Maiming the Constitution for political ends

[IJ]

Govenor Mitt Romney was just in DC proposing that the Union isn't safe as long as same sex couples can get married in his state. Finally, it was nice to hear a politician against same sex marriage admit that there is no earthly way the marriage of two people he wants to deny marriage to could affect opposite sex marriages. But it was pretty disconcerting to hear him claim that the right to marry is going to harm children. How is that? First he'd have to prove that kids are better off in heterosexual unions, which I haven't seen done; then he'd have to prove the kids would somehow be better off without the advantage of benefits for their parents, since they're gonna have those parents regardless of whether the two can marry. And to be fair, shouldn't he somehow prove the detriments are worse than those posed to the kids of poor, or certain minority couples (whose children do less well overall, but who are still allowed to marry)?

When you add all that up, it seems the recent fuss has more to do with timing, and the reelection of President Bush, than it does marriage. What a convenient time to use prejudice to divide the country for political gain.

[benzocaine]

The republican party draws people with more conservative views of how Government should be. It also draws culterally conservative people as well. It is my belief that the republican polititians who are arguing against same sex marraige truly feel gay marraige is wrong and harmful to our culture.

My opinion is on record.

[Doug Erickson]

I'm a Republican, and I have yet to hear a convincing argument from any of our elected Republicans who are opposing gay marriage.

I would think that the party that always preaches about reducing the scope and power of government would be concerned about giving the government the power to decide who can marry. If I wasn't married already, I sure wouldn't the government limiting my options for me.

I think what it boils down to is that for most who are against gay marriage, it is an emotional response, and it doesn't translate coherently into a logical explanation. And I don't want laws in this country to be created based on an emotional reaction that can't even really be articulated.

And to those who say the Bible forbids it: Not everyone in America reads the Bible or is religious, and we still keep church and state separate in this nation.

-Doug

[TG]

Don't forget that on the playground battlefield it is often the child, particularly boys, who bear the burden of their same-sex parents lifestyle choice.
Nature has provided the model for child-raising, still used throughout most of the world. It seems to work, and for a reason.
Same-sex unions are not necessarily more stable or long-lasting than hetero marriages either, and can be just as abusive where children are concerned.

TG

[Doug Erickson]

Don't forget that on the playground battlefield it is often the child, particularly boys, who bear the burden of their same-sex parents lifestyle choice.

From my childhood, I can recall kids being taunted on many separate occasions for having parents who were:

* poor
* mixed race couples
* drunks

among many other things. Kids will get on each other's cases about anything under the sun. I don't see how having gay parents is any worse.

Nature has provided the model for child-raising, still used throughout most of the world. It seems to work, and for a reason.

If humans followed nature's model, the only role of males would be to impregnate females, and those females who gave birth would be doing all the childrearing.

In today's world we have lots of child-raising situations. Single mothers/fathers. Grandparents. Older siblings. Foster care. There isn't much of a model anymore.

Having two loving parents, one of each sex so that children have a role model in the household for each gender, is probably ideal, yes. But not many kids have the ideal household situation, and I don't think having two gay parents is any worse than the other alternatives.

Same-sex unions are not necessarily more stable or long-lasting than hetero marriages either, and can be just as abusive where children are concerned.

Who ever said gay people were more perfect than the rest of the population?

-Doug

[IJ]

Doug, thanks for consistently applying the best part of your average republican platform--keeping the government off everyone's back. If only everyone could put principle before opinion even where opinions varied....

TG, your case against gay marriage (apparently because you don't say so specifically), is that kids are going to get teased if they have gay parents. I agree that the quality of life of kids is an enormously important value to consider in such debates. However:

1) How will making that kids gay parents second class citizens, unable to marry, lighten the burden of bullying? I would think it would increase it.

2) if you would deny marriage to gay people because their kids might be teased, would you also deny marriage to the poor, minority, addicted, etc? Same logic applied far enoug would have us only marrying the Brad Pitts and Jennifer Anistons of the world.

3) If kids are getting teased, isn't the problem with the bullies and not with the parents? So shouldn't our solution look that way too?

4) Nature's model for child rearing varies a lot from the human model, including leaving paralyzed prey for wasp larvae to eat on hatching, to abandonment, to not having housing, to giving birth in the arctic. Who cares? The only time I take the occasional cue from animals is when I'm analyzing kata for contributions of the three animals.

5) "Same-sex unions are not necessarily more stable or long-lasting than hetero marriages either, and can be just as abusive where children are concerned." That's a good example of how the deck is stacked against same sex couples--we have to PROVE we're not just equal but BETTER than heterosexuals who have the right to marry however impaired they are, before discrimination will end? Good thing this standard wasn't applied to enslaved African Americans.

6) It's not a "lifestyle choice," to fall in love with someone. If you doubt me, why don't you try falling in love with someone of your sex to prove me wrong?

[TG]

Your points are well taken, IJ. I'm not homophobic and have no wish to sound persecuting. I apologize if my post came off sounding that way.
I understand that the concept of marriage is a political and social football these days.
Love knows no bounds, I agree.

TG

[Guest]

If humans followed nature's model, the only role of males would be to impregnate females, and those females who gave birth would be doing all the childrearing.

This is not accurate.Ever watch birds take turns sitting on a nest, feeding etc.? Ever watch geese swim with mom and dad playing bookends protecting the little ones from predators.

I guess all that willow the male beaver drags back to the lodge is for his own consumption..the kits just watch him eat all winter ...not!

The entire wolf pack takes responsibility for feeding and protecting the litter, not just the alpha female. Same is true of all hunting packs, thats why pups lick your face they are looking for you to regurgitate a meal for them.

It always amazes me when people make claims about what is natural.

[Doug Erickson]

This is not accurate.Ever watch birds take turns sitting on a nest, feeding etc.? Ever watch geese swim with mom and dad playing bookends protecting the little ones from predators.

I guess all that willow the male beaver drags back to the lodge is for his own consumption..the kits just watch him eat all winter :roll: ...not!

The entire wolf pack takes responsibility for feeding and protecting the litter, not just the alpha female. Same is true of all hunting packs, thats why pups lick your face they are looking for you to regurgitate a meal for them.

Okay. And if I wanted to list every species where the male has no part in child rearing, I'd be here all night.

The point was simply that young being raised by one male and one female is not "nature's model."

-Doug

[benzocaine]

I'm no biologist, but from what I understand animals that use both a mother and a father are social animals.

Some animals are more solitary in nature like the bear for instance, or certain cats.

As far as I know primates are a more social animal. Are we not primates?

I'm curious how our cultures came to be the way they are today. Was it just simply the natural order of things?

Why do women hear better than men? Why are men more apt to be risk takers? Why do men have a better sense of direction? Why are women more tuned to peoples feelings than men?

Answers: To better be in tune with what baby is doing. Because through evolution those willing to take a risk during the hunt were more likely to catch the prey. Men are hunters and needed a natural sense of irection to find their way back to the group after the hunt. Women can read feelings better because it's hard wired into them to be responsive to baby's needs.

It seems man and women compliment each other well. Nature has made it that way.
Man and woman make the perfect team for child rearing and providing for their needs.

[Doug Erickson]

It seems man and women compliment each other well. Nature has made it that way.
Man and woman make the perfect team for child rearing and providing for their needs.

Ben, I agree with you 100% that having a man and woman raise a child together is ideal for the child. But in American society, we have a whole spectrum of child-raising situations. Half of marriages end in divorce. That's a lot of kids being raised by one parent, or being raised by both disjointedly. Lots of kids are born out of wedlock and are raised by single parents. The Census Bureau statistics on children's living arrangements through 2002 can be found at

http://www.childstats.gov/ac2003/indicators.asp?IID=103

A couple of blurbs from that page:

"In 2002, 69 percent of children under age 18 lived with two married parents, down from 77 percent in 1980. However, the percentage has remained stable since 1995, ending a decades-long downward trend."

"In 2002, about one-fifth (23 percent) of children lived with only their mothers, 5 percent lived with only their fathers, and 4 percent lived with neither of their parents."

So only about two thirds of kids grow up in a household with two married parents.

My point is that having two married parents is only one of many child-rearing scenarios in this country that are considered socially acceptable. If the argument is that two married parents is the "natural" way to raise children, and thus gays shouldn't be allowed to marry because they might choose to raise children in that "unnatural" situation, then we'd better as a society say that no other non-two-married-parent child-rearing situation is acceptable either. Otherwise it's just arbitrary discrimination against gays.

-Doug

[IJ]

In this country, you can get married if you're an impoverished, unemployed, convicted rapist or killer, mental subnormal with AIDS and hepatitis plus a partner whose age differs by yours by 50+ years, and you can get married for convenience, for a tax break, for love, because your parents insist, because you want to make money on TV, or for any other reason you so desire. It is patently absurd to say that this is ok and tell me (incidentally hard working, nonviolent, noncriminal, taxpaying, litter picking up, healthy, mentally stable, well educated, noncheating, supportive guy) that I can't get married. If this is the minimum criteria for marriage, there is absolutely NO reason why we as a group should be forced to PROVE our fitness to enjoy basic human rights.

Period.

I don't care what the animals do. Some males help, some don't; some, like felines, will kill the young to bring the mothers back into heat. Some mate for life, some mate for minutes, some eat their mates. Makes no difference.

As for biology defining roles, these differences between the sexes are far less influential than the differences between individuals. For example, John may be a perfect hunter (not that this matters in 2004) and Ed may be a nuturing, loving, good-hearing-having, emotion sensing child rearer. There's no reason to deny their getting married even if statistically a woman is more likely to be John's ideal partner (and this isn't at all shown anway), especially since he'd be free to marry a psycho like the one described above, as long as she was female, even if she was herself more of the "father" type than the "mother type."

Biology has been used to justify slavery, antimiscegenation laws, forced sterilization of undesireables, genocide and a bunch of other unsavory things. "Innate" characteristics are often shaped by culture as well as the other way around. It's no sound way to run a government.

[Doug Erickson]

I wish any of my arguments had been half that eloquent, Ian.

[IJ]

You're too kind, Doug... and your check is in the mail!

[Panther]

The concepts aren't republicrat or demopublican... they're basically Libertarian.

Fundamentally, we shouldn't even need to have these discussions simply because the government shouldn't be involved in the situation at all. There should be NO such thing as a "marriage license". Couples joining together is between them and their God (or perhaps lack thereof). If Government wants to have an "official" recognition of joined couples, then it is... by definition... a "civil" union and any such recognition should be entirely voluntary. IOW, I need NO permission from the government to marry the person I love. THAT is soley between me, my spouse and our God (in our case). If I want to gain certain "benefits" from the State (such as taxes, inheritance, etc.), I have two ways to gain those benefits: 1) create the government sanctioned "civil union" or 2) enter into a legal partnership which spells out the benefits. Either way, it should be OUR choice to do so... And if I don't care about those government benefits, then the government should keep it's freakin' nose outta my bedroom and outta my LIFE.

Is this a political issue?

What isn't these days... and it's being played by all the politicians in one way or another.

BTW, I get my "conservative" friends upset when I tell them that "if you don't agree with gay marriage, don't have one! But that doesn't give you the right to stop someone else from having one that wants one..."