Not Loving It In New Jersey

Via Glenn we are directed to a post by Jim Chen insisting on an analogy between the recent NJ Supreme Court decision on gay marriage and the 1967 US Supreme Court decision which overturned anti-miscegenation laws, Loving v. Virginia.

I dispute this from Prof. Chen:

The most obvious analogy supporting legal recognition is Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967). It's such an obvious analogy that it is futile to cite any of the hundreds, thousands of sources that make the connection. But just because an argument is obvious does not make it wrong. In this instance, the Loving analogy is complete.

Well.  As I had noted previously, in "Loving" the Supreme Court followed, rather than led.  Let's argue from authority here:

Loving v. Virginia at Thirty
by Randall Kennedy
Thursday, February 6, 1997

Randall Kennedy is a Professor at Harvard Law School. He is also a Contributing Editor of IntellectualCapital.com.

This year marks the 30th anniversary of the most aptly titled case in the history of the United States Supreme Court -- Loving v. Virginia. Loving was the name of a couple that was prosecuted for marrying.

...The way that the Supreme Court approached the ban on interracial marriage is a revealing reminder of the cautious manner that the tribunal typically deals with volatile social controversies. It encouraged other lawgivers to lead the way. In 1948 the Supreme Court of California ruled that that state's ban on interracial marriage violated the federal constitution's Equal Protection Clause. Yet, even after having invalidated de jure segregation in public schooling in Brown v. Board of Education, the U.S. Supreme Court was afraid to touch the emotional issue of interracial familial intimacy. In 1955 the Court considered reviewing a conviction under Virginia's ban, but ultimately decided to duck the issue. During the following decade, a dozen states repealed laws prohibiting interracial marriage and the Civil Rights Movement challenged the white supremacist notions from which these prohibitions stemmed. Only near the end of that remarkable era of struggle against racism was the Supreme Court willing to rule on the (un) constitutionality of anti miscegenation laws. In Loving, the Court struck down Virginia's statute on the grounds that it represented merely an "invidious racial discrimination" and that it unjustifiably deprived the defendants of one of the "basic civil rights of man."

Comments

[vnjagvet]

I understand the desire to see Loving as a precedent on gay marriage. I think, though, that desire has overcome reason. Loving stands for the proposition that there is no reason for preventing marriage between a man and a woman because one of the two is race a and the other race b.

Although the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution was invoked by the Court,
there is little in the legal reasoning underpinning the opinion that supports same
sex marriage.

Loving held this statute unconstitutional:

"Punishment for marriage. If any white person intermarry with a colored person, or any colored person intermarry with a white person, he shall be guilty of a felony and shall be punished by confinement in the penitentiary for not less than one nor more than five years."

Of course, there is no such analogous statute now extant in any state in the union purporting to punish anyone for marrying another of the same sex.

If there were, it would surely be struck down.

But what is at issue now is the definition of marriage. That subject was not dealt with in Loving.

[Jane]

The HRC guy who is supposedly behind the foley outing: http://www.friendster.com/user.php?uid=9566261

And the latest about him:

Foley's Phony Blogger Named

SHADY LANE Hudson
Radar has learned that the anony-blogger behind StopSexPredators—the bogus blog that first posted the Mark Foley e-mails and got the ball rolling on PageGate—is a former Democratic Senate staffer named Lane Hudson.

The New York Times reported today that the Human Rights Campaign, a gay-rights organization, had fired an unnamed "junior staff member" after discovering that he was behind the blog. The Times article described the staffer as an organizer working in Michigan that HRC had hired last month.

According to sources in Michigan's gay activist community, the Human Rights Campaign has placed only one paid staffer on the ground in the state—a get-out-the-vote organizer named Lane Hudson. Susan Horowitz, the publisher of Between the Lines, a gay weekly newspaper in Michigan, said Hudson arrived in Michigan on September 30 and had been attending get-out-the-vote events as recently as yesterday. When Radar called HRC's Washington, D.C., headquarters today, the person answering the phones said Hudson was no longer working with the organization. E-mails sent to Hudson's HRC address were bounced back as undeliverable.

Hudson, a onetime staffer to Sen. Fritz Hollings (D-SC) and former Democratic South Carolina Gov. Jim Hodges, is 29.

Calls to the HRC and to Hudson were not returned.

http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2006/10/foleys-phony-blogger-identified.php

And Camille Paglia slamming the dems over Foley: (oh my)

http://gaypatriot.net/2006/10/27/camille-paglia-slams-democrats-over-foley-politicshrc-employee-worked-in-democrat-senate-office

[Jane]

vnjagvet,

The problem is that most state's constitutions don't define marriage either - which is why you are seeing the rush to do so in so many states. It's odd to me that conservatives want to read a definition into the constitution that doesn't exist.

Personally I'd hate to see Loving used as the precedent, and I'm with Tom, I think the law should always follow and never lead. But I don't think you get there by imputing something in a state constitution which is clearly not there.

[boris]

most state's constitutions don't define marriage

Everybody already knows what marriage is.

[Ids]

Kennedy and Harvard. Baseball plane crash?

[vnjagvet]

Jane and Boris:

Yeah, I know. That is why Loving has little to do with the issues now being so vociferously argued.

Time was when same sex couples were content to live together as companions -- so long as they were not disturbed in their relationship. They could define the extent of their relationship privately.

But they, like brothers living with brothers, mothers living with sons, etc., or friends without a sexual relationship living with friends (they called themselves roommates), got none of the percs or benefits of married couples.

This became a problem of fairness and status.

Over the past twenty years employers have bestowed many of the benefits on their gay and lesbian employees who were living with "significant others". Most have not extended those benefits to opposite sex couples who, for one reason or another, decided not to have their relationship "blessed" or "legalized" with matrimony.

The next step is marriage. Just when marriage is under attack as a heterosexual institution, it is being idealized and sought as a matter of right as a homosexual institution.

My attitude is if the availability of a form of "marriage" or similarly stabalizing institution has any hope of even minimally reducing promiscuity among the male homosexual population (the one most stricken by AIDS)it should be encouraged by state governments.

[Extraneus]

A logical attitude, as always, vnjagvet.

I still want to see this whole "benefits of marriage" thing itemized, and I think this NJ decision might just finally lead to that. There are disadvantages of marriage, too, but I wouldn't presume to hope to see those listed as well.

[Robert Brown]

“The problem is that most state's constitutions don't define marriage either - which is why you are seeing the rush to do so in so many states. It's odd to me that conservatives want to read a definition into the constitution that doesn't exist.”

You seem to misunderstand to function of a constitution.

The constitution sets forth certain rights that may not be infringed by the other branches of government (yes they get cluttered up with other stuff).

Conservatives don’t argue that the constitution defines marriage, they argue that not granting the benefits of marriage to same sex couples does not deny them any fundamental rights.

[Rick Ballard]

Vnjagvet,

You might find this series by Don Sensing at 'One Hand Clapping' interesting. He comes to the same conclusion regarding legalization but with a different rationale.

For myself, I feel that everyone is free to call a pig a horse. Anyone doing so is likewise free to saddle ol' piggy up and ride him to town if they see fit. The folks in town are free to express their opinion of the porquine too, though.

PS - I wouldn't place money on a reduction of promiscuity quite yet. It's possible that it might occur but it's not particularly likely. In fact it's much more likely that a fair number of currently stable relationships will dissolve when marriage becomes an option (the boys up on Brokeback Mountain have never cared for fences) and that newer relationships will be formed on the basis of guaranteed 'openness' (cheat at will). An entirely natural outcome I would think.

[Foo Bar]

And how do we feel in retrospect about the 1948 California Supreme Court ruling that Kennedy mentions? The analogy between that ruling and the New Jersey Supreme Court decision would seem to be pretty good, insofar as the CA decision led public opinion to some degree, rather than following it.

Shall we look back at that decision and shake our heads in dismay?

[vnjagvet]

Rick:

Human nature being what it has been for millenia, I suspect your prediction is as likely as not to be correct.

Nonetheless, I am willing to allow states to experiment so as to allow more data on the subject.

"Give marriage a chance" says I.

[hit and run]

Rick:
For myself, I feel that everyone is free to call a pig a horse.

OK, fine. I will.

You're a horse.

(sorry, couldn't help myself, you left yourself wiiiiiide open on that one, it's just in jest)

[Rick Ballard]

Vnjagvet,

Watching the unintended consequences of the actions of the legislatures and courts unfold is a rare pleasure. Sometimes it's sort of expensive for bystanders though.

h&r,

That's O[in]K. I understand the irresistable urge.

[hit and run]

Rick...perfect response!!!!!

I love you.

Not in a gay way.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

[Sue]

which is clearly not there.

It could be because when those constitutions were written, the idea of same sex marriage was unthinkable. And because marriage didn't need a definition.

[Jane]

I still want to see this whole "benefits of marriage" thing itemized, and I think this NJ decision might just finally lead to that.

Extraneous,

Oh it's been itemized - at least it was in MA, because there was lots of talk about it when the CT decision came down here. There are something like 110 tax breaks that married people get. (I don't recall if that includes federal tax breaks). There are also one or two benefits from not being married, I think one is that the other person can't be held responsible for student loans.

[Jane]

Conservatives don’t argue that the constitution defines marriage, they argue that not granting the benefits of marriage to same sex couples does not deny them any fundamental rights.

I'd agree with that. Marriage is not a right, but rather a privilege. I don't think that in any way provides a justification for limiting the privilege to straight people tho, considering the way they have mucked it up and the benefit to the children of gays. If you put that stuff on a scale, gay marriage would sweep the country.

[Jane]

Shall we look back at that decision and shake our heads in dismay?

Foo bar,

That's the compelling argument isn't it?

[Extraneus]

There are something like 110 tax breaks that married people get.

Wow. That's surprising. I know the tax tables depend on marital status, and of course there are child-related deductions of various sorts, but I never guessed there'd be that many strictly marriage-related deductions.

And all these things are supposed to enhance the cohesion of the nuclear family? Seems far-fetched to buy into that sort of tax-goodie social engineering rationale, and unfair to both gay and hetero unmarried couples. These things deserve to be revisited.

[Jim E.]

TM wrote: "In 'Loving'[1967] the Supreme Court followed, rather than led."

This is only true insofar as Loving took place after the height of the civil rights movement -- after, for example, the groundbreaking Civil Rights and Voting Rights ACts had been passed.

The specific issue of interracial marriage, however, is another story. In 1967, when Loving was decided, about two-thirds of Americans were opposed to interracial marriages.

It was not until 1991 that Gallup showed, for the first time, that more Americans approved of interracial marriage than disapproved. And even in that 1991 poll, still less than half of Americans "approved" of interracial marriage.

So not sure how the Supreme Court "followed, rather than led" when deciding 'Loving.'

[Robert Brown]

“I'd agree with that. Marriage is not a right, but rather a privilege.

The constitutional issue, though is whether granting the privileges of marriage to opposite sex couples only violates a homosexuals constitutional right to equal protection. Conservatives would argue that the benefits of marriage are granted by the state to encourage a certain behavior (something the state does a lot of) and granting them to opposite sex marriages only does not prevent same sex couples form entering into a private marriage with their commitment to each other established by contract.

As a policy matter, I agree that same sex marriage is unlikely to have any effect on the institution of marriage as it stands today.

[Jane]

You know what really needs to be revisited is the whole state intervention in marriage. I'm with whoever said that there should be a religious marriage and a state sanctioned marriage, for everyone. Then the people who oppose to gay marriage for religious reasons, can separate their marriages out to their satisfaction assuming their religion does not allow gays.

But the more I think about the issue, that really isn't the point. Gays (and straights) will all do better with greater integration. If you can tolerate a gay doctor or lawyer, you can tolerate a gay neighbor. The real point is that many gays are very content living in a perfectly straight world. I think we want to encourage that.

[Jane]

The constitutional issue, though is whether granting the privileges of marriage to opposite sex couples only violates a homosexuals constitutional right to equal protection.

Robert,

And to determine that you look to the wording in the statute. If the statute states that marriage is defined as between a man and a women, there is no issue, if not, the issue is valid. Which I think is precisely what is going on, first with all those states attempting to ratify the definition, and all those states going in the opposite direction.

One issue will of course remain open and that is the constitutionality of DOMA. Since gays who are lawfully married in MA must remarry in CT to have their privileges acknowledged there it gets a bit cumbersome. How many times should we expect a couple, lawfully married, to remarry?

I don't think this is the time for that challange, but it is looming on the horizon. The people who oppose gay marriage finally have something to thank Bill Clinton for!

[boris]

same sex marriage is unlikely to have any effect on the institution of marriage as it stands today

So what? It most certainly will affect how the institution evolves. Since same sex couples do not produce their own offspring, their influence on the institution will affect a process they are not part of. The impact on our descendents in the future is more likely negative than neutral or positive.

"Nobody knows" is not an acceptable dodge. Make the stand on the basis that a negative effect on future generations is a small price to pay for "fairness" in ours.

[boris]

needs to be revisited is the whole state intervention in marriage

What about intervention in education then? Does the state have no interest in promoting the well being of children?

The point you refuse to address is that gay marriage and/or exact equivalent will impede the state from specifically targeting the the primary reproductive institution.

Your constant harping on the decline of that institution is irrelevent. It remains the best of the alternatives and largest single cotributor and most amenable to state influence.

Religion and state have always addressed marriage because marriage predates both and probably was a significant incentive for the human development of both. Marriage, state and religion became entwined with human nature because of their participation in reproduction, rearing, and the transmission of human culture.

[Jim E.]

Gay couples already adopt and rear and educate children. They're doing it right now. Gay families exist.

If marriage can help families flourish, and is therefore a substantial benefit to society, why the hesitancy in conferring the cultural, social and legal benifits to gay couples?

[boris]

why the hesitancy in conferring the cultural ...

This is a straw dummy argument. Speaking for myself there is absolutely no problem conferring the exact same benefits and incentives for gay families. Zero zip nada.

My argument is simply that linking the reproductive institution of marriage to gay families reduces or removes the ability of society to specifically address their needs without influence from a non-reproductive, activist group. Let said activist group lobby for whatever they may want from whatever society confers on reporductive marriage. No problem with that. At all. LET NOT said group influence how society is able to address the needs of reproductive marriage.

[boris]

Rephrase for clarity ...

My argument is simply that linking the reproductive institution of marriage to gay families reduces or removes the ability of society to specifically address reproductive marriage needs without influence from a non-reproductive, activist group. (not that there's anything wrong with being non-reproductive or activist)

[Jim E.]

"straw dummy"

Why are you *always* so rude and hostile?

"no problem conferring the exact same benefits and incentives for gay families. Zero zip nada."

You have "no problem" even though most of what you've written here overtly says that gay marriage's impact on future generations will "more likely negative than neutral or positive"? While that makes little sense to me (why would someone have "no problem" endorsing a Bad Thing?), I'm happy to be corrected.

[Jim E.]

"reduces or removes the ability of society to specifically address reproductive marriage needs"

Such as?

[Cecil Turner]

Why are you *always* so rude and hostile?

Your previous argument was in fact a strawman, and identifying it as such was not rude. (The issue is not benefits, a point illustrated by the gap between those who support "civil unions" but not "gay marriage.") They are two different issues.

The societal benefits in encouraging stable family units for purposes of childrearing are obvious. In the long run, tax advantages are well worth the investment. The same benefits do not attend to same-sex couples, who in any event do not incur the significant financial burdens of childbearing. I suppose one could make the argument that the various government incentives do not require children, only marriage, and thus are not particularly directed toward productive couples . . . but I for one wouldn't find it persuasive.

[Robert Brown]

“And to determine that you look to the wording in the statute. If the statute states that marriage is defined as between a man and a women, there is no issue,”

Jane,

No, I think the issue is that liberal judges consider statutes that restrict marriage to opposite sex unconstitutional since they do not give equal protection to homosexuals. Many states are attempting to amend their constitutions to preempt the judiciary.

[Jane]

The same benefits do not attend to same-sex couples, who in any event do not incur the significant financial burdens of childbearing.

The ones with children certainly do.

I think you fail to take notice that much of the push for gay marriage is by gays who have families.

[Jane]

Many states are attempting to amend their constitutions to preempt the judiciary.

Robert,

If you look at the states who are attempting to ratify the statute, they are not the states generally plagued by liberal judges.

BTW I'm in favor of pre-empting a liberal judiciary. I don't think arriving at the right result the wrong way does gays any favor at all.

[Robert Brown]

“So what? It most certainly will affect how the institution evolves. Since same sex couples do not produce their own offspring,”

Boris,

The number of homosexual marriages will be very small compared to number of heterosexual childless marriages or single parent households so I don’t see how they can have much influence on the family structure now or in the future.

[boris]

most of what you've written here overtly says that gay marriage's impact on future generations will "more likely negative than neutral or positive"?

My advocacy is that gay families have no say in how society addresses the needs of reproductive marriage. If there is a one-size-fits-all marriage for same sex and opposite sex, then obviously the same-sex group would have and should have an equal say.

So while I do not oppose the same-sex group having benefits equivalent to whatever the opposite-sex group gets, they should exert no influence over how society addresses the needs and future evolution of the opposite-sex reproductive institution of marriage.

After this any future misunderstanding of the point will be attributed to your lack of reading comprehension rather than my lack of skill for expressing a simple logical argument.

[MikeW]

Robert,

I would like to comment about a couple of your earlier posts, just because I think they illustrate interesting points for discussion. This is not certainly meant to either support or not support your position, but here goes. A little about me up front to "get it out into the open." I am considered conservative by most who know me (although I think it's only on particular issues - such as military and national defense). I am Roman Catholic by faith and got married in the church 25 years ago (yes, we're still together and still with our faith).

In one of your posts, you stated, "Conservatives don’t argue that the constitution defines marriage, they argue that not granting the benefits of marriage to same sex couples does not deny them any fundamental rights."

I disagree with this wholeheartedly (at least from what I've seen and heard, especially here in Virginia. The groups and individuals (all of whom appear soaked in conservatism) who support the Amendment referendum we're set to vote on soon have, without exception, completely focused on the religious perspective that marriage is defined in the Bible as between a man and a woman and that nothing else is acceptable from that standpoint alone. They further extrapolate this to include that only heterosexually wedded couples can appropriately raise children (that children automatically fare better in such coupled relationships). This latter issue is, of course irrelevant in that marriage does not have to result in the procreation of children. It does not follow, despite what many claim as valid studies, that heterosexual couples will rear better adjusted and well-rounded chjildren who are productive in society. History is replete with enough examples to refute that claim many times over. Further, if this were true, then divorce would logically (by that specific argument) have to be outlawed. If that were also true, then neither birth parent should logically be raised by either biological parent that remains single for any period of time. The children would have to be taken from them and provided to a wonderful, loving home with a mother and father present -- for that would have to be the case if the children were proven to do better only in households with both mother and father present. I think we all know that to be balderdash, and there exist a pretty fair number of studies that show that there really isn't any difference between heterosexual parents raising children and homosexual parents rasing them. If homosexual couples have no right to marry, then neither do heterosexual couples. If heterosexual couples have a right to be married, then it can't be for religious reasons as that would then violate many peoples' rights under the US Constitution. If not a right, it is then a privilege or benefit. If it is a benefit, then a law is the vehicle to deny privileges/benefits, not a Constitution. Either way, I disagree with it. The conservatives in this Commonwealth have specifically fostered the argument that they need to define this in the Constitution to prevent "activist judges" from doing something counter to their (conservatives) liking. Unfortunately for them, as it is written for our ballot and consideration, the Virginia proposed amendment will actually cause the exact opposite to happen: court cases will begin to proliferate, because it specifies that any nonmarried relationship will not be given any rights and privileges that approach any of those associated with married couples. Think about that for a moment. It will be a part of the Commonwealth Constitution and will take precedence over any aspect of contract law, because the Constituion clearly trumps statute.

In your other posting, you said, "The constitutional issue, though is whether granting the privileges of marriage to opposite sex couples only violates a homosexuals constitutional right to equal protection. Conservatives would argue that the benefits of marriage are granted by the state to encourage a certain behavior (something the state does a lot of) and granting them to opposite sex marriages only does not prevent same sex couples form entering into a private marriage with their commitment to each other established by contract."

To again highlight my earlier statement about the Virginia proposal, this final statement would in fact be violated in that the Constitutional definition of marriage and the codification in the Constitution that no rights and privileges associated with those of heterosexual marriages will be granted to any in nonmarried relationships. This, by the way, does not at all make it exclusive to homosexual couples; it would also deny them to heterosexual couples who are not married. Any such contracts you have mentioned would be null and void by the newly revised Virginia Constitution. Regardless of how it is worded for Virginia, however, the real truth is this: as it exists in our society at the moment, the right or privilege to marry in our United States is a civil institution. Even if you are married in your church and religion, failure to get a license issued by the legal entity authorized to issue it means that it isn't legal. That license requirement means it is a civil issue for the state (all of them), and religious ovetures (of any sort for any recognized religion) must not enter into the argument. Interestingly, if that (failure to get a license) were to happen here in Virginia, the proposed amendment would make it illegal to extend the civil benefits associated with a legal marriage to such a couple (non-licensed). So, they may not be living in sin in the eyes of their church, but their marriage would be illegal and not recognized for any civil purposes, including automatic rights/benefits such as taxes, medical decisions, rights of inheritance, etc.

As to the issue of the state granting the privileges/rights of marriage to heterosexual couples to encourage a certain behavior, shouldn't the state then be wanting and willing to extend this encouragement to other couples who just happen to be of the same gender? I have to believe that the state would only encourage positive behavior patterns (and the sexual acts in the privacy of one's homes is nobody else's business - unless it involves children (who are not fully capable of critical thought yet) or things like assault and battery or murder charges). Therefore, let's extend that encouragement of proper and positive behavior to all adults in a paired relationship. By the way, placing this amendment into the Constitution or even as a statute as far as I am concerned, makes heterosexual marriage a right and correspondingly a denial of that right to homosexual couples, which actually then does deny them equal protection.

I believe that many homosexual couples desire to get married for the same simple reason I married my wife (and I suspect is the prime reason for the vast majority of marriages): they truly love their choice of partners. There is no other agenda for that. The fact that the state desires to deny them the right - or privilege - to do that is the real culprit here. It isn't a gay agenda pushing itself on the rest of society; it is society that is telling them that they don't have any right to be included in these institutions. A parallel example would be those who blame the deaths of thousands of Iraqis on our presence there rather than on the insurgents and terrorists who are actually killing these innocent civilians. The parallels are quite interesting.

Needless to say at this point, neither my wife nor I will vote for the proposed amendment here in Virginia. I wouldn't vote for it even if it pertained only to gay couples; the other piece about non-recognition of other non-married couples just adds fuel to my fire. It is just plain wrong, and I think it is wrong for any state to do this. Our marriage won't be adversely affected by allowing other couples to marry. Neither will my faith be shattered or even shaken. Interestingly, who knows whether my specific stance on this issue might open me up to excommunication potential?!

Sorry for the long post, folks. I didn't mean for it to be so long. Thought I could express it more succinctly. I guess I failed. As I said at the beginning, just some things to consider on this isue.

[Cecil Turner]

The ones with children certainly do.

"Childbearing" narrows it down quite a bit, I'd think.

I think you fail to take notice that much of the push for gay marriage is by gays who have families.

What proportion of gay marriages (or current couples) are we talking about (with children)? My sense is that it's a tiny fraction, but no data springs to a casual google. If so, it is perfectly legitimate for society to encourage one institution for the desired effect, even while declining to recognize a similar institution that produces only a smattering of analogous situations.

[boris]

I don’t see how they can have much influence

Maybe not but at this point given your expressed hostility to any defense of traditional marriage it seems unwise to trust in something "you don't see". Would much prefer some acknowledgment of the basic point to show awareness of the potential problem. The NJ judges could easily have avoided this objection by noting some discrimination would be allowed to account for the reproductive factor, but instead seemed to rule out that consideration by proclaiming EXACT equivalence.

[boris]

proven to do better only in households with both mother and father present

Balderdash? Children living in a married household with both biological parents have been proven to do better. That is not advocating criminalizing divorce or single parents or gay parents, it just supports giving incentives for that arrangement and speceifically addressing their needs when necessary without interference.

[Foo Bar]

What proportion of gay marriages (or current couples) are we talking about (with children)? My sense is that it's a tiny fraction, but no data springs to a casual google

Here is one data point:

Nationally, an estimated 1 in 4 same-sex-couple households reports having children younger than 18 living in the home, according to Gary J. Gates, a researcher who co-authored the Atlas.

Here is another one:

What was once unheard of is now a fact of life. Forty percent of same-sex couples aged 22 to 55 are raising children, about 5 percent of whom are adopted, according to the Williams Project, a UCLA Law School think tank. If you include children born in once-heterosexual marriages, raised by single parents and parents of all ages, up to 10 million children are estimated to have a lesbian or gay parent.

[Jim E.]

Cecil wrote: "Your previous argument was in fact a strawman, and identifying it as such was not rude."

Well, I guess you're a dummy for missing the point.

[Jane]

What proportion of gay marriages (or current couples) are we talking about (with children)? My sense is that it's a tiny fraction, but no data springs to a casual google. If so, it is perfectly legitimate for society to encourage one institution for the desired effect, even while declining to recognize a similar institution that produces only a smattering of analogous situations.

Cecil,

I don't know that answer but I will tell you what I have observed since civil unions became legal in Vt and gay marriage in MA. Gays get married and start families. I would guess that the same percentage of gays get married to start a family as in the heterosexual world. They may not do it on day one, but that is where they are heading. What I keep thinking is getting mixed in here is some idea that gays have different goals and dreams as straights. And I just haven't seen that. Have you?

[boris]

Well, I guess you're a dummy for missing the point

Now who's being uncivil?

He didn't miss the point, you did. The term strawman is in fact a shortened version of "straw dummy".

Your argument was in fact a straw dummy argument. If you took that as a personal attack, then shame on you.

[boris]

What I keep thinking is getting mixed in here is some idea that gays have different goals and dreams as straights.

More straw? Link to someone here saying that.

[Jim E.]

boris,
I've never once heard the term "straw dummy" (and how is an 11-character phrase a "shortened" version of an 8 letter word?).

In any case, considering your long history of personal attacks against me, it's hardly shameful for me to consider this one to be more of the same. But I'm always happy to learn about new phrases.

You (and now Cecil) have accused me of commenting in bad faith when I was correct in noting your hostility toward aspects of gay marriage. When corrected by you that you weren't against gay marriage, I thanked you for doing so. How is that commenting in bad faith (which is how I would label strawmen arguments)? I suppose you want me to apologize for genuinely wanting to learn more about your viewpoint?

Of course, now that I think about it, I still can't tell if you are against gay marriage or not, so I suppose its possible I've written that wrong in the previous paragraph. From what I can tell, you fear the obvious negative influence of gay unions/gay marriage, yet simulataneously have "no problem" with it.

And as far as Cecil goes, it appears he's really, really concerned about issues of pregnancy, and costs associated with the actual moment of birth, but nothing else after that.

[Jim E.]

Oops, I got the shortened part wrong. Nevermind about that.

[boris]

lol

[Barney Frank]

Here are a few articles on gay marriage that anyone should read before pronouncing that gay marriage has no effect on marriage in general and is not a step onto a slippery slope. There are other people making the same arguments, I am just most familiar with Kurtz.
And sorry, but while I used to know, I am drawing a complete blank on how to hot link them here, so cut and paste is all I've got.

http://www.nationalreview.com/kurtz/
kurtz043003.asp

http://www.weeklystandard.com/
Content/Public/Articles/000/
000/002/938xpsxy.asp

http://www.weeklystandard.com/
Content/Public/Articles/000/
000/003/660zypwj.asp

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MDFhMjk0YjI4NzgyZGM4NjMxZmY4NTQw
ZWNjYzkzYjg=

[Cecil Turner]

I would guess that the same percentage of gays get married to start a family as in the heterosexual world.

I find that implausible. (There's also a separate issue over whether it's a "good thing" or not.)

What I keep thinking is getting mixed in here is some idea that gays have different goals and dreams as straights.

Seems to me there are some rather obvious biological issues. And in my admittedly limited experience, gay lifestyle seems to tend toward less stable relationships. (I further suspect biology is a significant part of the underlying reason--though that's obviously conjecture.)

Well, I guess you're a dummy for missing the point.

I'd have a lot more sympathy if you'd admitted it was a dishonest argument.