Patricia Todd is Right- Why conservatives need to get their act together.

Surprise! I agree with Alabama’s first openly gay state legislator, Patricia Todd.  Not her view that Alabama’s ban on same-sex marriage should be overturned.  She’s wrong about that.  But she’s right that you don’t get to make a moral argument about marriage and family, especially one that is based on “Christian values,” when you are sleeping around with your interns.

Long-term sufferers of my blog should very well have picked up on my theme by now. For those of you late to class I will throw you a bone. My opposition to gay marriage is rooted in the natural rights and well-being of children because, by their very nature, gay parents commit the child to losing at least one biological parent. Those kids also miss out on, in their formative years, daily input from both genders which naturally bring about different benefits to child development.

For those of us who talk this talk it is vitally important that we are not hypocritical in our walk. While I am concerned about the plight of children in gay households, statistically, children’s well-being is at risk by much greater numbers from divorce, co-habitation and casual sex. Regardless of what bans are lifted or what the Supreme Court decides in June, there is a great deal of personal responsibility we can all engage in that amounts to the Golden Ticket to thriving children and families.

In a nut shell?

As Frau M’s 86-year-old Mema would say: “Keep your pants on people.”

Somewhere along the way we mistook “sexual liberation” to mean separating commitment from sex.  More than one of my friends bought into the whole hook-up culture nonsense and is now raising, nobly and admirably mind you, the child of a seven minute encounter. OK, maybe seven was too generous. These mothers deserve our support and encouragement, but, we also need to be the town crier when it comes to the message we send our community. Sex is super fun and it was made to be so in order to create the next generation. So, if you really do care about the rights and well-being of children you are required to conduct yourself accordingly and encourage others to not have sex unless they have made a meaningful, life-long commitment to the other participant.

Like Mema says, “Take very seriously what’s poked in fun.”

And then there is the red-headed step child of hooking-up. The ever-so-romantic financial/convenience driven outcropping of the hook-up culture; cohabitation. Or, according to Mema, “shacking up.”  As with hooking-up, no matter how many “precautions” one may take, life finds a way, often into a relationship which is based more on a shared lease than a commitment. The stats tell us that the children of cohabiting couples are much more likely to see the dissolution of their parent’s relationship, subsequently live with their mother, then endure the “flavor of the month” (thanks again Mema) boyfriend types. If they are lucky these men are just boyfriends and not predators that seek out single mothers as a ticket to the child.  Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, a mother’s cohabitating boyfriend is the most dangerous person in a child’s life. Children born to cohabiting relationship will likely end up a child of a single mom and thus be at a higher risk for living in poverty, physical and sexual abuse. The numbers do not lie.

For those of you struggling to stay awake here is more help from Mr. Cliff Note:

Don’t shack up.  Find someone who is quality enough to parent children with you and serious enough about you to make big sacrifices. Don’t be so dang convenient.  You are worth more.  Your children are worth more.

And finally, the shameful silent killer of any moral high ground we conservatives ever had on the matter, the big D. Divorce. Or, as Mema would say, “Why divorce when you can buy a shotgun?” Boy, did the big-name-nationally-syndicated-Republican-talk-show types blow it on this one. Many are happy to talk about “family values” and rail against gay marriage but scurry to the dark corners at the suggestion of returning to at-fault divorce laws. Far too many have bought into the no-fault divorce lie and are shamefully guilty of sacrificing the needs of their children so that they can tickle their libido.  Many adults who choose divorce find that they are happier afterward.  The children, not so much.  We are told that divorce is like a bad cold: it’s a bummer for a while but you’ll get over it.  The truth is that, for children at least, divorce is not a one-time event but rather the beginning of many upheavals and transitions.  Dad moving out, mom getting a boyfriend, dad getting remarried and moving again.  Mom’s breakup. Mom moving to a new place.  Dad having a child with his new wife.  Seeing mom less because she is struggling financially and is out working two jobs. All this on top of the emotional heartache of knowing that the two people you love most in life do not love each other. Divorce may offer some relief/escape for the adults involved, but it is something that kids need to deal with for the long-haul. How many of you still have to do two Christmases? Long. Haul.

Waiting to have sex until you are married is hard.

I paid a steep emotional price because I did it wrong in high school and could have easily been one of those single moms that I mentioned.  In college my still-not-yet husband and I struggled greatly to remain chaste while we dated for four years. We made it.  Barely.  It was, how shall I put this?  EXCEPTIONALLY HARD EVERY STINKING DAY but (withthehelpofGodalmighty) we did the right thing and, as usual, right is always the more rewarding thing.

Don’t get me wrong, marriage is no panacea. Loving your husband when he is distracted by work is hard. Patience and tenderness toward your wife is difficult when she brushes you aside because she has “too much to do.” It’s hard to not blather to your friends when he has pissed you off. It’s easier for him to keep his complaints to himself because he works and comes home, with little to no time to nurture friendships, let alone confide in them. Add some kids and the pressure increases exponentially because you now are surviving on one income and you are scraping by because payday is still three days out.

It’s hard.  So many people don’t do it.  Many “pro-family” advocates don’t do it.

They should.

We all should because our future depends on it. Because it is about the emotional health and well-being of my kids and yours.  It’s about orienting our lives around the needs of our children, not making them fit into a life built on following our every sexual urge- be it the hook-up, affair or divorce.  They need to see us struggling and overcoming obstacles in relationships that don’t allow for an exit strategy.  They need to witness adults being faithful when there are so many opportunities to be faithless. Because it’s the best thing for kids.  And if maturity, character, and long-term fullness is what we’re after, it’s the best thing for us too.

The real marriage movement will be one of self-examination.  And if we ever hope to reach millennials with our message, we’re going to have to live consistently with it.  We must make sure that our behavior falls into line with what we are preaching.

Or as Mema would say; “Put up, or shut up.”

Advertisements

60 thoughts on “Patricia Todd is Right- Why conservatives need to get their act together.

  1. Well, I apologize, but it looks like I’m first. As someone who did somehow manage to maintain celibacy until marriage, I can also affirm that on some days, it did suck. A lot. There’s a reason I’ve never considered lifelong celibacy is for me. But, it was worth it. I know that I bring no past mistakes or foolish choices into my marriage, and I’ve given it one of the strongest foundations you can.

    So, to anyone else walking this particular path, hang in there. It does get better.

    • My husband managed it too, Sam. As a result, he brought less baggage into the relationship than I did. Yes, a strong foundation indeed.

  2. How about three Christmases? Yup…it gets crazy.

    Divorce comes in and obliterates a child’s idea of “safe”, of “love”, of “home”. The fall-out from divorce only confirms the idea that life is not safe, love is not real and home is a temporary label, not a reality.

    • Tisha, as always, you nailed it with your succinct wrap-up. If you have a chance, you should look at some of the links in the section above on divorce. Especially the “Dan Quayle was Right” article. It was really eye-opening for me.

    • you know heterosexual couples can still be legally married yet divorced from and with each other in their minds emotions hearts and verbage

  3. “Not her view that Alabama’s ban on same-sex marriage should be overturned. She’s wrong about that. ”

    So two loving people of same sex should not be able to protect their common property from greedy relatives, when one of them dies, and should not be allowed to make medical decisions on behalf of each other, if need arises, which, coincidentally, applies to plaintiffs in Alabama suit:

    “James Strawser and John Humphrey applied for a marriage license in Mobile County, Alabama, but were denied. Strawser faces significant health issues. Despite having a medical power of attorney, Humphrey was told by a hospital where Strawser was receiving medical treatment that they would not honor the document because Humphrey was not a family member or spouse.”

    And they should not be able to enjoy other privileges of married people. You just hate them lesbians and gays, that’s it.

    • Hi FyVa. Ya know, one of these days you should introduce yourself to us so I can bless you by name when I pray for you. Thanks for being a faithful objector. 😉

      Children are the reason government has any stake in the marriage discussion at all. In 1996 when Congress instituted DOMA they stated:

      “…at bottom, civil society has an interest in maintaining and protecting the institution of heterosexual marriage because it has a deep and abiding interest in encouraging responsible procreation and child-rearing. Simply put, government has an interest in marriage because it has an interest in children.”

      Every legitimate aim of same sex couples (hospital visitations, shared property, etc.) can be achieved through other means, without redefining marriage. That is why many of us supported civil unions for gays and lesbians, where (in Washington at least) the benefits and rights for those couples were indistinguishable from married couples. But that wasn’t enough.

      The State’s interest in marriage is children. Not in whether or not a gay couple is “loving” or “committed”. They certainly can be both, this I know. But with respect to childrearing, they are wholly different. To recognize that is not to be hateful, it’s to state the obvious.

      • >The State’s interest in marriage is children.

        I suppose this is why a marriage is not a legal requirement for having children, neither having children (and even having sex) is not a legal duty in marriage. Even having out of wedlock children doesn’t dissolve existing marriage by itself.

        So, no, the State’s interest is not in children. It’s in protecting common interests of the spouses, which include property, mutual privileges, and, yes, children, which may not be biologically and/or genetically related to them, but still be their legal children.

        • “I suppose this is why a marriage is not a legal requirement for having children, neither having children (and even having sex) is not a legal duty in marriage.”

          Well, of course they aren’t, but marriage or legal marriage, properly understood, is not defined in the terms of singular persons within a relationship. Whether or not a person can have sex, whether one or both persons is singularly impotent or whether the couple chooses not to have a kid does not makes their relationship any less than a marriage. Marriage is about a type of relationship. We’re comparing and contrasting types of relationships, not the individuals who comprise them or particular examples of the type. It’s Class Set A vs. Class Set B. Vaguely appealing to individual members of those classes, as you do here, is besides the point.

          Essentially the debate on this issue boils down to this: Are same-sex relationships fundamentally the same as heterosexual relationships? Are these two forms of human association basically equivalent? You and “marriage equality” advocates say they are; Katy, myself and others say they clearly are not.

          “So, no, the State’s interest is not in children. It’s in protecting common interests of the spouses, which include property, mutual privileges, and, yes, children, which may not be biologically and/or genetically related to them, but still be their legal children.”

          I find it very telling of the basic divide between our respective camps and how we differ in approaching this issue that you would list children as something to be considered similar to property and financial assets. Anyway, no, the State has no interest in preserving individual property and the like. The State, by its nature, I would say stands in direct opposition to individual liberty and rights. It limits and coerces. I’m guessing you’re projecting your Western sensibilities on what government ought to do based on the enlightened restrictions the Founding Fathers put on the representatives of the State, but this was radical when considering history’s emperors and absolute monarchies. It was with this in mind that the Founding Fathers conceived and produced the Bill of Rights in the first place to limit the State and protect natural rights so individual liberty could flourish. There has always been a tension between the individual and State, with the latter naturally trying to extend more and more influence and control over the former. This continues to this day everywhere including the United States. The only reason why we have this notion that government ought to protect property rights and individual freedom is the profound wisdom and foresight of the Founding Fathers in setting up the Constitution, but the State, generally speaking, has no interest in bolstering and saving the very things that prevent it from becoming all-consuming.

          What the State is interested in is its own perpetuation, which is the creation and socialization of new citizens. Therefore, this accounts for why the State is in the marriage business in the first place. It does not care about emotional attachment between persons. It’s promoting and regulating the type of relationship that provides the citizens that sustain it. This type of relationship is inherently procreative, i.e. involve a man and a woman. Also, the marital norms monogamy, exclusivity and permanence help ensure that these children, who will become the State’s new citizens, are well-adjusted.

          So, redefining marriage to loosely be a amorous relationship of high emotional intensity breaks the dam, that in principle, protecting the norms that ensure children are to be raised by their biological parents in a committed, stable households as opposed to households complicated by parents who have multiple children with multiple partners in impermanent, uncommitted relationships where the parents are less able to devote the necessary attention to whatever children they create. If pure romantic love is what makes a marriage, then by what principle do we have to say no to those romantic relationships, e.g., “throuples,” “wedleases,” polygamy and “open” relationships that create the aforementioned volatile households through their amorous behaviors? If we assume a morally sterile view about homosexuality, infidelity or polygamy and view children though the lens that commoditizes them, we should realize, from a public policy standpoint, children are every civilization’s most valuable resource. Therefore, we should treat them accordingly, which means redefining marriage — fabricating a special class of civil rights for a demographic that is roughly 2.3 percent of the population at the expense and risk of impoverishing efficient child-rearing — doesn’t make a lot of sense.

          That isn’t say gay couples don’t have legitimate grievances about things like hospital visitation and being granted their partner’s life insurance, but a middle option like civil unions or reformations to the tax code is what’s required, not making biological parents optional to their children, both in law and culture, by redefining marriage. It really is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

          • Can you just thank you for this post? I can’t tell you how much it aggravates me when so few Americans understand just how unique and strange our form of government is when compared to the ages, and simply assume that it’s a completely obvious answer. What concerns me is that no one seems to understand that our ‘rights’ are not a given and should our current form of society fail, all of that vanishes. And whoever replaces the US as top dog is under no compulsion to emulate our methods. People complain about the US setting itself as the world’s police chief, and it’s not unwarranted. However, the next nation may choose to be the world’s Emperor.

            To further enhance your original point, the three social issues faced by modern nations tend to be listed as: crime, poverty, and welfare. As explained in the Dan Quayle article (linked under ‘The children, not so much), any family structure besides the biological father-biological mother, married combo is guaranteed to come with some form of instability which adds to these three struggles. By attacking and undermining traditional marriage, society is actually putting itself on a path of self-destruction. Thus, the State can make a reasoned argument that ensuring the children the best possible formation is one of its highest duties, along with self-defense & ensuring justice if it is to survive.

          • Thanks. Yes, the United States, although far from perfect, is truly a benevolent world power relative to Rome, Persia, Mongolia, the Soviet Union, etc. The world has not seen a major hot conflict since World War II because we swing the biggest stick. And look how Obama’s feckless foreign policy has emboldened Russia, China, Islamic terrorists to stretch their muscles.

            Yeah, I agree redefining marriage, I’m guessing, will enable the increase of poverty and the welfare state.

          • >The world has not seen a major hot conflict since World War II because we swing the biggest stick

            I guess Vietnam was just a minor altercation. 58 thousand US soldiers dead and 300000 wounded (and total over a million dead, thanks for the big stick and Agent Orange) doesn’t count. Iraq war was also just a weekend brawl.

            >And look how Obama’s feckless foreign policy has emboldened Russia, China, Islamic terrorists to stretch their muscles.

            You can thank Iraq war for most of that. That was the best gift for Putin’s propaganda. Now they have an enemy to hate, and because of Iraq US lost any moral standing to criticise Putin if he openly invades Ukraine.

          • Yes, lots of people died in Vietnam, but the conflict really didn’t spill outside of the region and wasn’t nearly as widespread, say in World War I, World War II or the Napoleonic wars. Our naval power and technological advantage on the battlefield keep a lot of nations from misbehaving like China invading Taiwan. The fact we have, I think, 12 aircraft carrier battle groups with several of them patrolling the seas is a big deterrent. I also would argue our takedown of Saddam’s Baathists in the first Gulf War really put the fear of God in a lot of unruly folk who probably would feel more inclined to bully their neighbors.

            I disagree with Iraq. Whether or not there were WMDs or oil interests, we had no desire to annex the country like Putin clearly does with Ukraine. Putin’s actions in the Crimea reek of Hitler with the Sudetenland and Czechoslovakia or the similarly excused swallowing of Austria with the Anschluss.

          • It’s worth noting, though, that these “minor” calamities were caused by the arrogance of “exceptionalism”.

          • World War 2 – 60 million casualties (both wounded & dead)
            World War 1 – 37 million

            Just trying to give you a sense of perspective, FyVa. Comparatively speaking, yes, the Vietnam War and the Iraqi Wars were rather small when compared to the World Wars. While we should regret those minor wars, we should also be grateful we have yet to another conflict on a world war-scale.

      • >when I pray for you

        Thanks, but I don’t need anybody to pray for me. I don’t think disposition of my soul when I die will be any different from yours or anybody’s, whether you pray for me or not. You may believe, though, that since I don’t agree with your church position on civil marriage for same sex spouses, I’d be going to hell. Even though I may or may not be a Christian.

        Well, there are many Christian that believe that if you don’t completely renounce and disown your gay children or other relatives, you’re gonna end up in Hell, too. You may think: “they are not True Christian™. A True Christian™ would hate the sin, but love the sinner”. Well, they think that a True Christian™ would not love sodomites. But how to find, who is a True Christian? I think, only a True Scotsman knows the answer. Who is a True Scotsman? Wikipedia knows.

        • >I don’t think disposition of my soul when I die will be any different from your or anybody’s, whether you pray for me or not.

          Based on what research?

          I can sympathize with your second paragraph. The multitude of creeds and beliefs within Christianity alone can be confusing and daunting. However, just because there are mixed messages does not negate the possibility of one of them being right. As a historian, I’ve discovered many popular historical truths to be far different from actual reality, yet it often takes time and effort into sifting fact from fiction. The truth is out there, but you have to work at it.

          Also, I did take your advice and did some digging based on the stuff you said in the last article. Unfortunately, there was a mountain of propaganda and my questions were left unanswered for the most part after I managed to get to a more sensible parts. Except Duggars. I’ve no idea what that was referencing to and neither did the Internet.

        • FyVa. I pray because this is the way I’m commanded to interact with those who are, how shall I put this, not filled with warm fuzzies about my message. And the wonderful by-product is that I begin to genuinely care for you in the process. I pray that God would give you fullness where there is emptiness, help where there is need, and fellowship where there might be loneliness. Maybe you need none of these things. In that case, I’m sure that the prayer will do no harm. And I pray that you would see God for the caring Father that He is, because He is seeking you. Don’t want prayer from me? Then don’t come round here no more because I’m an out of sight, out of mind girl, unfortunately. So whenever I see your comments, you’re gonna get it. PS- hope you weren’t a Seahawks fan tonight. Tough game.

          • >I pray that God would give you fullness where there is emptiness, help where there is need, and fellowship where there might be loneliness.

            I, from my side, will pray that you, like many children of divorced parent with lingering issues, will find a good counselor who will help you find peace, instead of generalized hate of all non-ideal parenting situations.

            > PS- hope you weren’t a Seahawks fan tonight.

            I don’t care for sport that leaves players brain-damaged. Chronic traumatic encephalopathy is not pretty.

        • Fyva: A question: do you believe that anyone who disagrees with you hates you? Is it only AskMe or are there people who can disagree with you, say “no” to you that are not hate-filled people? Are all people who are diametrically opposed to your views necessarily hateful? Is there room in your position to acknowledge that others, while certainly mistaken from your point of view, could be sincerely doing what they think best and, as such, are much more similar to you than actually different from you?

          Truly not trying to be snarky. It’s just that I see you posting, always ready to fight, always ready to take offense, always ready to accuse others of very hateful things. There seems to be a “take no prisoners, show no weakness” attitude in your posts that I find so….can’t think of the right word…heavily armored, I guess?. Or like you are convinced that if you relate to others with the assumption that they are not doing you harm, you’ve somehow “lost” the battle. That’s not quite it, either but I find myself at a most uncharacteristic loss for words. (Truly, my loved ones would stare at you in awe, maybe pressure you to share your secret super power).

          In fact, I have found no hate not only in this post but in the vast, vast number of posts on AskMe’s blog. I see her presenting clearly and strongly a certain position, definitely unpopular in certain circles, but definitely not hateful in the spittle-flying, tortured facial expression, Hitler-giving-a-rousing-hate speech kind of way you seem to see it as. I see AskMe setting clear rules saying only polite words, respectful consideration, humble pronunciation of personal failings where applicable and, just maybe, a little humor are to be the guiding principles for those who post. Where is the hate? The name-calling? The call to public shaming? The attempts to blackmail employers into terminating those who disagree? This is not the blog where you will see those tactics employed. This is a blog where you are greeted pleasantly, cared for, even prayed for. How is pleasantry, politeness, asking after your health, wishing you comfort and peace and an insistence that all posters be treated respectfully regardless of ideology become synonymous with “hate” in your mind?

          It really makes me scratch my head, sometimes…..

      • You do realize that the states’ failed “responsible procreation” argument is why 36 states (instead of only 16) have marriage equality in 2015, right? Over 40 state and federal courts have deemed that argument to be “so full of holes that it cannot be taken seriously”.

        Seventh Circuit Judge Richard Posner said it best:
        http://gawker.com/hero-federal-appeals-judge-burns-down-the-case-against-1630697112

        An excerpt:
        “Indiana’s government thinks that straight couples tend to be sexually irresponsible, producing unwanted children by the carload, and so must be pressured (in the form of governmental encouragement of marriage through a combination of sticks and carrots) to marry, but that gay couples, unable as they are to produce children wanted or unwanted, are model parents—model citizens really—so have no need for marriage. Heterosexuals get drunk and pregnant, producing unwanted children; their reward is to be allowed to marry. Homosexual couples do not produce unwanted children; their reward is to be denied the right to marry. Go figure.”

        Of course, the fact that the state doesn’t even attempt to screen out non-procreative straight couples from being able to marry (infertile couples, the elderly, those that don’t want children), makes their argument all the more absurd.

        So, no, it is not reasonable to argue that the only reason that states dole out marriage licenses is because of children, when they have no problem issuing marriage licenses to any-and-all non-procreative straight couples that pay a marriage license fee. Which probably explains why Rush Limbaugh is on his FOURTH non-procreative marriage. When the state of Florida nullifies his current marriage on the grounds that marriage is solely intended for the benefit of children, then and ONLY then will I believe in the “responsible procreation” meme. I’m also fairly certain that the state of Florida wouldn’t have a problem allowing 93-year old Betty White to get married — even though I don’t expect her to be kicking out a carload of children in the future. Go figure.

        • David, the article you cite weakens your argument as it’s filled with propaganda, I’d recommend you find a better example of Posner’s views.

          Furthermore, the last quote, it highlights that Posner supports this position because there has not been an empirical study that shows that homosexual marriage will damage either traditional marriage or children. Which worries me because we have empirical studies and historical proof that affirms that homosexual marriage does harm to both, so I’m not sure at what point the judge becomes disconnected with reality. In the meantime, non-procreative heterosexual marriage does not harm either traditional marriage (which it emulates) or children (since there’s no children). Thus, it indirectly benefits children by upholding a proper relationship between a man and a woman.

          What also bothers me is his sweeping, normative generalizations, turning all heterosexual couples into irresponsible drunks. As someone born in Indiana to parents who were not drunk at the time of my conception (or at the conception of my siblings), this statement is not only inaccurate but offensive.

          Lastly, his characterization of the LGBT…’community’ (I use the word hesitantly because the truth is far more complex) as an immutable trait is also inaccurate as demonstrated by askthebigot and other empirical evidence of shifting orientations.

          To conclude on the strength of Posner’s argument, I’ll use this quote, “is so full of holes that it cannot be taken seriously.”

          • I’m not sure what qualifies as propaganda according to you. Disagreeing with his opinion does not make it propaganda. His reasoning is on point. The state’s argument in court was that the only reason they dole out marriage licenses is to steer irresponsible straight couples into getting married. Then hopefully the guy that doesn’t know how to use a condom will stick around after mommy’s little accident is born. The state said that gay couples aren’t as irresponsible, so that’s why they don’t need marriage. I’m impressed that Posner didn’t fine the attorneys with wasting the courts time on such an inane argument.

            I have yet to read any empirical studies that prove that allowing gay couples to marry harms anyone else’s marriage, or harms children. If you’re alluding to Mark Regnerus, he was exposed as a handsomely paid-for-hire fraud that misrepresented his research for the Witherspoon Institute. Perhaps when you say harm, you actually mean hurt feelings. I have no doubt that you’d be upset to hear that I’ve been married to a man for the past six years. How that information could possibly “harm” your marriage remains to be seen. Like I said, hurt feelings withstanding, my marriage harms no one else’s way of life. Straight couples continue to get married every single day, regardless of the fact that I’m married to a man.

            Non-procreative heterosexual marriage actually does harm “traditional marriage” if (according to this blog) the sole of purpose of marriage is for the welfare and upbringing of children. If there aren’t any children, then how can it possibly be a marriage? These so-called marriages sends a mixed message to children that marriage is whatever two consenting adults want it to be — and we can’t have that, can we?

          • First off, I apologize for the location of this post, David. For some reason, I can’t reply directly to your last reply.

            And I also apologize for the confusion over my use of the word ‘propaganda’. I’m using it in a strange combination of its technical and common-use meanings. At it’s base, it simply means to sway someone’s opinion, which was the point of the article. However, I was also using it for its negative connotations. The article you listed makes no attempts at academic neutrality and wields sarcasm as a weapon and is…(sorry I’m struggling for the proper word again) over-emotional? As such, it hampers it undercuts its message by it’s behavior. If you can think of a more appropriate word, I’m all ears. And, by my application of the word, the judge’s tone is also propaganda, though he shows more restraint than the featured article.

            Now, to the actual points. I agree the opposition’s argument, as you have portrayed, is also weak, but tearing down their argument doesn’t improve the judge’s argument. No one wins in this instance. When I have more time, I’ll try to track down this case and see if the popular interpretations are as accurate as they are made out to be.

            Your second point is going to take a bit more effort to do and my time is limited as of this moment, so if you don’t mind waiting a bit, I’ll get you a few links in a couple of hours. BRB

          • Oh, silly me. The reply moves into the proper place after I post it.

            Anyway, I’ll continue from here. Regnerus’ study was in fact one of the pieces I was referencing. I understand that his study has been met with resistance and he was investigated for misconduct by the University of Texas.

            Here’s the result: http://www.utexas.edu/news/2012/08/29/regnerus_scientific_misconduct_inquiry_completed/

            Furthermore, I understand that he was aware of some criticisms and made a reply to those. Would you like me to track that down for you? If not, then it’s clear that the man not only maintained his integrity, but his study is not suffering from enough deficiencies to render its conclusions and evidence as worthless. If you are aware of another academic investigation that was able to disprove the first one and his study, just give me a link.

            Upset would not be the proper word. More like a mixture of disappointment and curiosity. If you wish to know how it harms my marriage, it encourages sexual promiscuity, which in turn aids the spread of STDs and discourages marriage fidelity. Additionally, it encourages cohabitation, which also harms traditional marriage but children as well, as seen in at least one of the articles linked in the above article.

            More links: http://www.boston.com/news/specials/gay_marriage/articles/2004/03/10/death_of_marriage_in_scandinavia/

            http://www.familyresearchinst.org/2009/02/getting-the-facts-same-sex-marriage/#fnref-238-12

            Now, I understand you’re not trying to hurt my marriage, and I know same-sex marriage supporters aren’t out to ruin it for me (except the few supporters who believe marriage itself should die), but it does affect me. In fact, the argument that ‘this won’t affect you’ is perhaps one of the most short-sighted arguments I’ve seen. What few people understand, is that our day-to-day actions affect the world around us. Buddhism has an understanding of this truth. So, it is true that heterosexual marriages continue every day. But it’s hard to argue that today’s state of Marriage is nearly as healthy as it was 20-30 years ago.

            For your last point, I have another link because my time is running short yet again. (I apologize for this. I swear, I usually have a better record of time-tracking.) http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2011/03/2638/

            And to finish, I need to correct a misunderstanding. The point of this blog is not that traditional marriage must produce children. It is that every child deserves a biological father and a mother. The two views are significantly different.

          • “If you wish to know how it harms my marriage, it encourages sexual promiscuity, which in turn aids the spread of STDs and discourages marriage fidelity. Additionally, it encourages cohabitation, which also harms traditional marriage but children as well, as seen in at least one of the articles linked in the above article.”

            No, actually promoting marriage for all adults (regardless of their sexual orientation) encourages monogamy and fidelity, which in turn would decrease the spread of STDs. And, of course, married couples are going to co-habitate. Which is basically what it means to be married. How this harms opposite-sex couples that are also married is unknown. I’m fairly certain my straight married neighbors aren’t being kept up at night because a married gay couple lives next door to them.

          • I love this research from the Family Research Institute:
            “In a study of 2,000 U.S. and European gays in the 1960s, researchers found that “living by oneself is probably the chief residential pattern for male homosexuals. It provides the freedom to pursue whatever style of homosexual life one chooses, whether it be furtive encounters in parks or immersion in the homosexual subculture. In addition, homosexual relationships are fragile enough to make this residential pattern common whether deliberate or not.”

            Yeah, I always base my opinions on outdated studies from 55 years ago. Fifty-five years ago, homosexuality was pretty much illegal. Not so much in 2015. There’s a lot less “furtive encounters in the park”, and more online dating, gay clubs and groups. I do find it interesting that even back then these hate-mongers were going out of their way to demonize gay people. And here they are 55 years later still trying to use the same ammo. It’s actually really pathetic… and evil.

        • David,

          Whether or not children obtain or conception occurs is not what’s at issue. You and Judge Posner mistake procreation as being instrumentally related to marriage, as in A leads to B, with A being marriage and B being children. Instead, our argument and position is more like A is oriented or ordered to bring about B. In other words, heterosexual relationships are inherently procreative, so much so, procreation does often occur even if it doesn’t happen in every case for whatever reason. On the other hand, homosexual relationships are inherently nonprocreative, so much so, procreation never occurs no matter what happens in the bedroom. Gay couples, as a pair, are categorically infertile. Heterosexual couples, as a pair, are not. Big, big difference.

          Likewise, the tendency to obscure what is actually being pitted in this debate by implying marriage is somehow defined relative to individual persons is also problematic. It’s also made dialogue on this subject night impossible because you erroneously think we’re fundamentally objecting to the innate sexual orientation of gay people. In actuality we’re objecting to the freely chosen expression of that sexual orientation as justification to redefine humanity’s first and civilization’s fundamental institution with no regard for the greater legal and cultural implications. Again, another critical distinction. The question is whether homosexual relationships are basically the same as heterosexual relationships, and therefore a marriage. A person’s age, race, impotence or fertility and even sexual orientation is ultimately irrelevant in defining marriage and rightly has no bearing on who gets married. See my above comment to FyVa ProLd for further clarification, if desired.

          Secondly, from a political philosophy standpoint, redefining marriage in public policy to essentially be an intense amorous relationship between two people does affect heterosexual marriages. Deductively, it diminishes the blood ties between biological parent and child. It makes daddy interchangeable with mommy and vice versa in the view of the State. If this doesn’t make you feel uneasy, allow me explain. The way marriage is currently recognized, it’s clear there is an objective, important connection between biological parent and child, which the State promotes. Redefined in the manner same-sex marriage advocates are pushing for, logically, this relationship between parent and child becomes optional. Family becomes a purely arbitrary, subjective construction with no basis in objective biology in the view of government. Therefore, there is little we can appeal to or for later culture will readily recognize to keep the State out of our domestic lives if it feel like “it has compelling reason” to interfere. You might feel like this well never happen, even though with public education, for example, corrupt bureaucrats already dictate what our children learn whether we like it or not. Well, paternal Big Brother is insatiable, and if government officials can stretch the General Welfare clause in the Constitution to justify all those welfare redistribution programs that don’t bring specific groups of people to their feet but keeps them on their knees, then it’s highly likely they’ll find another compelling reason. It’s only a matter of time. If you look at history, every big government or evil empire does not recognize the family. They can muck around with your family inside your home whenever they feel like it, and widespread redefinition of marriage is one gigantic step in that direction.

          Admittedly, I’m very ashamed with my naive millennial generation for basically advocating for the reduction of its individual liberty. We are foolishly conceding our present or future children’s rights to be raised by us as illusory. I don’t know of one self-respecting parent who would consciously campaign for such a thing. Furthermore, this says nothing about children, who, as the Constitution affirms, are also “created equal.” Redefinition, via similar reasoning, means there is no difference in law and subsequent culture between a child who was conceived between husband and wife and a child, stripped of any connection with at least one of its biological parents, who is brought into this world to be sold to any couple, gay or otherwise. I hope this at least strikes you as bioethically dubious to create children as commodities for sale, as well as the public policy that enables such practices to be normalized.

          I believe Alexis de Toqueville famously thought that no outside power could take away the freedom we experienced have in the United States. The only thing that could was ourselves freely forfeiting it. In my view, the same-sex marriage movement, although many of its proponents undoubtedly have good intentions, is advocating for just that. To paraphrase Benjamin Franklin: “Any society that would give up a liberty for equality, (false equality in our “bigoted” view) deserves neither and will lose both.”

          David, even if you vehemently disagree with everything I written, it behooves you to actually understand why people like Katy are risking their jobs, becoming a cultural pariah and or losing relationships with loved ones. My whole arguments here are not predicated on any moral judgment of gay people. It’s not “bigotry.” We just disagree, and our reasons are not fueled by prejudice but rationality. Bigots like Bull Connor do not attempt to reason with the objects of their hatred.

          • It’s irrelevant that straight couples are inherently procreative, and gay couples are inherently non-procreative. Procreation has not, nor has it ever been a requirement to getting married. The state and government have no issue with allowing non-procreative straight couples to marry. In other words, they do not promote marriage as a child-centric institution. In fact, they don’t *promote* marriage at all. It’s simply available to 100% of the heterosexual population — which is why dozens of state and federal courts have dismissed various state arguments that claim that marriage exists to direct knocked-up women and their irresponsible boyfriends into long-term legally-sanctioned civil contracts with each other (aka: marriage).

            One of the Supreme Court justices has an adopted child. One would assume, based on your ideology, that he is willfully “diminishing the blood ties between the biological parent and child”. If he were a single-parent, I’d argue that the child would be at more of a disadvantage than if the child had two same-sex parents. It needn’t be said that there are hundreds of thousands of straight single-parent families in our country (My niece and nephew fall under that category). So why isn’t Katy going after them, instead of what must be less than 1% of the populous that are gay and are also raising children? The other 99% get a free-pass to raise children in a less than ideal situation?

            What you call marriage “redefinition”, I call “the expansion of civil rights”. I’m really at a loss at how you can claim that opposite-sex marriage has been redefined when it’s EXACTLY the same as it’s always been. In the 36 states with marriage equality, straight men continue to marry straight women. An apt analogy would be: If vanilla were the only ice cream in existence and I created chocolate, and suddenly claimed that I was redefining ice cream because throughout history vanilla was the only ice cream that people partook of.

            I doubt most people would support children being created as a commodity for sale. Most gay couples have a child from a previous (failed) straight relationship, or have adopted a child that was a ward of the state. For the record, children do not have the right to be raised by their biological parents. Otherwise, divorce wouldn’t be possible, and bio-parents wouldn’t be able to give their children up for adoption. This idea (promoted by Robert Lopez) that gay couples are purchasing children as accessories is repugnant; and any couple (gay or straight) that would do that should be condemned.

            “My whole arguments here are not predicated on any moral judgment of gay people. It’s not “bigotry.” We just disagree, and our reasons are not fueled by prejudice but rationality.”

            You might be having a simple disagreement — which is fine. Katy is not just voicing her opinion. She cosponsored an amicus brief urging the federal courts to uphold state bans on same-sex marriage. That is a personal attack on me and every gay person in this country. Harming gay peoples’ lives under the guise of “Won’t someone think of the children!” is the same type of rhetoric that Russia has been using to demonize their gay citizens.

          • >No, actually promoting marriage for all adults (regardless of their sexual orientation) encourages monogamy and fidelity, which in turn would decrease the spread of STDs.

            If only that were true.
            https://www.spuc.org.uk/campaigns/ssmsub20130301

            http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/29/us/29sfmetro.html?_r=0

            >And, of course, married couples are going to co-habitate. Which is basically what it means to be married.

            To equate the two would be incorrect. If nothing else, the link in the above article shows that cohabitation leads to far more abuse and places children in a much more precarious situation. I’m actually surprised you made this one of your points. I thought it was long understood that there is a significant difference between Cohabitation and Marriage, unless you’re using the slimmest of definitions (e.g. cohabit = living together). In which case, all marriages do involve cohabitation, but not all cohabitating couples are married, and those are more precarious.

            And, while I grant you 55 years may be aged for dating, you didn’t respond to the other articles of more recent times, and the articles I linked are less than a decade old. Furthermore, age itself doesn’t simply defeat a statistic or article. You need to prove that the information no longer holds true to reality, and since my initial point was about marriage fidelity, the NY times article alone still supports that point.

            How am I supposed to support same-sex marriage when it’s own practitioners, as a whole, do not hold themselves to the marital standard and guarantees some form of difficulty forced upon the offspring? To simply demonize the opposition makes for a poor defense.

          • I love this notation in the article from space.org.uk:
            *Note: We introduce the term “same-sex marriage” with quotation marks because it is not really marriage – but in the text we ask the reader to take the distinction as read.

            Gee, I wonder if these people are just slightly biased against gays?

            I thought this was rather humorous as well:
            4. In the move to same sex marriage, opposite sex relationships have to conform to gay norms, rather than vice versa, since matters pertaining to complementary sexes cannot apply to those of the same sex. For example: Spanish birth certificates record ‘progenitor A’ and ‘progenitor B’ rather than ‘mother’ and ‘father’.

            Oh, no, a legal form was changed! And now mothers and fathers don’t exist! Now children will have to call their parents Progenitor A and B!

            The entire article is laughable. As if gay people are controlling the behaviors of straight people. People have free will, and need to take responsibility for their own actions.

            This sums up the New York Times article:
            “Open relationships are not exclusively a gay domain, of course. Deb and Marius are heterosexual, live in the East Bay and have an open marriage.”

            How two consenting adults behave in their own marriage is their own business. My only concern is that gay citizens have access to civil marriage. If Charles Manson has access to civil marriage, you’d be hard pressed to explain why same-sex couples shouldn’t have access to it; or perhaps you’d like to argue that Charles is “holding himself to a marital standard” that gay people are incapable of? Legally THAT is the standard: Mass murderers can get married… as long as they are straight. THAT is the threshold that gay citizens have to surpass in order to get married — NOT be a mass murderer. I think my husband and I have met that standard.

            You seem to be arguing that gay people are incapable of the same type of fidelity and commitment that straight people have. A simple Google search of “famous affairs” would beg to differ:
            http://www.people.com/people/archive/topic/0,,20183496,00.html
            http://www.celebromance.com/12-shocking-recent-celebrity-affairs/
            http://www.cnn.com/2007/LIVING/personal/12/03/great.love.affairs/index.html?iref=mpstoryview

            Just in case Newt isn’t mentioned, let’s add his record: Married three times, had two adulterous affairs resulting in marriages to the women he cheated with.

            How am I supposed to support opposite-sex marriage when it’s own practitioners, as a whole, do not hold themselves to the marital standard and guarantees some form of difficulty forced upon the offspring? See what I did there?

            “To simply demonize the opposition makes for a poor defense.”
            So why do you continue to do that?

          • David,

            I’m afraid you’re missing my point. Indeed, you seem to be avoiding it. My point was that not only was same-sex marriage affecting traditional marriage, but that same-sex marriage couldn’t live up to the standard of marriage. For my first link, you did not debate the point or counter it with evidence. You merely assumed it was laughable and left it behind while leaving its entire structure intact. Take my advice on how to debate, you need to meet the opposition with a strong counter, and simply decrying the opposition is a weak move.

            And you did the same thing with my second link. You took one line out of it and then used it to try to smash its staying power. At no point, did you reject the fact that almost half of these relationships support monogomay. You tried to evade the issue by pointing out that not all marriages succeed. This is also true, but that doesn’t defeat my point. Here is what I found when it came to open marriages in general.

            http://www.webmd.com/sex-relationships/features/the-truth-about-open-marriage?page=1
            >So why do you continue to do that?

            Please, point out where I’ve attacked you personally or have used sarcasm or caps lock to speak, and I will apologize for each instance. However, simply disagreement is not demonization. And I’ve specifically based my criticisms on the social science evidence that we have, none of which you have properly rebutted. I ask that you examine your argument in a critical way and make it stronger.

      • What about heterosexual couples who arent able to have children or choose not to have children are they not worthy of being recognized as being married?

        The issue here is that you oppose anyone other than a legally married husband and wife parenting a child not that two same sex people being legally recognized as a family.

    • The hospital will write those two a big fat check. Obviously if there was a POA in place the hospital broke the law and will pay for it. I notice the word, plaintiff, which indicates a lawsuit in progress yet you present this case as if it has been ruled on and was in favor of the hospital. Some idiot hospital breaking the law does not mean these men cannot have what is legally due them. It simply indicates a particular hospital is staffed by morons. Your first point and quote regarding the couple are unrelated. Two loving same sex people can bequeath any damn thing to anyone they want. It’s called a will. Adults take responsibility to have such things drawn up in order to have their wishes carried out. If a legal marriage is not an option for you in your state and your inheritance is a priority for you than you behave as a responsible adult and do what is required. If you choose to spend your time whining about the unfairness of it all instead of taking care of business THEN whining, well, shame on you.

      • >Two loving same sex people can bequeath any damn thing to anyone they want. It’s called a will

        You know how many times I read that two partners of same sex had common property, and the proper will, and when one of them passed, the other one lost all property to greedy relatives who contested the will. And probate judges were too happy every time to stick it to the damned sodomites.

        • How many times? Please share. Bulletproof wills have been written leaving money to pets over offspring. Sounds like the same sex couples you reference should have been more selective when choosing an attorney.

        • I don’t know where it is from Sam. I have been accused of being a bit of a soul sucking Harpy so I decided to embrace it and this was one of the few images that came up in a search. To be honest the resemblance IS a bit uncanny.

  4. Oh, amen to this! Hypocrisy really sucks the wind out of so many discussions. Something that I think is really important for married people to do is to talk about what a blessing it is. Marriage gets a really bum wrap today, it’s presented as a miserable experience bound to end in divorce. (Except for gay marriage, of course, in which case marriage suddenly becomes a civil right. I’ve never understood that contradiction.) Anyway, it’s really important that we change the narrative about marriage so that people can understand that there are some real perks.

    • I think you meant “bum rap”.

      Anyway, civil marriage is a civil right, as established in many SCOTUS decisions, such as in Loving v Virginia (1967). Decision of a trial judge Leon M. Bazile to uphold the anti-miscegenation law was based on religious arguments (which are, by the way, completely invalid because of the First Amendment):

      “Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix”.

      You’d say that the Constitution doesn’t mention marriage? There is that Ninth Amendment, which says, precisely: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” This allows the Supreme Court define civil rights not explicitly written into the Constitution. A right to enter marriage is exactly that.

      OK, so two people married. Whether their experience will be miserable or mutually benefitial, depends on them. Sometimes, it’s better to call it quit. If marriage becomes abusive, a divorce is the right choice. But what’s important is that people have the right to marry, even though sometimes it doesn’t work out. A right to pursue happiness is not a guarantee to achieve that happiness. There is no guarantee of success in any endeavor.

      Yes, there are some real perks, and it’s unfair that gay people still cannot enjoy them in many states.

      • Again, how many times? Please share. Bulletproof wills have been written leaving money to pets over offspring. Sounds like the same sex couples you reference should have been more selective when choosing an attorney.

        • I regret that I don’t save all those postings with those sad stories in a file, when I see that in forums. Such postings are not rare occurrences. Defending a will in probate court costs money, too. There were even stories when upon a person’s death, his relatives just come and change locks on the house, effectively seizing it, leaving a partner on the street. You may not believe that, but all kinds of bad things happen in life.

          • FyVa ProLd, it isn’t just that they don’t believe it, it’s that they refuse to see it or read when it does happen. It’s one of those dual-edged swords: If it happens to them, they believe. If it doesn’t, then you must be lying or embellishing.

  5. Love, love, love this. And I think I might love Mema too. I’ve mentioned that I’m a Mormon before, and we believe and live chastity. Yes, it is hard, but very, very comforting at the same time. There is so much power in chastity, and mastering passions — and yes with God’s help it is possible. And when we add the fact that sex is procreation, that adds a layer of gravity back into the equation that the hook up culture has taken away. Thank you again.

  6. Yes, yes, you are correct but every cloud has a silver lining. I personally savored this incident. It has opened up a host of issues that LBGT would have rather kept away from–the IRS leaks of donors also used as blackmail, the mayor of Houston and the sermons. I wonder how many judges and politicians have been blackmailed into supporting same sex “marriage” not a few I am betting. Conservative hypocrisy is one thing but the truth is we do not know what they are doing—a blackmailer made a threat. It is altogether something else to openly threaten (which I suspect has been going on for a while quietly) people into supporting something in a legal process. Her little outburst calls into question much–ah her arrogance. The process has been corrupted and if SCOTUS overlooks this along with a whole of other shady dealings on the part of “marriage equality” folk I will be very surprised. I think a few articles about the corrupt process and exactly how many judges were also bullied or blackmailed. If the process was corrupted and if people can’t trust the system then Justice Sutton had a very good point and such an issue can’t be decided by appointed judges—this incident calls into question the whole process. It may lead to a game change. Almost as good as Mr. Terry Bean’s legal issues.

    • I didn’t know where exactly to comment this. But If you, and many of the other commentators are speaking out against your LGTB parents, it would be nice if you could make your appearance more ‘public’. Perhaps making a YouTube of yourself, and talking about your experience there would be a better route.

    • Here are my thoughts on this… They may or may not have any value…

      The legal discussion on same sex marriage is not over yet. The decision making process is still in the works, which is causing social and political changes. We are in the midst of change, so we speak on the change that is happening right now. The legal discussion on divorce was over a long time ago. The decision making process has been finished, so now we are in the aftermath of it and doing damage control. The major cultural shift has already happened with divorce, so it is a little different trying to approach that issue in this day and age. As far as I know this is why we address the two topics differently from a social and political point of view.

      Adoption is best suited for the event that both biological parents are permanently unavailable (deceased, severe psychological disorders – i.e. schizophrenia, refuses to be a part of the child’s life, etc.), foster care is best suited for the event that both biological parents are unavailable but one or both may become available again before the child becomes an adult. If a widow is able to commit to a marriage with someone a second time that would be wonderful for both the widow and child, but forcing such a thing could disrupt the grieving process and cause even more issues. Death is out of our control and can’t be dealt with lightly.

  7. Thank goodness I found your reassuring blog. It’s hard feeling like one is surrounded by disapproving and sometimes hostile people who think I am evil simply because I believe scripture to be the truth. I looking forward to reading your future posts. Great job!

    • Try being surrounded by disapproving sometimes hostile people who think I am evil simply because of who I love, and that’s Christianity for me!

      • I doubt they care–really people have their own lives and you are not on the worlds radar. Maybe you are obnoxious and that is why they are hostile, if they are even hostile. Not everyone is thinking about YOU . And who you love is for most people boring–they file it under, not my problem. But feel wounded and injured if you must. That maybe all the substance you have in life and that is your hostility not anyone else’s.

  8. It’s going to be such a better world once all the bigot scumbags like you are in heaven. Too bad you weren’t aborted.

    • – john not mccain -Interesting that your answer to someone who disagrees with you is simply elimination. This blog is about communication and working toward common ground through mutual acceptance. If you can’t say anything worthwhile (or nice) don’t say anything at all.

Comments are closed.