Alan Keyes speech in defense of marriage (Boston, MA)

Well, I'm here. It's one of those times when one can be grateful to God for traveling mercies. Absolutely. I certainly am.

I'm not going to spend a lot of time on preliminaries, because I know you all have been here a long time. I think we come together obviously on occasion of great and deep critical importance to this state and to the country--though I have to tell you that, looking at the way some folks respond to it in our politics, I'm not sure they appreciate its real importance.

At times like these, though, when we are especially tempted on all sides to be carried away by the strong emotions that are generated by the political nature of the subject, I think it's especially incumbent upon us to resist the counsels of passion and indignation, and to call on our common sense and our faculty for rational discourse and persuasion, in order to think through the crisis we confront.

And that's what I'd like to spend the next few minutes doing, if you will have some patience with me, because it is going to require a little bit of patience in order to look at some things in a way that I think is necessary, but can sometimes, especially in our day, be a little tedious because it doesn't immediately reflect anymore, sad to say, the understanding of things that prevails in our public mind.

So, to all of the folks who have an interest here and around the country, and to all of you who have come together tonight--I know with a heart that hopes for both the survival of marriage and the survival of our institutions of self-government--I would invite you to join me, and as the scripture says, "Come, let us reason together."

In order to do so, we must first start by trying to get a right understanding of just what is the question in front of us--and actually, it turns out that there are two questions that are posed, I think, by the present crisis in Massachusetts. One has to do with the institution of marriage, the other has to do with our constitutional institutions of self-government.

The first question can, I think, be put pretty simply, though people try to make it into something else. It's a simple question of whether same-sex couples shall be admitted to participation in the respectable estate of lawful marriage.

Obviously, in the course of time and the course, indeed, of our whole history and tradition, up until this moment, the people of this state, the people of the states around the country, the people of the country have, through their representatives, continuously, over the course of years--indeed, without really ever considering any alternatives--they have continuously reached the judgment that the answer to that question is "no."

They have done so, by the way, not because they wish to discriminate against this or that sexual activity--which, of course, in the course of things, it probably never occurred to them. They did so out of respect for their understanding of what that marriage estate is all about.

But that means that in order to consider this question carefully, we've got to really look at two questions. One has to do with the nature of human sexual relations. (Notice I didn't say "homosexuality"; no, really, the question is about sexuality, itself.) And the other has to do with the question of the nature of marriage.

Now, with respect to the first, there is obviously a view now abroad which asserts that homosexual relations, same-sex couples, have their right to love and intimacy, and to express themselves as they would in the use of their physical organs to derive pleasure, and so forth and so on. And at one level, the simple level of personal choice, there are many who would say, "Oh, yes, fine!" And they say so, by the way, because they want to grant to homosexuals that "prerogative," shall we call it? Some would call it vice, but [we'll call it] that prerogative which they have arrogated to themselves.

This is part of what causes the difficulty on this question. People try to act as if we are talking about homosexual relations. No, we are talking about a certain understanding of human sexual relations that is epitomized in the same-sex relationship.

Now, let's take a look at that for a minute. There are some things that one can see pretty obviously on the surface, and they are actually things that in some ways come through, if you have any familiarity with the literature, movies, other writings that are done by homosexuals, themselves, there's something that they actually talk about with reasonable frequency, in terms of what makes this kind of sexuality so attractive--and what makes it attractive is that it is free of consequences. It is the indulgence in sexual relations for the sake of that sensual, and sexual, and emotional fulfillment that the parties involved can derive from the relationship, and that's all there is to it.

There's a certain "freedom" to it, which they often comment upon--but freedom in what sense? Well, truth is, it's by contrast, isn't it? Because, try as we might in our society, with pills and condoms and rampant abortion and so forth, truth of the matter is that in the sexual relations between man and woman, there's always a certain shadow that hangs over things. There's that possibility that, quote, "an accident" might happen, and then there you'd be with a, quote, "crisis pregnancy," and so forth and so on.

What all that verbiage actually is talking about is the fact that sexual relations between a man and a woman are actually haunted relations. They are relations in which two parties are involved, but in which the relationship between those parties, sexually, is haunted by the possibility of another party, of a third life, of a third being, which would be the fruit of their relationship.

Now, of course, one might call that third being coming into the picture, you could call it an accident, if you like, but the truth of the matter is, in one sense, that child's life is not an accident.

It is from the point of view--wait, wait. No, no. From the point of view of the sexual relationship, itself, the actual sexual relationship, that is to say the relationship based upon the sexual distinction--can I pause here for a minute?

A little aside, because we use this word in such careless ways, and I actually think that in some sense, we have allowed the careless use of it with respect to those activities that are engaged in by same-sex couples. You can call them many things. It's not entirely clear to me you can call them sexual, because in point of fact, sex is no part of what they do. Indeed, they have, in forming that same-sex relationship, turned their backs on the sexual distinction. So, though they use, in the course of it, those organs which conform to and express the sexual distinction, their use of the organs has nothing to do with that distinction, and therefore, nothing to do with real sexuality.

Real sexuality is about the distinction between male and female, as expressed in the body and its differences. And the reason I say that the child isn't an accident, is because everything about those differences points in one direction: procreation!

Now, see, this is the kind of thinking, though, that we really have to take patiently because we use the word so carelessly most of the time, but the truth is that the sexual distinction as such--that is to say, human sexuality as such--exists for the sake of procreation and nothing else. It's that simple.

So, that means that the child's life is not accident, it's essential! It's not an incident, no. It is expressive, in fact, of the essence of human sexuality, and it is in consequence of that essential truth about human sexuality that the relations between men and women are always haunted by the possibility of procreation.

But haunted, in what sense? Haunted by that possibility in the sense that that life represents, what? It represents the possibility that there would be an obligation, a lifelong obligation that transcended the immediate and momentary satisfaction of the parties to any given sexual episode or relationship.

That is the truth, in fact, of human sexuality. It is haunted by that line which separates the choice of pleasure from the obligations and responsibilities that are the consequence of procreation.

Now, I go through this because that sets up a clear distinction--and it's not a distinction that prevails just between homosexuals and so-called heterosexuals. No. It's the distinction between what we could call an understanding of human sexuality that is based in the end upon hedonism and self-gratification, and an understanding that is based upon the essential acknowledgment of the responsibilities and obligations of procreation.

These are two distinct alternatives. And I use the word "hedonism," by the way--and some people will think that that's pejorative. It's not. The word "hedonism" comes from the Greek hedone, and it means "pleasure."

And I think that it would be kind of absurd on the face of it for people who advocate same-sex relationships to turn to us and say that those relationships are not about pleasure--the point being that, at one level, that's all they can be about.

The relationship between man and woman can be incidentally about pleasure, but essentially about procreation and family, and things that in fact transcend the immediate gratification of the parties involved. The same-sex relationship is haunted by no such necessities, no such obligations. It is essentially about fulfillment of the passions, the needs, the dreams, the ambitions, the this or that. You can put up any words you want, but at the end of the day, it's just the people that are there. It's about them!

It is not about the future! It is not about the society! It is not about that which at any given moment can transcend the pleasure of the individuals! It's not about that.

Now, wait. I'm walking through all of this, y'all, because I think it's important to remember, though. And that's why I call it the view of sexuality based on hedonism and self-gratification, but you and I both know that this understanding of human sexuality is not confined to same-sex couples.

Whole industries, both in the entertainment media and in the production of all kinds of contraceptive devices and pills and this and that--all based upon, what? All based upon the pursuit of this form of sexual fulfillment, to free oneself from the shadow of procreation, so that it will no longer haunt the relationship, no longer burden the relationship, no longer be there as something which calls one away from the vocation of self-gratification toward a vocation that requires responsibility and self-sacrifice.

Now, I have walked through this, and I understand why y'all are applauding, but in point of fact, these are just subjective differences. And we are asked, well, shall be one, shall be the other--and let's not deny that there is something in our nature that finds that kind of view of human sexuality, what one of our authors called the "zipless you-know-what," that finds it kind of attractive, like sort of taking off all of the constraints, running through the fields of flowers with nothing to answer to except the call of your own fulfillment. And there is an understanding in this society of happiness and individual choice and freedom, and all of that, that fully conforms with this understanding, and for which this is in fact the notion of human sexuality that predominates.

Now, we do have to ask ourselves, though, from another point of view--the point of view of the question that we're raising here. Which of these do you think constitutes a better basis for the marriage estate? Well, to answer that question, we have to kind of take a look at what marriage is all about--don't we? We have to ask ourselves, why does it exist?

It doesn't exist, by the way, so people can get pleasure from sex. I think most people could manage this without an institution. They could manage it without the government. They could manage it without the approval and participation of society--and by and large, they do. Why does society get involved?

I saw a columnist right here in the Boston Globe was asking that question some while back, in an article that was like Michael Kinsley in Slate, where he actually raised the possibility that the government should just get out of the business of marriage, have nothing to do with it. It would just be private. People could go to their churches, do what they please.

The problem is, it begs the question. We look at the whole range of human history, and guess what? We will find, in every society, in every civilization, we will find that society gets involved in the business of regulating the marriage relationship--of understanding about what constitutes that relationship, what shall be the obligations and expectations that flow from it, what shall be society's attitude toward it, what shall be society's reaction in enforcing those things. Why?

You see, I think the answer to that question is pretty simple. It's because, throughout human history, there has been an acknowledgment that, well, marriage is about family; it's about having kids. And guess what? Though because we have lived for a long time in a civilization in which this is done in an orderly way, we forget it--we ought to be reminded just by a visit to the family court on any given day of the week--there are some very complicated, emotional, even violent issues involved in the consequences of marriage.

See, because once you have a sexual relationship and children result, somebody's got to decide who's are they, first of all. Who's responsible for them? Who has to take care of them? That's step number one. Step number two: what expectations exist, in terms of who they have to listen to, who's household they shall belong to, who's authority they will be subject to? Then, of course, there's a whole range of issues that have to do with inheritance and kinship relationships and obligations.

There are, of course, in our society, as well, a whole set of obligations that everybody seems to be forgetting about, which arise from the fact that--though they may not last too much longer if the folks on your [Massachusetts] supreme court have their way--there are still laws on the books against things like incest.

One of the questions I've had about the whole train of things in our society--this whole idea of sexuality without responsibility, without respect for the essential mission of procreation, what has it resulted in? Leave aside homosexuality. It has resulted in rampant illegitimacy. It has resulted in the black community and other communities in a situation where there are many, many children being born who don't even know who their father was, where the mother couldn't identify the father if she tried. And we can all talk all we like about DNA and this or that. You think everybody's going to have a DNA test before they hop into the sack? You've got another think coming.

And that basically means that as we lose track of who's fathering whom, and who's mothering whom, we lose track of who's your sister and who's your brother. We lose track of those things which are essential to know if you are to respect what still remains the society's sensitivity about incestuous relationships.

We won't even go into that question, at least not right this minute. The other question about how you deal with whole question of parental authority and honoring your father and mother, that's a question for a different venue--but I do get into it sometimes when I'm talking to church people less exclusively, you know. I try to point out to them it's hard for me to understand how you can honor your father and your mother when you don't even know who they are. OK, well, that's a kinda hard one.

And why is this relevant? Well, if you know of the practices of some of the same-sex couples who want to get involved in procreation--I was reminded of it the other day. I was reading an article about this case in California, where two lesbians were fighting over the custody of children that genetically were traceable to one, but which the other had raised. And I know, probably nobody else reading that article--well, no, I won't say nobody, because Sandy thought of it, too--was sitting there, thinking how ironic it was that they're fighting over whether the genetic mother should have any claim, while whether this other person in the lesbian relationship who has no genetic relationship should continue to have a claim. You know what? Nobody even thought about or mentioned, nobody asked a simple question about whether the father of those children should have any claim, because, very often in these relationships, they are conducted in such a way and conception occurs in such a way as to intentionally mask who the father might be, so that children must grow up without knowing who their father is. And that means that an incestuous situation could easily arise in our society, it's more than likely to arise--not to mention every other kind of incestuous complication.

No, we're not. But I wish to get back to the process of thought that we're going though, and asking the simple question: which will be the better basis for marriage--that hedonistic self-gratification approach to human sexuality, or the approach that sees procreation as its heart?

Well, that must be asked from society's point of view, so that we understand why society gets involved. It gets involved to regulate the consequences of procreation. It gets involved in order to avoid the feuds and disputes and conflicts that lead to violence and war when they are left to fester in a society. And it gets involved also with a larger view to assuring that the society, itself, shall be perpetuated, through citizens who are reliably conceived, responsibly raised, in order to constitute the future of the society.

That means that from society's point of view, marriage is essentially about the children. Marriage is essentially about the future. Now, you see, this an understanding we get away from, but we shouldn't. See, because we have, in some ways--and I understand why, because there's a certain charm to it that helps people to be attracted to the marriage estate. Why do we need them to be attracted to the marriage estate? So we can have children who will be responsibly raised, and who will become the basis for a decent future for the society--and as a result, we want to make marriage as attractive as possible.

We paint it in rosy and romantic terms. We portray it in the movies as the "choice of the heart" as people go toward one another, and so forth and so on. Well, on the other hand, there may have been a certain greater honesty in the past, when people called it the "bonds of marriage," when they referred to "holy wed-lock."

And when, in the context of that discussion, it was quite clear that, yeah, it's definitely a choice--at least at first. It's sort of like the choice that a prisoner might make to take the first step forward and hear the door clang behind him.

Now, you and I both know that I don't really take this dim view of marriage. I rather like being married. I like being a father. A matter of fact, I love it. I couldn't think of myself any other way. But we should look, though, at the truth, that underlying it is not this well of airing about with choice and liberation and so forth. No. Marriage is about bondage, marriage is about obligation. Both words mean a tie that binds you, obliges you, puts you in a position where you must meet certain responsibilities, or fail in your moral obligations.

And if we adopt an understanding of marriage that is on the wholesale basis of hedonism and self-gratification, one of the problems with it is that we're lying to people. We're giving them the impression that you enter an estate by your will, and that you can stay in it, leave it when you please; it's all about freedom. Marriage isn't all about freedom. It's a little bit, I think, like military life.

No, no. I mean this seriously. It's a little bit like military life. My father was a soldier. There are some great joys in military life. There are. It is an experience that has to it sometimes a kind of fulfillment that I doubt you get in any other estate in human life--especially after you have been through the business of risking your life with courage for the sake of your country, and can look back upon what you have done with a sense of pride, a sense of honor, a sense of fulfillment, a sense of verification of who you are and what God has made you, that you get in no other way.

And those who have known the camaraderie of the military life will tell you that there is a degree of friendship and trust and loyalty that binds human beings together and reaches into places of the heart never known to any others but those who have had to rely upon one another in the face of an enemy meaning for you only death.

Yes, there are some really deep and profound joys and gratifications involved in military life, but nobody in their right mind would think that's what it's about. What it's about is getting yourself ready to fight and face death and go through a whole lot of miserable conditions in order to make sure that you can effectively pursue the mission of defending your country, defeating the enemy. So, though it involves joys, those joys are kind of incidental, they're kind of nice spin-offs--but the truth is that there's an essential discipline, an essential sacrifice, an essential conformity of the heart to the requirements of the institution.

At the end of the day, until you have accepted the discipline, until you have learned to redefine yourself in terms of that conformity, you do not discover the pleasures, and you do not know the happiness that the institution can provide.

And as I think this is true of military life, so it is true of marriage. See, the joys of marriage are there, but they are a part and parcel of a heart that understands that it is not the whim of the heart that decides what happiness is. It can be the needs of the child. It can be the potential of the offspring. It can be the hopes that are born of the talents that you see in them, which become for you a discipline--rising early and staying up late, and working at jobs that you hate so that they can have what they need, forgoing the pleasures you used to know so that they can be moved forward. At the end of the day, it's all at the heart of it about a willingness to shape the heart in an understanding of love that has at its heart not gratification, but service; not passion, but the deep commitment to do what serves the good of others.

So, we have to ask ourselves: what do you think is a better basis for marriage that will satisfy the need for that kind of a response, that kind of a formation of the human heart and character?

Is it marriage to which we have admitted the idea of human sexuality based upon hedonism and self-gratification?

Now, people will say, "Well, homosexual couples who adopt children. . . ." Well, yes, but see--if, though, you start out with a relationship that has at its base a paradigm of hedonism and self-gratification, it will not be true of everyone, but it's certainly going to be true of some folks that your desire for children will be an outgrowth of that same view.

I think it's one of the things that not only is a problem in terms of considering homosexuality. The whole hedonistic understanding of human sexuality has infected the view that people have of who children are. You're going to have your children when you're ready for them, and then when you're ready, and they fit into your life, and they fit into your career, then when they're a fulfillment for you--I listen to all these actresses talk about this sometimes. That's entirely the way they talk about it. "Well, I reached that stage in my life when my needs would be fulfilled by a child."

That is the extension of the mentality of self-gratification to the business of the child--and what does that mean? It means that, in the end, that child has not come into this world for its own sake, for the sake of what it represents to the future and in the eyes of God. It has come into the world for the sake of that individual who saw it as a source of fulfillment, a source of gratification. In that sense, it comes into the world not as an end in itself, respected as human beings ought to be for the sake of their intrinsic dignity, but rather as a commodity meant to serve the convenience, and the pleasure, and the self-gratification of the one who has welcomed the child into the world.

It may very well be that in many of these cases, the presence of that child will turn the heart in a different direction, but the turning may be required--and that's the problem.

Now, why is that a problem? Well, see, it's a problem because, when we talk about what marriage ought to be from the point of view of society and the law, we are talking about the law, aren't we? And that requires that we remember what law is.

This is hard, too, for people these days. What is law? People say ridiculous things about law sometimes. One of the most ridiculous things they say about law is that you can't legislate morality. I mean, there's a great problem with this, because the truth of the matter is, when you look at it, what is law, essentially? It is the codification of rules of behavior or conduct--in the light of, what? In the light of standards of what constitutes correct and incorrect conduct, right and wrong conduct.

And meaning no offense to anybody, when you are considering what constitutes right and what constitutes wrong, you are making a moral decision, you are involved in moral issues.

And in point of fact, there's hardly a law that one can consider that doesn't involve such issues. The laws that have to do in our society right now with all the issues of social welfare, are at their heart pieces of morality legislation--legislation that is based upon, what? The appeal politicians get up and make and say, "We must care for the poor! We can't leave people behind when we are enjoying prosperity!" Why not? Romans didn't care about it. They left people behind with glee. They figured it was their tough luck, they weren't favored by the gods. See?

When we decide that it is wrong to neglect the poor, to leave them without our aid, that it is wrong unfairly to structure a society so that others will be left behind and neglected, when we decide to tax people for that reason, and to set up huge bureaucracies for that reason, and to send people out in welfare programs and housing programs for that reason, we are legislating morality! We are deciding what is right and what is wrong!

We do so when we pass the criminal laws, we do so when we pass the laws that govern our economic life. Caveat emptor was the great byword of human economic life at one time. What did that mean? It meant, "Let the sucker beware."

But the truth of the matter was that just like military power at one time was seen as a legitimate basis for acquiring dominion over people, at another time superior knowledge was considered quite a legitimate basis for acquiring money from people. If I knew something you didn't, and took advantage of you, that wasn't fraud, that was clever business! If I was in a position to gouge you with usurious interest rates, that wasn't fraud, that was clever business! The change, where you start to look askance at such practices, and decide that you must put down in legislation codes of conduct that require that people respect the needs of the (what do we call ourselves these days?) consumer, that's a decision about conduct, about what conduct's right, what conduct's wrong. That is legislating morality.

And it turns out, doesn't it, that as you go down the list, taxation is the same way. When we're considering what is a fair and equitable tax code, we're asking a question about what shall be the right distribution of the burden for supporting societies, what shall come from the rich, what shall come from the laborers. And you know what that is? That's a decision about right and wrong. That's a decision about equitable treatment. That's a decision about what conduct in the society as a whole constitutes right conduct, and what conduct would be wrong because it neglects fundamental principles of fairness.

We are legislating morality. These moral issues not only are involved in legislation, it turns out that they are the very substance of the law. They are the very heart and essence of almost every decision that is codified in the law, because the laws represent standards for regulating conduct, and standards for regulating conduct and decisions about what conduct is right and what conduct is wrong.

Now, this brings us to a very important point, because in point of fact, that's what we've been considering. We have these two different understandings of human sexuality: the hedonistic, self-indulgent understanding, the self-interested one; and the one that has procreation at its heart, and that is characterized by the need to acknowledge responsibility and obligation. Two separate understandings of how human beings should conduct themselves, how they should behave with respect to the pleasures and gratifications that are involved in sexual relationships.

And just so no one will miss the point: the reason that homosexuality epitomizes the [first] one is that homosexuals are not haunted by the prospect or possibility of procreation--because they're simply not capable of it. I think this is pretty obvious, isn't it? And it was understood in human society at one point that if you're not capable of procreation, marriage doesn't have anything to do with you, because marriage is about procreation.

But now comes along the supreme court of Massachusetts in order to tell us, what? Well, in order to tell us, under the specious argument about rights that they prefer the understanding of human sexuality that regards hedonistic self-gratification as right conduct that must be legitimized, made lawful and acceptable to the society.

And yet, the law of Massachusetts embodies another view that says that marriage is based upon a sexual distinction haunted by the essence of that sexual distinction, which is the capacity for procreation and the responsibilities and obligations that are involved; that marriage should be based upon a clear understanding embodied in the very flesh of the parties to the marriage that that vow, that commitment to the married estate, means that one has acknowledged the stepping across the line from a realm of simple choice and free pleasure to a realm where pleasure will be connected with procreation and obligation and responsibility.

Now, of course, I know if I were in the Massachusetts legislature or if I were just talking to the people myself, I know what I'd ask them to choose, and I would make the arguments I have been making tonight, and I would point out that if you want to get safely to the future, you need to base your family system on an institution that encourages people to have the heart, to have the character, to have the discipline, to have the understanding that is needed in order to dedicate themselves to the business of raising children responsibly for the future.

This is what I would say to them, and I would say that they must remain committed, as they always have been, to that understanding of marriage which has procreation at its heart--not because they are against homosexuality, but because they are in favor of the future!

I would say such things if I could speak to the legislature, I would say such things if I could speak to the people--but guess what? And now we get to the second element of this crisis. We live in a society based upon constitutional self-government, and in all the constitutions of the states and the federal government of the United States, that constitutional self-government embodies an understanding of the separation of powers--an executive branch, a judicial branch, a legislative branch.

And for the sake of maintaining what our Founders called republican--small r--government, that is, what Lincoln defined as "government of the people, by the people, for the people," all those constitutions respect this fact, that no law can be made in our country that does not emanate from the people or their representatives.

What does this mean? Now, see, what I just said, by the way, has to do with what goes into making a law. Now, you say, "What do the judges do, then?" Well, the judges decide cases in conformity with law. They decide whether this or that is done against the law, whether this or that conforms to the law. They decide whether conduct conforms to the rules, they do not decide what the rules shall be!

They decide what outcome conforms to the law, they do not decide what the substance of the law will be!

Our Founders warned us unequivocally. And I think it's time that the legislators of Massachusetts and Governor Romney and everybody else stopped talking in abstractions, and went back to look at the understanding of republican government on which this nation was founded!

That understanding is clear and explicit--in this especially, that without the separation of powers, where any two of the powers are joined in the same hands, where the executive is the judge, where the judge is the legislature, where the legislature is the executive, when those powers are joined, you do not have the rule of law, you have the tyranny of the judges, the tyranny of the legislature, the tyranny of the executive!

We are faced in this country now, at the federal level and at the state level, with judges who have arrogated to themselves the prerogatives of the people--and in this particular case, they have masked their decision about what shall be the right basis for marriage under a specious argument about rights.

But the specious argument about rights can't mask the truth! They are not deciding about someone's rights, they have usurped the right of the people to decide in the law what is right, the right of their representatives to decide in the law what is right!

And that means that if the officials in this state, from the governor on down, acquiesce in their decision, they have not respected the rule of law, they have put it aside to allow the reign of abusive judges!

Now, that gets us to the question, finally, of what are the remedies here. What are the remedies? Well, see, there's actually a remedy that's supposed to be in our system, and that is implied in the separation of powers and in pretty much all the constitutions of our country. It's called the system of checks and balances. People used to talk about this when I went to school. Do they talk about it in school for you? They used to. I don't know, because some of the schools have been dumbing down our education so much that they don't let the children understand these things anymore.

But the thing is that the system of checks and balances meant that the powers were divided, but it also meant that each branch of the government was armed with something that allowed it to defend itself against unlawful usurpation of its prerogatives by the other branches. Why have people forgotten this? The most important prerogative of the executive when faced with unlawful action by the judiciary is, what?

No. The executive, what can the executive do? Well, I'll tell you what the executive can do--and this is what I think governors need to remember, the president has to remember at some point when faced with lawless judges. They need to remember exactly what all of us in our hearts know that those soldiers over in Iraq should have remembered: that when you are bound by oath to respect certain rules of conduct--whether they are in the uniform code or the constitution of the state of Massachusetts--when you are bound by personal oath, if you stand aside while others abuse and destroy those rules and that constitution, you have not secured the rule of law. You have in fact abdicated your oath, abdicated your responsibility, and destroyed the rule of law!

The right response when, in the army, you are given an unlawful order, is to refuse that order. The right response of a chief executive in this state and in this nation, when faced with an order by a court that he conscientiously believes violates the constitution he is sworn to respect, is to refuse their order!

And then, so that the constitution of his state and the fate of his people will not be left at the mercy of this crisis in the government, it is his responsibility to turn to the legislature and ask on behalf of the whole people that those who refuse to respect the constitutional prerogatives of the people and their representatives be removed for the sake of law, for the sake of self-government, for the sake of constitutional integrity!

The simple truth is that if the governor doesn't understand his responsibilities and refuses to act on them, if the legislature doesn't understand its responsibilities and prerogatives and refuses to act on them, then guess what? There are no checks, no balances, there is no constitution. And do you know who loses?

Because the sad thing is--and this is a thing I think we need to think about as we decide how we're going to hold these people accountable. If they allow the consolidation of power in such a way as to destroy and undermine the representative nature of our government, to substitute the will of a few judges on the substance of the law for the will of the representatives elected by the people, then elections mean nothing, then laws are no longer being made by the representatives of the people, they are being made by an irresponsible oligarchy answering to no one except their own whims, their own will, their own perverted judgment.

I'm afraid, when you think it through, we are not only in a crisis that has as its import the destruction of the institution of marriage as it respects the essential mission of procreation, we are also faced now with a crisis that involves a deep threat to our system of constitutional self-government, to our entire way of life.

If a handful of individuals responding to the immoral clamorings of a small minority can substitute their judgment of right conduct for the judgment of the representatives of the people, can impose their dictates as laws, even upon those who are, according to the Constitution, the right fount and source of law, then our republic is dead, and our freedom is gone.

And I don't say that with a light heart. I look at what's going on in this country with a sense of deep grief and almost betrayal. I come, as you know, from a race of people who, for the longest time, did not know full participation in this society based upon real liberty, self-government of, by, and for the people--and now, after all the years of struggle, they have been admitted to the precincts of full participation only to see some abuse the heritage of civil rights, in order to promote an approach that will destroy the very legacy of self-government for which people fought and died, in the name of civil rights.

I was on one of these programs the other night, and the interviewer asked me about a comment apparently made by Barney Frank--that he said that in six months, this whole thing would blow over, and everybody will have forgotten about it.

Well, wait. Wait, wait. I would remind Barney Frank that that's what they said about Dred Scott, and you see what happened. It's also what they said about Roe vs. Wade, and you have seen what is happening.

I think that in spite of the corruption of our elites, the corruption of our media, the corruption of our professional leadership, the corruption and gutlessness even of many of our political leaders, I think the conscience of America is still a conscience that fears God, that seeks truth, and that knows that it cannot sustain real liberty if it is willing to surrender to tyranny.

I believe this, but you know, just as checks and balances won't work if the branches don't have that understanding, courage, and conviction to stand for their prerogatives, so self-government will not survive if, in this great crisis of our land, we, the people, do not stand together to demand that which is our right--and it is our right to make the laws in this country, through our representatives. It is not the right of judges to usurp that prerogative.

In Massachusetts, that will mean that, even as we listen to the temporizing verbiage of politicians at play, the people conduct their serious business. And I have to tell you, I think your serious business is clear. Some people have stood aghast at the thought that you would try to remove the judges because they made this decision, but when the judges are in the business of destroying both the fundamental, moral institution of your society and the constitutional balance of power that sustains self-government in your state and in your land, I think that you had better organize relentlessly to remove them, or they shall remove your freedom!

So, I would say that far from what Barney Frank has said, whatever happens on Monday in this state, I think that in every way that we can, by those means that our Constitution and our freedom leave within our reach, we must organize and work to send clearly the message in this state and around the country that those who sit by and tolerate the destruction of our constitutional liberty will and must be replaced by others who will defend them.

Commit yourselves to this: across every line of party, across every line of affiliation, across every line of religious belief and faith, commit yourself to this defense of self-government and liberty, and then, like the true marriage-based family, you shall be what is required to secure for our posterity the blessings of liberty.

Here's some more food for thought. This is from a May 3, 2004, interview:

KEYES: Well, unhappily, I think what's involved here is an assault on the very idea of what marriage is all about--and this is forgotten in the discussion. People talk as if this is somehow about homosexuals. No, it's not. Their situation and condition is being used by folks who are assaulting the very meaning of marriage, itself.

As I often explain to people, you go back, even in societies like ancient Greece, where homosexuality was practiced, and tolerated, and accepted, and so forth and so on, if you had walked up to somebody on the way to the Athenian assembly and said, "I'm going to propose a same-sex marriage law," they wouldn't have gotten angry with you, they wouldn't have been outraged or indignant, they would have laughed in your face.

And the reason for that laughter would have been the commonsense understanding prevalent throughout human history that marriage is about procreation, and if you in principle can't procreate, then marriage has no relevance for you, it's not significant, it's not an institution in which you can in fact participate.

I think the fact that we have lost sight of what is at the heart of the institution of marriage--now, I'm not talking here about personal relationships. I'm talking about a social institution, because, after all, when you have in society, through the mechanism of law and government, an institution that regulates a relationship, there has to be a social reason for that. It is not done in the case of mere friendships or other intimate relations in our society. A matter of fact, I think most of us realize that our friendships aren't the government's business.

Why is marriage, this most intimate of personal relationships, also the government's business? Because marriage leads to procreation, and procreation, throughout the history of human society, has given rise to claims and counter-claims and expectations and obligations that have caused serious feuding and conflict and difficulty for the peace and order of society.

So, in order to deal with those consequences, societies have established an understanding: when will a relationship constitute marriage? When will parents have certain obligations toward their children? When can children have certain expectations of their parents? When must society accept and recognize the authority of parents over children? And so forth and so on.

This was all in relationship to the ultimate and essential purpose of marriage, which is procreation--not, as some of these people are arguing, making people feel better about their sexual relationships or their love or anything else. You don't need a legal institution for those kinds of purposes.

Alan Keyes on For the People with Chuck Harder

First, Gelato, let me just say that relative to many others on this thread, you seem to be the most argumentative -- something I respect. It takes no courage to chant what everyone else in the flock is saying, but it does take courage to create an original argument. Let me speculate that there might be "science" in your profession. And sorry to take so long to respond.

But marriage isn’t about having children, remember? Isn’t that what you said? We’re not supposed to think of marriage in terms of what it might mean to children and procreation. Right? It’s about the love between the people seeking the marriage. Isn’t that what you believe?

No. I'm sorry I wasn't clear. My fault so here goes. STATEMENT: Children are a big part of marriage, but not a requirement, and does not encompass all of marriage. ARGUMENT: Lots of people get married with no intent or possibility of having or adopting children. EXAMPLE: In "The African Queen", Hepburn and Bogart ask the Nazi captain to marry them first before he executes them both minutes later. I have yet to hear any Christian argue against this type of marriage. EXAMPLE: When it comes to vows, and I'm going out on a limb here, only that Catholic weddings (and only some of them) actually use the word "children" in their wedding vows. Do you remember your wedding vows (assuming you're married) or a friend's wedding vows? Did the word "children" ever come up? If so, have you ever been to a wedding where the vows omitted the word? I have. If you have also, did you protest? For the rest of you, this is what I call an argument.

The opposite [Even mice and bugs have incest taboos via pheromones. So let's dispense with incest] is true. In nature, incest is quite often acceptable and desirable. In domestic animals, incest is common, even intentionally.

No. Incest is not desirable. See: Incest and Breeding. Just because you find examples of it, like suicide, does not mean it is desirable, nor does it mean the opposite is true. It is not an argument. Incest is not-optimal for all sexual creatures' DNA.

Look at the pedigree of any purebred animal. You cannot find one without incest. Incest is used in animal breeding to increase the likelihood of the inheritance of certain traits. In fact, without incest, different breeds of dogs or cats could not exist.

CONFIRMATION: I found a reference that supports your statement: The Myth of Canine Incest -- Breeding Methods Examined. ARGUMENT: But you know what? Pedigree breeding is artificial. All dogs have descended from wolves some 13,000 ago. Without human intervention, purebred dogs would quickly become mutts by their natural aversion to incest. Just because humans like incest in dogs, doesn't mean the dogs intuitively like it. See: Is Incest Common In Gray Wolf Packs? which says: In sum, our results show that within wolf packs, mated wolves are rarely related as siblings or as parent-offspring. FYI: Little Jeremiah, you'd probably call this government research paper "unintelligible gibberish" too.

(By the way, mice have no incest taboos: http://www.horns.freeserve.co.uk/mouse4.htm They will mate with any relatives.)

Thanks for the link, but this behavior is observed in the laboratory, where the taboo has been bred out of the mice accidentally, but not so much in nature. Google Search "MHC, the Major Histocompatibility Complex". From: Why Incest Isn’t Best, claims that mice are the greatest cited example of incest because of artificial laboratory experiments, and is not a reflection of what mice really do in natural habitats.

Hey, you know what Gelato, this might just be the line of questioning you need to explain why gay people are the way they are? Perhaps our society, by definition an artificial one, has bred out some of the homosexual taboos. Maybe the population increase and density has done that. Just a thought. Still doesn't make it right to persecute them.

Using the pattern set by nature as a guide, certainly a little incest wouldn’t hurt, right? Some degree of it is natural, and in some cases in nature it is beneficial. Why should the small minority who wants to practice incest be legally barred from the benefits of marriage, if marriage is not prohibited to gays? This question is especially valid when children are excluded from the marriage argument.

Now you are starting to get logical! You are giving me a taste of my own medicine, and I like it. Incest taboos are the best supporting argument that marriage laws exist for the sake of children. If I could prove that gay marriages increase the chance of producing genetically defective children, which I (a tax payer) will be force to subsidize, then I would vote against it. But there is that AIDS thing isn't there? I'd hate to stoop so low to argue that AIDS is a much shorter problem, less economical problem than defective children. The gay people that get AIDS tend to pay for their own treatment, and die soon. And AIDS is not just a "gay" thing.

Denying this couple the right to marriage is a violation of American freedom--wouldn’t you say? “All we want is to be left alone,” Carrol Ferdinandsen said in an interview, “so we can finish our lives together.” If homosexuals can marry, what reason do we have, legally, to prohibit marriage for this couple?

OK. Long post. As I said to TexasTransplant, I wish you were my neighbor too. I don't think I can argue against your statement. Not sure if I want to. I haven't yet. I was arguing that our laws constitutionally allow constraining the number of people in a marriage (polygamy) but not about the sexual nature of the people (homosexually), and certainly not the race of the people (interracial marriages). Is it unconstitutional to constrain the relationships between (two or more) people, such as brother and sister, doctor and patient, incarcerated felons, etc? Good question! If yes, then it cannot be an argument against prohibiting sexual nature because being gay is an attribute of an individual, whereas relationships are attributes of plural sets. If no, there's the Ninth Amendment getting in the way. Our Constitution is all about protecting individual rights, and does very little more than the First Amendment to protecting the rights of groups.

Congress won’t have to. The courts will make that law for them. Do you think that would be constitutional or unconstitutional for the courts to act in this way?

I believe it is unconstitutional for them to do that. Courts (and other judicial branches) do not create laws. That's the role of the legislative branch of our state and federal government. Now the courts often bend the law, but that's up to the Supreme Courts to resolve conflict. This is an honest question. Is it illegal for gays to get married? Or is it just a bill submitted to the house? http://www.nolo.com/lawcenter/ency/article.cfm/objectID/6DF0766E-C4A3-4952-A542F5997196E8B5 Someone quote me a federal law please. I believe that if the law does not say you cannot do it, then you can do it.

The latter is not unconstitutional, though I would change it to "union," not "relationship."

Agreed.

If the denial of marriage to homosexuals is inherently “persecution,” how do you justify “persecuting” bisexuals who would like to marry both a man and a woman?

Refer to above.

The constitution of Massachusetts states that all laws dealing with marriage are to be handled by the governor and the legislature, not the courts. Yet, the high court got involved and legalized gay marriage. Supporting their ruling is antithetical to the idea of enforcing the law, wouldn’t you say? As Dr. Keyes points out, their ruling violated the separation of powers. Do you support this kind of interference by the courts in general, or just when it comes to decisions you like?

If what you say is correct, then I am against it. If it breaks the law, then it is illegal. But I don't think that was the case, and my facts may be wrong. I think what happened is that governor and legislature created laws in the past. These laws did not explicitly state that gay people could not get married. The courts interpreted the laws in favor of gays. If this is not what the law was meant to do, then the legislature needs to change the law. But it is OK for the courts to interpret the laws -- that's what they do, and why they exist.

The Constitution does not say we have rights based upon what “technology” has to say. That’s a dangerous theory for rights. We either have rights or we don’t. There is either an equal right to any kind of marriage, or there is not.

You are right. We do have rights. But rights change, and new laws are created. There are laws for changing the law. We used to have a prohibition law. Then it was repealed. We used to have laws for slave trading. Then they disappeared. We currently do not have a law that prevents people from smashing asteroids into comets. Someday in the far off future, Congress might just create one. But until they do, the Ninth Amendment says I can go out and smash heavenly bodies together, regardless of whether I am technologically constrained by a gravity well.

You will have no such option to vote on this issue. The matter will be decided by the courts, and they will use the precedent that has been set by the arguments for gay marriage you have supported. They will be consistent in their logic, and base their decision on the premise they have already established.

Voting is not the only legal method for fighting an idea. I can fight it by testing and challenging people near me, on chat groups, and in forums. Perhaps one of my children might one day participate on that court.

The Constitution does not allow the courts to write law, only to apply it. The constitutional principle of separation of powers was violated by the Massachusetts high court. Do you support that?

Yes. I'm with you on that! You probably have me at a disadvantage on what actually happened in Massachusetts. If they broke the law, hang 'em high. If all they did we interpret the law, escalate it to the Supreme Court. I think that the fact that GW wants to get a Constitutional Amendment, means they probably just interpreted the law. Please prove otherwise and cite links.

The premises I accept allow the logical rejection of marriage between same-sex couples, incestuous couples, bisexual couples, and polygamist couples. The premises you accept necessitate the granting of marriage rights each and every one of these relationships--unless you allow discrimination as another premise, in which case I would like to hear your reasoning.

I had hopes that my arguments said otherwise. In either case, premises are not an argument, as I can disagree with them. But I think you were on the right track for arguing. That is, you tried to find common ground with your antagonists (me) and then applied Aristotelian logic rules to show contradiction. Did my arguments contradict myself (a very bad thing for me), or did my premises merely contradict yours (something I can live with)?

Freedom is the ability to know, desire and seek the good --freely.
Isn't that a tad bit tautological?

The last "freely" is added for emphasis. You can disregard it without losing the meaning of the definition.

In addition, it appears that you are claiming that if you don't have the ability to seek it, or know it... then you cannot be free.

You are correct.

You cannot seek or desire the good if you don't know what's good.

I'm smiling. I can only guess your definition of "the good" is what "God says it to be".

No need to guess, I'll tell you. The good of a living thing is its proper object. For example, the good or proper object of a tree is to grow and reproduce. The good of a bird is to fly. The proper object, the good, or the final end for human beings is eternal life with God. A properly ordered life directs all lesser functions toward this end. Therefore, at times, eating an ice cream cone might serve a man's good or final end, and at other times it may not, if he's a glutton, for example.

In this country, people differ on what "the good" is -- even good Christians.

The truth is independent of an individual person's understanding of it.

That's why we give "freedom" to people to pursue their definition of it.

This is political freedom, not true, absolute freedom. The degree of this kind of freedom that is granted to citizens is a matter for prudential judgement. Some freedoms, like freedom of conscience, should not be violated by the state. Other "freedoms," like freedom of speech, which Americans take for granted, should not be absolute. Examples include pornography and slander. However, the state can legitimately restrict political speech if it serves the common good. It's not an absolute right.

To answer your question, I think most of these references are on the right path: Definition of Liberty, with Liberty is self ownership being the decisive "economic" difference between capitalism and statism.

This is the error of libertarianism. It's close to the truth, so it's not easy to see. No one has an absolute right to self-ownership. No one has a right to harm himself, for example. As a rule of thumb, it works. But it lays the groundwork for false intellectual judgements regarding "victimless crimes" such as pornography, homosexual "marriage," sodomy laws, prostitution, etc.

Liberty is freedom from coersion, whether from one person or from a democratic vote certainly sums up our Republic and Rule by Law philosophy.

Again, this is a rule of thumb. But no one has the liberty to harm the common good. The first principle of the State is the promotion of the common good, as the preamble to the Constitution states.

Bearing to this thread, I pick Liberty is determining for yourself how to live your life...

Taken absolutely, this is false. This is license, not liberty. I would define liberty in the political sense as freedom from coercion from the state in making decisions that should be the province of the individual or family.

...and Liberty is the only social arrangement consistent with the Golden Rule.

True liberty, as defined above. The definition is consistent with the principle of subsidiarity, which is a corrollary of the Golden Rule.

The question of marriage is by no means an easy one to tackle, and in the debate so far, quite a few issues have been raised. Nevertheless, it appears the kernel of the controversy can be distilled into this one question: “On what basis can society justify involving itself, through government, in marriage--and to what extent is that involvement necessary?”

Of all the relationships a person can enter into, it seems odd that government involves itself in this, the most intimate of relationships. Should this be the case? Do we really need governmental sanction for the union between man and wife? What of gay marriage or other alternatives? Would this matter be best resolved by removing marriage from the government’s business altogether? Since marriage is a religious concept, why not leave it entirely up to churches?

To answer that, let’s take a look at what the result would be if marriage abode by the laissez-faire, libertarian principle. What would happen if the government left marriage alone?

Obviously, gay marriage would instantly become legal across the board. In fact, ALL forms of marriage would become legal. Polygamist marriages, consensual incestuous marriages, same-sex marriages, bisexual-polygamist marriages--even child marriages would be permitted by the state.

Put this proposition to the American people, and the first question they would ask would be: “Even child marriages?” To that, we’d have to answer: “Well, yes. We forbade the government from touching this issue anymore, remember? Government can’t get involved. We left it up to the churches--and there’s a separation of church and state, don’t ya know?”

This will not be an acceptable answer to 99.99% of the American public. They will demand immediately that government get involved and put an age limit on marriage.

And there you have it. With that, marriage moves from a religious principle untouched by the state, to a societal one with governmental supervision. Marriage becomes a state interest.

Before we get that far in the argument, let’s ask whether majority opinion is supreme in this matter. Can the 99.99% majority overrule that .01% of the American population who wants child marriages?

Don’t say, “No one wants marriage rights for children.” 18-year-old men are often jailed for statutory rape, even when it was “consensual.” A recent “consensual” case discussed on The O’Reilly Factor involved a 12-year-old girl in a relationship with a man in his early 20’s. Girls as young as 11 and 12 years old have had abortions. Attempted marriage with underage girls has been reported in the U.S.: this year, a polygamist man was sentenced for marrying his 15-year-old cousin (who also happens to be his aunt).

There are countries with no laws against child marriages, and in some cases, underage marriage is the rule, not the exception. The majority of girls in Afghanistan are married before they become adults--some while still elementary school age. In Nepal, 40% of girls are married by the age of 15, and 7% before they are 10. The Republic of the Congo has a 74% child marriage rate.

Some child marriages exist for religious reasons. The Hindu religion, for example, includes the marriage of children. In the U.S, we see the case of some polygamist religions having attempted it. Given the reality of immigration and non-traditional religious sects in America, perhaps the number of those wanting no marriage age limit is larger than we might estimate.

But for the purpose of this discussion, an actual figure isn’t necessary. We will assume the number is the minority.

Which brings us back to the question: can the majority demand that the government prevent the marriages of this minority? I believe the answer is YES.

If you also accept this premise, that means you accept the idea that society can rightfully regulate, through the government, its own moral ideas of marriage, despite the views of a the minority--and even when the minority’s view is based on what seems to be a noble principle like religion or ethics. Here is the dividing line.

Do you accept this premise, when it comes to governmentally-imposed age limits? Your answer will determine the next step in this discussion.

Discussion to be continued . . .

Thanks for the response, and sorry for the delay.

“On what basis can society justify involving itself, through government, in marriage--and to what extent is that involvement necessary?”
Do we really need governmental sanction for the union between man and wife? What of gay marriage or other alternatives? Would this matter be best resolved by removing marriage from the government’s business altogether? Since marriage is a religious concept, why not leave it entirely up to churches?

Certainly this country was founded by a religious population (mainly Protestant) but the forefathers were smart enough to realize that Protestantism was invented (rebelliously) because religion was tightly coupled with government politics (namely European), and consequently wrote provisions in the U.S. Constitution to keep the two separated. However, removing religion from the government did not destroy the purpose of the government--only limit it. Government still functions to promote the general welfare of the people (un-religiously), define and enforce law (un-religiously), and secure Liberty to its citizens.

To answer that, let’s take a look at what the result would be if marriage abode by the laissez-faire, libertarian principle. What would happen if the government left marriage alone? Obviously, gay marriage would instantly become legal across the board. In fact, ALL forms of marriage would become legal. Polygamist marriages, consensual incestuous marriages, same-sex marriages, bisexual-polygamist marriages--even child marriages would be permitted by the state.

I agree. Government should be involved with marriage -- for legal matters. So should churches, family, friends, ..., everyone you can muster up that has a vested interest in marriage. The more the merrier. But some people just go to Las Vegas, file for marriage online, or just let Common Law kick in. After marriage, the government is just a party that is supposed to be unbiased when vows are broken. But everyone gets involved because its a lot easier to keep your vows (a kind of psychological protection or insurance) when you realize that it's not just a promise to your spouse, but also a promise to everyone else around you that you value, such as family, friends, workers, and if you wish, God, priests, et al. For my marriage, I've also included myself as part of the promise I made.

Put this proposition to the American people, and the first question they would ask would be: “Even child marriages?” To that, we’d have to answer: “Well, yes. We forbade the government from touching this issue anymore, remember? Government can’t get involved. We left it up to the churches--and there’s a separation of church and state, don’t ya know?” This will not be an acceptable answer to 99.99% of the American public. They will demand immediately that government get involved and put an age limit on marriage. And there you have it. With that, marriage moves from a religious principle untouched by the state, to a societal one with governmental supervision. Marriage becomes a state interest.

Again, I agree. Government should be involved in marriage; especially to prevent child marriages, and polygamy, which I assume exists for legal simplification (or logistics) of divorce, dispute settling, and filing joint taxes.

So I believe that the real purpose of marriage, historically, is to sanction sex by society -- not to promote children -- that side effect is an implied probability. Our conservative Catholic history originally defined marriage as "the only legal permission for having sex." You pretty much got one shot at it with one person, with the exception of death. Any violation of this rule was subject to the most harsh punishments--humiliation, excommunication, banishment, imprisonment, and often death. Later, annulment was invented for marketing purposes. Soon after, the Protestants discovered that they couldn't commit to a single person for a lifetime, and decided split off and change the religion (well, invent a new flavor) that kept all the previous tenets of marriage, but changed the implied meaning of till death do you part to till one of you decides to publicly call the whole thing off. The words in the vows remained unchanged, but the meaning changed. Marriage was still a sanction for sex. You were not allowed to have premarital sex, or allowed to have sex with someone that you were not legally given permission.

Today, modern countries have separated the laws for legal sex from the laws for legal marriage. I have yet to find a country in which the legal age for marriage does not match the legal age for sex. In the USA, its 18. Here are some modern US laws that prohibit sex: * you cannot have sex if you are under 18 * you cannot charge money for sex * if you are married and you have sex with someone other than your spouse and your spouse complains, your spouse can punish with divorce most economically in his or her favor. You see, we've gotten quite lax with our laws about sex. But the government gives other benefits for marriage. Your spouse has implied Power of Attorney, without having to visit a lawyer. If one dies, or is hospitalized, the other gets to make tricky decisions, inherit wealth and property, assume tax benefits, and continue getting retirement funds. None of this has anything explicitly to do with sex. It's all about property ownership. Some old couples get married just so one spouse can inherit tax-free and assume retirement funds. Children are another reason for marriage -- not solely to create them, but to have guardianship over them. The surviving spouse gets the children, regardless of whether the children are his or hers.

Do you accept this premise, when it comes to governmentally-imposed age limits?

Yes. But I think the big point that I was trying to make in this entire debate was that (1) Alan Keyes was trying very hard to convince me that marriage was all about children, and I could name many reasons (in previous posts) why this is not just the case, (2) I don't believe that it is right for the government today to discriminate against one's sexual preference in defining today's usage (not ancient definitions) of marriage, providing that two gay couples are in all other respects legally allowed to marry; i.e. at legal age, not already married, etc. I drive this point home by pointing out that today gays legally can * adopt children * get Power of Attorney * have sex with each other * kiss in public * hold hands in public * have television shows dedicated to their gayness * publicly announce that they are gay * sue companies and the military for discriminating against them, etc. (3) The government already promotes and subsidizes children by giving legal guardians tax benefits (and welfare) based on the number of children they have, and not on whether the parent is single, or married, or gay, etc. It is this point that George Bush (who I love) will never get a Constitutional Amendment defining marriage as proposed.

In lieu of all these facts, common practices, and society mores, I find the argument against gay marriage hypocritical at least. Personally, no one else's marriage threatens my marriage. Mine is covenant with God and is therefore immune to all this fluff. If it were not, then certainly the concept of legal divorce would be a million times more threatening to my marriage than the concept of gay marriage.

I'm interested in where your line of reasoning will continue now that I have answered your questions. Your turn...

I agree. Government should be involved with marriage -- for legal matters.

Let’s analyze that thought. Which legal matters do you mean?

Power of attorney? You don’t need marriage for that. You could legally grant anyone close to you that privilege.

Inheritance after death? Technically, marriage isn’t needed for this one, either. Look at Raymond Burr. After his death in 1993, his homosexual “partner” inherited the wine orchard and other properties. They didn’t need marriage for that. As you know, any person could be named in a will.

Medical decision-making? That’s what health-care proxies have been established for. Non-married persons can name a health-care proxy to make healthcare decisions in case of emergency. Again, marriage isn’t needed here.

Co-ownership of property? This can be easily drawn up in a contractual agreement, without marriage.

Social Security and welfare benefits? This might be one minor case in which marriage has a benefit denied to unmarried partners. However, if this is the purpose for marriage, can you imagine the romantic wedding proposal, “Marry me, and we’ll share our Social Security checks”? “Marry me, and I’ll put you on the government dole”? The persons involved might as well stay single, and collect their government checks independently.

It makes no sense to say marriage is instituted by society solely for financial reasons, when a romantic couple is better off financially without getting married. There are great benefits to being unmarried. Unmarried couples pay less in federal taxes, are not automatically responsible for one another’s debts or medical bills, and share a lower Social Security burden. In addition, concerns about shared income are resolved by legal contracts.

In the long run, unmarried partnerships are legally less messy than marriage, given the lack of responsibility involved. Once you split, you take what’s yours, along with your share of co-owned property--just as in any business relationship. Unmarried couples are more likely to enter into legal agreements concerning property, medical wishes, and legal authority. These benefits have contributed to the rise of unmarried cohabitation.

With all these benefits to being unmarried, who needs marriage, after all? What is the purpose of governmental involvement in marriage?

Government should be involved in marriage; especially to prevent child marriages, and polygamy, which I assume exists for legal simplification (or logistics) of divorce, dispute settling, and filing joint taxes.

Polygamy, along with child marriages and incestuous marriages, were outlawed before the “filing of taxes” existed. Prior to the 20th century, paying taxes was a simple affair with no correlation to marriage. Simplicity in filing taxes was, it’s safe to say, far from the minds of Congress when, in 1862, it outlawed polygamy in Utah. Divorce was also very rare at the time, and was not a factor in the debates against polygamy. The settling of disputes was also a non-factor in outlawing alternative marriages. Simplifying disputes hardly seems a justifiable basis for making laws that discriminate against whole groups of citizens. Discriminatory laws must have a basis greater than convenience.

That aside, let’s assume you are correct. Let’s assume that the only reason to outlaw polygamy is because it complicates legal disputes, divorce, and taxes.

If this is true, we are saying the most complicated kinds of marriages should be outlawed. Guess what? That doesn’t bode well for same-sex marriages. Marrying persons together of the same sex tops the list of complications. At least in polygamy, matters of child custody could be settled as in traditional, two-parent marriage. The dispute in polygamist divorce would center on the birth parents--a relatively simple matter for the court to decide. As we have seen in gay relationships, however, child custody battles can be extremely complicated. In a lesbian relationship, there’s not just the two women fighting over custody, there’s also the father. Do the father’s rights take precedence over his ex-wife’s gay ex-partner’s rights? (Can you even follow that statement?) What if that father has been absent in his child’s life? What if the biological mother was the bread-winner, while her gay ex-partner stayed home and raised the kids? Does the gay ex-partner have any claim to the children she has been raising, even though they technically do not belong to her?

Same-sex marriage is inherently messy legally--the most messy legally, in fact, of all potential unions.

Obviously, you can no longer believe your own proposition that the legality of alternative marriages depends upon the complications they present. You’ll have to drop that premise.

Can you think of any other legal basis for discriminating against those wanting polygamy, underage marriage, and incestuous marriage?

So I believe that the real purpose of marriage, historically, is to sanction sex by society -- not to promote children -- that side effect is an implied probability.

Implied only in the man/woman relationship, you forgot to say.

Our conservative Catholic history originally defined marriage as "the only legal permission for having sex."

As does the Word of God in scripture.

But that’s beside the point. Here you’re bringing religion into the argument, as though there was no inherent state interest in the union. Do you see a state interest, a societal purpose, for government to sanction marriage? If marriage is just about romance, and if financial issues can be resolved by legal contracts, government should get out of the way, as it does in all our other friendships and associations. Wouldn’t you agree?

You’re uninformed on this point. Several states allow marriage for 16- 17-year-olds, without changing laws against statutory rape. A number of states allow marriage at age 15, under court sanction. Missouri implies marriageable age can be even lower, with court sanction. South Carolina allows marriage for girls as young as 14, and New Hampshire at age 13. Texas allows it for age 14-17 under fairly lenient conditions, with no court sanction required.

http://usmarriagelaws.com/search/united_states/teen_marriage_laws/index.shtml

I don't believe that it is right for the government today to discriminate against one's sexual preference in defining today's usage (not ancient definitions) of marriage

Here, again, you will need to modify your premise. You have already amply established that, contrary to this statement, you do, indeed, believe that government can “discriminate against one’s sexual preference.” You give preferential treatment to same-sex unions, yet oppose plural unions, underage unions, and incestuous unions, even when you declare some of these unions do no harm. You oppose these marriages, all the while stating, “Personally, no one else's marriage threatens my marriage.”

I would like a non-contradictory, judicious argument from you explaining why gay unions can be supported, while other “sexual preferences” remain opposed by law.

I drive this point home by pointing out that today gays legally can * adopt children * get Power of Attorney * have sex with each other * kiss in public * hold hands in public * have television shows dedicated to their gayness * publicly announce that they are gay * sue companies and the military for discriminating against them, etc.

The point you make undoes your point. It shows that society has no need to offer homosexuals marriage. They already enjoy more rights than polygamists, who live in seclusion, and who have been subject to laws barring them from the right to vote and to run for office, and even from being aided indirectly by others.

Either we offer marriage to all who want it, or we have restrictions. If we have restrictions, there must be a ethically sound, justifiable basis for such discrimination. What is it?

I guess I'm not following your argument how polygamy marriages would some how be easier for the government to handle than a 2-party gay marriage. It seems that all your arguments against gay marriages equally apply to second straight marriages; i.e. where two divorced straight couples remarry bringing along children. I'd need a specific example. Here's one. A man adopts a child from Romania -- all legal. Later, the man turns out to be gay and has a gay partner. I'm not sure where the original biological parents get involved. Here's a second scenario. A man and a woman have children. One of the parents die. The second parent later takes up a gay partner. Regardless of whether you believe that this is contradictory to "your" beliefs, how is this scenario different (or more messy) than had the surviving parent remarried straightly?

When referring to polygamy, I was merely stating that the legacy government revenue computer systems only have one field for "spouse's SSN" and would cost billions to overhaul for polygamy rules.

As we have seen in gay relationships, however, child custody battles can be extremely complicated. In a lesbian relationship, there’s not just the two women fighting over custody, there’s also the father. Do the father’s rights take precedence over his ex-wife’s gay ex-partner’s rights? (Can you even follow that statement?) What if that father has been absent in his child’s life? What if the biological mother was the bread-winner, while her gay ex-partner stayed home and raised the kids? Does the gay ex-partner have any claim to the children she has been raising, even though they technically do not belong to her?

But the condition for "messiness" existed a priori regardless of whether marriage was involved or not. For example, let me rewrite your entire argument changing the gayness to straightness:

As we have seen in ~~gay~~ straight relationships, however, child custody battles can be extremely complicated. In a ~~lesbian~~ straight relationship, there’s not just ~~the two women~~ a man and a woman fighting over custody, there’s also the father. Do the father's rights take precedence over his ex-wife's ~~ex-partner’s~~ boyfriend's rights? (Can you even follow that statement?) What if that father has been absent in his child’s life? What if the biological mother was the bread-winner, while her ~~gay ex-partner~~ ex boyfriend stayed home and raised the kids? Does the ~~the gay ex-partner~~ ex-boyfriend have any claim to the children she has been raising, even though they technically do not belong to ~~her~~ him?

Isn't that just as messy? If you meant that the gay partners were married, then just assume that the boyfriend/girlfriend were married as well. It doesn't make it any less complicated. Some parties are legal guardians and some are not. Their marital status is irrelevant.

I come from the school of thought that the only purpose for government is to create and enforce laws whose intended benefit to society require complete cooperation. Of all the benefits that citizens bring to our great country, only a small amount of these benefits require everyone to participate. So I'm one of those small government advocates. For example, if I mow my lawn, it makes my house look good, my neighborhood look good, and hence improves our entire society, but only by the amount that I contributed. If I choose not to mow my lawn, this does not prevent you from marginally improving society by mowing your lawn. Therefore, mowing lawns is beneficial to society but does not require uniform cooperation. So federal government should stay laissez faire. If it weren't for this type of definition of government utility, we'd become slaves to some small oligarchy's rule of what they thought was beneficial, just as the USSR fell trap to that. However, some local home associations think otherwise and consequently make local rules about home ownership, which members can optionally choose to become members, and later choose to leave. But our debate is about federal law. In contrast, society believes (and proves) that counterfeiting US dollars is something that everyone must uniformly agree not to do. One person violating this law does far more damage to the system than just their part. So federal government gets involved with strict penalties.

To continue, let's assume that marriage is beneficial to society, fine. If I choose to get married, and you choose to stay single, any benefit my marriage is to society is beneficial only by the amount that it contributes. If you choose to stay single, society is only less served by the marginal benefit your marriage does not bring to society. Otherwise, the federal government would mandate that everyone over a certain age must get married. But this isn't the case. So government should stay out of it. And that really is the case. Your marriage (or singleness) does not affect my marriage anymore than the gay couples gayness down the road affects it. And with all the ways modern straight couples have bastardized marriage today, the only purpose I see in government getting involved with marriage is sort of a convenient catch-all wrapper legal implication that settles disputes when tragic things happen.

I stand corrected. Thanks for the fact. So why does the government require that the PARENTS give consent for these types of marriages? Why not ask for my opinion? Why not just make a federal law that prohibits it? Because the parents are legally responsible for what these kids do. In this case, I can see that some parents want to be young grandparents. But hey, there's tons of 14 year unwed mothers. I think I'm getting out of my league here. In any case, I think your facts best supports my original claim, that the feds should just stay out of it all and leave it up to local groups, states, and churches.

Maybe that's one thing we're missing today - hard statistical facts that compare how married straight couples somehow make society better, regardless of whether they have children or not, and how this compares to single parents with kids, gay parents with kids, gay couples without kids, etc.

I would like a non-contradictory, judicious argument from you explaining why gay unions can be supported, while other “sexual preferences” remain opposed by law.

I don't know if I can give you one. But I bet I win the argument in the long run when gay people start getting legally married in one state after another as time passes, because you cannot give a good reason why they should not. We have scientific studies that having sex at too young an age can be harmful throughout all of history. We know that incest is "bad" for DNA and evolution. Not surprisingly, we find these two taboos in every country. Violations of these taboos can cost us lots of tax money trying to correct it later. I cannot see the problem with polygamy so long as all partners involved consent. Not question, we find many country do support polygamy. We are starting to see countries supporting gay marriages. This observation alone supports my claim that gay sex is not equal to or worse than incest.

My claims are this:

It appears to me that it is not a violation of our constitution to set an age limit or number limit in marriage, but setting a sex limit is a violation. It's like what would be the case if the government made a law prohibiting inter-racial marriages - just plain unconstitutional. I didn't write the constitution, but I respect it. George Bush wanting to change it, makes me think he doesn't respect it.
Because we mutually disagree with each other, but my marriage is not affected by your definition of it (since I didn't invite you to my wedding), this supports my argument that the government should just stay out of defining marriage based on sexual preference -- not number, or age. When in doubt, just stay out. That's the American way. Anything else it Theocracy or Communism.
And my personal opinion... The people that are most against gay marriages have weak arguments mostly based on their internal moral weakness -- probably Baptists or BACs. These people know that they might just fall human to divorce, so their religion allows divorce. They might just fall human to pornography, so they won't take a chance with laws that prohibit their privacy. They might just fall prey to an adulterous secret partner, so they turn a blind eye to adultery. But they have no fear of ever turning gay, so they feel embolden and righteous with their ability to score religious points with God on their crusade against gays. It is this hypocrisy that bothers me far more than what gay people do in their own privacy.
I'm not gay, and I cannot imaging myself being that way. But just like the thought of eating escargot, I feel quite safe that no one will force me into the act, and I don't have to watch. They do not hurt me, nor do they cost me tons of money, unlike screwed up children and genetic deformities. AIDS was the only issue therefore a while, but gays work long hard hours, pay for medical benefits, hence pay for themselves, and the problem seems to be getting solved. Gay marriage would probably decrease AIDS more than it would increase it.

Nope. I believe in "negative" constitutional powers, as opposed to the "positive" constitution of the ex-soviet union. The constitution exists to limit government -- not citizens. Laws do that, and most laws should be state-created.

Also, polygamists are not illegal in America. The laws prevent them from obtaining legal marriage recognition in the eyes of the state. Since they do not have the paperwork, they are not married by state definition. This does not mean that a man cannot live 25 women that he claims to be his wives, nor does it mean that he will be arrested for doing so. The state just doesn't recognize the marriage in a civil dispute. Polygamists do not live illegal lives in seclusion. Any polygamy arrests usually have minors involved.

I guess I'm not following your argument how polygamy marriages would some how be easier for the government to handle than a 2-party gay marriage.

Custody disputes favor the mother, for the reason that she is the one who traditionally nurtures and cares for the children. Gender-wise, gay relationships create a complicated scenario that does not exist in other custody battles. In the example I gave, the gay biological mother was filling the role of provider (father), while her gay partner was filling the role of stay-at-home mom. Given the court precedent that sides with the person who nurtures the children (the female parent) who gets custody? What about the father? An even more complicated scenario involves adoption. What happens when two homosexual men adopt a child and then “divorce?” On what basis does the court weigh custody there?

These are cases that present uncharted difficulties to the court--difficulties not existing in any other disputes.

Things get even more complicated when one considers the disproportionately high number of partners a homosexual has. On average, the typical homosexual man has 100 - 500 partners. Shockingly, 28% take on a thousand or more partners. A child raised by married homosexuals can be expected to have a ridiculously high number of step-parents, many of whom might want custody or visitation rights.

No other demographic group can compare with such instability.

In case you think marriage would change that pattern of infidelity, look at the Netherlands, where same-marriage is legal. Studies reveal homosexual men stay married on average for 1.5 years. Only 1.5 years! While married, these men have an average of eight outside partners. “Commitment” among unmarried homosexual men actually fares better, at five years, yet these men assume several outside partners during their relationship.

Not only does this present difficulties for the courts, it puts an undesirable burden on children. A court looking after the best interest of the child should have to consider this kind of atmosphere as a negative--or at least less than ideal--environment for raising children.

A messy proposition, indeed.

By contrast, a polygamist custody dispute would obviously be simpler, since it involves only the biological parents. In this situation, the courts would follow precedent, which is that the biological mother has the upper hand. Likewise, incestuous and child marriages would be easier to resolve than same-sex marriages, because they would be centered on biological parental rights. This is fairly simple--unless they begin to involve members of the same sex. Then it gets complicated.

It seems that all your arguments against gay marriages equally apply to second straight marriages; i.e. where two divorced straight couples remarry bringing along children.

Not so. Unlike in gay relationships, the scenario you cite is rather clear-cut. The biological mother would be favored for custody, unless she is proven “unfit” to the court, in which case the biological father would be awarded custody.

I'd need a specific example. Here's one. A man adopts a child from Romania -- all legal. Later, the man turns out to be gay and has a gay partner. I'm not sure where the original biological parents get involved.

Tricky, isn’t it? And who gets the child when the gay men leave each other--which statistics say is inevitable?

Here's a second scenario. A man and a woman have children. One of the parents die. The second parent later takes up a gay partner. Regardless of whether you believe that this is contradictory to "your" beliefs, how is this scenario different (or more messy) than had the surviving parent remarried straightly?

Bringing a gay factor into it complicates what would otherwise be a more simple situation, legally. That’s a fact. In a typical case of a dead parent, obviously the living parent takes custody, unless he or she is challenged in court as unfit. Extended family is a second-tier option. Non-relatives are often third, or not even considered. However, when you add the gay factor to the mix, traditional case law is thrown out the window. Although non-related heterosexual partners are rarely awarded parental rights, the Supreme Court of Wisconsin ruled in 1995 that non-biological gay ex-partners can be granted visitation rights. This week, the Washington Court of Appeals ruled that non-biological gay “parents” can seek custody of their ex-partners’ children.

Given the 100 - 500 average partners a homosexual man has, the amount of ex-partners seeking parental rights over the same children will potentially number not a few.

When referring to polygamy, I was merely stating that the legacy government revenue computer systems only have one field for "spouse's SSN" and would cost billions to overhaul for polygamy rules.

You equally apply this line of reasoning to all forms of marriage, right?

Consider for a moment the kinds of changes required to abolish thousands of years of understanding about human relations, all to accommodate same-sex marriage. ENORMOUS overhauls of forms, paperwork, and computer systems will be necessary to make marriage non-gender specific. I can’t even comprehend all the changes that would be needed to integrate same-sex marriage into the culture, government, legal apparatus, and the business world.

Not every form tidily asks for a “spouse.” In fact, when homosexuals attempted to marry in San Francisco, they ran into a slight hitch. The marriage certificate asked for the name of the husband and the name of the wife, along with the maiden name.

And that brings up another complication. What about surnames? Who takes on whose surname, and who keeps their maiden name?

When the child of lesbians is asked for his mother’s maiden name in order to get a bank account, what will he say? When the child of homosexual men is asked for his mother’s maiden name, what will he say?

How does the term “maiden name” apply to homosexual men? How does the term “wife” apply to homosexual men?

Of course, these terms can’t apply. The only answer will be to abolish their use. No more husband and wife. No more maiden names. Those words are now discriminatory. They imply that heterosexual unions are favored above homosexual unions.

We’ll have to revamp dictionaries, school textbooks, history books, record-keeping, genealogical forms, businesses--all to accommodate this revolution in marriage.

While we’re at it, we might as well add a few extra entries for plural spouses--which, ironically, some historical records already have provided, as in genealogy. Making this small allowance would be easier than revamping society to accommodate same-sex marriage. After all, it has existed before. Polygamy was practiced for roughly 40 years in our nation’s territorial history, and cohabitational forms of it continue to this day. Now that the courts have invented same-sex marriage, legalized polygamy is around the corner, with no protective barrier now against it.

It would be naïve to think marriage can simply be redefined overnight for gays, but not for any others! It’s also naïve to think that redefining marriage to allow same-sex couples is an easy, non-expensive task.

But the condition for "messiness" existed a priori regardless of whether marriage was involved or not.

Very true observation--with, however, an a posteriori proposition being more descriptive of my method below.

From experience, we can conclude that homosexual relationships are inherently messy legally, even without marriage.

Take the case in Colorado, for example. Two lesbians adopted a child from China. They broke up after eight years. One of the women retained full custody, while the other was denied all contact, even visitation rights. Ironically, the reason she was refused visitation rights is that she became a born-again Christian, and the judge decided that no person can have visitation rights who might teach the child negative things about the other parent’s lifestyle.

Then, there’s the case of the toddler with three legal parents. (Or is it four?) It seems a gay man impregnated a lesbian, with the contractual agreement they would share the child. After giving birth, the woman and her partner ran off with the child. The man sued for custody, and won--at least partially. He still has to share the child with the child’s “mothers.” No word yet on whether his partner gets to have a role.

Finally, there’s another complicated example that defies case law. In California, a woman’s fertilized egg was implanted in her lesbian partner. The partner had twins as a result. Upon the souring of the couple’s relationship, full custody of the twins was granted to the woman who birthed the twins, despite the fact that the other woman was the biological parent.

Such complex matters do not exist in other relationships, yet they are commonplace with homosexual ones. I conclude that homosexual relations are the most complicated of all. Do you still hold to the premise that marriages be outlawed if they are not simplistic?

For example, let me rewrite your entire argument changing the gayness to straightness:

I hope someone appreciates this statement.

As we have seen in ~~gay~~ straight relationships, however, child custody battles can be extremely complicated. In a ~~lesbian~~ straight relationship, there’s not just ~~the two women~~ a man and a woman fighting over custody, there’s also the father. Do the father's rights take precedence over his ex-wife's ~~ex-partner’s~~ boyfriend's rights?

Assuming the woman in your example was granted custody after her first divorce, she would retain custody after the second divorce or relationship. That is firmly established in case law--at least for heterosexuals.

Should her fitness be challenged in court, her first ex-husband would be first in line for custody, followed by extended family. Boyfriends are pretty low on the totem poll in custody battles. Ex-spouses not related to the children might fare slightly better, but just a notch.

By contrast, courts are beginning to give more favoritism to non-related gay partners than to non-related heterosexual partners. Gay-related custody battles therefore will not likely ever have a coherent rule to follow. They will be tedious affairs, decided case-by-case, without universal principle.

If you meant that the gay partners were married, then just assume that the boyfriend/girlfriend were married as well. It doesn't make it any less complicated. Some parties are legal guardians and some are not. Their marital status is irrelevant.

When it comes to homosexuals, yes, you are right. Their marital status is irrelevant.

(A response to your other comments is forthcoming at another time.)

Given the court precedent that sides with the person who nurtures the children (the female parent) who gets custody?

Just because YOU can't figure it, doesn't mean the courts can't. I can guess by your previous posts that you have very little experience with the gay community. Most gay couples will not have children. Those who do, may have had them before they took on a partner. FEMALE does not imply NURTURER. There are heterosexual males that are more nurturing than heterosexual females. There are heterosexual males that are more feminine than heterosexual females. How do the courts decide in that case? They just do. I know personal examples where the courts gave custody to the father. Gay couples, regardless of sex, have feminine partners and masculine partners; i.e. two gay men will specialize on gender roles. It may be very hard for YOU, a heterosexual, to see the difference, but THEY have no problem with it. And judges can be gay too, so let gay judges figure it out. I don't really care. What's important here is that YOU stay out of their affairs.

On average, the typical homosexual man has 100 - 500 partners.

These people are probably not going to get married, anymore than a heterosexual man who has been playing the field will likely get married. This is America -- land of the individual. America is not supposed to invent laws that stereotype people based on what they consider to be part of their liberty. It doesn't matter what a typical homosexual does. For example, on average, the typical heterosexual man who gets married, gets divorced. What "they" do is no argument for what "he" or "she" may do. So let's drop with the stereotypes.

No other demographic group can compare with such instability.

I just did. Divorced adulterous people. And you find lots of them in the conservative party.

Netherlands... While married, these men have an average of eight outside partners.

Well maybe they had 10 times as many when they were single. If so, then this does "change that pattern of infidelity". More than 50 percent of all married women, at some point, cheat on their mates.

Not only does this present difficulties for the courts, it puts an undesirable burden on children.

You are arguing against being gay -- not being gay married. And you've already lost that battle. It is legal to be gay these days and for gays to adopt children. What you need to do is argue that if two gay partners with children later get married, then somehow the bad will increase more than the good. You have to argue that the children will then say, "Oh no. My parents are gay and that was tough enough. Now their getting married? I think I'm going to kill myself." NO. I think the children would prefer that their gay parents get married, for exactly the same reason that children of straight parents would prefer marriage.

And who gets the child when the gay men leave each other--which statistics say is inevitable?

Statistics say nothing about the individual. A fact about an individual implies information about the whole. The converse is not true. PROOF: 3 + 4 tells me something about the total. Now given the total is 100, this says nothing about any part. America is about INDIVIDUALS -- not GROUPS. People have the right to pursue their own happiness individually. I will bet top dollar that granting gay people the right to get married will make them far more happier than it will make you and all your friends unhappy. You will learn to accept it, just like you have learned to accept the fact that Freddy Mercury was gay.

Ah! So, you’re saying we can’t allow polygamist marriages because forms, paperwork, and computer systems don’t already accommodate them. In other words, the traditional understanding of marriage is so entrenched in society, it would be too expensive to change. Correct? Consider for a moment the kinds of changes required to abolish thousands of years of understanding about human relations, all to accommodate same-sex marriage. ENORMOUS overhauls of forms, paperwork, and computer systems will be necessary to make marriage non-gender specific. I can’t even comprehend all the changes that would be needed to integrate same-sex marriage into the culture, government, legal apparatus, and the business world. Not every form tidily asks for a “spouse.” In fact, when homosexuals attempted to marry in San Francisco, they ran into a slight hitch. The marriage certificate asked for the name of the husband and the name of the wife, along with the maiden name.

I don't buy your argument that gay marriage is legally complicated. We do not pass out two different forms for males and females. They are generic and ask for your "spouse's" name. Even my marriage certificate was generic. But so what. If the out dated application mentions the words husband, wife, man, woman, etc. the the gay couples will choose how to fill out those forms. They have been referring to themselves in those terms for decades now. They've done all the work integrating their way into society. They are used to it, and forms can later be changed. But forms accepting 3 or more spouse names are a bit more tricky. I don't buy your argument that gay marriage is equally or more complicated form-wise than polygamy. But I could careless either way. It's not about me. It's about them. And I refuse to allow myself to hinder someone else's freedom when their freedom does not in anyway limit mine. That's just down right evil in the most pretentious-righteous way. Maybe one day you will think the same.

What about surnames?

What about them? Most of the times, they don't change their name. If they do, THEY decide, not you, and not the government. Hetero-married couples keep their names from time to time -- even with children.

How does the term “maiden name” apply to homosexual men? How does the term “wife” apply to homosexual men?

Let THEM decide how it applies. If you are too confused to figure it out, then don't expect to get invited to THEIR marriage. I think you will find that THEY (along with all their friends and family) have already figured it out. They have already integrated the traditional vocabulary into their system, just like we have gotten rid of terms like stewardess, seamstress, fireman, and policeman, but have allowed terms like nurse to apply to men. WE CAN ADAPT! And no one says that you have to. If you don't like their culture, then stay away. But expect to go to jail if you discriminate against them politically or economically.

Of course they can. Again, you are making the mistake of applying those terms "collectively" to wholes, rather than parts. In the context of a married couple, you either know which terms apply to which person, or you don't and make an fool of yourself. When you see two people in the hospital, and one is a doctor and one is a nurse, you either know which one is the doctor, or you don't, at which point you ask, or go do something else. The government does not owe you a convenient labeling algorithm. Take a man named "William Smith". Do you call that person William, Will, Bill, or Mr. Smith. By your reasoning, we need to get rid of all names in the world because you can't instantly satisfy your need to box it all up out of context. The rest of us just ask Bill, or listen to what other people do, or wait to be properly introduced. If Bill is a customer at your cash register, you may interact with that person for 10 minutes and never even use his name. You might just interact with a gay married couple for years without ever knowing whether they are married or not. How long did it take you to figure out that the boys next door were a gay couple by the fact that they were wearing identical matching rings on their right hands? You learn.... or you don't. The government is not supposed to make laws that make you feel good about your philosophy, or complacent about your religion. It's not supposed to play favorites with respect to ideals. It is supposed to make sure that others cannot clobber you over the head for what you believe.

It would be naive for you to think that it hasn't already been redefined for decades in ways that just don't affect you. And since it doesn't affect you, you should just opt out.

From experience, we can conclude that homosexual relationships are inherently messy legally, even without marriage.

From experience, over the last 10,000 years, we can conclude that 95 percent of the population are farmers. Times change. New experience makes a stronger argument than old experience. As long as you are not paying for the legal mess, what does it matter to you? They are only 5 percent of the population. Of them, if 10 percent decide to get married, that's still a small percentage.

You'll find lots of equally messy cases that apply to straight couples, such as when one couple is on Visa visitation rights to America, gets married, gets divorced a year later, then has to be deported with their children remaining in the USA. Marriage is supposed to be something that an individual possesses, not something that a collective hive controls and manages. But if the government is going to go there anyway, however socialistic it seems, then they might as well start treating all their tax payers one equal terms.

When it comes to homosexuals, yes, you are right. Their marital status is irrelevant.

I say the same thing about divorced couples that remarry.

My question for you... How does gay marriage diminish your marriage (assuming you are married, and I don't even know if you are a man or woman)?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Rally in defense of marriage

Alan Keyes

May 14, 2004

Boston, Massachusetts