JDG wrote:
<< As I have hinted earlier, if I were forced to cast a vote, I would vote in favor of the "Federal Marriage Amendment." This is despite the fact, as noted earlier, that I don't particularly buy into the argument that gay marriage is this imminent threat to heterosexual marriages.
Anyhow, for those of you who are not familiar with it, the text of the only proposed Amendment with a chance of passage is here:
"Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man
and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the Constitution of any State,
nor state or Federal Law, shall be construed to require that marital status
or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups"
Despite the rhetoric of some opponents, I find it very difficult to read the above amendment is making civil unions unconstitutional. Rather, it says to me that no Constitution can be interpreted by the Courts as *requiring* civil unions, but that legislatures are free to instutiute civil unions through the appropriate democratic processes. At any rate, this is certainly the outcome I am advocating - and the outcome that is advocated by the Amendment's primary sponsors.
What it says to me is that it is OK to outlaw civil unions or any aspect of them. That SSUs can never expect to have the same rights conferred upon them that traditional marriages do and that homosexuals are thereby second class citizens. IMO it is therefore in conflict with the 14th amendment. Furthermore, because there are religious aspects to the concept of marriage, the proposed amendment is also in conflict with the second amendment.
<< I support this amendment for the following reasons:
As Dan Minette has noted earlier, any move to permit homosexual marriages would constitute "a radical redefinition of marriage." Meanwhile, as I noted in a previous message, I think that the current judicial activism on this subject benefits noone - not even those who favor the eventual legalization of homosexual marriage. Thus, I support the above amendment because it takes this issue out of the Courts and into the Legislatures - where this issue very firmly belongs.
There are times when some segment of the population requires protection from the tyranny of the majority. The civil rights struggles of the '50s and '60s was one such time. This is another. If laws that discriminate against homosexuality are unconstitutional then they should be wiped off the books. Furthermore, this isnât happening overnight, the change in attitude towards homosexuality has been going on for years and we have been moving towards its legitimacy. The liberalization of the definition of marriage is a logical next step towards normalization. The marriage amendment is a step backwards. Beyond that, due to the difficulty of the process, it has just about zero chance of being adopted anyway.
<<
The above amendment does go a bit further than that, however, in that it
prevents Legislatures from ever considering homosexual *marriages* (while permitting
civil unions) - barring a subsequent Constitutional Amendment. I do,
however support this provision as well - although my case for it is quite
complicated.
1) I believe that human sexuality is non-linear. While there are certainly a great many people who are very firmly homosexual or heterosexual, there just as surely exists some subset of people who exist on the in-between. Thus, it stands to reason that greater acceptance of homosexual relationships will increase the number of these "in-between" people who choose the identify more closely with their homosexual tendencies than their heterosexual tendencies. Now, maybe this will be an insignificant percentage - but I don't think that either side can convincingly demonstrate the ultimate eventual size of that trend.
Even if this is true, so what?
<< 2) Marriages are recognized by governments and given special benefits by governments, because marriages promote the siring and raising of the next generation. I think that we are starting to see across Europe that there is perhaps a natural human tendency to not maintain the 2.2 births per women needed to sustain the next generation. As such, it strikes me as more important than ever for governments to produce incentives for parenthood and the raising of responsible adults.
First of all, special benefits, such as deductions for dependants and credits for childcare and education are bestowed to people that raise children whether or not they are married. In fact the only special benefits for marriage that I can think of don't have anything to do with the raising children. Secondly, it may be the business of governments like the former Soviet Union or communist Cuba to stick their nose in the bedroom, but traditionally we don't do that kind of thing here
<< 3) Homosexual unions are ill-suited for the siring and raising of the next generation. By definition, homosexual unions are infertile. For pro-life reasons, I am opposed to in vitro fertilization (say what you will, but I am at least consistent in the consequences of my belief that human life begins at conception.) As such, it is unreasonable to believe that homosexual unions will be producing children - and thus, don't meet the first standard for why governments should provide incentives to promote them.
The "ill-suited" part was refuted rather definitively by the stuff that Debbi posted, but a few further points; in-vitro fertilization isn't illegal and never will be, so your opinion about it isn't relevant. There are several other methods by which SSM could have children as others have mentioned.
What incentives does the government provide that would not be included in the civil unions you say you are in favor of?
<< Furthermore, each child, being the product of a man and a woman, has a reasonable expectation of having a mother and a father. It is a basic truism that women and men, and hence mothers and fathers, are different in some ways (Otherwise, homosexuals would not find it repulsive to marry someone of the opposite sex if there were truly no difference between the sexes.) As such, *ceteris paribis* we should try and meet a child's expectation of having a mother and a father. Now, of course, there are numerous situations where governments should very wisely choose not to meet these expectations. Nevertheless, I do not consider it wise for governments to provide *incentives* for the siring of children into situations where we know *a priori* that this very reasonable expectation of the child to have a mother and a father will not be met. Note, that I am not saying that we should make it illegal - merely that the government should not provide incentives for this situation.
Again, the stuff Debbie posted is a good starting point for refuting the above argument. I don't believe that it is the function of our government to decide what the optimum family is or to provide incentives based on that definition. I would also counter that because SSM are necessarily more deliberate in the way they have children, that on average they would make better parents than heterosexual couples. This is taking into account the number of "accidents" that occur in hetero marriages.
<< (Nota Bene: The above paragraphs are addressed in the minds of the rights of the *child*, not necessarily any rights of the couple.)
4) Despite all of this I am willing to recommend that governments provide certain steps of recognition to homosexual unions in the interests of social/societal stability and furthering the desires of homosexuals in our society to pursue happiness. Nevertheless, I believe that marriage should retain a privileged status in our civilization as the fundamental building block of our society concomitant with its role in siring and raising the next generation.
What priveliges would you withhold from SSMs?
I'm in agreement with the article from The Economist that Erik posted this evening where it said:
"Allowing gays to marry would, if anything, add to social stability, for it would increase
the number of couples that take on real, rather than simply passing, commitments. The weakening of marriage has been heterosexuals' doing, not gays', for it is their infidelity, divorce rates and single-parent families that have wrought social damage."
_______________________________________________________ John D. Giorgis- jxg9 at alumni.cwru.edu "The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity." - George W. Bush 1/29/03
The liberty we prize should be bestowed on all of our citizens, not just the ones with a favored sexual orientation.
-- Doug _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
