Right Matters on "A Judge's Marriage Decree"

Why did you take down Suricou Raven's comment? can it be that you can't refute the arguments that were posted here this morning?

I know you're 'concerned', but don't worry. Everything will be ok. Gay people will marry. They will live on your street. They will cut their grass and help you shovel your car out of the snow. And then your concerns will melt away.

Interesting... I saw my post appear here, and now it vanishes. Confirmation that the moderator here *does* block posts purely for disagreeing with the FRC position, because it was a quite well-written and not (very) insulting post.

If you strip away the sentimental and religious meaning of civil marriage, it is, after all is said and done, a contract. Marriage has evolved, pardon the expression, throughout the existence of the institution. It wasn't always what it is today. Who is to say that it always has to be what it is today?

If society is going to confer the legal benefits of marriage on its citizens, what is the rationale for denying all citizens the right to take part? If a woman can enter into a contract to purchase a car, why can't she enter into a contract to marry the spouse of her choice?

I am familiar with the "slippery slope" argument.

"If a man can marry a man," say the opponents of same-sex marriage, "then what's to stop a man from marrying a dog?"

The simplest answer to that question is, a dog has no legal standing to enter into a contract. Therefore, man-beast marriage could never take place.

So, really, besides bigotry against gays and lesbians, what is the rationale for not allowing two consenting adults, regardless of their gender, from entering into a civil marriage contract?

Much my point, Uncommon. Only my point was quietly slipper into the memory hole.

This debate isn't the first over a change in marriage. I can think of five times in the past a similar debate has been struck up:

1. The introduction of greater ownership rights for women.
2. The legalisation (Against the majority view, by judicial ruling) of interracial marriage.
3. The introduction of widely available contraception, and in particular the Pill.
4. Inceased availability of education to women.
5. Easier divorce laws, in particular no-fault divorce.

The arguments used in each case were much the same as those seen today:
"This will destroy marriage,"
"This is an assault on decency and moral values,"
"This removes all incentive to marry,"
"This is one level away from legalising incest, bestiality and pedophilia,"
and so forth.

The arguments didn't work then, and they dont work now, because they are a mixture of the false, the rediculous, and the irrelivent.

Uncommon Sense wrote:

"So, really, besides bigotry against gays and lesbians, what is the rationale for not allowing two consenting adults, regardless of their gender, from entering into a civil marriage contract?"

Let's try this on for size:

"So, really, besides bigotry against polygamists and bigamists, what is the rationale for not allowing three consenting adults, regardless of their gender, from entering into a civil marriage contract?"

The point here is that the slippery slope argument--far from plausibility in the abstract--is already reality. See http://www.sltrib.com/polygamy/ci_6751454.

If the plaintiffs had standing, heck, if their case were heard by the Ninth Circuit, we could have a very different outcome. It is disingenuous for those who advocate same sex marriage to pretend their arguments do not also support polygamous unions and other marriage counterfeits. Of course, admitting this is counterproductive to the incremental gains strategy. (After all, the nation still hasn't exactly warmed up same sex marriage.)

Unless of course, same sex marriage advocates are just plain bigoted against polygamists. Which makes one wonder, on what grounds?

If you're going to change the definition of an institution that predates government and law as we know it, why stop with same sex couples? Anyone?

There are rational, compelling reasons to support the traditional definition of marriage. Redefine marriage, and there is simply no rational stopping point. Is it possible that same sex marriage advocates recognize this, and just don't care?

Hmm. Makes you wonder.

Chris Marlink wrote:

It is disingenuous for those who advocate same sex marriage to pretend their arguments do not also support polygamous unions and other marriage counterfeits.

[...]

If you're going to change the definition of an institution that predates government and law as we know it, why stop with same sex couples? Anyone?

I don't know, Chris. Frankly, I cannot think of a reason why three consenting adults should not be allowed to marry each other. I'm not making an argument in favor of polygamy, but you raised the issue. Can you articulate a non-religious reason why polygamy should not be permitted under the law?

I dont need to do much to counter your argument, as it was already rejected by courts - when the debate was over interracial marriage, much the same was said:

"[T]he State's prohibition of interracial marriage . . . stands on the same footing as the prohibition of polygamous marriage, or incestuous marriage, or the prescription of minimum ages at which people may marry, and the prevention of the marriage of people who are mentally incompetent." - Virginia Assistant Attorney General R. D. McIlwaine, arguing for Virginia's ban on interracial marriage during the Loving v. Virginia trial.

"[If interracial couples have a right to marry], all our marriage acts forbidding intermarriage between persons within certain degrees of consanguinity are void." - Parez v Lippold, dissenting oppinion.

The loss of restraints arguments, of the type Chris makes, fall into two types: Those arguing that a legal precident for gay marriage would force the courts to remove all marriage-restricting laws, and those arguing that recognising gay marriage would bring legalisation of other undesireable things closer.

I quoted the two legal view earlier so that I may apply them as historical examples countering the first of these classes: Note that during the interracial marriage debate, it was argued that if a court declared an interracial marriage ban unconstitutional it must also declare all other marriage restrictions unconstitutional. As can be seen today, this is most clearly not the case. Fifty years after Loving v. Virginia, the laws preventing gay marriage, incestuous marriage, marriage or minors and pedophilia all stand unscathed by the legalisation of interracial marriage. There is no reason that the situation should be any different today. Ironicly, those who are concerned about the effect of course should be campaigning for a legislative legalisation of gay marriage in order to avoid a court case establishing a legally binding precident.

The second class is the classic slippery-slope of social change. It is, perhaps, more of a chain of dominos than a slipery slope - marriages in a row, starting with the heterosexual same-race, then interracial, then homosexual, then incest, bestiality and finally pedophilia. There is the fear that the fall of one domino shall knock down those next to it - either through court action, as in the previous argument, or through social change turning what was once unthinkable into a debate. After all, when interracial marriage was an issue, who could have imagined that gay marriage could ever be even spoken of?

The flaw in the argument is the assumption of cause-and-effect in social change. It is simply wrong - the collective view of what is acceptable may follow a domino effect, but it also may not. Perhaps one decision, one change, must serve to enable debate on another, yes. But this is not enough to change the outcome - to make the dominos topple in a line. If ever there is a serious large-scale debate about legalising polygamy, bestiality or pedophilia, then it will still have to be decided on the merits of the arguments made by both sides - and as the pro- sides have very few good arugments, and the con- sides have many, I can already see how that is going to end: No change.

Chris Marlink-

I just wandered onto this site by accident, but I'd like to point out that you actually didn't refute Raven's argument- you just repeated the very arguement that she was calling absurd.

There is a huge difference between polygamy and gay marriage, starting with the fact that polygamy concerns more than two people. Creating a legal framework for that kind of relationship is a legal nightmare that, frankly, will never be legislated due to its' lack of practicality.

You need to come up with something other than a straw man arguement if you want it to appear that your opposition to gay marriage is based on anything other than hatred and ignorance.

God created Adam and Eve. If he intended same sex relationships he would have created Adam and Tom. The Bible describes "marriage" between a man and a woman who become one. A man should leave his mother and father and cleave to his wife.

The bible also says it is permissable to take slaves from the nations around you, and that those who work on the sabbath must be punished by death. Its easy to pick out the bits you agree with and ignore the rest.

I also note that God specifically told Eve she was to be subservient to Adam in all things. Its a shame the Lillith story didn't make the final cut, I would have liked to see that bit in there.

Tom, thanks for the backup. It was a rehashed argument, but I wanted to address it in more detail than I used earlier.

"If you strip away the sentimental and religious meaning of civil marriage, it is, after all is said and done, a contract."

It occurs to me that this is exactly what so many people are afraid of - the idea that the ancient ritual, the religious ceremony, this status of such great cultural significence, could be made subject to the mere laws of man and exposed as nothing more than a legal construct - and not, as many wish to believe, a divine and unchangable law that trancends the authority of any earthly power.

All of these arguments are crazy. What is the big deal. Why don't people mind their own business and their own families.

If two men want to get married, fine. If two women want to spend the rest of their lives together, fine. If a man and a women want to raise a family together, fine.

We tend to forget that marriage is about forming a bond between two human beings. All of society will benefit with more love in this world no matter of what color, creed, or sexual combination.

Furthermore, we are naive to think that we know how marriage has evolved over the years. Recent evidence reveals that same sex unions occurred some 600 years ago. We are also naive to think that we are nothing more than animals. Recent evidence also supports that fact that homosexuality occurs in nature.

Lets not forget that we are at war. Their are much more pressing issues for this country to deal with right now.

If we really love America, we will not start this childish argument again.

"All of these arguments are crazy. What is the big deal. Why don't people mind their own business and their own families."

Human nature. Yes, its got a mean streak, a giant ego, and no logical ability. It likes to see people as 'Our group' and 'The Enemy Group.' Its selfish, egotistical, seeks rebellion while conforming to any group of peers. But its the only nature we have to work with, so best just try to beat it into summision and try to act civilised.

Why not let the women decide? What about if some wome prefer to share one alpha male than being the only one for a loser?

Hmm... why does noone ever suggest it in reverse? :>

Historically, the family has been defined by the inevitability of reproduction and the need to care for the offspring. It is going to get a bit of tweeking soon, but I dont think there is going to be a rise of polygamy - the jelousy instinct is just too strong to allow that to florish without cultural coercion.

I can see some adjustments are coming, but mass-polygamy isn't one of them. The main changes I see are related to reduced significence of a formal, legal, on-paper relationship. That is, marriage. It will be displaced by people who are married de-facto: Cohabiting, monogamous, and often in love. But not legally married.

There are a few causes. The main ones are longer lives and more time in formal education. The former means marriage is no longer expected to be lifelong, and the latter that marriage and breeding are put off until later in life.

I fail to understand why so many people are upset at this change. I see people fearing for marriage, very worried that the ancient institution will be lost - usually before either blameing something unrelated for the destruction of marriage, or proposing a rediculous solution. I see these fears and think... Why? Its a legal arrangement. Legal arrangements can and do change. There isn't any real difference between committed couples with and without the marriage certificate.

Ask the CDC which group has the highest percentage of AIDS. Is that good???