Same-sex "marriage"

Quicksearch

Blog Administration

RSS Readers

Friday, January 7. 2011

Schneiderman asserts that it's like a funeral without a corpse: ...it’s just a harmless illusion, so why not just go along?

I have learned that it is often good manners to pretend not to notice certain sorts of awkward or unpleasant things, but there has to be a limit. Like when the elephant in the parlor is taking a crap on your antique Persian.

Posted by The News Junkie at 09:51 | Comments (17) | Trackbacks (0)

Trackbacks

Trackback specific URI for this entry

No Trackbacks

Comments

Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

My aunt married her husband when they were in their fifties -- her first marriage, he a widower. Auntie was well past menopause. By Mr. Schneiderman's logic (which he denies in his own column), theirs was not a valid marriage because they knew there would never be children.
I think that people who are homosexual should be able to form the relationship that works for them and should have any legal benefits that a heterosexual couple can claim. If God is displeased with them, He'll deal with that in His own way (I believe God is okay with them but I know others think I'm wrong). Some people will never see that as a marriage, but it will never harm those people who don't see it as a marriage.
One answer is for the government to recognize only the contract of a couple and quit using the term "marriage" at all. Then allow adults with contracts to claim one another as family.

#1 Geoff Brown on 2011-01-07 10:03 (Reply)

Sorry,

I think the legal benefits is exactly why this can't be ignored.

Let's consider why those benefits are granted. Things like pension and social security benefits, and discounted insurance rates are because traditional marriage provides benefits to society.

Married people live longer, they're healthier. They have children who are productive for their community and society, and they are most productive when raised by two parents of the oppostite sex.

So these "rights" are not rights, nor were they ever. They were compensation to people who give more to society. This is consideration exchanged as part of the social contract.

Calling them rights is simply a play on words by the left in order to make this a civil rights issue. It's an extension of the entitlement mentality. It's also a willful denial and rejection of traditional roles in society, which is exactly what progressives call their concept of "progress." But those roles in society are time-tested, and exist b/c they work. Ironically, progressives who love Darwin's survival of the fittest, reject it when they actually see it.

That's why gay marriage is a problem, a problem for all of us. Because it means we pay fully to people who haven't contributed fully. And that ultimately hurts society.

If gay people want to cohabitate, or even get some visitation rights, then lets allow for civil unions. But, calling this a marriage, and opening up all the benefits and entitlements that have been developed for those who are truly marriage is an unfair, and ultimately dangerous, burden on our communities and our country.

#1.1 DrTorch on 2011-01-07 10:23 (Reply)

Agree. Legal issues are relevant. I once heard that there are over 3000 various tax breaks and "benefits" granted to married couples. At the time that legislators, commissions, and various bodies voted for or authorized such favored treatment none of these actions were ever undertaken with the understanding that a married couple were anything other than one man and one woman. By redefining marriage to something other than one man and one woman we would subvert the intent of these 3000 legally valid actions.

In a democratic society the proper thing to do is to have the appropriate decision-making body re-visit each so-called benefit one at a time and let the arguments pro and con take place for change. Naturally this would be a more difficult route for gay activists to take to achieve their ends, but that is how it should take place.

#1.1.1 roscoe on 2011-01-07 12:13 (Reply)

I think that Geoff is on the right track in his last paragraph.
Government should get out of the "licensing marriage" business. Instead, "the state" should only issue a contract, in this case, a cohabitation contract.
This would also make a divorce "easier" as it would mean dissolving a contract, which could be as explicit as either party wanted it to be.
If "marriage" is to be sactified, that should occur at the religious level, whichever religion(s) they practice.

#2 cas on 2011-01-07 11:24 (Reply)

Marriages led to the first governments: Families and their patriarchies/matriarchies, marriages between tribes/clans, then marriages between kingdoms/countries.

It's bizarre to say gov't should get out of the licensing marriage business. Stable governments were founded on stable marriages.

And while the mechanism and existance of gov't now looks different, I believe there are underpinnings of gov't that are based on stable families.

#2.1 DrTorch on 2011-01-07 13:55 (Reply)

"By Mr. Schneiderman's logic (which he denies in his own column) ..."

Not so. Here's what Schneiderman said:

"Older, presumably infertile, couples are allowed to marry because if they had performed the same act in the past they might have conceived a child."

Read it again and slowly.

#3 Bill Carson on 2011-01-07 11:30 (Reply)

Howdy Bill
I did read that slowly. Twice, three times. It's still a contradiction of the writer's main theme. The writer claims special status for marriage due to procreation, then has to scramble for a way to fit that to couples that are straight but can't or won't have children.
I think a lot of the entitlements for married workers stem originally from the practice of one (almost always the wife) staying home with the children. That practice continues to some extent to this day; some spouses (usually wives) take part-time jobs without health benefits and the other spouse gets the full-time job with benefits. Similarly with pensions; a pension is a property right that you can pass to your surviving spouse or it's a benefit that a non-working (or less-working) spouse would have trouble earning, like Social Security.

#3.1 Geoff Brown on 2011-01-07 16:25 (Reply)

All we ask is for our union to be legally recognized by the government in the same way that a married man and woman are recognized. If it bothers you to call it marriage, then call it a civil union. Who cares what it's called? The economy is in shambles and people still want to debate about things that don't directly affect them.

I'm a lesbian from New York City and also a fan of Maggie' s Farm. Gay marriage is not a huge issue for me because it's not tied to my individal happieness. I actually find both sides of the argument irritating. However, I think opponents of gay marriage need to let this one go and focus on the state of the economy instead. Is this really a critical issue? Marriage and rights aren't going to matter too much if we can't preserve American capitalism.

APM

#4 Alex on 2011-01-07 13:27 (Reply)

What does "same sex marriage" have to do with an "elephant in the parlor taking a crap on your antique Persian"?

Marriage, from a legal perspective, has implications involving taxes, insurance benefits, patient rights, and numerous other issues that have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with procreation. So long as government interleaves marriage with a citizen's rights and/or privileges, then what rationale justifies discriminating against couples of the same sex who are committed to a stable relationship? Everyone should have the right to select whatever human being they want to be designated as their "significant other."

What may be awkward or unpleasant for you is your problem. Perhaps you're unhappy with two people of different races getting married. That may make you feel awkward or unpleasant. Does that mean that should be illegal? What about age discrepancies? You might find it awkward or unpleasant to see an 80 year old man getting married to a 22 year old girl, or vice versa.

There's no one demanding that you have to invite same sex married people into your parlor. If the elephant isn't allowed in your parlor they can't drop any dung. Let people be.

#5 Mac on 2011-01-07 14:28 (Reply)

Let people be!

#5.1 Alex on 2011-01-07 14:37 (Reply)

You got that backwards.

I couldn't care less what a man and a man do when they're alone, or a woman and woman.

But when they try to force me to pretend that a man can marry a man or pretend that a woman can marry a woman, they themselves choose to make their private concerns my business.

#5.1.1 ELC (Link) on 2011-01-07 21:26 (Reply)

Others have covered the societal ramifications of marriage, so I won't.
But I will say I find it incredibly galling that

#6 Dan III on 2011-01-07 22:50 (Reply)

I agree with Dan III!

Maybe not.

#7 Mike (Link) on 2011-01-08 00:10 (Reply)

... and all of this is irrelevant because most gays cannot maintain stable monogamous relationships.

We have been so thoroughly trained by the PC enforcers to ignore the actual evidence of dysfunction in the gay community that we actually think there are gay "couples" to which marriage applies.

Yet the vast majority of homosexuals spend most of their lives in short-term hookups - and when they do "settle down" the relationships are forced open by compulsive sexual behaviors.

Which is why a researcher for the Dutch Ministry of Health found that most new cases of AIDS were occurring in "committed" relationships.

Links to the truth:

Many gay couples negotiate open relationships
A new study released this week by the Center for Research on Gender & Sexuality at San Francisco State University put statistics around what gay men already know: Many Bay Area boyfriends negotiate open relationships that allow for sex with outsiders.
Link:
http://articles.sfgate.com/2010-07-16/entertainment/21985570_1_hiv-prevention-gay-couples-gay-men

Many Successful Gay Marriages Share an Open Secret
Link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/29/us/29sfmetro.html

And here's a gay psychologist tap-dancing around the truth with talk of "emotional fidelity"
Link:
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/gays-anatomy/200809/are-gay-male-couples-monogamous-ever-after

#8 Ben David on 2011-01-08 14:11 (Reply)

#9 Ben David on 2011-01-08 14:25 (Reply)

Government stewardship of marriage has not been healthy. We have the majority of black children born to single parents. White children are now approaching the numbers Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan railed against in the black community decades ago.

Perhaps it is time for the state to leave marriage alone.

The state should create the legal arrangements people need to successfully perform their affairs and leave the marriage part to the individual’s personal and religious beliefs.

Asset division and child custody issues will still need to be addressed by the state where parents cannot act like adults but we should expect no less. This is a primary reason for civil law after all.

#10 Maddog on 2011-01-08 14:59 (Reply)

The State in establishing requirements for marriage asks nothing about orientation, sexual practices, motives, or plans (have children/do not have children). It simply requires the only two gender forms that exist (male/female) be present.

In biology function follows form so by having the two forms present the State is satisfied since two procreative forms will function in a procreative way and procreate. (close enough for the State)

SSM produces gender segregated homes (male/male or female/female as opposed to Conjugal marriage which produces gender integrated homes (male/female).

Gender segregated homes mean that children in the home will be deprived of either a father or a mother and we know from psychology & child development that the mother/child father/child relationship is vital to the development of the child.

#11 gerry on 2011-01-09 03:53 (Reply)

Add Comment

Name
Email	(Your e-mail will not show in your comment)
Homepage
In reply to
Comment	By commenting on this site you agree to the site rules listed here. Email addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for email notifications. Quick reference guide: [i] italics [/i], [b] bold [/b], [u] underline [/u], [url] (web address) [/url]. More tips here. Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (word), underscore are made via _word_. E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications. To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly. Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above: BBCode format allowed
	Remember Information? Subscribe to this entry

Maggie's Farm

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

RSS Readers

Friday, January 7. 2011

Same-sex "marriage"