Finally, you state that "The public purpose of marriage is to bridge the gender gap within the human race by bringing men and women together." This seems to be a very narrow view, as marriage clearly has a great number of public purposes. It encourages couples to commit, increasing the duration of their relationships. In doing so it provides a more suitable environment than an unmarried couple. It is a distinction of convenience in matters financial, allowing couples with a legally recognised marriage to pair their finances for improved economic success and for shared ownership of property. Some of these purposes are related to the optimal raising of children, but certinly not all.

Very importantly, a legal recognition of a relationship allows for inheritence, hospital visitation rights, the recognition of dependents in tax breaks, and much else. All of these have nothing whatsoever to do with children, so even if all the reproduction-related issues we have been discussing are dismissed for the sake of argument, it seems clear that the current situation deprives homosexual couples of rights and privilidges which heterosexual couples are able (with a little paperwork) to recieve - and there is no sound reason for making the distinction. After all, homosexual couples are not going to breed accidentially, so why should reproduction even be relivent to all the non-child-related rights of marriage? This seem to be a sound argument for some form of civil union, rather than marriage - a means of recognising at least those aspects of marriage which are not related to children, and allowing homosexual couples equal status within those aspects.

There are a couple logical holes in your protestations of oppresive government intrusion into our privacy.

For instance, we can surely do better than a broad sweeping generalization that anyone who is 'theoretically' capable of reproducing should be eligible for these beneits.

What about people age 40 or older? You're aware, I presume, that children borne to women age 40 or older are more prone to defects, Down syndrome and the like. Assuming that reproduction is for the good of the nation (which I don't agree with, but it's your premise)then reproduction which is more likely than not to be a burden both to the parents and the nation in additional support and expense must surely be a circumstance to be avoided at all costs, yes?
So the easy out is to make marriage only available to those under the age of 40. You avoid asking if the women have gone through menopause, and you don't invade privacy any more than is currently done. Birthdates are a part of most marriage licenses, and less intrusive than even asking gender.

So, having further refined the weeding out without inflicting oppressive government intrusion into our lives, we have eliminated marriage for any woman over 40.

Since reproduction is the only reason for government benefits, they certainly can't complain, can they? Also, once any woman reaches the age of 40, divorce ought to be automatic. You could offer a temporary stay if they still have children under the age of 18, at least until the child reaches majority. This would help ease the trauma of so many vicious divorces that happen these days. If it's illegal for a woman past her childbearing years to be married, then it's nothing personal, and the normal trauma of a divorce would be diminished.

This will create jobs in the legal field as processing these auto-divorces becomes routine, not to mention prenup agreements will become a natural part of the process, since the eventual divorce is not just likely, but required under law!

I'm starting to see what you mean here. It's obvious that you have people's best intersts at heart. When will we be seeing the call for legislation to outlaw marriage for women over 40?

As far as young people are concerned, you say that the question of whether or not they want children at all is one they may not be able to answer. How can this possibly be? If marriage benefits are reciprocation from the government for the potential benefit of reproducing, then the couple must be intent on attempting to have children, or else they are gulty of fraud, in that they are accepting the government issued benefits under false pretenses. In order to better prosecute these cases, a simple question of their intent to have children assures that a failure to do so and a failure to show cause why they didn't after a set number of years will result in an easy guilty verdict. The state can then dissolve the marriage, and liquidate whatever assets are required to compensate the state for its loss in this fraud. Simple!
You assert that you intend to have children when you marry, and after 5 yars, if you haven't reproduced, you voluntarily divorce, and pay a fine to reimburse the nation for its outlay. Failure to do so puts you in court for fraud.

Of course, there's easier ways. When a couple marries, they get none of the benefits of marriage until such time as they produce issue. No family rates on insurance, no tax credits, no rights of visitation in hospitals or inheritance or any of the myriad other rights our government conveys on married couples, until such time as they reproduce. Once their last child has left home, marriage benefits cease.

This avoids the whole question of intent and fraud, and divorce, and leaves marriage outside the law.
That is, after all, the logical progression of your position. Marriage should not be under the purview of the government. If reproduction is the benefit to which the government benefits are incentive, then only issue the benefits to those families which reproduce. Nothing to adoptees, nothing to single mothers, nothing to single fathers. Only those male and female couples which produce issue get benefits.

And, I'm sorry, but at that point, the question of whether or not they are married is nobody's business, since you have clearly stated that the best parents for a child are the biological mother and father. Surely their particular choice of ceremony can have no bearing on their ability to parent, if the mere fact of their biological relationship to the child supercedes all experience, training, maturity or mental health.

"Regarding adoption:

It is true that the Family Research Council strongly supports adoption, particularly as an alternative to abortion or to single parenthood. However, we believe that every effort should be made to provide adoptive children with a married mother and father, in order to reproduce as closely as possible the circumstances of the natural family."

A "natural family" is a family that loves each other with all of their hearts, regardless of gender.

A "natural family" is a family that is going to be there for each other and care about each other and accept one another no matter who they are or what society deems correct.

What happened to love? Where did acceptance go? What is happening to us? We're so wrapped up i our own values and beliefs that we can't see all of the opportunities for us to grow and learn from each other. We're tearing each other apart, and it's hurting our youth.

I hope that one day there will be no discrimination, and that everyone-and I mean everyone-can live in happiness with the ones they love the most.