Wednesday, October 25, 2006

Breaking News: New Jersey to Give Equal Rights to Gay Couples

Today the New Jersey Supreme Court just ruled that that state's constitution gives same-sex couples all the same rights as opposite-sex people who are married, though they don't have to call it "marriage." A similar ruling in Vermont had resulted in that state defining "civil unions," in which same-sex couples have the same rights as opposite-sex married couples.

I don't follow this sort of thing that closely, but it does not seem to me that gay people are unified in demanding "marriage" as a word or an institution. Like, I don't think it matters to everybody, exactly what you call it. But at least you should be able to visit the one you love in the hospital and make important decisions for them in a time of crisis, you should be able to include a loved one under an insurance policy, things like that. Only Massachusetts allows same-sex marriage, calling it that. Connecticut also has civil unions.

You can read the text of the judges' opinions HERE.

John Aravosis at AmericaBlog points out that this decision is exactly what President Bush recommended in 2004.

I have no idea how different groups will react to this. It's not "marriage," so I don't see how the Family Blah Blah guys can complain. On the other hand, it's not "marriage," so gays and lesbians may not be satisfied with it.

On the other other hand, the Family Blah Blah groups can certainly be upset that gay people are being treated like ... people, and gay people might just decide they can live with equal treatment, no matter what it's called.

Let's watch and see.

17 Comments:

Blogger Orin Ryssman said...

Jim writes,

On the other other hand, the Family Blah Blah (sic) groups can certainly be upset that gay people are being treated like ... people, and gay people might just decide they can live with equal treatment, no matter what it's called.

They are...marriage is offered to a male or female homosexual on the same basis it is offered to all, i.e. they may marry a member (that means one) of the opposite sex that they are not directly related to by blood.

Since this is offered to all on the same basis, there is NO discrimination.

October 25, 2006 4:52 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Orin, heterosexuals are allowed to marry the one person they love most, gays are not. A man has a right to marry a woman but a woman does not have the same right to marry a woman that the man does. Similarly a woman has the right to marry a man but a man does not have this same right to marry man. This is sex discrimination. The government should not be dictating the gender of anyone's marriage partner. Your childish and disingenous word games don't count as equality.

October 25, 2006 8:15 PM  
Blogger Orin Ryssman said...

randi writes,

Orin, heterosexuals are allowed to marry the one person they love most, gays are not.

That statement says volumes about the modern understanding of what constitutes marriage; towit, it is all about love. While love is necessary, it is not a sufficient rationale for marriage.

A man has a right to marry a woman but a woman does not have the same right to marry a woman that the man does. Similarly a woman has the right to marry a man but a man does not have this same right to marry man. This is sex discrimination.

If discrimination in this instance is the judging of better and worse ways to live, then yes, this is discrimination. There once was a time that it was considered a compliment to be told that one had "discriminating tastes", that is, one could discern between the genuine article and a counterfeit.

I guess what I am saying is this: guilty as charged. There is a purpose to this discrimination however, a purpose much larger than you or I. And that is why we not only allow it, but protect it by law.

The government should not be dictating the gender of anyone's marriage partner.

While I understand the libertarian sentiments that underpin such a statement, it ignores the public purpose that is accomplished by preserving our present understanding of marriage. The most important purpose provided by maintaining marriage as a man-woman union is that it provides children, the Next Generation, with a Father and a Mother. There are other purposes, but this single purpose dwarfs all others.

Your childish and disingenous word games don't count as equality.

LOL! Why don't you call me ugly and say my mother dresses me funny? You might make more sense...

Look, I will try to put this into terms that even you can understand...a most basic philosophical axiom (going back to I believe Aristotle) is that one should treat equals equally, and unequals unequally. For example, the ban interracial marriage...the reason it was repealed was because it denied the equality of marriage as a man and woman union. A same-sex union, for public purposes, is not the same as man-woman union, hence the inequality.

The $64,000 question in present-day American society is therefore this:

Will we allow a small minority to so radically redefine an essential building block of society?

In every instance I can think of, when this question has been put directly before the electorate, or any state legislative body, the answer has been clear. That is why the only hope for activists wanting to change this is the judiciary.

October 26, 2006 5:03 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"On the other other hand, the Family Blah Blah groups can certainly be upset that gay people are being treated like ... people,"

Don't know who the "family blah-blah groups" would be but I do know it's a lie to say there is any group out there saying gays shouldn't be treated like "people".

There are some groups that believe that homosexual relationships should not receive the same support as marriages do. This support, which is costly, is provided to marriages because of the benefits provided to society.

Sad that an organization like TTF derides the importance of families by referring its advocates' activity as "blah-blah". Instead, TTF aligns itself with marginal Tolerance yada-yada groups which believe all behaviors should be tolerated indiscriminately.

October 26, 2006 6:10 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If nothing else, the New Jersey court helped out Republicans right before the election.

October 26, 2006 7:01 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Orin Ryssman said:
"While love is necessary, it is not a sufficient rationale for marriage.
...
The most important purpose provided by maintaining marriage as a man-woman union is that it provides children, the Next Generation, with a Father and a Mother. There are other purposes, but this single purpose dwarfs all others.


Are children "sufficient rationale" for keeping marriage as a one-man-one-woman union?

1. Not all heterosexual couples can have children.
2. Children are not provided soley by married heterosexual couples.
3. Without love, it is difficult for marriages to last, even if couples have children.

Orin Ryssman said:
"For example, the ban interracial marriage...the reason it was repealed was because it denied the equality of marriage as a man and woman union. A same-sex union, for public purposes, is not the same as man-woman union, hence the inequality.

This is already under the assumption the heterosexual couples are superior to homosexual couples, so unless someone agrees with this premise, they won't accept the inequality.

Orin Ryssman said:
"Will we allow a small minority to so radically redefine an essential building block of society?"

We are are today, and our ancestors did not conform to our current definitions of marriage, so "marriage" as it is defined today is not actually an essential building block of society. While it helps conform to certain standard of society, it is not a standard which everyone completely agrees with.

Anonymous said:
"This support, which is costly, is provided to marriages because of the benefits provided to society.

It is very naive to think that all heterosexual couples automatically benefit society while homosexual couples don't. There are far too many variables in relationships that completely destroy this blanket assumption, one being that homosexuals do in fact provide and raise children.

October 26, 2006 3:09 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Orin, love is what matters, there is no law saying one needs more than love (or even love itself for that matter) to marry. Love makes a family.

You have no moral right to judge or discriminate against any relationship which does not hurt you or others. Morally speaking that is how we best distinguish right from wrong - does the action hurt anyone? In the case of same sex marriage no one is harmed and the people involved are benefitted.

Suggesting marriage needs to be discriminatory for the children is totally disingenous. If marriage is all about the children then you must consider the childless marriages of some heterosexual couples less than equal but being the hypocrite you are you don't oppose them being married.

Allowing gays to marry doesn't interfere with any heterosexual couples' efforts to provide for their children. Gays often have children from previous relationships and preventing them from marrying does negatively impact their children. If you're truely concerned about the children you should be encouraging marriage for gays so that their children can also benefit from the protected and supported union of their care-givers.

I've been married to a woman and now I'm in a relationship with a man. I speak from experience and I can assure you the relationships definitely are equal. When I was married to my wife no one said our marriage was invalid because we chose in advance not to have children.

You asked "Will we allow a small minority to so radically redefine an essential building block of society?". Fairness and equality are the essential building blocks of society. Apart from that there is no radical redefinition. In countries where equal marriage is allowed the vast majority of marriages continue to be opposite sex couples. In almost every case marriage will be exactly as most people have come to expect it to be, that's hardly a radical change - if you were being honest you'd admit that's a slight incremental change at most.

It's inconsistent of you to oppose a ban on interractial marriage. Given your logic on gay marriage the races all had the equal right to marry someone of the same race -there was no discrimination, that's equality, right?

At the time the judiciary changed the ban on interracial marriage most of the public supported the ban. Once again, if you were being consistent you'd support the ban on interractial marriage because if it had been put to the electorate the ban on interracial marriage wouldn't have been overturned.

As I've never seen you I can't tell if you're ugly or your mother dresses you funny. From reading your comments I am in a position to judge that your childish and disingenous word games don't count as equality.

Anonymous at October 26, 2006 7:01 AM said "it's a lie to say there is any group out there saying gays shouldn't be treated like "people".
I guess you never heard of that fine religious man Fred Phelps then. He says gays should be executed. But wait, maybe you feel that's how people should be treated.

No one derides the importance of families - gay people are families too. What we deride and find despicable is the dishonest and deceptive appropriation of labels like "family values" and "Focus on the Family" for activities that are soley anti-gay hatred.

October 26, 2006 3:12 PM  
Blogger Orin Ryssman said...

randi writes,

Orin, love is what matters, there is no law saying one needs more than love (or even love itself for that matter) to marry. Love makes a family.

Polygamist will be happy to hear that as they will take their allies where they can find them. The ACLU in Utah is ready to litigate on behalf of polygamists once same-sex "marriage" is made legal. And since love is what defines a family, what does it mattter that a man "marries" another man, or three women for that matter. And why stop there?...why not allow a father and his adult daughter to marry (since the only thing that matters in this instance is that both parties can give consent to such a union, and that each love the other)? Oppps, there is the wife...oh, well, the divroce court can handle that now, can't it?

Where does society draw the LINE and on the basis of what rationale?

You have no moral right to judge or discriminate against any relationship which does not hurt you or others.

You are correct; I have no right in and of myself - society does.

Please, go to a town of polygamists in southern Utah/northern Arizona and tell that to the young men who have been kicked out because they stand to compete against older men for the limited number of women.

Sorry, but your love and equality conquers all argument does not hold up well against such assaults.

Morally speaking that is how we best distinguish right from wrong - does the action hurt anyone?

That is how a libertarian would frame the issue...though many more do understand (at least intuitively) that solid moral and ethical guidelines are established on something a tad more solid than on whether the action helps or hurts someone.

I am curious though about this: you must be pro-life, correct? Since, after all, the act of abortion does hurt another party...

In the case of same sex marriage no one is harmed and the people involved are benefitted.

Please, do some reading on developments in marriage in European countries where same-sex "marriage" has been established, then get back to me and make that assertion.

Watering down the meaning of marriage will not help gays and lesbians, and it will hurt society. And what we will find out, quite after the fact, that much like no-fault divorce (another grand social experiment that has failed...well, at least for children it has), children will end up on the short end of the stick in a society where adults think more about themselves then they do the next generation.

Suggesting marriage needs to be discriminatory for the children is totally disingenous. If marriage is all about the children then you must consider the childless marriages of some heterosexual couples less than equal but being the hypocrite you are you don't oppose them being married.

dis*in*gen*u*ous: adjective - Not straightforward or candid; crafty.

That is a supposition on your part, as it would be on my part, as it would be on the part of American society and law. The reason a heterosexual couple do not have children can range anywhere from that they don't think they would make good parents, and hence make a conscious choice NOT to have children (which I think is good choice since children deserve parents that wanted to be parents), to the heart breaking fact that they have tried, and are unable to have children (and for whatever reason, don't want to go the adoption route - understandable given the exordinary hassle and expense). It is not my business, or Society's to inquire as to the reason why a heterosexual couple don't have children. So, why allow such non-child bearing couples to be married? Because Society recognizes that the coupling of a man and a woman could result in offspring, and whether it does or not is not anyone else's business.

Well, what about those heterosexual couples that are too old to marry? I am so glad you asked that question. Yes, of course we allow older folks to marry. Having babies is not a requirement of marriage. The reason for supporting the institution of marriage is not rooted only in childrearing. Man and woman were made for each other, and the State has a compelling interest in supporting it— with or without children.

So, while I will readily admit to being hardheaded and even "mean" (heck, ask my 17 or 13 year olds about that...), I am straightforward, not crafty, and have the same standard for myself that I expect others to follow (which is the opposite of a hypocrite, which is someone that insists others do as they say, not as they do).

And you know what? I will gladly be called any name if that means more, not less, children have the opportunity to be raised in the best social unit possible, that being a husband and wife. Now there is ongoing social science research into same-sex parenting, but to date the studies have either been flawed or inconclusive. It appears that most flawed studies suffer from having as their purpose not scientific inquiry, but political advocacy (which really does not shock me in the least since if conservatives can do it, why not liberals as well?).

But hey, don't take my word for this...

http://www.aap.org/
advocacy/archives/febsamesex.htm

which in turn generated this rather candid admission in an email to select AAP members from Ellen Perrin, Feb. 15, 2002, emphasis added,

“The AAP has received more messages –almost all of them CRITICAL –from members about the (same-sex parenting) statement than it has EVER received on any other topic...This is a serious problem as it means it will become harder to continue the work we have been doing to use the AAP as a vehicle for positive change.”

Can anyone say, Opps!

You asked "Will we allow a small minority to so radically redefine an essential building block of society?". Fairness and equality are the essential building blocks of society.

Spoken like a true believing liberal...

Thanks, but I will take Justice and Compassion over "fairness" and "equality" any day. It is not a just or compassionate society that turns its back on a standard that serves the long-term interests of an overwhelming majority of children. To do so is cruel and unkind.

Apart from that there is no radical redefinition.

Thank you for the admission...

In countries where equal marriage is allowed the vast majority of marriages continue to be opposite sex couples.

Please, do your homework first before making such a statement.

In almost every case marriage will be exactly as most people have come to expect it to be, that's hardly a radical change - if you were being honest you'd admit that's a slight incremental change at most.

LOL!!! Denial isn't just a river in Egypt.

It's inconsistent of you to oppose a ban on interractial marriage. Given your logic on gay marriage the races all had the equal right to marry someone of the same race -there was no discrimination, that's equality, right?

And you accused me of being "disingenuous"???

At the time the judiciary changed the ban on interracial marriage most of the public supported the ban.

Oh, really? Since Loving v. Virginia was decided in 1967 (June 12, 1967 to be exact, with the Hon. Chief Justice Earl Warren writing the opinion for the High Court), I would be interested in seeing you document this assertion. Oh, and by the way, the decision of the Court was unanimous...something the court has seldom been able to do.

Oh, and here's another tidbit: even Justice Hugo Black, a former Ku Klux Klan member (Black was a member of the Robert E. Lee Klan No. 1, a branch of the Ku Klux Klan in Birmingham; he joined in 1923, though he was onnly a member a few short years) signed on to this decision.

Once again, if you were being consistent you'd support the ban on interractial marriage because if it had been put to the electorate the ban on interracial marriage wouldn't have been overturned.

Historical speculation...

As I've never seen you I can't tell if you're ugly or your mother dresses you funny. From reading your comments I am in a position to judge that your childish and disingenous word games don't count as equality.

Much like tolerance, equality is an empty, abstract value with little meaning outside a Paris salon (or American coffee shop, you choose). I think it was unfortunate of the Simon Wiesenthal Center to name their museum documenting the Holocaust the Museum of Tolerance since it showed a failure to comprehend the fact that some do not merit tolerance.

Sorry, but I have been anything but "childish" or "disingeuous" - nor have I played word games. I have attempted to reason why American society ought not to go down the path of Western Europe, and give societal consent to same-sex "marriage". Please, if you can reason back to me, without the namecalling, then we might be able to dialogue, but I will not expend any more effort to convince you that two plus two does in fact equal four, not five, as you seem so intent on doing in these exchanges.

October 27, 2006 8:26 AM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Orin:

The reason not to marry more than one person is simple and pragmatic - with a 50% divorce rate clearly its hard enough to make a relationship work with two people in it without having 3 or more. I know I can barely balance my needs and desires with one other person, I'd have no hope of doing it with 2 or more and I'd recommend others realize that as well.

One can only give their best to one other person. I would also question whether an adult in a father daughter relationship could ever be free enough from overt influence to ever give their informed consent to marry.

Neither you nor society have a moral right to judge or discriminate against any relationship which does not hurt you or others. Right and wrong are best determined on the basis of whether or not anyone is being hurt. The young men who've been kicked out of polygamist communities have been harmed by those relationships and that is one more reason to oppose them.

You said "moral and ethical guidelines are established on something a tad more solid than on whether the action helps or hurts someone.

Whether or not someone is getting hurt is extremely solid and important, in fact of pararmount importance as is indicated by your failure to come up with a single thing other than that on which to base moral and ethical guidelines.

I favour abortion being allowed up until the time nerve cells develop in the embryo and it can feel pain. A person has the ability to think and feel, to know joy and pain. Prior to this point an embryo is not a person.

I've done a lot of reading on the European countries and Canada where same sex marriage has been allowed. The sky hasn't fallen, not a single heterosexual couple has divorced because a gay couple has married, life goes on just as it did before, no one has been harmed.

Those European countries have seen the rate of divorce drop or the rate of marriage increase. I wouldn't argue that that's because of same sex marriage, but we can bet if the opposite had happened you'd be saying it was because of same sex marriages.

If you're truely concerned about the children you would be encouraging marriage for gays so that their children can also benefit from the protected and supported union of their care-givers. Preventing gays from marrying will not result in a single additinal child being raised by an opposite sex couple so once again you are without reason to oppose equal marriage for same sex couples.

I can think of a lot of married men and women who definitely were'nt made for each other whereas me and my partner are. Some couples know prior to marrying they can't or won't have children so your assertion that they are allowed to marry because they could produce children is incorrect.

The state has a compelling interest in supporting all couples, gay or straight, as these relationships make for happier and more productive citizens and taxpayers.

You asked "Will we allow a small minority to so radically redefine an essential building block of society?". Fairness and equality are the essential building blocks of society. As you were confused the first time around, I then was saying, apart from me making that seperate statement about fairness and equality, there is no radical redefinition of marriage.

In countries where equal marriage is allowed the vast majority of marriages continue to be opposite sex couples. In a profoundly inexplicable display you disagreed with this, saying I needed to do my homework. For you to suggest you believe that somewhere more gays are marrying than straights doesn't pass the laugh test. In those countries allowing it something like 1% of all marriages have been same sex marriages.
99% of the time marriage is the opposite sex affair people have come to expect, this is hardly a radical redefinition of marriage.

Again you're disingenous by suggesting equal marriage "turns its back on a standard that serves the long-term interests of an overwhelming majority of children.". There's nothing cruel or unkind about it. Heterosexuals can continue to look after the long-term interests of their children regardless. Having a gay couple get married in no way impedes this and doesn't prevent all the heterosexuals you want from getting married.

Admit it, you can't outline a step by step scenario whereby a same sex couple getting married in the slightest way impedes a heterosexual couple from looking after the long term interests of their child. Its childish and dishonest of you to suggest it does just like it was childish and dishonest of you to say gays have equality becase they can marry someone of the opposite sex just like everyone else. Given that childish sort of word game the races all had the equal right to marry someone of the same race -there was no discrimination, that was equality.

Only in your confused mind are justice and compassion polar opposites from fairness and equality. To a rational person they are overlapping concepts. For you to say "equality is an empty, abstract value with little meaning" speaks very poorly of you. Its no more meaningless than justice or compassion. If tolerance is also a meaningless word why would you say some (I gather you mean gays) do not merit it? If you can't tolerate others you don't deserve their tolerance either. At the very least a moral person tolerates those who do not hurt him or others.

As I'm poor and on very limited dialup I'm not going to go searching for links on public opinion polls at the time of Loving v. Virginia was in 1967. I've often read that the public was strongly opposed to interracial marriage at this time and for many many years later.

I've repeatedly read this from authoritative sources and I strongly suspect you have as well, you're just not honest enough to admit it. Once again, if you were being consistent you'd support the ban on interractial marriage because if it had been put to the electorate the ban on interracial marriage wouldn't have been overturned. If you don't have the integrity to acknowledge that, acknowledge that given a public in opposition you would have opposed judges overturning the ban on interratial marriage just as you oppose judges allowing equal marriage.

There have been many studies that show that children of same sex couples do just as well as children of opposite sex couples. All the major mental and physical health organizations are in agreement on this. Here are a few:

The Lesbian Mother," by Bernice Goodman [American Journal of Orthopsychiatry,
Vol. 43 (1983), pp. 283-284]
Kirkpatrick, Martha et al;

"Lesbian Mothers and Their Children: A Comparative
Study," 51 American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 545 (1983)

"Homosexual Parents,"
by Brenda Maddox [Psychology Today, February, 1982, pp.66-69]
Riddle, Dorothy I.

"Relating to Children: Gays as Role Models," 34 Journal of
Social Issues, 38-58 (1978)

"The Avowed Lesbian Mother and Her Right to Child Custody," by Marilyn Riley,
San Diego Law Review, Vol. 12 (1975), p. 799]
Susoeff, Steve

"Assessing Children's Best Interests When a Parent is Gay or
Lesbian: Toward a Rational Custody Standard," 32 UCLA Law Review 852, 896 (1985)
Gibbs, Elizabeth D.

"Psychosocial Development of Children Raised by Lesbian
Mothers: A Review of Research," 8 Women & Therapy 65 (1988)
Green, Richard

"The Best Interests of the Child With a Lesbian Mother," 10
Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry & Law 7 (1982)
Turner, Pauline et al

"Parenting in Gay and Lesbian Families," 1 Journal of Gay
& Lesbian Psychotherapy 55, 57 (1990)
Golombok, Susan

"Children in Lesbian and Single-Parent Households: Psychosexual
and Psychiatric Appraisal," 24 Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry 551
(1983)

Hoeffer, Beverly; "Children's Acquisition of Sex-Role Behavior in Lesbian-Mother
Families," 51 American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 536 (1981)
Green, Richard

"Sexual Identity of 37 Children Raised by Homosexual or
Transsexual Parents," 135 American Journal of Psychiatry 692 (1978)
Green, Richard

"Lesbian Mothers and Their Children: A Comparison with Solo
Parent Heterosexual Mothers and their Children," 15 Archives of Sexual Behavior
167 (1986)
Gottman, Julie Schwartz

"Children of Gay and Lesbian Parents," 14 Marriage and
Family Review 177 (1989)
Rees, Richard

"A Comparison of Children of Lesbian and Single Heterosexual
Mothers on Three Measures of Socialization," 40 Dissertation Abstracts
International 3418-B, 3419-B (1979)
Sterkel, Alisa

"Psychosocial Develpment of Children of Lesbian Mothers," Gay &
Lesbian Parents 75, 81 (Frederick W. Bozett, ed., 1987)
Mucklow, Bonnie M., & Phelan, Gladys K.

"Lesbian and Traditional Mothers'
Responses to Adult Response to Child Behavior and Self-Concept," 44
Psychological Report 880 (1979)
Whittlin, William A.

"Homosexuality and Child Custody: A Psychiatric
Viewpoint," 21 Concilation Courts Review 77 (1983)
Herek, Gregory M.

"Myths About Sexual Orientation: A Lawyer's Guide to Social
Science Research," 1 Law & Sexuality: A Review of Lesbian & Gay Legal Issues 133
(1991)

October 27, 2006 5:24 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"In those countries allowing it something like 1% of all marriages have been same sex marriages.
99% of the time marriage is the opposite sex affair people have come to expect"

That's because most gay couples don't want to get married. They've rejected traditional morality and don't see the importance.

The lunatic gay advocacy groups simply want this change as part of their agenda of creating the perception of normality. They've convinced gay individuals to seek it in this country in order to get the same governmental benefits afforded to married individuals.

October 27, 2006 5:40 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

October 27, 2006 7:29 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Anonymous at October 27, 2006 5:40 PM

Regardless of perceptions its clear from the presence of gays throughout all recorded history that it is normal for a small percentage of the population to be gay. What do you gain from portraying gays as not normal, anyway? Only a small, petty, and insecure person has such a driving need to paint minorities negatively.

It shouldn't come as any great surprise that some gays don't want to marry. Society has gone to great lengths to impede and destroy our relationships, its understandable if some don't want any part of an institution that is associated with a society capable of such oppression and hatred. It'll take time for the wounds to heal so more gays are willing to join traditional social institutions.

Many heterosexuals don't want to get married either, no one would suggest that's reason to prevent all heterosexuals from marrying and its the same for gays. Just because some don't want to marry is no reason to prevent those that want to from doing so. Clealy those that do have not rejected traditional morality.

October 27, 2006 8:22 PM  
Blogger Orin Ryssman said...

Randi writes,

I've done a lot of reading on the European countries and Canada where same sex marriage has been allowed. The sky hasn't fallen, not a single heterosexual couple has divorced because a gay couple has married, life goes on just as it did before, no one has been harmed.

No, the sky has not fallen...only the native populations have imploded on a scale not seen since the Black Plague. The only thing that has marginally saved the social-welfare states of Western Europe is the influx of arabs/muslims from the Middle East.

I can see from a cursory reading of your reply that I have not been able to get a single point clearly understood. It would seem where sexual passions are in question, reason goes out the window.

Randi writes,

"Parenting in Gay and Lesbian Families," 1 Journal of Gay
& Lesbian Psychotherapy 55, 57 (1990)
Golombok, Susan


...I'll see you and raise you,

No Basis:
What the Studies Don’t Tell Us
About Same-Sex Parenting

— Robert Lerner, Ph.D., and Althea K. Nagai, Ph.D.

Full Text (PDF - 479 KB)

http://www.marriagewatch.org/
publications/nobasis.pdf

Like I have already said, American society has already gone down one disastrous road of social experimentation with easy, no-fault divorce, and it is the most vulnerable segment of our population, children, that have been placed at greatest risk.

Now we have a group that wants in on what they privately describe as "an oppressive patriarchal heterosexist institution". How do I know this? Because a close...ok, very close friend of mine was once the Executive Director for a national glbti group. This person told me this a while back (before the same-sex conflagration that we are now in erupted) while we were walking off dinner walking thru Castro Street in San Francisco. In this, Anonymous is correct (if a tad hyperbolic) when he stated,

That's because most gay couples don't want to get married. They've rejected traditional morality and don't see the importance.

So, why all of the sudden, do gays and lesbians want marriage? Personally I think it has alot to do with the great strides they have made to date...gays and lesbians no longer live in the shadows of American society. They are our family members (as beautifully shown in The Family Stone), friends, neighbors (both in California and here in Colorado I have had wonderful gay and lesbian neighbors), co-workers, business colleagues, etc. Want to feel the full force of American law? Just attack a gay or lesbian person and watch out (which, imo, is as it should be).

All of these advances have left them restless...wanting more...not feeling fully accepted by everyone. Hence, the push for same-sex marriage now. Gays and lesbians understand that marriage is the "gold ring" of middle class respectability and acceptance, and now they see this as the way to force that acceptance. In this I think they will be disappointed, but alas, I guess they and the rest of us will just have to find out on our own.

Well, I am at the end of my favorite 12 oz microbrew and it is time to get some sleep before work. Thank you for the exchange here, Randi, and while you may not believe it, I do wish you well.

October 27, 2006 10:06 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

Orin

We have discussed that study many times here. It doesn't say anything one way or the other about the question, only criticizes research techniques.

JimK

October 27, 2006 10:09 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Orin:
For you to blame the low birth rates in European countries on gay marriage is completely wrong and I'm sure you know it. We both know no heterosexual couple is going to say to themselves "Well, gee I always wanted kids but now that gays can marry I've lost the desire to procreate.". Low birth rates are associated with wealthy countries and high female education. High birth rates are associated with low female autonomy, education and poverty making parents feel they need many children to look after them in old age.

You made another false statement when you said "Now we have a group that wants in on what they privately describe as "an oppressive patriarchal heterosexist institution".

You heard this from one person, one gay person doesn't represent the opinions of all gay people. I don't claim Fred Phelps represents all Christians, don't pretend one gay person you know represents all gays. I don't believe for a second any gay couple choosing to get married thinks marriage is summed up as a "an oppressive patriarchal heterosexist institution".

No-fault divorce is something that applies to all marriages. As I explained earlier the vast majority of marriages will continue to be opposite sex and not in any way affected by the small number of same sex couples that will get married. There is no comparing the two changes.

You said "gays and lesbians no longer live in the shadows of American society."

I can't believe some of the stuff you come up with. People in your country are frothing at the mouth to prevent gays from marrying, not for any genuine reason but solely because you want to make sure gays are designated second class. All over your country people can be fired from their jobs or evicted from their homes, or refused services just for being gay. Now don't go telling me you won't acknowledge that without a reference.

Even in my own country which has anti-discrimination and hate crime laws I'm afraid to hold hands in public with my boyfriend, we worry about his conditions of employment if our relationship becomes known, my mother told me not to come visit her anymore because she doesn't want anyone to find out about me, other family members reject me and don't want their children to know what I'm like.

You've got one study obviously from a group with an anti-gay agenda, not from one of the major physical or mental health organizations but from some hic, hateful, political organization whose sole mission is to foster hatred of gays.

Your study doesn't address all the studies showing children of same sex couples do just as well as children of opposite sex couples and I only gave you a fraction of those I found, and I'm not much of a searcher.

Letting a gays get married won't prevent you from promoting all the heterosexual marriages you want. Preventing gays from marrying won't result in one single additional child being raised by an opposite sex couple. Preventing gays from marrying will mean that their children don't get the benefits and protections of marriage. If you were genuinely concerned about children you'd favour equal marriage, but you're not, are you, your real motivation is to keep gays second class no matter who gets hurt.

Not all heterosexuals want to get married either, you wouldn't prevent those that do from marrying because some reject marriage and traditional morality.
Just because some gays don't want to get married is no reason to prevent those that do from so doing.

October 28, 2006 12:36 AM  
Blogger JimK said...

I would also point out that the phrase oppressive patriarchal heterosexist institution that some groups privately talk about, according to Orin, gets exactly zero hits on google.

They must be vewy vewy pwivate about it.

Or else Orin made it up.

JimK

October 28, 2006 11:05 AM  
Anonymous Dixie said...

Orin said, "In every instance I can think of, when this question has been put directly before the electorate, or any state legislative body, the answer has been clear. That is why the only hope for activists wanting to change this is the judiciary."

Think a little harder because you are wrong if you think there aren't any jurisdictions that have passed laws allowing gay unions. The New Jersey legislature already voted to allow domestic parnterships, but without full equal rights. Since full equal rights were not allowed, the court was asked to review the law, which was found lacking in equal protection.

New Jersey is hardly alone. "Massachusetts has recognized same-sex marriage since 2004. Connecticut, Vermont, and California have created legal unions that, while not called marriages, are explicitly defined as offering all the rights and responsibilities of marriage under state law to same-sex couples. Maine, New Jersey, the District of Columbia, and Hawaii have created legal unions for same-sex couples that offer varying subsets of the rights and responsibilites of marriage under the laws of those jurisdictions."
(http://tinyurl.com/92yv3)

"The court in New Jersey, for what it’s worth, was hardly activist. The State Legislature had given gay couples the ability to unite in domestic partnerships that gave them most, but not all, of the legal protections available to married heterosexuals. The court simply said that both kinds of partners deserved the same legal protection, and left it up to the lawmakers to figure out how to do it. Hardly a thunderbolt from the sky, but Mr. Bush took up the cause of protecting the “sacred institution that is critical to the health of our society” as if a cadre of antifamily jurists had just abolished matrimony.

All this is, as everyone knows, just a show for rousing the base. If the last month has taught us anything about the Republican Party, it is that homophobia is campaign strategy, not conviction. Congressmen who trust their careers to gay staffers vote for laws to enshrine second-class citizenship for gays in the Constitution. Gay appointees and their partners are treated as married people at official ceremonies and social gatherings. Then whenever an election rolls around, the whole team pretends it’s on a mission to save America from gay marriage."


http://tinyurl.com/v7anp

Some Christians just can't seem to resist bashing their gay *friends* on marriage equality when election time comes around.

Dixie

October 29, 2006 8:45 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home