The Volokh Conspiracy

It seems to me that the only way to measure the effect that legalization has on attitudes is to look at the attitudes of people in a state before and after legalization.

If so, your citation of nationwide opinion polls is not helpful.

In addition to the evidence you cite showing an increase in support for gay marriage in Mass. post-legalization, I think the experience in California also provides evidence that there is an effect. Prop 22 passed in 2000 by a 61% to 39% margin. Eight years later, Prop 8 passed by only a 52% to 48% margin.

How to explain this difference? One possibility: Gays started marrying in California for a limited time in 2004 leading to the highly publicized debate and court decisions that resulted in the March 2008 decision overturning Prop. 22. Between March and November a lot of gays married, and the issue got a huge amount of sympathetic press. The changed attitudes of the voters showed up in the vote margin on Prop. 8.

It just seems like common sense to me that visibility leads to legitimacy and acceptance. This is what happened to gay rights generally as more and more gays have come out, and fear that visibility will lead to legitimacy is, in fact, one of the reasons that the religious right opposes gay marriage.

It seems to me that the only way to measure the effect that legalization has on attitudes is to look at the attitudes of people in a state before and after legalization.

If so, your citation of nationwide opinion polls is not helpful.

Advocates often claim that example effects should have an impact even beyond the boundaries of a particular state. After all, people outside MA or CT can also be aware of what is happening there.

Cityduck: [re Prop 22 vs Prop 8]: Another possibility is that eight years passed between the two propositions. IMO, that's the reason for the bulk of the shift in opinion. But I don't have any data to back that claim up...

That is in fact correct. The 52-48 vote for Prop 8 is very similar to the results of a 2006 poll which showed Californians opposing gay marriage by a 50-44 margin.

Ilya,

True, but comparing the sample from that poll to a sample of voters (which are likely not demographically the same) is an apples to oranges effect. More relevant is a comparison of the 2006 versus 2008 Field Polls:

2008 (after S.Ct. decision) - 51% approved gay marriage.
2006 (not sure date) - 43&approved gay marriage.
1977 - 23% approved gay marriage.

What would be good to know is what was the approval rate prior to the 2004 gay marriages in SF and 2005 trial court ruling that the ban on gay marriage was unConstitutional, and resulting publicity. That is where I'd put my baseline if I wanted to use polls as a measure of the effect of this legal strategy -- prior to the 2004 gay marriages.

And speaking as a gay person, I speak from personal experience that even the most homophobic people can come around on gay rights, given time. Coming out is imperative to the struggle for equality, because it humanizes homosexuality and helps to shatter negatives stereotypes. Eventually, in many cases, that leads to increased political support for gay rights, as well as growing social tolerance and personal acceptance.

I came out to my brother when I was 14, terrified of how he'd react. But he snooped and I confirmed. He said "gays should be beaten straighter than a pole" and "don't deserve to breathe." Within three years, he took me to a gay pride parade. My Mom went from believing homosexuality was "an abomination to the lord" to not believing it's immoral, and supporting gay rights.

Dredd Scott v. Sanford is the classic example of a case where a court decision not only failed to decide public opinion, but created a backlash which left proponents worse off than they were before.

Why would you need someone to provide a definition for a word? Look it up in a dictionary.

▸ noun: a person who hates or fears homosexual people

I see the civil rights argument for allowing gays to marry. But I never see a coherent argument against it. Most news stories are about the process and polls. But outside of homophobia, is there a reason why gays shouldn't marry? Unless you can come up with a rational reason, then you are a homophobe.

Sometimes reasons are given but they fall apart when applied to current laws that allow people to marry childless, or many times.

Well, Patrick, let's take a moment here:

1) My 16 year old son wants a motorcycle. He has the money to buy a motorcycle. He has, in fact, ridden his friends motorcycles, and has taken, a class on motorcycle riding. His mother agrees that he should be allowed to get his motorcycle license, and that he should be allowed to buy a motorcycle.

I disagree. He is an excellent student, and he has had his license since he was 15 and a half years old. But he also has 3 tickets for his car driving (one was dropped). When i look at the statisitics on driving by car drivers his age with his amount of infractions who become motorcycle drivers, the odds of my son being in a fatal accident at his age are phenomenally high.

Seeing as driving is a PRIVELEGE as determined by the state/society, and NOT A RIGHT, I will not let my son have his motorcycle.

Do I hate or fear my son?

Illya wrote:

Advocates often claim that example effects should have an impact even beyond the boundaries of a particular state. After all, people outside MA or CT can also be aware of what is happening there.

They probably do but that probably goes both ways. People who are afraid of gay marriage become more threatened. People who have gay friends become more hopeful. In short there is a wider backlash too. There may be a point of critical mass when the example effect outweighs the backlash, but until that point, it will be difficult to show beyond state boundaries.

Brent: "Do I hate or fear my son?"

of course. You fear that he will get into an accident because he is not yet ready to a driver. That is a rational fear, based on your experience that he is not ready.

Additionally, the state has determined that not everyone gets a drivers' license. However, once you pass certian criteria, you are indeed entitled to get a license, and it cannot be denied for any non rational reason.

Rational reasions to deny a drivers license: Inability to operate a car due to physical handicap, such as blindness, in capacity to understand traffic laws, etc.

Irrational reasons: Because you are black, or poor, or gay.

Same thing with marriage. The only rules for marriage is that it must be two people who agree to marry each other, they cannot be too closely related, and they must be of sufficient age. There are no other tests -- you can get married if you don't love each other, if you are beyond child bearing age, whether you intend to adopt, if you are atheist or religious, or any other reasons.

Two gay people meet all the criteria. What rational reason can there be to deny them to right to marry?

Furthermore, marriage is not a privilege, but a right. See Loving v. Virginia. But even if it were just a priviledge, the state cannot deny a privilege or a right to any group of people unless there is rational reason to do so.

The arguments that I know of for gay marriage destroying society speak of the effect taking several generations. In which societies has gay marriage been legal for three or more generations?

So if it's going to take generations, how do we know it's going to happen at all?

You are trading here the certain and quantifiable denial of rights/benefits/etc. to existing gay people and their families, including their very much alive children, in exchange for a possible risk generations from now that no one ever offers to quantify.

It sounds to me the same - but opposite - argument made about CO2 emmisions that is much reviled by some commentators in this blog

For Thanksgiving at my home, we had 32 people total for our meal, served buffet style, with everyone seated along 2 one adjacent tables in out back yard.

2 of the ladies at our table - seated 2 seats over on my wife's side - are our neighbors of 6 years, a lesbian couple. 2 of my oldest daughter's theater students, both gay young men in their early 20's, are with us at dinner, as well as a niece who has been in a lesbian relationship for over 10 years. Her partner could leave work to make the flight from California.

Our neighbors had the only "No on 8" sign in our neighborhood (I don't do lawn signs or bumperstickers - that's just me). We have had numerous friendly discussions with them on the issue, but most of conversations are about the usual: the car repair I helped them with; their exceptional baking recipes which the entire neighborhood enjoys; the lives of our children, whom they used to babysit. They are wonderful neighbors, and I would defend to the death all of their current rights. But I do not believe in gay marriage.

Do I hate or fear Ann and Cynthia?

Patrick22,

I believe you mean that I fear for my son, not that I actually fear my son.

Also, Loving v Virginia, the Supreme Court decision knocking down interracial marriage, can actually be used to bolster the right of the state/society to limit marriage to gender basis, between a man and a woman.

Brent: " But I do not believe in gay marriage.

Do I hate or fear Ann and Cynthia?"

Yes, of course. Because you fear that if they get married, something negative will happen, or change will occur that you do not like. People who support the right of Ann and Cynthia to get married do not have any fear that their marriage will suffer, or that society will collapse.

If you really believe that nothing bad will happen if your friends get married, then you really have no reason to fear gay marriage.

Thank you Randy.

I do not fear Ann or Cynthia, and their individual marriage, were it to happen will not bring down the fall of civilization.

But that is a disingenuous argument about what the main reason to oppose same sex marriage is.

I have to go to a practice now - I should have waited to begin posting until later, but if you will kindly allow me to return later, I would like to express my view on this.

Thank you for the kind responses.

Enough with the hypothetical exam questions, Brent, even if they are drawn from your life. The only question is, why? Why do you think Ann and Cynthia or anyone like them should (or can) not marry? That's where the hate and fear lie.

You don't like being accused of hate and fear when you don't feel hate and fear in your heart. Fine. It's not a crime of passion, officer. But hate and fear aren't just feeling. They're acts. Excluding people from society on the basis of an immaterial difference is fearful. Disregarding and diminishing their lives, loves and well-being in ways that you cherish for yourself is hateful.

At the risk of doing myself further disservice...

Elliot123

Questions of hate and fear should have a purpose beyond mere accusation. They are legitimate aspects of overcoming prejudice. As there is no rational reason to discriminate against homosexual behavior (be it sex, adoption, or marriage), what irrational reasons drive people. These need to be identified and addressed. And, yes, people will get touchy when the spotlight is turned on them. It still pales next to the scrutiny and acrimony to which gay people are commonly subject.

And actually... Sometimes shame is a real motivator, at least when its deserved and can be redressed. I wouldn't advocate this as public policy but it's been a force in my social life.

Dangermouse wrote:

There's nothing socially productive about two homosexuals pretending that they're the same thing as a mother and a father. They're not. Children need a mother and a father.

What exactly does this have to do with gay marriage? Single people can adopt children, and unwed mothers are not forced by law to give their children up for adoption to heterosexual families.

Furthermore, your views seem fairly typical for hard-line Catholics. So my question would come back to: shouldn't marriage be seen exclusively as a sacrament and shouldn't the state recognize some other sort of family contract? That would help avoid questions of whether the Catholic Church is discriminating unlawfully against divorcees in the way people are afraid laws will go with gay marriage.....

Dangermouse: "There's nothing socially productive about two homosexuals pretending that they're the same thing as a mother and a father. They're not. Children need a mother and a father. They don't need a farce to satisfy your ego. Gay partnerships will never, ever, ever, ever be equal to a traditional family. "

There are currently many families that exist which are comprised of two men and their two children. Usually, the children are adopted. There are currently also many familes comprised of two women and their two children. Usually, these children are adopted, or one of the mothers is a birth mother.

You may not like these familes, but the fact is that they exist. Today. Right now. And their numbers are growing quite a bit. You may not find this socially productive, but most people would say that it is. This is why all major adoptive agencies agree that children are, on average, as well raised by two gay parents as by two straight parents.

You may consider these families a farce. But if your concern is with society, families, and with children (and not with gays), then surely you would agree that this existing families will function better when the parents are married than when they are not. It is better for the children to have married parents than unmarried parents, agreed? It is better for society to have married couples raising children than unmarried couples, which is currenlty the case.

So again, your own arguements support gay marriage, even if you don't like it.

There is no rational objection to SSM? None at all? It must be comforting to dismiss your opponents as irrational bigots, but it does nothing to address the objections that they, at least, do find rational. Nor does it persuade as much as it intimidates. Intimidation is not the favored way of building support for a public policy -- it might be an effective way, but few would proclaim intimidation as a legitimate form of debate.

Having said that much, allow me to outline what I find to be a rational objection to SSM. Most of human behavior responds to incentives. For a long time, society has provided incentives to marry and to stay married. Either society provided these incentives because they were necessary, on the margin, to get people to marry, or the incentives are the result of the married majority extracting rents from the single minority. (I expect most of the libertarians will be sympathetic to the second of the two explanations for society's marriage incentives.) Regardless of the reason these incentives exist, changes to the incentive structure has always had an affect on marriage. For example, LBJ's Great Society program in the 60's gave greater welfare assistance to single women with children. This created an incentive for poor families to break up and many of our poorest families responded to that incentive leaving generations to be raised in single parent households.

SSM will reduce the incentives to marry in at least two ways. First, one of the reasons people marry is because it is expected of them. We do and don't do many things because it's expected of us. We graduate from high school; we don't jay walk (or we do jay walk) because that's what's expected of us. Many of us also "settle down and get married" to fulfill that expectation and to obtain society's approval. SSM will reduce the general expectation that part of becoming an adult is to get married. It reduces that expectation by making society's approval open to virtually all relationships. Why bother to try hard in high school if everyone graduates with the same diploma?

Second, SSM will undermine the general consensus that society should underwrite some of the costs of marriage. Already, many posters on this blog have called for the abolition of any governmental role in marriage -- including the elimination of any tax benefits given to married couples. If these marital benefits are available to virtually anyone, why provide them?

There are, of course, several rational reasons why these arguments against SSM should be ignored. You might say, for example, that our conception of fairness compels us to adopt SSM even though the incentives to marry would be weakened. You might also claim that sexual orientation is innate and that SSM could be combined with additional financial incentives to marry such that, on net, marriage would be strengthened, not weakened. You could argue that people should not require an incentive to marry. Society would be better off if people only married for love. Or, you could argue, despite all historical precedent, that the marriage and divorce rates are not influenced by incentives. However, the availability of these arguments does not make the arguments against SSM irrational.

Is there a rational basis for discriminating against vocational homosexual preference? There are generally two bases stated. The first is that homosexual employers are gay because they hate women, and hence prohibiting sexual preference in the workplace is necessary in order to prevent hate. But ascribing a particular emotion to an entire group, and debarring them from an entire social niche (in this case, being employers or owning businesses large enough to require employees) would seem to be the very definition of prejudice. Is such ascription rational? Isn't it simply a form of animosity?

The second argument is that if sexual preference in employment wwew permitted, everyone would do it, and if it were done unequally (for example all the men did it), women would be effectively excluded from employment. It's a sort of "if you let them in an inch they'll take over the neighborhood" argument. THe surface appeal of this argument is that there actually have been past periods in history where vocational homosexuality was popular and one-sided, and women were excluded. Anti-gay activists argue that this is the natural and inevitable order of things -- unless sexual preference in employment is vigorously suppressed, men will naturally tend to hire only men, and women will be excluded from economic opportunities.

The fundamental problem with this argument is that it could be equally made for domestic sexual preference. There have been periods in history where domestic homosexuality was popular, and the result was to the detrement of women. (See e.g. "The Reign of the Phallus", describing classical Athens.) If it is rational to ban sexual preference in selection of employment partners as a prophylactic to prevent a possible future imbalance resulting in one sex shutting the other out of the system, the difficulty is that it would be hard to avoid this being a rational argument for the domestic sphere as well. If it's rediculous to believe that allowing a few percent of people to take same-sex domestic partners will result homosexuals taking over society and excluding the other sex from domestic life or turning them into objects, it ought to be equally rediculous to argue that allowing a small percentage of people who feel more comfortable working with folks of their own gender to choose vocational associates in a way that makes them feel comfortable will somehow result in preference taking over all of society with a mass exclusion of the other gender from employment. It ought to be equally appropriate to argue that people who make this sort of argument in both cases do so out of hatred towards persons of preference and for no other reason, even though they may not subjectively feel hatred internally.

We constantly get situations where if something happens a very small number of times it's not a real problem but if it happens all the time it is, and such situations cause difficulty for societal regulation. If one regulates too well people may forget why the law was enacted. Environmental law is often like this: nature is very forgiving of a tiny amount of pollution, yet if enough builds up it can work drastic change. Employment discrimination law is like this: if one person in ten thousand was much happier and more productive around people of their own gender, it would be foolish society to prevent it because it basically wouldn't hurt anyone, the number of people involved would be to tiny to make anything more than a symbollic difference in other people's lives. Yet if most members of society hired only their own gender, there would be havoc, particularly if most employers were of the same gender.

Society can rationally ban a practice which would be harmful if everyone did it (or if done in an imbalanced way) in order to keep it from spreading from a tiny percentage to the whole society. And the fact that taboos may result in its being confined to a small percentage for long periods of time doesn't make the taboos irrational. They remain rational throughout. Certainly fire prevention doesn't become irrational just because there are very few fires. Policies can become so successful they virtually eliminate their targets. When this occurs their rationale stops becoming readily apparent. But even if the policy's target becomes so rare we can scarcely see it and it becomes difficult even to imagine a world where it is prevalent, the policy is nonetheless not rendered irrational.

In general, it's very hard to tell the difference between a rational policy and a superstitition. Superstitions are things that worked in the past but, presumably, don't work anymore. But how can we tell when something is no longer needed? The absence of fires doesn't render fire prevention activities superstititious behavior. We feel comfortable fire prevention works even if we can't see it. But we have no guidance to help us distinguish between success and superstition in the general case. How can we tell if the thing went away because of our policy, or despite it? This is a much harder thing to tell than it might seem. We often can't conduct an experiment in which we construct an alternate universe to see the outcome of a different policy would work better than the one we have. We have to decide things as best we can.

We can easily imagine a world where men who employ only men keep women out of economic life except as very low-level objects. This occurred in a fairly recent past. It's much more difficult to imagine a world where all fellowship was same-gender and women were objects of kitchen and nursery. This occurred in a more distant past. But it, too, occurred. In my view, the societal response of banning the exercise of same-gender preference is equally rational in both contexts, so far as the constitutional concept of rational basis is concerned. There are policy arguments why one should be done but not the other, of course. The recentness of the alternate universe matters to these arguments. But the existence of counter-arguments does not render a policy irrational. How much remoteness in time matters is a question of degree, not time. Are we in a fundamentally different social context than the distant past, rendering its prophylactic measures mere taboos? Or is it the measures themselves that have kept the past from repeating? We don't know.

It is very easy for self-confident but blind people to claim that because they fail to see something, it cannot possibly exist, and others who claim it does are mad. One has to proceed with less certainty, and keener vision.

hazemyth:

You don't like being accused of hate and fear when you don't feel hate and fear in your heart. Fine. It's not a crime of passion, officer. But hate and fear aren't just feeling.

No, actually hate and fear are just feelings. In fact, that's exactly what they are.

They're acts. Excluding people from society on the basis of an immaterial difference is fearful.

Excluding people may be motivated by fear, but again, the fear is the motive, not the act. Words matter, and re-defining terms to make them rhetorically available isn't honest.

Disregarding and diminishing their lives, loves and well-being in ways that you cherish for yourself is hateful.

Well, yes, for someone whose purpose is to disregard and diminish. But you're taking the position that unless someone comes up with a motive you accept as valid, hatred and fear are the only possible explanations. That's bad logic and, I'd argue, contrafactual.

Obviously there's no shortage of real homophobes, and they may well be in the woodwork of a cause like Prop 8. But I do know a lot of people who also oppose gay marriage who aren't at all hateful or afraid. They just accept the teachings of their religion. You may say there's something hateful about any such religion, but even assuming arguendo that's true, you'd need a pretty broad brush to paint every believer personally with the most objectionable aspects of his religion.

More to the point, accusing someone of bigotry is serious business, and you shouldn't do it unless you have evidence of his actual motives, not just the absence of a better explanation. Now, when someone says something like:

There's nothing socially productive about two homosexuals pretending that they're the same thing as a mother and a father. They're not. Children need a mother and a father. They don't need a farce to satisfy your ego. Gay partnerships will never, ever, ever, ever be equal to a traditional family.

... then I'd say you're on pretty solid ground inferring hostility from the, well, hostility. But it's no fair blaming someone like DangerMouse on everyone he agrees with. Plus, fair or not, it's bad strategy. People like DangerMouse cost his side sympathy and support. Likewise, accusing everyone who shares his goals of also sharing his bigotry costs your side sympathy and support.

To DangerMouse, I'd only add this: You're on the wrong side of history. Not only is every succeeding generation less willing to buy into your tired biases, but when there's been enough history to compile convincing data, I predict gay marriage and adoption are going to come out smelling like roses. Because the families I've seen that consist of gay couples raising (usually adopted) children aren't just more stable and well-adjusted than average hetero families. They're more so by an order of magnitude. Even allowing for limited sample sizes, I'm confident predicting that this issue isn't going your way. Unless of course you really are concerned for the interests of the kids.

To DangerMouse, I'd only add this: You're on the wrong side of history.

I'll concede that this is true and highly likely. When it happens, though, don't hold your breath expecting to see me out in the streets throwing a temper tantrum about it.

They are wonderful neighbors, and I would defend to the death all of their current rights. But I do not believe in gay marriage.

Do I hate or fear Ann and Cynthia?

You tell us, Brent.

How is your life diminished by your neighbors' marriage? What changes in them or in you if you call what they are living now a marriage?

Regretfully, we didn't hear from Brent why Ann and Cynthia were not deserving of what he had.

Somehow when you ask that question, when you ask to explain why fine wonderful people do not deserve a family, there is a lot of silence.

LM:
Obviously there's no shortage of real homophobes, and they may well be in the woodwork of a cause like Prop 8. But I do know a lot of people who also oppose gay marriage who aren't at all hateful or afraid. They just accept the teachings of their religion.

of all these comments and threads, this is perhaps the most rational argument against gay marriage - that the person simply believes, from a religious perspective, that homosexuality is morally wrong. now I do not agree personally, but I can at least understand this position. it's honest and, from the point of view of the person who holds this belief, rational.

except marriage is a secular contract in this country. I would think most religious people wound understand that we at least have some separation of church and state in this country, and that religion benefits from that.

there is nothing - not from the SSM movement or, to my knowledge, anyone who supports gay marriage - stopping churches from refusing to marry gays. In fact, I'd wager that most gays have no interest whatsoever in being married in a church by people who think their lives are morally wrong. churches are free to refuse to marry gays.

but our secular rights to a contract, recognized by the government, have nothing at all to do with that. proponents of gay marriage want to be treated equally by the government, not by the church. that is the distinction.

so while I respect the position, even if I disagree with it, it's still not an argument agaisnt secular gay marriage.

Jamie:

Massachusetts is a non-starter. When the State Supreme Court legalized gay marriage the immediate result of the population was to attempt to amend the constitution. To amend the state constitution an amendment must first pass as a state wide ballot issue, then pass two consecutive legislative sessions, and then pass another state wide ballot issue. The amendment was killed in the second legislative session based on the argument from opponents that it would indeed pass the state wide ballot. The Massachusetts state legislature has a long and storied history of overruling ballot issues (sometimes illegally) without suffering any political consequences. No one would bother with an amendment that the state legislature would just kill in the second session. Has nothing to due with public opinion.

Thanks Dave for trying, I know it is hard.

to get people to marry, or the incentives are the result of the married majority extracting rents from the single minority. (I expect most of the libertarians will be sympathetic to the second of the two explanations for society's marriage incentives.) Regardless of the reason these incentives exist, changes to the incentive structure has always had an affect on marriage.

Allowing more people to marry will increase taxes on the unmarried. But it doesn't follow that you address that by excluding groups of people from marriage. Excluding Catholics from marriage would also reduce taxes on those currently unmarried.

SSM will reduce the general expectation that part of becoming an adult is to get married.

Are the gays getting married children? I don't follow the logic at all in that paragraph.

Here is the basic logic as I come to the issue:

1. Everyone is equal.
2. Marriage is legal.
3. Everyone should be able to get married.

Since we all assume marriage is legal, then all arguments against SSM have to be that gays are unequal. To be prejudiced against a person based solely on gender is bigoted. If that person is a homosexual, then the bigot is classified as a homophobe. If your religion teaches you to be a homophobe, your religion is homophobic. If you don't like being described as a homophobe, then stop your homophobic behavior.

Gay Conservative: "What about the possibility that unpleasant interactions with gays or direct exposure to the more unsavoury aspects of gay culture actually increases opposition to gay marriage?"

I would say that any striaght person getting direct exposure to the more unsavory aspects of our gay culture would get very jealous very quickly.

What about the more unsavoury aspects of straight culture? Like all that bondage and S&M;? the swinging? The usual fights in a bar? When you think about it, I think we should create opposition to straight marriage, because it is they who destroyed it with all those divorces.

And I don't care what you think -- I will NOT give up my Judy Garland CDs just to conform to a boring straight culture!

Buck: " I'm over-educated and live in a large American metropolis. I have plenty of chances to know and interact with gay people, and I do." Okay, I'll conceed that this is probably true.

"In which the entire campaign for gay marriage is unmasked for what it really is- emotional blackmail. "

Really? You are totally sure that the fight for gay marriage has nothing to do with the fact that many gay couples have children and believe that their children should have the benefit of married parents? You are totally sure that there are no gay couples out there who want the security of marriage in their relationship so that when they get old, there is some one there to care for them, and they get the same benefits as straight married people?

I'd say you interact with gay people, but you certainly don't know much about any of them. But really, it's not because they are gay! Afterall, you aren't aren't a homophobe — you believe that it's wrong to just topple walls on us.

" It is staggering what passes for rational discourse on social evolution these days."

On this, we must agree. It's just sad that you can't see that there are reasons for gay marriage other than just 'emotional blackmail.'

David Walser
as soon as you find me a case where a judge ordered any church to perform a marriage ceremony, then I'll buy your "sky is falling" attempt at an argument.

this is why we have religious freedom and freedom of association. this is why the boy scouts are allowed to exclude who they want, and why the catholic church is allowed to do the same. as long as people can head down to the JP and get married there, there is no rational reason to force any church to do so, and any judge who DOES issue such an order will be roundly overturned by the court of appeals.

If SSM becomes the law of the land, how are you going to guarantee that no gay couple will demand that a church perform their marriage and that no judge will require the church to comply with the couple's demand?

If divorce becomes the law of the land how are you going to guarantee that no judge will require the Catholic church to recognize divorces?

Haven't you seen enough now to know that the fight for gay marriage is really a fight for postgenderism and genetic engineering and against natural conception?

When they say "equal rights" they mean it, they want an equal right to attempt to combine genes with someone of the same sex to create offspring. They want to move beyond gender and make it so that people are not restricted by their gender regarding with whom they can conceive a child with.

We don't have to allow same-sex procreation, it is not bigotry to oppose postgenderism and want to preserve natural conception rights and sexual complementarity.

and this one is easy to answer. because marriage, in a church, is a religious ceremony, and protected by the free exercise clause of the first amendment. medical and adoption services are public services that - while they may be provided by the church, they do not take place in the church in a ceremonial fashion. in fact these services are protected by government laws, possibly (though I do not know this) subsidized by the government, and in both cases regulated by the government relatively heavily. in other words, providing a health care or adoption service does not fall within the 'exercise' of 'religion', but is simply a religious organization providing a public service.

marriage ceremonies that take place inside a church will be protected, that runs to the heart of the free exercise clause.

The 1st Amendment guarantees not just the freedom of religion; it protects the freedom of expression, too. Help me understand why the 1st Amendment guarantees prohibit a church from being required to provide a service (marriage) yet allow an artist to be forced to provide a service (wedding photos)? The wedding photographer thought being forced to take pictures of a gay couple's commitment ceremony violated both the photographer's freedom of expression and freedom of religion rights. The "court" disagreed.

You said that marriage is a "ceremony" that takes place inside a church. Marriage, you argue, is more closely related to the religious aspect of a church than are the "neutral" issues of providing health and adoption services. Let's be clear, the health services we are discussing are abortion and contraception -- issues the Catholic Church feels very strongly about. Yet, the courts had no trouble drawing a line that excluded such services from the church's "religious" activities.

In a prior life, I served as the "pastor" of my local church. Part of my duties included counseling couples facing marital difficulties. My advice was based on the scriptures and the teachings of my church. The advice almost always conflicted with what was commonly accepted by secular marital counselors. (For example, a secular counselor might recommend a couple view pornographic movies to rekindle sexual intrest. I would never have made such a recommendation.) Marriage, not just the ceremony but the day-to-day interaction between husband and wife, is central to my religion. The way a husband and wife treat each other and their children is seen as a manifestation of the husband and wife's religion. Would the fact I was offering advice as a religious leader and that the couple had come to me in that role protect my marital advice from regulation by the state? Of course not! While I served in this capacity, a court in California held a religious minister could be sued for malpractice because a couple was dissatisfied with his marriage counseling services. The standard for determining malpractice was whether or not the advice given was consistent with what a secular practitioner might have given.

Nothing is more central to an artist's freedom of expression than determining what will and will not be the subject of that expression. Yet, a "court" fined a wedding photographer for refusing to photograph a SSM. Does the collection of a fee remove all freedom of expression protections provided by the 1st Amendment? (If so, I've got a great way of shutting down all topless bars!) Or does a photographer need some certification as an artist before the 1st Amendment protections kick in?

Given all the above, you might fairly conclude that it is unlikely that a judge would force some priest to perform a SSM, but you cannot conclude it is irrational to worry that it might happen.

David
Your well-thought out comments raise some fascinating issues, many of which are - you are quite right - borderline. however, I am not sure that they really impact the distinction between secular marriages and those performed by a church (I use church loosely to mean any religious organization).

I am not familiar with the photographer case, maybe you have a citation? I can certainly imagine a court enforcing a contract between a photographer and the people who hired him, but I have no idea whether or not that was the central issue, so outside of that hypothetical response, I cannot really answer that part of your post.

as far as the counseling services, I think context is pretty critical there as well. a church which provides counseling can certainly protect itself with the priest-penitent privilege, but I suppose that depends on the circumstances as well. remember, the right to sue is simply the right to file a lawsuit, it does not guarantee that the plaintiff will prevail, nor does it deny the minister/priest being sued the availability of privilege as a defense. without more, I cannot really comment on that either, except to say that these situations are always more complex than they are initially made out to be.

the issue involving catholic hostpitals and abortions is certainly a well known issue, and I will confess to having no clear answer to that problem because I find the issue to be close in both ways. On the one hand, a hospital that is available to the general public ought to provide services that non-catholics might want. Would you also defend a hospital run, say, by Christian Scientists who refused to provide blood transfusions to non-Christian Scientists? I realize that is a pretty extreme example, but it does address the same issue. nevertheless, with regard to the hospital, because it's a "service" rather than the actual PRIVATE practice of religion, it's at best only dubiously protected from government intrusion.

a ceremony, performed in the church, is not so dubious. it's very clear. If the Court will protect Santoria practitioners in their ceremonial sacrifices, or allow native americans to smoke peyote in their religious ceremonies, but allow the government to restrict those practices outside the ceremonial confines of the respective religions, I am pretty sure the Court will protect more traditional religions in their conduct of marriage ceremonies.

I agree that marriages conducted within the church carry a very heavy religious component. but not all marriages are religious. Take mine for example. My wife and I were married by a JP, both of us are atheist, and as such our marriage means something very different to us than someone in, say, your church. But my marriage is still legally recognized by our government, and I get all of the same secular benefits conferred upon married folks in your church. Your church may still refuse to marry gays, just like a catholic priest may refuse to marry a non-catholic. that is, like I said, the essence of the free exercise of religion - it's NOT, as your other examples may be, a close question.

Enki,

Expanding on DavidW's posts:

First, the New Mexico photographer case was not a matter of enforcing a contract. The case was the subject of at least one thread here on Volokh.com. The photographer politely declined to accept a contract to photograph a lesbian commitment ceremony. For this act, she was convicted of discriminating by sexual orientation and fined. I think the photographer was a born again Christian but I may be mistaken.


Second, legal exemptions for religious needs generally construe religion in the narrowest sense -- i.e. what takes place in church for a few hours on Sunday morning. As DavidW pointed out, anyone who is truly religious considers religion inseparable from their daily lives, 24/7. The narrow view of religion is especially disadvantaggeous to religions like Orthodox Judaism that include a strong legal code as an basic core of the religion.

in other words, give me an example where any secular court interfered with a religious ceremony that took place within the religious institution and I might believe your concern.

Suppose it was performed elsewhere? Orthodox Jewish weddings are often performed in hotels or catering halls; would the venue remove the religious protection? Kosher catering halls are generally run by Orthodox Jews, for profit, and the catering is performed under Rabbinic supervision. Without the supervision, the kitchen and the hall are no longer kosher, and must be re-kashered at great expense. Could the owner of a kosher catering hall decline to accept a same sex wedding? Suppose the rabbinic organization that supervises the catering hall threatens to revoke his supervision if the event -- which Orthodox Judaism equates to murder, adultery and idol worship -- were held there? Could the rabbinic organization be sued or prosecuted for their refusal? After all, they charge a fee for their supervision, but an Orthodox rabbi could no more sanction or facilitate such an event than he could deliberately facilitate adultery or child sacrifice.

Suppose the rabbinic organization merely refused to supervise this one event. The owner now has to bring the agency back in to supervise burning out his ovens, boiling out the sinks and countertops, replacing all the china, etc., at a cost that could well exceed the gross revenue (let along the profit) from the same sex ceremony. Who pays the cost? (Three guesses, and it won't be the agency or the same sex couple.

To anyone faced with these threats to their religious observance and their liveliehood, your assurances are not as reassuring as they are to someone who views religion as nothing more than Sunday school and church services.

John Howard, I guess I can't resist. I have one question.

IF genetic engineering is not legal for anyone, married or unmarried, gay or straight, etc etc etc. then how, pray tell, does allowing gays to marry suddenly make it legal?

Even if your doom and gloom are true, and someone out there wants to conceive via genetic engineering, what does that have to do with marriage? what's stopping someone today from wanting that very thing, regardless of marriage?

ok I know your answer, it has to do with some warped notion of a "right to conceive" that you somehow tie to marriage. of course, you fail to prove that's anything more than rhetoric, but even assuming that's true, what is stopping the government from simply keeping genetic engineering of children illegal, for gay and straight alike?

and how about this. if you are right that this is a real threat, who is to say that it's not just as real even if gay marriage remained illegal?

in other words, you are making an artificial link between genetic engineering and gay marriage. you have not provided any reason why the two should be linked, outside of your assertions.

So according to the data from the Department of Obvious Studies, if you know gay people or gay married couples you are less likely to oppose it. Allowing gay marriage means more gay couples, which means more people will get to know gay couples, which means it will become more acceptable. Seems simple enough.

It seems to me that example effects, if any, are likely to be much stronger at the state than at the national level.

When I see people talking about example effects they usually seem to be talking about two slightly different things: positive examples (i.e. visibility: "there's a gay couple in our PTA now and they turn out to be quite nice, sensible people"), and lack of negative effects ("we've had gay marriage for a year now, and society doesn't seem to have collapsed yet").

Positive examples seem necessarily to involve fairly direct contact, because they're about gut-level impressions of actual people. But I think even "lack of negative effects," which is a more abstract sort of example, has a range limitation. It's by no means contradictory to assume that, for instance, the institution of marriage HAS collapsed in some distant state you don't yourself live in or visit-- so gay marriage or divorce or whatever having been legal there for a long time won't contradict whatever your view of it might be.

David
I apologize if I have come across as unsympathetic to your concerns. That could not be further from the truth, but I have done a poor job of making that clear, so that's my fault.

to me the freedoms that are protected by our constitution mean that you and I both should be allowed to believe what we believe. at the heart of the first amendment is freedom of thought, free from government intrusion or control. For my part, my life encompasses the defense of these liberties, and to that end I will be first in line to defend - in any court if need be - your (and anyones) right to believe what you want and practice your beliefs as you please. in other words, my carreer IS the defense of constitutional liberties for all of us, and my own beliefs are only relevant to my life and my anecdotal experiences. That I am not religious does not mean that I am intolerant of religion, or that I do not understand or have any compassion for those who are deeply religious. my mother is a born again fundamentalist christian (her words), and I have a deep respect and understanding of what that means in her every-day life. that I don't believe as she does does not mean I do not respect her beliefs, and if She (or you or anyone else) were ever threatened with government interference in her (or your or anyones) exercise of her faith, I am there to defend that liberty. It's who I am, what I do, and what I will continue to do.

that said, I have a hard time disagreeing with anything in your last post. I agree with you that there ARE rational arguments opposed to SSM, I have never said otherwise (and I think our conversation started with me, basically, saying so) and some people - yourself included - have represented that point of view well. I do not think everyone is a bigot, even though I cannot conceive of a way to oppose SSM without supporting discrimination. So, even if there are rational reasons - which I acknowledge - I still find the practice inherently discriminatory.

and ultimately I am willing to take the risk that there may be the occasional bad side effect if we were to legalize SSM in this country. That, I suppose, is the price of freedom. And like I also said, if forging ahead with the goal of eliminating discrimination and pursuing freedom butts heads with other freedoms, I will be right there to defend those as well. Nobody said it would be easy, but that doesn't mean it isn't right.

IF genetic engineering is not legal for anyone, married or unmarried, gay or straight, etc etc etc. then how, pray tell, does allowing gays to marry suddenly make it legal?

OK, first of all, it's currently legal, it's not prohibited. Prohibiting it would mean people could not attempt to conceive with someone of their same sex, which, if we still had same-sex marriages, would conflict with the historical universal right of marriage to conceive children. That conflict could be used to justify denying or coercing away a hetero marriage's right to use their own genes, or it could be used to fight the prohibition on same-sex conception, or both.

Even if your doom and gloom are true, and someone out there wants to conceive via genetic engineering, what does that have to do with marriage?

In and of itself, nothing. But if it is not allowed, then it has something to do with the rights of same-sex couples, it means they don't have one of the essential historical rights of marriage, and don't have equal rights to a hetero marriage.

what's stopping someone today from wanting that very thing, regardless of marriage?

Nothing, it is not prohibited right now.

ok I know your answer, it has to do with some warped notion of a "right to conceive" that you somehow tie to marriage. of course, you fail to prove that's anything more than rhetoric, but even assuming that's true, what is stopping the government from simply keeping genetic engineering of children illegal, for gay and straight alike?

It's not rhetoric, Kennedy's opinion Lawrence v Texas (and the synopsis) affirm that marriage has a right to conceive children, because that's what a right to sexual intercourse implies. The government could make (not 'keep') genetic engineering illegal, I'm not sure exactly what is stopping them. Gay rights activists, for one, and the lucrative government regulated industry, for another, etc. They could make it illegal, though. That's what I'm pushing for, do you want to help make it illegal?

and how about this. if you are right that this is a real threat, who is to say that it's not just as real even if gay marriage remained illegal?

It is just as real if gay marriage is illegal. It needs to be prohibited with a federal law, which would prohibit it regardless of marriage.

in other words, you are making an artificial link between genetic engineering and gay marriage.

Equal rights for same-sex couples implies a right to same-sex conception and therefore a right to do genetic engineering. Even Civil Unions with "all the rights of marriage" are therefore unacceptable, the point is that same-sex couples should not have equal rights as a man and a woman.

you have not provided any reason why the two should be linked, outside of your assertions.

The two should be linked to affirm that marriages all have the right to procreate together using their own genes, and that same-sex couples shouldn't have that right.

ok GM's are not currently illegal. want to make them illegal? I'll agree. it has nothing, nor should it, to do with SSM in a purely secular sense.

David: "The Catholic Church believes providing adoption services is part of it's religious obligation to help the less fortunate."

Your memory of this case is incorrect. Catholic Charities had no problem placing children in the homes of gay parents for quite some time in Massachusetts. It was only *after* gay marriage was legalized that they suddenly decided that they shouldn't place children with gay parents. (Actually, many members of the board voted to continue the policy, but they were over ridden by the bishop). When they announced that they would stop placing children, the state then informed them that they were receiving state funds to help them with their placement of the children, and they had a choice: Either forgo the state funds, or comply with non-discrimination laws. CC decided to stop all adoptions all together, which was *not* one of the options that the state gave them, although it did solve the problem as far as the state was concerned. The CC could merely have stopped receiving state funds, or they could have complied with the law, as they did in the past, but they choose not to. No one forced their hand.

And that's as it should be. Any organization, religious or not, that received tax dollars for a project or mission must play by the rules that the state mandates. If you don't like it, don't take the money. It's not a difficult concept, and all organization have no problem with it.

This has nothing to do with separation of church and state. Again, the church could continue their own policy so long as they don't recieve money. Frankly, I don't want my tax dollars funding them if they discriminate against gays. But if they use their own money, more power to them.

"f SSM becomes the law of the land, how are you going to guarantee that no gay couple will demand that a church perform their marriage and that no judge will require the church to comply with the couple's demand?"

For the simple reason that no church is currently required to marry anyone they don't want to marry. Some churches ban interracial marriage, some, like the Catholic church, won't allow divorced people to get married. Why hasn't anyone been successful in forcing them to consecrate a marriage they don't want to? Because they church has a right to marry whom they please. And furrthermore, after having gay marriage in Mass and Canada, there are no cases of anyone forcing the church to conduct a gay marriage.

Randy - well said. I couldn't have said it better myself (in fact, I didn't)

John - um I think a law that makes GEM's illegal is, well, sexual-orientation neutral. it has nothing to do with gay, straight, green, brown, whatever. so I suppose the technical answer to your question is yes, but trust me, I'll never get where you want me to go. I think basing current law on a fictional and irrelevant view of the future is bad public policy. in fact, if the technology someday becomes feasible and safe (assuming I'm still alive), I'd very likely change my mind.

David: Your arguments are not with SSM, but with gay rights at all. All the cases you cite, adoption, photographer, land usage, had nothing to do with SSM. So to say that you are against SSM because it will lead to these abuses makes no sense. What does make sense is that any gay rights ordinances will infringe on your religious right to discriminate against gay people.

We've had these battles before. In the 50s and 60s, people said that they have a 1st amendment right to association. So, if I own a restaurant, I can limit it to white people. My club can exclude blacks. My movie house can have separate lines for white folk and for black folk.

And of course, they had a point. It's their belief systemt that blacks are either inferior, or just not the sort of people good religious white people would want to associate with, even to the extent you can't have them at the table next to you at the diner. Where these bigots? Oh no! Of course not. It's just that they prefer their own types to blacks. Nothing against blacks, mind you. They can have their own stores and restaurants, and really, everything is much better that way. You stay over there, we stay over here. Everyone's happy, right?

But we, as a country, decided that was NOT okay. We forced those places to integrate, which may violate their first amendment rights. And it was not pleasant — people rioted over this.

But somehow we got over this. And is there any person today to wants to go back to that time? Nope.

So when a photographer doesn't want to take pictures for a gay couple, I say, that's their right and their loss. Their loss because their lives would be enriched by finding out that gay people are not evil and could potentially be friends.

David: I believe government's involvement in marriage serves a larger, more important, purpose: the promotion of stable heterosexual marriages.

aha. here is where we disagree. I do not believe that is the government's role in marriage at all. And if it truly is, then it shouldn't be. our government must be neutral to religion, and the above statement has its roots in religion. all of the other reasons you mention - property rights, etc? those are the reasons, and like you said, based on those there is no good reason to deny SSM.

as for the rest, all of those examples of discrimination have one thing in common - the discrimination is not based on something innate in the person being discriminated against, but instead on other circumstances in that person's life. a gay person can no more be "not gay" than you could or I could be "not straight". for that reason, discrimination against you or me because we are straight is not justified, and discrimination against a gay person is equally not justified. you are correct, some forms of discrimination are OK - the ones that are not based on race, gender, sexual orientation, nationality, etc. this is pretty elementary, to be honest.

Randy,

If my recollection of the case in Massachusetts was wrong, I apologize. I agree that someone takes the state's money it needs to comply with the state's rules.

As for a case where a church has been forced to marry someone against its wishes, I'm not aware of such a case. I am aware of a case from Europe (Denmark?) where a priest got in trouble with the government for preaching that homosexual acts were sinful. True, Europe does not have the same tradition of religious liberty as does the US, but the thought that a minister would get in trouble for preaching such a doctrine was unimaginable 20 years ago. It's not out of the question in Canada, today.

The photographer is providing a service that is a public accommodation. He is thus subject to Employment Division. A church preforming a strictly-religious wedding is not a public accommodation. In contrast, if the church is acting on behalf of the state in performing civil wedding ceremonies it would likely have to comply with non-discrimination laws. The state can choose to exempt the church from such laws if it so chooses.

So an artist's free expression right (protected by the 1st Amendment) is trumped by another person's right not to be discriminated against by a private actor? Why can't a judge determine that the provision of a wedding service is a "public accommodation" whether it is religious or not? If the right to free expression is trumped by anti-discrimination concerns, why don't such concerns trump the right to religious expression? That's too many questions in a row.

aha. here is where we disagree. I do not believe that is the government's role in marriage at all. And if it truly is, then it shouldn't be. our government must be neutral to religion, and the above statement has its roots in religion. all of the other reasons you mention - property rights, etc? those are the reasons, and like you said, based on those there is no good reason to deny SSM.

I'd agree with you if I believed that the purpose of fostering traditional marriage were religious in nature. I don't. Scores of studies indicate that children suffer when raised by a single mother. (I'm not aware of studies looking at children raised by single fathers, but I don't doubt they would show similar results.) From such studies, many believe children profit from having positive male and female role models. Children of divorced parents have higher divorce rates when they marry. This indicates that the ability to be a successful marriage partner is, in part, a learned behavior modeled on the what the child observed of his or her parents' interactions. For these reasons we would prefer that men and women, once married, would stay married and that children would be born to married parents.

Some argue that same sex couples can be just as good parents as can complimentary sex couples. That may be true on a case by case basis. However, we have reason to doubt that this is the case as a general rule. Even in the ideal situation, same sex parents will not be able provide a male (or female) role model for their children nor will they be able to model the interactions their (non-gay) children may need to become successful marriage partners.

'Nuff said? Notice, I did not once mention religion. I didn't need to. It's not a religious concept.

David: Since you were once a pastor and did some counseling. Did you ever counsel a gay person? Do you believe being gay is a choice or is innate? Do you believe that gay people are by nature sinners? Just curious....

Randy,

I'll try to answer your questions with the understanding that there's no way I can do them justice in the time I have or in this medium.

First, did I ever counsel a gay person? Yes, but not on the question of homosexuality. Second, do I believe that gay people are by nature sinners? No, not anymore than I believe that I am, by nature, a sinner. We all sin; that is part of the human condition. But I don't believe God has put us in a position where we are required to sin. If I am compelled to act in a certain manner, it's not a sin.

Which brings me to the question I've chosen to address last, do I believe sexual orientation is innate? If by innate you mean genetic, then, no, I don't believe sexual orientation is wholly or even primarily genetic. Studies looking at identical twins seem to argue against a genetic component. (If sexual orientation were purely genetic, learning the orientation of one twin would allow you to predict the orientation of the other twin with near certainty. That's not the case. Indeed, learning that one twin is gay, it would be safe to bet that the other twin is NOT gay.)

The lack of a genetic component does not mean that sexual orientation could not be fixed by birth. Perhaps some hormonal or environmental factors (such as something the pregnant mother eats or drinks) triggers a particular sexual orientation in a developing fetus.

Which leaves us with a substantial "environmental" or learned component in determining sexual orientation. You mentioned the word "choice". In most cases, I don't believe there is an active choice involved. That doesn't mean that decisions we (or others make) may not be involved in some way. I do. For instance, I believe that, had things gone only slightly differently in my youth, I'd be gay. When I was 13 an older boy of 17 offered to help me learn how to ejaculate. I never took him up on his offer -- not because I wasn't interested but because we never had the chance to be alone together. If we had had the chance to get together, would I have enjoyed his ministrations? I think so. (A certain amount of friction applied in certain places tends to produce a certain result.) Having learned to satisfy myself sexually in that manner, would I have ever gone straight?

I don't know. Nor do I know what causes sexual orientation. Nor do I think anyone knows, for sure, what causes sexual orientation. I do know it's a very complex question. A question that's resulted in more additional questions than answers.

John
two things. first, my opposition to GEMs is not moral, only practical. it's not safe, so it should not be allowed in general. however, you didn't ask so I didn't say, but it SHOULD be researched. why? because we're human, that's what we do (advance science). once it becomes safe, if that ever happens, then I will have no more reason to object. it's that simple. I have not changed my mind, I simply understand that it has nothing to do at all with marriage.

second, evolution happens. you may object, but you can't stop it. *shrug*

David:
the studies I've read point to the economic and time problems faced by single parents rather than the assumptions you are making. two parents typically have more time and more resources to devote to raising children than one. the gender is pretty irrelevant to that. if you can point to any studies that suggest two men or two women provide a less stable home life simply because of the gender, well maybe you would have an argument. otherwise, I'm not convinced.

John Howard,

I fail to see how same sex procreation would involve "genetically modified gametes". That would indicate that the DNA was altered in some way, which seems like a necessary step in creating superbabies but not same sex procreation. At its simpelest level same sex procreation would entrail stimulating the natural process of fertilization , most likely without a serm cell. I may be wrong but I would think this to be a chemically triggered process that would not require any genetic engineering as I understand that term.

To me genetic engineering covers things like the gene splicing used to create glow in the dark kittens. I would not even include cloning under that term. Cloning would be covered by bio-engineering, possibly even cellular engineering, but not genetic engineering.

I believe government's involvement in marriage serves a larger, more important, purpose: the promotion of stable heterosexual marriages

What is the logic behind promoting opposite-sex marriages but not same-sex marriages?

John Howard,

I also agree with Enki in that I believe that it is impossible to know beforehand what avenues of research are worth pursuing. I would be perfectly happy not spending tax dollars on such research while allowing private efforts to go forward, but then I believe most research should be funded through private means.

As for moral arguments, you're going to have to switch to ethics in order to have any chance to convince me. (I will admit your chances are already near nil.) The first law of morality is "Thou shalt not question." I may not have fully succeeded in divesting myself of morality but I have given it serious effort and whenever someone points out my making a moral arguement I question myself on it.

Soronel
you may feel free to substitute "ethical" for "moral" in any of my posts. I cannot, however, speak for JH. heh.

Anything that changes the genetic payload that is passed on from parents to children is engineering, even if it uses a chemical process to achieve the change, which may very well be all that is required to get male imprinted gametes from a woman's body.

How about this: we all seem to agree that it is unsafe now, so why not make it illegal now, and if the public does decide that it should be allowed, then we allow gay marriage. Until then though, as long as we are agreeing that same-sex conception is unsafe and not ready, let's agree that it should be prohibited now, and settle for Civil Unions that give all the other rights of marriage for now. That distinction makes CU's valid and recognized and constitutional in California, and it makes it possible to achieve consensus in Congress for federal recognition of Civil Unions that are defined as "marriage minus conception rights".

Then, we can debate the issue of conception rights for same-sex couples separately, and not hold up all the other protections and benefits for couples that (trust me) have zero interest in subjecting their children to unnecessary radical and risky experiments just to both be biologically related. I would still strenuously argue that we should preserve natural conception rights and so we should make the ban permanent, because only then would we all get the benefits of not having genetic engineering and Transhumanism looming over us anymore. But at least there'd be a public discussion and if we decided to pursue same-sex conception and make it safe, we would switch the Civil Unions to marriages at the same time that we repeal the ban on genetic engineering and/or same-sex conception.

David Walser: "Having learned to satisfy myself sexually in that manner, would I have ever gone straight?"

Not to diminish the earnestness or thoughtfulness of your reply but I don't think you really get gay people. You might need to clear out some misconceptions and take a harder look at what gay life is really like. People don't become gay because they find a sexual practice that works for them. It's more than simply sexual and it is entirely compelling -- which would suggest it's not a sin, by your definition. You don't chance upon it because of an offer someone made. It's a central and insistent aspect of your desire for human contact.

And, as for male/female role models, Enki is right. The public perception that studies support the need for them results from misrepresentation by interested (religious right) parties. The key studies typically discussed did not examine gender, just single parentage vs. parental partnerships. Those that conducted the studies have repudiated their misappropriation. Discussions of female/male role models tend to be oversimplified and stereotyped. I would suggest you take a more critical look at gender, generally... but it's beyond the topic of this thread.

This is also what I mean by dehumanizing gays... Or anyone really. You can't qualify someone as a parent, or any social role, based on something like their gender.

John Howard.
this is getting a little tired, but I am, as they say, a patient man. nevertheless, I am a rather busy person so I think this will be my last response here, because ultimately we are getting nowhere, and I actually get a little irritated when people such as yourself attempt to speak for me without actually reading what I say.

It most certainly is threatening individual conception rights right now, because people are treating conception rights as unrelated to marriage and something that can be prohibited or allowed at any time, even if a couple is married.

this is your opinion and completely unsupported by any facts. in fact, from what I've seen (and I've been involved tangentially in the issue for twenty years now), you are the ONLY person to make this argument. so your assertion that "people" are doing this is simply unsupported by reality. Even if you can find a handful of your friends who agree, it's still far from some large scale groupthink.

and, it doesn't answer the question anyway. your statement, even if it's true, does not show how normal conception is threatened by SSM - that is, how will SSM lead to people no longer having babies in the normal way. I'm guessing that there is no answer to this, but hey.

But you insist on equal conception rights for same-sex couples, even as you agree that it is not something that anyone is going to attempt any time soon.

you are putting words into my "posts". I never insisted on anything even resembling that. Your interpretation of what SSM means is not the same as mine, clearly.

I do not think you have a winning argument, all you have is an opinion that you believe is correct. of course, you are entitled to that, but I'm not here to win or lose anything. I'm sorry if you are, because what you and I think is not likely to mean anything either way.

I'm glad you illustrated that the same-sex marriage argument is not about hospital visitation or protecting any of the families raising children or anything that has been claimed, it is about equal conception rights to attempt same-sex conception.

again, that's YOUR interpretation, which of course you are entitled to, but do not ascribe it to me. I do not agree with your view of the future, no matter how you may attempt to spin my own opinion.

I have made every effort to engage in a meaningful discussion with you. perhaps you are incapable of that, which I suppose I must get through my own thick skull. FYI, in the future, it might behoove you to refrain from calling people "insane", accuse them of "bullshitting", or - perhaps most eggregiously - ascribe arguments to them that they did not, in fact, make. In short, show the same respect to other people that they show to you. until then, peace.

Excuse me, polyamory, not polyandry.

As for saying that the research is not worth pursuing, many people thought the same of early work on micro-computers and any number of other areas.

The safety issues I will conceed for the time being, which is why I would confine any such work to animal experiments, just as cloning has been. I can see great potential benefits of such work, such as quicker development of new traits like milk production in dairy cattle by breeding two cows rather than needing an intervening generation.

Beyond that the longer this discussion continues, the more shrill you sound without being able to point to any actual danger to anyone who would like to procreate naturally. If you are trying to posit some sexless Demolition Man future as the end product of such research, well I don't know what to tell you.

John Howard,

The problem with your "wait for it" line is that if the line is drawn where you advocate it will in fact never be possible. Your are hiding ultimate defeat in the wrappings of comprimise.

Enki, I mean, sorry.

Soronel:

As for saying that the research is not worth pursuing, many people thought the same of early work on micro-computers and any number of other areas.

That's a bad argument, in and of itself. You have to look at every issue on its own and consider whether pursuing it will be good or bad, and whether banning it will be good or bad.

Let me ask you why you assume banning it will be bad and allowing it will be good. It seems the only argument either of you have made is that we shouldn't ban any inquiry of science because it is increases knowledge, regardless of whether that knowledge will be useful or perhaps bring about bad things, because sometimes we like the results of scientific research. But address this issue directly: why is same-sex conception a good thing, what is bad about it not existing?

I'm not sure that conception is legal between people married to other people. I call that adultery and unethical. It may happen, but lots of things happen that people decide not to pursue criminal charges over. That doesn't make them legal.

And I'm saying that same-sex couples shouldn't have the right to conceive together, which has nothing to do with unmarried conception or extra-marital conception.

If I'm sounding shrill, it's because I'm incredulous that you are all choosing such a dumb and dangerous choice of making procreation unrelated to what sex we are and choose to procreate with, instead of getting equal protections to same-sex couples and preserving equality and individual conception rights.

I meant to say "It would be a defeat for people that want to do GE, same-sex conception, and for same-sex couples to have complete equality with male-female couples, true." I suppose that was obvious enough, but this gives me a chance to note that those people are called Transhumanists. My beef is not with homosexuals but with Transhumanists. They're using gay people with this equal marriage question to achieve their goals, and it is harming thousands of same-sex couples and their families.