deceit of gay marriage
by David Orland


If you've ever tried to discuss gay unions with someone who supports them, you know how difficult this can be. One is instantly branded a homophobe, a Christian reactionary, a right wing yokel and there the conversation ends, at least as far as your interlocutor is concerned. Unfortunately, such conversations perfectly mirror the national conversation about same-sex unions; they are one-sided and deaf.

My first run-in with the emerging orthodoxy regarding gay unions — often referred to by its euphemism, "domestic partnership" — occurred about two years ago. Reading the papers over a pot of coffee one Sunday afternoon with my then girlfriend, I came across an editorial on the subject. At this time, the "gay community" had just begun in earnest its efforts to force state legislatures to confer a legal status on homosexual unions and the editorial, which came out in support of these efforts, was overheated and impassioned in the way such editorials nearly always are. I guess I chuckled to myself because my girlfriend asked what it was. "Oh nothing," I remember replying with a smile and heavy irony, "just another article about why the cause of gay "marriage" is so moral and important."

Her smile disappeared. I suspected — indeed, I knew, somewhere in my belly — that I had made a serious mistake. "And what's so funny about that," she asked, her voice lowering in a sinister and unprecedented way. "Oh, nothing much," I answered, trying to avert disaster, "it's not so funny but it is kind of funny, you must admit." But she persisted: "why is it kind of funny?" Something told me I had been here before, which is probably why, rather than dropping the issue, I decided to defend myself. At first, I tried in a more or less incoherent way to point out what I considered the inherent silliness of the editorial's moral posturing. But with each attempt to sidestep a truly nasty argument, my girlfriend's indignation grew. Before very long (as is the way with such discussions), I had been resolutely labeled a "homophobe", an epithet which — with the help of its pseudo-scientific Latin suffix — conveniently renders pathological all deviations from the orthodox. "I know what you're going to say," she concluded triumphantly, smirking like a champion of dorm room contention, "you're going to say that homosexuality is immoral!"

In fact, that wasn’t what I was going to say. I knew that the argument that same-sex unions are sexually immoral would be the last thing to convince my agnostic girlfriend. Besides, a much different kind of argument had occurred to me. What, I asked, did the supporters of domestic partnership hope to gain? Legal recognition on par with heterosexual marriage, she answered. And what did such recognition entail, aside from some more or less vague sense of legitimacy? A series of legal privileges and economic subsidies. You mean, I asked, that couples involved in homosexual unions are seeking to secure for themselves a variety of benefits which would distinguish them, like married couples, from all other individuals in society? Exactly.

Perhaps she thought she had won the issue by these answers. At any rate, when I asked my next question — that is, why she thought homosexuals should get the same benefits as married couples — she gave me the odd look reserved for slow learners. "Fairness," she decisively answered. It was at this point that I laid my cards on the table. But fairness isn't the issue at all, I said. Of course married heterosexual couples do benefit from the legal status of marriage but to point this out — which, as far as I could tell, was as far as the argument in favor of domestic partnership went — merely begged the question. The point was, why should homosexual partners enjoy these benefits, too?

Or, to put it another way, what is it about married heterosexual couples that make their benefits legitimate? For until supporters of domestic partnership could show that homosexual couples met the same conditions, they could not claim to have been treated unfairly.

And this, of course, is precisely what has not been shown — either by my girlfriend or, more distantly, the policy wonks of the homosexual lobby. To justify giving privileges or exemptions or subsidies to some particular group in society, the benefit of doing so for society at large must first be shown. With heterosexual marriage, the case is clear enough. Heterosexual marriage is a matter of genuine social interest because the family is essential to society's reproduction. The crux of my argument, in other words, was that married couples receive the benefits they do not because the state is interested in promoting romantic love or because the Bible says so or because of the influence of special interest groups but rather because the next generation is something that is and should be of interest to all of us. And, by definition, this is not a case that can be made for homosexual unions. To that degree, the attempt to turn the question of domestic partnership into a debate about fairness falls flat.

The more persistent supporters of domestic partnership will of course respond to this argument by pointing to the case in which homosexual partners adopt children or, in the case of lesbians, undergo artificial insemination. The intention here is to show that the nuclear family is found even among homosexual couples and that, to that extent, homosexual unions do indeed meet the same criterion of social interest as heterosexual ones and thus should be granted legal status. It is a weak argument and one that ultimately back-fires on those who employ it. This is for two reasons. First, adoption by homosexual couples is still exceedingly rare and the law — though many are surprised to learn this — is aimed at the general case. To confer legal benefits on the entire class of would-be homosexual spouses just because some very small minority of this class approximates the pattern of the nuclear family would be a bit like admitting all applicants to a select university on the grounds that a few of them had been shown to meet the entrance requirements.

Second, the right of this small minority to the benefits of marriage is dubious in the extreme. Homosexual "families" of whatever type are always and necessarily parasitic on heterosexual ones. In both of these respects, then, the counter-argument from adoption falls well short of its intended mark. Indeed, supporters of domestic partnership who employ this argument inadvertently diminish their case. By accepting that benefits can only be accorded for reasons of social interest, they exclude the overwhelming majority of their constituency — all of those homosexual unions which do not sponsor children — while reaffirming as legitimate the whole range of benefits accorded to heterosexual marriages.

Two years have passed since that Sunday afternoon with my girlfriend and, in those years, the homosexual lobby has gained considerable ground, securing favorable domestic partnership legislation in Hawaii and Vermont and pushing the question of homosexual unions to the forefront of the legislative agenda in a score of other states. Domestic partnership has also gained ground in the private sector. According to the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, "in 1990, there were less than two dozen companies offering [domestic partnership benefits] today, there are more than 2,500." On June 8th, the nation's three largest auto makers — Chrysler Corp., Ford Motor Company and General Motors Corp. — joined this trend, announcing that from now on employees with same-sex partners would receive the same benefits as married couples.

Observing these developments from the sidelines — perhaps remembering that not very pleasant Sunday two years ago — I seem to find myself defending the unpopular side of the issue more and more frequently. Though the argument of my opponents has remained the same, the tenor of their denials becomes ever more fierce and sanctimonious. Indeed, the perceived justness of domestic partnership legislation seems to have become so well-established that people have intuitions about it. "Though I can't refute you," I've been told more than once, "I know you're wrong." All of which leads me to suspect that the inroads made by the homosexual lobby have not just been in state legislatures and corporate America but in the public conscience as well, which is bad news for those of us on the other side of the issue.

Given the feebleness of the argument in favor of domestic partnership, this is a remarkable development and yet further proof of the cultural left's best-tested strategy: moral exclusion. As the gay lobby would have it, the cause of domestic partnership is firmly within the tradition of the civil rights struggles of the 1960's and '70's. Gay unions, supporters claim, are simply a matter of fairness, of applying the laws of the land equally to everyone. This self-characterization — thoroughly bogus though it is — has two important consequences when allowed to stand unchallenged. In the first place, it allows the homosexual lobby to abrogate to itself all of the pious sentiments so many feel for the civil rights movement. In the second place, it conveniently demonizes their opponents, who — again by virtue of the civil rights analogy — find themselves placed on moral par with George Wallace and the Ku Klux Klan. Not the best platform from which to gain public support.

Friends of the traditional family do themselves a great disservice by allowing their opponents to set the terms of the debate in this manner. By engaging the homosexual lobby on grounds of sexual morality, not only do they appear politically backwards but, what's worse, they actually assist the left in its effort to cast the pro-family voice in American politics as intolerant and retrograde while representing itself as the virtuous guardian of civil liberties. If the cause of the family is to meet with success in the future, its strategies need to be rethought. In particular, strategists will have to learn a lesson from the left: that the best way to advance the interests of the family is to identify them with the public interest as such.

In the case of the domestic partnership debate, this means that pro-family forces must reject the terms in which the debate has so far been conducted and place the anti-domestic partnership cause on a new footing. To argue that homosexual marriage is sexually immoral will only convince those who already are convinced and alienate the rest, who see such opposition as an attempt to return to the bad old days when fairness wasn't recognized as a political value. Instead, a genuinely public case — one which celebrates the benefits of marriage to society while clearly distinguishing between marriage and other types of relationship — should be made. In this way, traditional family advocates may succeed in shifting the burden of justification to where it should have been all along, squarely on the shoulders of the left. If homosexual marriage becomes a legally recognized fact in the next decade — and it is entirely possible that it will — this will only be because no one has talked about it.

For the link to this article:
http://www.boundless.org/2000/features/a0000307.html

edit-
That has to be the most nicely worded piece of blatent idiotic shit I have read during the past week.

The article has a lot of truth and the Darwinist logic runs counter to your egalitarian ideology of 'fairness'.

Marriage is about reproduction. The homosexuals are excluded from this by their sexual orientation. Thus "gay marriage" is an oxymoron.

Marriage isn't about reproduction.
If it is, then you'd have to explain why people who are incapable of having children are able to be married, or the fact that you do not have to be married to reproduce, or how some people who are married do not even go through with reproducing although they have the ability to.

And "Gay Marriage" isn't an oxymoron. Large shrimp is an oxymoron

Reproduction is at the root of marriage, another word is mating. The man and woman get together, produce children and raise them to become responsible adults. This new generation, now grown up, will find mates, make babies and raise them to adulthood. These new young adults find mates, have children and raise them up to become adults. Those young adults find mates...

See a pattern here?

So you're saying that without reproduction marriage is a farce, a fake, not real, and therefore anyone who can't reproduce, or a marriage which is incapable of producing children in any manner is therefore not a marriage, and as such shouldn't be called a marriage legally?

Marriage is mating. Starting a family.

A marriage without children is rather incomplete. The couple will eventually die without having produced children and the family tree ends with them. So I would say that it was not a real marriage.

Have you read of Darwin's theories of evolution? Survival of the fittest? We all die, it is in reproducing children that we 'survive'.

So you're telling me that every single marriage that contains 0 children is not an actual marriage.
This, of course, would mean that the laws allowing them various rights under the fact that they are married would therefore be negated.

By the way, you don't need children to be considered a family, and marriage is not mating.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=family
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=marriage

"real marriage" is between the two participating...why shouldn't those with out children be expected to have as a blissfull marriage than a couple with children...lord knows they could enjoy more time together, have less financial requirements...and generally enjoy life more...to suggest marriage is for the benefit of breeding is rather archaic...how many people breed without marriage?

marriage is no longer a necessary requirement for couplings...people can exist an entire life with out being married with legal bindings...and in some cases living together for six months is honored as binding as those who pay thirty five dollars and a blood test at the courhouse...how many single parents, grandparents and other...non married by you're definition type of care givers are there?

marriage is now just an option...and why shouldn't all happy, commited couples enjoy it, regardless of their sexual attractions?

If you didn't know over 900 same-sex marriages have occured in California within just the past few days.

I find that quite hilarious, what with how that many people wish to be married yet so many people wish to ruin their hopes, dreams and overall wishes to be married.

Some people find homosexuality a sin, some look at it with disgust, but in the end those who get married are saying "We're here, we're queer, get used to it".

If you can't get used to it, then take the bigot train to Hell
And there are NO valid reasons as to why they can't get married.

I thank god I don't live in your head.

gods plan is for humanity to multiply not to die off without reproducing and 2 men or 2 women are incapable of doing this!

ssliasil, if you want to talk about your god, then do it in the "religion" board of this forum.

I don't believe in any god, although I respect your freedom to believe in yours.

As far as I can see, you've come on to this forum just to spam post this poll, and this single issue of gay marriage. That makes you no better than any other spammer.

I didn't realize that in a country that has FREEDOM OF RELIGION we must listen to whatever one religion says and believe it, even if it doesn't meet up with another person's religion or is unimportant to another person's religion.

Yeah...and as Lazzie boy said, take it to the religion board if you want to start preaching.

Same-Sex Couples Wed in Valentine's Spree
By TAMI MIN, Associated Press Writer

SAN FRANCISCO - Gay and lesbian couples from across the country answered this city's Valentine's Day (news - web sites) invitation to wed in an unprecedented spree of same-sex marriages that has challenged California law and sent conservative groups scrambling for court intervention.


Hundreds of people lined up Saturday outside City Hall to secure marriage licenses — and then take each other as "spouse for life" in brief vows that have given San Francisco's seat of government the feel of a Las Vegas wedding chapel.


As passing drivers honked and strangers passed out roses, those waiting hours in line cheered couples who emerged from the ornate building clutching the controversial marriage licenses.


"It's finally somebody saying, 'Yes, you can do this,'" said Peter Subers, 57, of Washington County, N.Y., as he stood in line with husband-to-be Rob Bauer, 63.


They already had plans to head to Northern California, but decided Friday on the flight west to marry. Saturday was their 34th anniversary.


It was the third straight day that officials issued the licenses to hundreds of gay and lesbian couples. The response has been so overwhelming that nearly 200 city officials, led by newly elected Mayor Gavin Newsom, have volunteered to pitch in, from sheriff's deputies providing security to clerks processing the licenses.


Rodney Vonjaeger and his partner John Kussmann, both 37, drove overnight from San Diego and arrived at 3 a.m. Saturday.


"We decided if there was ever an opportunity we would do it, so the drive wasn't even a consideration," Vonjaeger said as he waited in line Saturday. They set the hotel alarm for 8 a.m., "but we were up at 7 because of the excitement."


Across the country, other gay couples didn't wait for a marriage license. About three dozen same-sex couples exchanged vows at Philadelphia's LOVE Park on Saturday as part of a "mass commitment ceremony" organized by a gay-friendly church.


Led by a minister, the couples gathered in front of Robert Indiana's famed "LOVE" sculpture — a rainbow flag draped under it — and repeated their vows.


"If they're not going to let us get married, we're going to do it anyway," said Dan Farley, shortly after exchanging silver rings with his partner, John McCann.


Despite legal challenges from advocates of traditional marriage, San Francisco's wedding march is expected to continue throughout the long holiday weekend. By late Saturday, the city had performed over 900 same-sex marriages since the weddings began Thursday.


San Francisco officials said they expected to hand out about 600 licenses Saturday, and by late afternoon had already recorded 270 same-sex weddings.


City officials said they would welcome license applications on Saturday, Sunday and Monday — President's Day — to accommodate couples that have flocked here from places including Oregon, Minnesota, New York and Seattle.


On Friday, a judge denied a petition to block more licenses from being granted. One group of opponents was asked to return Tuesday for a hearing; another group was told to return Tuesday to properly make their request to block the licenses.


"No one made the mayor of San Francisco king; he can't play God. He cannot trash the vote of the people," Randy Thomasson, director of the Campaign for California Families, said at a news conference in Los Angeles.


Aside from the lawsuits, the newly married couples may face other obstacles. After a marriage license is recorded by county officials, it is sent to the state Office of Vital Records. A ballot initiative approved by voters in 2000 said the state would only recognize marriages between a man and a woman.





San Francisco officials have insisted the licenses they have handed out are legally binding, although they are revised to be "gender-neutral." But a deputy city attorney acknowledged that the state may not accept them.

San Francisco appears to be the first city in the nation to officially support same-sex marriage licenses; city clerks in Arizona and Colorado in 1975 issued licenses to gay and lesbian couples that were later revoked or declared void.

Emboldened by the prospect of the nation's first legal same-sex marriages in Massachusetts, gay couples went to courthouses around the nation Thursday and Friday to demand the right to marry. They were quickly turned away.

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court recently ruled that it is unconstitutional to bar gay couples from marriage. Under the decision, the nation's first legally sanctioned gay marriages are scheduled to begin in mid-May.

Lawmakers are proposing a constitutional amendment that would define marriage a union between one man and one woman, and the Legislature resumes its deliberations of amendments on March 11.

Some American couples headed to Toronto Saturday, where gay marriage is legal.

"Canada as a country is more accepting and tolerant, we didn't give it a second thought," said Robin Hanson, a St. Louis doctoral student who was marrying her girlfriend Susan Levin.
---
I would think a marriage license would make it legal...

However....interesting point of fact

A country which recognises gay marriages can be used as a legitimate place for a gay couple to get married and then under Public international law, the marriage is DEFACTO binfing against the stat ein which they come to live. Failing to recognise this contravenes the international interaction treaty underlying all international legal actions.

Neon

Do you mean that there's a law which states that if you're married in a foreign country then your marriage is considered a legal marriage in America?