tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post114211718766933058..comments2023-11-03T06:35:48.003-05:00Comments on Shark and Shepherd: S-squared, Sykes and same sex marriage, pt. 3Rick Esenberghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07280070509167910367noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-1142394421065664842006-03-14T21:47:00.000-06:002006-03-14T21:47:00.000-06:00At best, this is all a bunch of speculation. Altho...At best, this is all a bunch of speculation. Although I guess this is your way of working through this.<BR/><BR/>For all of us who obviously have way too much time on our hands, I still say why don't we just see what happens if gay couples can marry? It's not as if it turns out so horribly we couldn't change the law back.<BR/><BR/>But frankly, this is all a bunch of noise and distracts us from the fact that, as I commented on in another post, the state really can't guide anyone into being in a relationship it wants them to be in. <BR/><BR/>Marriage was established by the state to encourage stability - for society and for children. This should apply to all couples and all children, not just the ones who follow the mythological "nudge nudge" of the state into heterosexual relationships.David Schowengerdthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09878375775495187252noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-1142368226916513442006-03-14T14:30:00.000-06:002006-03-14T14:30:00.000-06:00The answer is that marriage is emphatically NOT de...<I>The answer is that marriage is emphatically NOT defined by the State, nor by lawyers.</I><BR/><BR/>If the "marriage" dad29 seeks to preserve is independent from state law, then he should have no problem with the state allowing gay couples to enter into civil marriages. These "marriages" would remain for him forever independent from the "real" institution about which he most cares.<BR/><BR/>Also, dad29's <A HREF="http://dad29.blogspot.com/2006/03/amendment.html" REL="nofollow">blog features language about gay people ["pack fudge"] </A> that would get him kicked off of the playground, yet he remains on Sykes' blogroll. Is this the kind of language Sykes would accept as civil and respectful?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-1142203322237174382006-03-12T16:42:00.000-06:002006-03-12T16:42:00.000-06:00What Todd gets correct is that a state 'licensing'...What Todd gets correct is that a state 'licensing' of gay marriage will not likely change 'regular' marriage numbers.<BR/><BR/>What Todd avoids, however, is the question "why." The answer is that marriage is emphatically NOT defined by the State, nor by lawyers. (Apologies to the Shark half of S&S.)<BR/><BR/>All the State has done is Xerox the law governing marriage, (which pre-exists Xerox machines and writing instruments as well...)<BR/><BR/>As to the relative social health of children raised by gay couples, what Todd demonstrates (and I will assume that his facts are spot-on) is that children are remarkable little critters. Ummmnnnhhh, should I say "natural law" again?<BR/><BR/>This "inscribed in your hearts" language of that famous Jewish guy, Paul, meant something.Dad29https://www.blogger.com/profile/08554276286736923821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-1142170447782261992006-03-12T07:34:00.000-06:002006-03-12T07:34:00.000-06:00The equivalent argument on the other side might go...The equivalent argument on the other side might go something like this: As gay couples become more and more established in the nation's civil, public, and social fabric, and as an ever increasing number of countries extend marriage equality, the structural and social inequalities created by barring gay couples from civil marriage will become more pronounced. This will lead to a growing rift between the ideals upon which we base our national identity--freedom, liberty, and justice for all--and the realities of our daily lives. Over time, the denial of marriage equality will lead to America becoming increasingly un-American, and the distinctiveness of nation will fade.<BR/><BR/>Both your argument and that one, it seems to me, are similarly speculative. <BR/><BR/>Moreover, I think you base much of your speculation on shaky ground.<BR/><BR/>First, I disagree with what you consider to be the "rules" of gay couple's lives, which I take to be much more similar to the "rules" of nongay couple's lives. <BR/><BR/>Just as with infertile heterosexual couples, the norm for gay parenting is to exclude the "third party," most commonly an anonymous donor (in part because most gay parenting is in lesbian-headed families). Even in the case of open adoption, strict guidelines established beforehand minimize the role of biological parent. Here, the "rule" of gay couple's desires to become parents is similar to those of nongay couples--to raise a child nurtured by the strength and love two united people can extend. This is what schoolmates, teachers, neighbors, coworkers see; this is the public reality of gay lives; and this is what would exert normative pressure, if any, on culture--not the private facts of a child's conception.<BR/><BR/>Similarly, the existing "rule" for gay couples is to take care of each other, financially as well. And the status quo of lesbian and gay couples lives is that we currently take on the burdens and responsibilities of caring for each other and each other's aging parents, yet also find the state impeding our ability to do so. If we do this in the face of government interference, why would we become less financially interdependent once that interference has been removed? <BR/><BR/>Now, some smaller objections.<BR/><BR/>The first part of your polygamy question seems to be of a different piece than the rest of your argument--a legal argument rather than a social pressure one. And there are numerous rational basis justifications for excluding polygamous groups from civil marriage, none of which apply to gay couples. For one, it really would change existing marriages, which would find their legal rules of engagement suddenly altered. For another, one needn't be a game theorist to realize that legally recognized polygamous unions would cause havoc to descent upon our child custody and divorce laws. Extending civil marriage to gay couples requires the law only to change two words, "husband" and "wife." <BR/><BR/>Finally, though you claim not to want to discuss it, the social science does emphatically assert that children raised by gay couples are as healthy, adjusted, and wonderful as children raised by heterosexual couples. But more to the point, your final argument seems based on a real pessimism about the state, strength, and durability of heterosexual love and parenting. Chin up! Have a little confidence here! My suspicion is that, when gay couples have access to civil marriage licenses, heterosexuals will continue to comprise the vast majority of marriages, continue take their marriage vows seriously, and continue to love and cherish their children. If as you argue, the heterosexual family is the "natural" one, it hardly needs encouragement from the government. Seems to me it'll keep on doing fine on its own.<BR/><BR/>Of course, all of this is largely not the point in our current debate. Voting "no" on the ban won't change existing marriage laws. And the ban is about far, far more than marriage. This debate is about whether our constitution should single out gay families and deny them any sort of state recognition at all.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com