Gay marriage ban upheld in California

[Old Man Willow]

What is wrong with just have marriage legally define as a religious institution, therefore giving the religions to which marriage belongs to the right to keep it hetero, and just give homosexual couples the same rights?

If the pro-gay side would just leave marriage alone, they could than fight for other important gays rights issues (benfits, ect.), and civil unions are much more popular with the US public.

This would be acceptable... but only if government then gets its noses out of a religious institution and we abolish legal marriage altogether. Either marriage is religious, in which case government should not be involved at all (no legal recognition/rights associated with it), or marriage is not religious, in which case it can be acknowledged by the government but must then be nondiscriminatory.

No legal marriage doesn't mean abolishing legal civil unions, of course. Civil unions for all is fine with me, even if it's stupid wordplay to prefer that over marriage for all.

Yes, I agree with should abolish legal marriage. Marriage can be a church ceremony for those who want it, but it will not be recognized by the state. Therefore the 'sanctity' of marriage is protected, and everyone has equal rights.

[MK]

I see.

Maybe instead of the long paragraphs i'm going to take a different approach.

Didn't mean for that to be long.  Just wanted to be clear and specific.

You would admit that hetero marriage has suffered in the last 50 years right?

Yeah, largely.  Divorce rates are up.  That's not exactly 100% bad.  Back in the day, stigma against divorce was so great that some people probably stayed in abusive relationships.  But I think the decline is more than that.  People take life-long commitment too unseriously, and then they drag kids into it.

Go on.

Wasn't talking about your  post being long just feel Q&A is better.

So you don't think any social or economic changes in our society have affected marriage?   Just maybe we overrated its importance to start with?

[Alcon]

So you don't think any social or economic changes in our society have affected marriage?

No, I very much do think that.  What else would cause it?  Fifty years ago, divorce was seen as taboo, even if it was clearly an unhealthy relationship.  Now we've swung toward the other extreme, which is that marriage is seen as less of a commitment.  But people still see marriage as "get married and have kids" -- less commitment (for better or worse), less stability (for only worse), still kids.  Bad stuff.

There's also an economic aspect.  The increase in divorce rate has actually basically been limited to the less wealthy.  I think divorce rates among the well-off have actually declined.  But that's cultural, too.

Personally, I think we need a taboo about bringing children into unhealthy, unstable relationships.  If I could wave my magic society-change wand, it'd be there.  I'm not sure what governmental policy can affect culture that way, though...

  Just maybe we overrated its importance to start with?

I don't think that we've overrated the importance of a stable household for child-rearing.  Marriage isn't the same thing as a stable household, obviously, but it's a good barometer.

[Phony Moderate]

When Conservatives or even Moderates say "Civil Unions are basically the same as marriage", it's the same argument as the racists had years ago. Civil Unions are seperate to marriage, the racists argued that "segregation was seperate, but equal". Why wasn't segregation continued in states like Alabama, where the majority wanted it just 40 years ago? Or is it just that you don't like gay people? Mmmmm....

[MK]

So you don't think any social or economic changes in our society have affected marriage?

No, I very much do think that.  What else would cause it?  Fifty years ago, divorce was seen as taboo, even if it was clearly an unhealthy relationship.  Now we've swung toward the other extreme, which is that marriage is seen as less of a commitment.  But people still see marriage as "get married and have kids" -- less commitment (for better or worse), less stability (for only worse), still kids.  Bad stuff.

There's also an economic aspect.  The increase in divorce rate has actually basically been limited to the less wealthy.  I think divorce rates among the well-off have actually declined.  But that's cultural, too.

Personally, I think we need a taboo about bringing children into unhealthy, unstable relationships.  If I could wave my magic society-change wand, it'd be there.  I'm not sure what governmental policy can affect culture that way, though...

  Just maybe we overrated its importance to start with?

I don't think that we've overrated the importance of a stable household for child-rearing.  Marriage isn't the same thing as a stable household, obviously, but it's a good barometer.

And Homosexual marriages/ partnerships are ideal to bring a child into?

[Tetro Kornbluth]

People, People, Marriage is by itself a meaningless legal and social construct, marriage exists for humans, with their particular wants and desires, not humans for marriage, least of all some idealized concept (whether "logical" or "functional" or not) which ignores all the glorious messiness that is human existence and never did or can exist. For all this talk for "marriage is x" it refers merely to abstract concepts floating in the ether, often transparent rationalizations for a position which is difficult to defend intellectually... which we, after all, believe is what makes a position 'right' or not.

So again I ask the opponents of gay marriage: How many marriages do you know were in reality based upon "the need to bring up children" or "society's need to bring up children" (Does "society" have a will of its own?) or some similiar high flutin sociological or legalistic type explanation? And if you can't think of any then what does all this child raising have to do with anything we are talking about?

[Alcon]

And Homosexual marriages/ partnerships are ideal to bring a child into?

No partnership is "ideal," and if the standard is "if all else were equal, but x was different"...geez, even my parents -- who I love to death -- would fail that test.

All of the studies I've seen indicate that the kids report being no less happy.  A stable homosexual partnership is good for kids.  A stable heterosexual partnership is good for kids.  Gay parents aren't inherently worse than straight parents -- there's just no proof.  They aren't even worse on average, as far as I can tell, even with the social stigma of having gay parents.  That says a lot.

Yeah, right now, there is probably teasing.  But 30 years ago, the same was true of interracial kids.  The studies indicate that, even currently, a stable home is a stable home.  Kids may get teased more if that stable home has gay parents.  But if gay couples are capable of being good parents, and are overall at identical rates to straight parents, where's the beef?

[Tetro Kornbluth]

"The Teasing Argument" is basically circular; kids usually get teased because they are/associated with something different or threatening or opposed to what Kids think of as normal (as most Kids are the ultimate conformists)... the reason why 'gay' or association with 'gayness' is laughed at is because it strikes kids as peculiar and different (and also, and here's the clincher, involves sex) yet the reason why homosexuality is perceived in such a way and certaintly the concept of having 'two dads', etc is because of the fear of homosexuals having children... and that fear is mostly due to homosexuals being perceived as peculiar and different; the teasing and the adult attitudes reinforce each other. If gay marriage legalized over time then kids from such backgrounds will become much more uncommon and it will be much a less an issue in schools. But only if things actually change. This generation is far less homophobic than that born in the 1960s (never mind earlier).

Now why won't someone finally reply to my posts on this issue.

[Vepres]

People, People, Marriage is by itself a meaningless legal and social construct, marriage exists for humans, with their particular wants and desires, not humans for marriage, least of all some idealized concept (whether "logical" or "functional" or not) which ignores all the glorious messiness that is human existence and never did or can exist. For all this talk for "marriage is x" it refers merely to abstract concepts floating in the ether, often transparent rationalizations for a position which is difficult to defend intellectually... which we, after all, believe is what makes a position 'right' or not.

So again I ask the opponents of gay marriage: How many marriages do you know were in reality based upon "the need to bring up children" or "society's need to bring up children" (Does "society" have a will of its own?) or some similiar high flutin sociological or legalistic type explanation? And if you can't think of any then what does all this child raising have to do with anything we are talking about?

I partially agree with you. Marriage is indeed a social construct. However, there is an argument to be made that humans are programmed to fall into monogamous relationships once they have a desire for children. I think the problem with marriages is people get into them too quickly. If people actually lived with the person they wanted to marry for, say, a year before proposing, I would wager many of these failed marriages wouldn't exist.

But that aside, I pretty much agree with you on the issue at hand, children being raised in gay marriages.

"The Teasing Argument" is basically circular; kids usually get teased because they are/associated with something different or threatening or opposed to what Kids think of as normal (as most Kids are the ultimate conformists)... the reason why 'gay' or association with 'gayness' is laughed at is because it strikes kids as peculiar and different (and also, and here's the clincher, involves sex) yet the reason why homosexuality is perceived in such a way and certaintly the concept of having 'two dads', etc is because of the fear of homosexuals having children... and that fear is mostly due to homosexuals being perceived as peculiar and different; the teasing and the adult attitudes reinforce each other. If gay marriage legalized over time then kids from such backgrounds will become much more uncommon and it will be much a less an issue in schools. But only if things actually change. This generation is far less homophobic than that born in the 1960s (never mind earlier).

Now why won't someone finally reply to my posts on this issue.

I think most kids wouldn't care if presented with a situation like that (granted, I live in a liberal area). However, they feel pressure from those that do care (parents, peers) so they do it anyway. In my experience, most people wouldn't care, but those that do care care a lot.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Finally a reply; the rest I agreed with except this

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If humans are "programmed" to do something then why don't they do it? If humans are programmed to have children they why do they need marriage to do so, marriage is a legal construct it has biological effect on a woman's fertility as far as I know; marriage is a mere contract and if homosexuals desire into that contract, then what's the problem other than this bizarre fantasy marriage has to "do" (what does this mean exactly?) with anything at all other than desires (whatever they are) of those wishing to be married; Children per se has nothing to do with it except due to this fantasy married people are more likely to have children. As for the link of monogamy I doubt that very much, many children have been brought up with polygamous relations; there is none of that wonderful high flatin non-existing ether which haunts all of these debates - the phantom of 'human nature' (whatever that is).

[Lincoln Republican]

Your very sad attempted refutation of my argument is actually what is "bunk", as you put it.  At no time did I ever state that the ability to procreate is a prerequisite for a couple entering into the bonds of matrimony.  All I ever stated was that one of the purposes of marriage is to bring children into the world.  That statement is fact and is irrefutable.  At no time did I ever state that one must have the ability to procreate in order to enter into the bonds of matrimony.

I'll explain it for you again, in case you didn't understand the first time.  Any heterosexual couple is eligible to enter into the bonds of matrimony.  This in no way detracts or disproves the fact that one of the purposes of marriage is to procreate.

If this is only one purpose in some marriages, why did you keep bringing it up as if it were an absolute test?

Your only presented arguments have been:

1. Gays can't have kids. -- Yeah, but as you say, that shouldn't be enough to restrict marriages; it's only one part of marriage.

2. It isn't traditional. -- An Appeal to Tradition Fallacy, unless you can prove why changing the exclusivity of the tradition is more damaging than keeping it.

3. It causes societal damage -- No evidence offered.

How does that add up to a sound argument?

Now, onto what you are attempting to sway the masses with.

What you are attempting to do is to use the fact that many heterosexual couples are either incapable of procreating or simply do not procreate, and use this as a justification for gay marriage.  But that in no way is justification for the redefinition of marriage, simply because gays have something in common with infertile couples, i.e. they do not procreate.  Big deal, they have this in common with some heterosexual couples, therefore, by your logic, since they have this in common with some heterosexual couples, they should be allowed to redefine marriage.  This is where your argument falls apart.  Redefining marriage is not warranted simply because gay couples, along with infertile heterosexual couples, do not reproduce.   

I was rebutting your argument, not making my argument for gay marriage.

My argument has been laid out here and elsewhere.  The most recent instance I could find was in a conversation with Keystone Phil (especially 1,https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=95735.msg1989787#msg1989787).

Accepting gay marriage, just because it has exactly one parallel with heterosexual marriage, is just as illogical as opposing gay marriage just because it lacks exactly one.

You may not be a radical leftist, a radical gay, a plain-vanilla leftist, or a plain-vanilla gay, but you are most certainly a persistent advocate of gay marriage, which is the other category I listed of those who equate bus segregation with gay marriage.  Therefore, you fit very well into the category who equates racial segregation issues with the gay marriage issue.  Racial segregation issues have nothing at all to do with the gay marriage issue.  The right to ride anywhere on the bus is a human right.  Marriage is a privilege, not a right.  Marriage is not a rights issue.  But I know that is extremely difficult for pro gay marriage advocates such as yourself to understand.

An analogy draws a poignant parallel.  My claim is that the gay marriage issue draws parallels to bus segregation and they share a common reason for offense.  Unless "race" and "race" alone are the reasons you thought that segregated busing was offensive, I can appeal to the other reasons without invoking racism itself.  

I'm not arguing that opposing gay marriage is racist.  I'm not even invoking race!

That is how analogies work.  You argue that:  a is y *because* it has property x; therefore b is also y if it has property x.

You do not say (as you have taken my argument): a is y because it has property x; and b has all properties of a, including y and z.  That makes no sense.

You do not say (as you have taken my argument): a and b share at least one property; a is y because it has property x, and therefore b (sharing some unspecified property) is also y.  That makes no sense either.

You do not say (as you have etc. etc. etc.): a and b share property x, therefore a and b are the same thing.

I have argued none of these things, so there's no reason to take offense.

By the way, do you really think "the right to ride anywhere on a bus" was accepted as a human right back then?  According to whom?  Certainly not prevailing popular American sentiment at the time.  I doubt more than a tiny portion of Americans at the time would have seen it that way.

The onus  is on gay marriage proponents to prove the positive effects that granting overall gay marriage will have on society, not simply why they want marriage.  We have all heard the standard self centered gay arguments for gay marriage.  The onus is not on gay marriage opponents to prove the negative effects this will have on society. 

Gay marriage advocates have made no case, and presented no studies, what effect gay marriage would have on religious freedom.

About the only case gay marriage advocates have made is they want to have marriage bestowed upon them, but have not justified it, except to argue that it is their right.  It is not their right.  Marriage is an institution, and is defined as the union of one man one woman.  They want to redefine this meaning, but have presented no compelling arguments why this should be done.

Gay marriage advocates want to take all of the benefits of marriage without accepting any of the responsibilities for proving to society why they should be granted it.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

#1: What is this 'society' of which you speak? Does it cry, does it feel pain (how can it be 'harmed' exactly) and more importantly, does it know what love is? (and does Society decide what is good for it or not)

#2: A positive argument has been made repeatly in the language of rights, which is that I believe of the US constitution among other things. Two men fall in love, A man and a woman fall in love, both want to marry (though god knows why), what's the difference?

#3: Why is the burden then upon "gay marriage advocates"? If something causes no harm then what is the problem, unless you can show it be harmful (to what?), no?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Meaningless Strawman Waffle (Religious Freedom - WTF?). Ignore.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

An Institution? Wonderful Verbiage. What does that mean exactly? "Marriage is defined as the union of one man one woman" Why? Is this not mere grammatical quibbling, at one point in history the word "believe" meant to love as to belief in god was to love him, its changed somewhat now.

You haven't given a reason why this defintion shouldn't be changed as it is preferable and desired by those involved, who clearly should be the only ones who matter here.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Meaningless Verbiage disguised as an argument*. What are these responsibilities exactly? Who is refusing them?

* (Yes, I know that's 99.999% of political debate summed up in a nutshell)

[Alcon]

The onus  is on gay marriage proponents to prove the positive effects that granting overall gay marriage will have on society, not simply why they want marriage.  We have all heard the standard self centered gay arguments for gay marriage.  The onus is not on gay marriage opponents to prove the negative effects this will have on society. 

I have presented a positive benefit -- on the gay community, a subset of society.  The onus is therefore on you to prove that some detriment counterweighs that.

Gay marriage advocates have made no case, and presented no studies, what effect gay marriage would have on religious freedom.

What variable are you studying, exactly?  Churches currently reverse the right to marry, or not marry, whomever they want.  A Catholic Church is not legally obligated to marry a non-Catholic.  I would not support changing that law.

As it stands, churches that support gay marriage cannot marry gays in a government-sanctioned way.  In states where gay marriage is legalized, churches that oppose gay marriage are allowed to not marry gays.  This will increase the religious freedoms of pro-gay marriage churches and have no effect on the others.

I don't know what else you'd be asking.

About the only case gay marriage advocates have made is they want to have marriage bestowed upon them, but have not justified it, except to argue that it is their right.  It is not their right.  Marriage is an institution, and is defined as the union of one man one woman.  They want to redefine this meaning, but have presented no compelling arguments why this should be done.

Gay marriage advocates want to take all of the benefits of marriage without accepting any of the responsibilities for proving to society why they should be granted it.

It would remove the implicit understanding that gay marriages must be "separated" from heterosexual marriages, because to include them under the word "marriage" would taint heterosexual marriage somehow.

You have dodged my bus analogy many times under the guise that it involves race.  My point is that the bus analogy is offensive because, without empirical evidence, one group was disallowed inclusion in an institution because they would have a "pollutant'" effect on that institution.  I spent my entire last post explaining that in detail, and you completely ignored it.

Do you, or do you not, find the bolded point offensive?  Why is that OK with sexual orientation if it isn't with race (other than because one is a different thing than the other)?  How do you substantiate your previous claim that "riding the bus anywhere you want" is an objective right, but "marrying a consenting individual you love" is not?

[MK]

And Homosexual marriages/ partnerships are ideal to bring a child into?

No partnership is "ideal," and if the standard is "if all else were equal, but x was different"...geez, even my parents -- who I love to death -- would fail that test.

All of the studies I've seen indicate that the kids report being no less happy.  A stable homosexual partnership is good for kids.  A stable heterosexual partnership is good for kids.  Gay parents aren't inherently worse than straight parents -- there's just no proof.  They aren't even worse on average, as far as I can tell, even with the social stigma of having gay parents.  That says a lot.

Yeah, right now, there is probably teasing.  But 30 years ago, the same was true of interracial kids.  The studies indicate that, even currently, a stable home is a stable home.  Kids may get teased more if that stable home has gay parents.  But if gay couples are capable of being good parents, and are overall at identical rates to straight parents, where's the beef?

Yes, I've seen fellow anti-gay marriage Proponents make the point of "the children will be teased", and I don't care to use that argument because its nil.   It will happen, but that's not what I'm worried about when it comes to homosexual parenting.  More on this later.

I'm sure you know that there was report about the gay marriage affects in Scandinavian countries years back?   Do you feel that in 10 - 20 years our society will see nothing but positive affects from gay marriages if made legal today?   

 Because clearly you and I are in agreement that hetero marriages are on the rocks for a number of reasons.

[Lunar]

Sweden didn't legalize gay marriage until this month, Norway didn't legalize it until May of last year.

What effects are you talking about?

[Magic 8-Ball]

And Homosexual marriages/ partnerships are ideal to bring a child into?

No partnership is "ideal," and if the standard is "if all else were equal, but x was different"...geez, even my parents -- who I love to death -- would fail that test.

All of the studies I've seen indicate that the kids report being no less happy.  A stable homosexual partnership is good for kids.  A stable heterosexual partnership is good for kids.  Gay parents aren't inherently worse than straight parents -- there's just no proof.  They aren't even worse on average, as far as I can tell, even with the social stigma of having gay parents.  That says a lot.

Yeah, right now, there is probably teasing.  But 30 years ago, the same was true of interracial kids.  The studies indicate that, even currently, a stable home is a stable home.  Kids may get teased more if that stable home has gay parents.  But if gay couples are capable of being good parents, and are overall at identical rates to straight parents, where's the beef?

Yes, I've seen fellow anti-gay marriage Proponents make the point of "the children will be teased", and I don't care to use that argument because its nil.   It will happen, but that's not what I'm worried about when it comes to homosexual parenting.  More on this later.

How about now?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You mean how Darren Spedale's study showed that hetero-divorce rates dropped in Denmark?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

To pro gay marriage advocates: on what grounds can you justify re-defining the institution of marriage?

The same grounds that were used to abandon anti-miscegenation laws, arranged marriage, and forced polygyny.

Marriage is a civil institution, and the government has every right to define it for its own purposes.  The idea that anyone is 're-defining' it is solely religious in nature and has no place in a policy discussion.

But who is "government"?  Should the definition be left to the courts or to the legislatures?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

When Conservatives or even Moderates say "Civil Unions are basically the same as marriage", it's the same argument as the racists had years ago. Civil Unions are seperate to marriage, the racists argued that "segregation was separate, but equal". Why wasn't segregation continued in states like Alabama, where the majority wanted it just 40 years ago? Or is it just that you don't like gay people? Mmmmm....

With segregation, one can point how "separate but equal" failed to produce equal effects under the law.  To apply that argument to civil unions and marriage one must be able to demonstrate that there is a functional difference in how government interacts with the two groups.  Please don't bring up how using different terms or the same term might affect public opinion concerning same-sex relationships.  Not only has that not been shown to be the case, but even if it ever is, governments are not responsible for private opinions, so it is an irrelevant point.

[Sbane]

When Conservatives or even Moderates say "Civil Unions are basically the same as marriage", it's the same argument as the racists had years ago. Civil Unions are seperate to marriage, the racists argued that "segregation was separate, but equal". Why wasn't segregation continued in states like Alabama, where the majority wanted it just 40 years ago? Or is it just that you don't like gay people? Mmmmm....

With segregation, one can point how "separate but equal" failed to produce equal effects under the law.  To apply that argument to civil unions and marriage one must be able to demonstrate that there is a functional difference in how government interacts with the two groups.  Please don't bring up how using different terms or the same term might affect public opinion concerning same-sex relationships.  Not only has that not been shown to be the case, but even if it ever is, governments are not responsible for private opinions, so it is an irrelevant point.

There have been cases of companies denying benefits just because they don't include civil partners in their definition of ""spouse". Or hospitals in other states denying visitation rights. If they had been "married" by their state, I don't think a hospital in some backwards place could deny them visitation rights but with civil unions they can do as they wish.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

When Conservatives or even Moderates say "Civil Unions are basically the same as marriage", it's the same argument as the racists had years ago. Civil Unions are seperate to marriage, the racists argued that "segregation was separate, but equal". Why wasn't segregation continued in states like Alabama, where the majority wanted it just 40 years ago? Or is it just that you don't like gay people? Mmmmm....

With segregation, one can point how "separate but equal" failed to produce equal effects under the law.  To apply that argument to civil unions and marriage one must be able to demonstrate that there is a functional difference in how government interacts with the two groups.  Please don't bring up how using different terms or the same term might affect public opinion concerning same-sex relationships.  Not only has that not been shown to be the case, but even if it ever is, governments are not responsible for private opinions, so it is an irrelevant point.

A simple look at New Jersey's civil unions law will show that they are indeed not equal.  A number of companies have been refusing to offer benefits to couples in civil unions because their national policy is to give benefits in situations of "marriage only."

I'm actually quite surprised that no one has brought suit to the New Jersey Supreme Court on this yet, considering what a slam dunk it would be.  One would have to wonder if there isn't a concerted joint effort on behalf of the NJ Democratic Party and the leading gay-rights group in the state to not back a lawsuit on the issue in a key election year...

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

When Conservatives or even Moderates say "Civil Unions are basically the same as marriage", it's the same argument as the racists had years ago. Civil Unions are seperate to marriage, the racists argued that "segregation was separate, but equal". Why wasn't segregation continued in states like Alabama, where the majority wanted it just 40 years ago? Or is it just that you don't like gay people? Mmmmm....

With segregation, one can point how "separate but equal" failed to produce equal effects under the law.  To apply that argument to civil unions and marriage one must be able to demonstrate that there is a functional difference in how government interacts with the two groups.  Please don't bring up how using different terms or the same term might affect public opinion concerning same-sex relationships.  Not only has that not been shown to be the case, but even if it ever is, governments are not responsible for private opinions, so it is an irrelevant point.

A simple look at New Jersey's civil unions law will show that they are indeed not equal.  A number of companies have been refusing to offer benefits to couples in civil unions because their national policy is to give benefits in situations of "marriage only."

I'm actually quite surprised that no one has brought suit to the New Jersey Supreme Court on this yet, considering what a slam dunk it would be.  One would have to wonder if there isn't a concerted joint effort on behalf of the NJ Democratic Party and the leading gay-rights group in the state to not back a lawsuit on the issue in a key election year...

You are referring to the actions of private actors, not of a government where civil unions and marriage have been granted equal status under the law.  Government is not responsible for the actions of private parties.

[Alcon]

t
Yes, I've seen fellow anti-gay marriage Proponents make the point of "the children will be teased", and I don't care to use that argument because its nil.   It will happen, but that's not what I'm worried about when it comes to homosexual parenting.  More on this later.

I'm sure you know that there was report about the gay marriage affects in Scandinavian countries years back?   Do you feel that in 10 - 20 years our society will see nothing but positive affects from gay marriages if made legal today?   

 Because clearly you and I are in agreement that hetero marriages are on the rocks for a number of reasons.

Divorce rates have risen in Scandinavia, but they have risen everywhere.  And, actually, Scandinavia is doing markedly better than us on the marriage front.  Stanley Kurtz's Weekly Standard article on gay marriage, the one you're probably talking about, was one of the worst statistical analyses I'e ever seen on the subject.  First of all:

* He didn't look at divorce rates, which decreased, but out-of-wedlock births.

* While out of wedlock births increased, the changes were identical in Western European states without partnership laws.

* He looked at civil unions (around in Denmark for years) as equal to gay marriage.

* He ignored American civil union statistics (to be fair, not many of them in 2004.)

* He took the no-different-than-civil-unions-free extramarital birth statistic and assumed it was due to gay marriage, with no proof of causation.

In fact:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Summary: Kurtz's "study" took the one statistic of marriage that had declined during the period in Scandinavia.  He assumed that this had to be caused by gay marriage.  All the while, Kurtz completely ignored that the decline was matched in countries with no gay rights.

I think, in twenty years -- or twenty years after gay marriage is widely accepted -- people will scoff at the idea that anyone ever believed gay marriage would harm heterosexual marriage.  I think our children will be embarrassed by us. 

[Tetro Kornbluth]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

They always are. That's our fate.

Still waiting for someone (either Winfield or Keller) to respond to what I said.

[Alcon]

You are referring to the actions of private actors, not of a government where civil unions and marriage have been granted equal status under the law.  Government is not responsible for the actions of private parties.

I hate to encourage the Wrath of Winfield, but I don't believe you ever responded to my water fountains/buses "separate but equal" deal.  Like I said, I can show you a segregation water fountain or a bus that provides an identical service.

Would you be arguing for judicial protection of that so enthusiastically?  At all?

Sorry if you've already answered these questions and I missed them.  I looked through and I couldn't find them.

[Sbane]

When Conservatives or even Moderates say "Civil Unions are basically the same as marriage", it's the same argument as the racists had years ago. Civil Unions are seperate to marriage, the racists argued that "segregation was separate, but equal". Why wasn't segregation continued in states like Alabama, where the majority wanted it just 40 years ago? Or is it just that you don't like gay people? Mmmmm....

With segregation, one can point how "separate but equal" failed to produce equal effects under the law.  To apply that argument to civil unions and marriage one must be able to demonstrate that there is a functional difference in how government interacts with the two groups.  Please don't bring up how using different terms or the same term might affect public opinion concerning same-sex relationships.  Not only has that not been shown to be the case, but even if it ever is, governments are not responsible for private opinions, so it is an irrelevant point.

A simple look at New Jersey's civil unions law will show that they are indeed not equal.  A number of companies have been refusing to offer benefits to couples in civil unions because their national policy is to give benefits in situations of "marriage only."

I'm actually quite surprised that no one has brought suit to the New Jersey Supreme Court on this yet, considering what a slam dunk it would be.  One would have to wonder if there isn't a concerted joint effort on behalf of the NJ Democratic Party and the leading gay-rights group in the state to not back a lawsuit on the issue in a key election year...

You are referring to the actions of private actors, not of a government where civil unions and marriage have been granted equal status under the law.  Government is not responsible for the actions of private parties.

So inequality is ok as long as it isn't the government doing it? The only reason these people are able to get away with it is because there is inherently a different definition between marriages and civil unions. So even if the government provides the same rights for those with a marriage or civil union, private parties are still allowed to discriminate by setting different rules for civil unions and marriages. I don't see how that is acceptable.