Defending Your Support of Prop 8
Are you being criticized for your support of Prop 8? Maybe friends, family, bosses, customers, coworkers, social networking contacts, bloggers, and commenters have lashed out at you or pressured you? Maybe you have received angry calls from strangers that you perceived as threatening bodily harm to you, but in retrospect, you realize that the person calling you willingly subjects himself to the described treatment for jollies?
Well, I think I have a solution.
Feel free to copy and paste this defense I am providing below. You don’t even have to give me credit. Just be sure to modify it so your critic's name appears in the salutation. Modify as necessary to be relevant to your circumstances.
============
Dear [insert name of your critic here],
I know you are upset with me. Perhaps I can get you to understand why I supported Prop 8.
You see, from an early age, I have felt something deep inside me. I knew I was different from a lot of other kids around me. I thought maybe I was the only one who had these feelings. I felt shame and self-loathing.
But as I got older, I found out that I wasn’t the only one.
You see, I am sexually attracted to supporting marriage amendments.
Now, I thought maybe I just needed the right experience with judicial tyranny. That if I had a good experience with judicial tyranny, I could live happily ever after with letting judges tell me what to do, changing the meaning of words, invalidating my vote, and making me give things to other people even though I don’t want to.
But I couldn't deny the truth. I tried. I tried to conform to what those judges wanted. I tried to listen to my Hollywood idols, my lesbian pastor, my college professor, my hippie parents- who all said that Prop 8 was wrong and would rot my brain. Still, I found myself keeping the official voter pamphlet under my mattress, and sneaking peaks at the text of Prop 8. It was so short, so simple, but it was enough to turn me on. I couldn't sneak around anymore. I couldn’t live a lie.
Bells went off when I donated money or time or my words or expertise to supporting the passage of a marriage amendment. In pulling that lever to support Proposition 8, I felt true love. I felt so happy and free. I was so alive!
I had come to grips with my sexual orientation. I am attracted to supporting marriage amendments.
I know that’s not what you wanted to hear. I didn’t choose to feel this way. It is how I've always felt. And since it is my sexual orientation, you have to respect that and allow me to do whatever I need to do to find fulfillment of my desires. You may find it repulsive or disgusting, or dysfunctional or irrational or just plain wrong. But please don't judge me or hate me for being who I am. Perhaps you can get over your Eightophobia by attending meetings of Parents and Friends of Marriage Amendment Supporters? That would mean so much to me. If you'd like, I can send over a new book for your kids to read that will help them deal with this: My Uncle Likes Supporting Traditional Marriage.. a Lot. It is a pop-up book.
Thank you for your understanding and acceptance. I know that, since this is my sexual orientation, you have to support me in how I feel and can’t criticize me for doing anything that I say is a result of my sexual orientation, nor deny me anything that I say I need because of my sexual orientation. After all, it is all about love and happiness.
That is why I supported Prop 8. I had to be true to myself.
Thanks again!
This is so funny!! And it makes a definite statement! This is totally what gay rights people do. Thanks for posting it!
ReplyDeleteROFLMBO!!!
ReplyDeletethis is pretty hilarious.
ReplyDeleteOh thanks so much for this! I put it on my blog too. It's nice to see people haven't completely lost their sense of humor through all the utterly ridiculous stuff going on.
ReplyDeleteAnd it's true, the whole "my sexual orientation deserves special concessions" school of thought is simply preposterous.
I've stashed this little letter away for safe keeping.
ReplyDeleteI'll use it at the right time.
Thanks
So basically, you guys get turned on by denying same-sex couples the right to marry?
ReplyDeleteoh no you misinderstood sweetie... we get turned on by voting for marriage ammendments!
ReplyDeleteoh no you misinderstood sweetie... we get turned on by voting for marriage amendments!
ReplyDeleteSo it would turn you on just as much to vote for an amendment that made marriage legal in California, eh?
Pearl: And it's true, the whole "my sexual orientation deserves special concessions" school of thought is simply preposterous.
ReplyDeleteI agree, but given your whole blog is devoted to arguing that your sexual orientation deserves special concessions, I'm surprised to see you admit you're just preposterous. Glad to know you have a sense of humor about your own silliness.
Exactly! Marriage is not defined by sexual orientation. Marriage is defined by a man and a woman. The state doesn't have an interest in sexual attraction.
ReplyDeleteEveryone has access.
Except siblings. Oh yeah, and sometimes cousins depending on the state.
Ah...Jesu, nice to see you again. Perhaps, we can resume our conversation about Marriage. To recap from where we left off, we agree that a man and a woman constitute marriage. We disagree on whether two men or two women constitute a marriage.
ReplyDeleteNow, on to the questions we left off with. Do you support open marriage? As in two people who are "monogamous" having an agreement that they can have sex with other people.
In his book The Soul Beneath the Skin David Nimmons cites numerous studies which show that 75% of gay male couples are in successful open relationships.
Is this what you support?
Now, you called me names the last time we spoke, so I would ask you to be civil here.
If we can discuss this civilly, we will move on to whether you also support marriage with someone under the age of consent (commonly 18) as that is another tenet of the Gay Platform that the wish to push into the open.
Thanks!
Exactly! Marriage is not defined by sexual orientation. Marriage is defined by [two people who want to get married]. The state doesn't have an interest in sexual attraction.
ReplyDeleteWhich is why the state needs to support both same-sex and mixed-sex marriage. (I deleted your false claim that marriage is defined by a man and a woman, which is not true in six countries, including the US - seven in 2009, when Norway makes same-sex marriage legal.)
leftcoaster: Do you support open marriage? As in two people who are "monogamous" having an agreement that they can have sex with other people.
ReplyDeleteI have no idea what you mean by "support" in that question. Perhaps you could clarify.
Sure, Jes, I'll gladly clarify. Thank you for the civil reply, I hope that we can continue this dialog. Here is my point (and question)
ReplyDeleteMost male Gay Couples (see my citation to David Nimmons above or countless others online) accept Open Marriage.
As in 2 guys in a "commited" relationship (They may even have kids). They are ok with each of them having another sexual relationship on the side.
See my post at "http://leftcoastconservative.wordpress.com/2008/12/11/gay-marriage-robert-and-gary-and-fred-and-martin/" for more on this.
My question is - are you in favor of this? Gays having Open Relationships. If so, then why are they getting married?
To recap some of our past conversations, we have tried to discuss why I believe that Gay Marriage is not OK. You have seemed to state (and correct me if I am wrong in reading your posts over time) that it is discriminatory to deny Gays the right to marry.
I have asked, in turn, if it is also discriminatory to deny Muslim men the right to marry multiple wives (per Islamic law and their rlegious beliefs).
where do we draw the line? Why is only ok for two people to get married (same sex or not) and not multiple people? Why is 18 the age of consent (look at other countries for examples of younger ages)?
Let us continue our discussion!
J--
ReplyDeleteOther countries (mass. and conn. aren't countries) laws don't affect California law, or my right as a citizen to vote to define marriage as between a man and a woman.
I think many people would be interested to know that it's now a "false claim" to say that marriage is between a man and a woman.
Jesurgislac,
ReplyDeleteThe united states federal government refuses to recognize anything other than a union between a man and a woman as marriage under the DOMA.
States can do their thing, but marriage in the USA is still recognized only if it's between a man and a woman.
leftcoaster: My question is - are you in favor of this? Gays having Open Relationships.
ReplyDeleteAnd my answer is, I don't think it's any of my business. Nor is it yours. It is the affair of the couple concerned. It is no business of you or of the government to pry into what a couple do in their private relationship. Period.
That said, if your argument is that a couple in an "open relationship" ought to have their marriage forcibly annulled against their will because they don't deserve to be married unless they're monogamous, I think you would find a good many mixed-sex couples would strongly object to that, too.
if it is also discriminatory to deny Muslim men the right to marry multiple wives (per Islamic law and their rlegious beliefs).
If polygamous marriage were allowed in the US, it would be discriminatory to deny Muslim men access to it. As polygamous marriage is not allowed in the US, regardless of any person's religious views, it is not discriminatory: it is simply not allowed.
Same-sex couples marrying affects marriage for no mixed-sex couple. That's just a fact. No one is forcing anyone to marry someone of the same sex unless they want to.
But, altering marriage law so that one man could marry more than one woman if he wanted to, would fairly obviously alter marriage law for everyone, whether or not they wanted a multiple marriage. Clear?
Roxy: The united states federal government refuses to recognize anything other than a union between a man and a woman as marriage under the DOMA.
Article 4 of the Constitution requires all states to recognize marriages performed in other states. DOMA is unconstitutional law.
...and Barack Obama intends to have DOMA repealed.
Jesurgislac,
ReplyDeleteArticle 4 of the Constitution does nothing of the sort. Please provide a direct quote from Article 4, proving how it specifically "requires all states to recognize marriages performed in other states." The DOMA is not unconstitutional and it is the law until it is repealed by PE Obama or anyone else.
Article 4 of the Constitution does nothing of the sort. Please provide a direct quote from Article 4, proving how it specifically "requires all states to recognize marriages performed in other states."
ReplyDelete"Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state."
Marriage has always been included under this rubric: hence Samuel R. Delany and Marilyn Hacker, though in 1963 it was illegal for them to marry in 48 states out of 50 in the United States (because both were under 21, neither set of parents consented, and Delany's black and Hacker's white) they could go to one of the two states in which they could legally marry, return to New York State where they resided, and their marriage would be legally recognised. Just so should it be for same-sex marriage: a state may choose not to allow same-sex couples to marry within its own borders, but a state is Constitutionally required by Article 4 to recognise the legal marriage of a couple who wed in another state. This Constitutional right was confirmed by a famous court case in June 1967, which confirmed the freedom to marry as a civil right in the US.
DOMA is unconstitutional: "And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof." Congress had no right to pass a law saying the states didn't have to recognise another state's "acts, records, and proceedings" and if Obama doesn't have DOMA repealed, SCOTUS will eventually have to overturn it.
Jesurgislac,
ReplyDelete"Marriage has always been included under this rubric."
It is misleading for you to state your opinion as fact. Marriage is not specifically addressed in the Full Faith and Credit Clause and there are many knowledgeable legal scholars who have set forth arguments to support this. It is a controversial debate and, while many argue for the country-wide recognition of same-sex marriages, it nevertheless has not yet been irrefutably decided as you seem to suggest.
And, in fact, if we were to address the matter of Section 2 (Privileges and Immunities) in Article 4, we would find the 1823 Supreme Court case of Corfield v. Coryell in which Justice Washington listed the "privileges and immunities" enjoyed by citizens of the United States when passing through or moving to other states. Quote:
"Protection by the government; the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the right to acquire and possess property of every kind, and to pursue and obtain happiness and safety; subject nevertheless to such restraints as the government may justly prescribe for the general good of the whole."
"And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof."
This also, is obviously a source of contention and debate on this hot-button issue. However, your interpretation of the clause is not conclusive, nor is it law. As stated before, the DOMA is constitutional until proven otherwise through judicial scrutiny. Analyzing the words "the manner" could result in any number of conclusions including Congress' right to "limit or isolate or exonerate." This is why the DOMA has yet to be struck down.
Wilson v. Ake
ReplyDelete"The plaintiffs argued that the DOMA exceeds the scope of that clause because Congress may only regulate the effect that a law may have, and may not prevent a law from having any effect. The court disagreed, concluding that the DOMA is 'exactly what the Framers envisioned when they created the Full faith and Credit Clause.' Adopting the plaintiffs' 'rigid and literal' interpretation of the clause would 'create a license for a single State to create National policy.'"
Jesu -
ReplyDeleteGood questions. In brief, I think we may be straying from the question at hand, which is - what define marriage? We cannot simply say Gay marriage is OK but not have an opinion on Polygamy and say "well, it is not allowed in the US".
I agree with you that if we (the people)altered marriage to include multiple wives or multiple husbands, that it would open it up for everyone, not just Muslims (as per their religion).
And that is what we are debating. With that focus, I feel that we have reached a very good agreement in that we are discussing the definition of marriage, correct?
Now, we have to delve into the wording of that and what it means. After which, we can take on whether an Open Marriage violates that term adn return to your first question.
OK?
leftcoaster: We cannot simply say Gay marriage is OK but not have an opinion on Polygamy and say "well, it is not allowed in the US".
ReplyDeleteI refer you to my previous answer, and will clarify it since it appears it was not understood;
Giving both same-sex and mixed-sex couples the freedom to marry does not change marriage for anyone: it makes marriage accessible regardless of sexual orientation. No one's mixed-sex marriage in the US has been affected by the fact that same-sex marriage is now legal in the US, no more than this affected marriages in Spain, or Belgium, or the Netherlands, or South Africa, or Canada.
Revising marriage legislation as extensively as would be required for polygamous marriage to become legal would affect marriage for everyone.
The two issues are quite distinct and should not be confused as readily as they appear to be by the anti-marriage movement.
Revising marriage legislation as extensively as would be required for polygamous marriage to become legal would affect marriage for everyone.
ReplyDeleteDon't mean to interrupt the conversation, but how would polygamous marriage affect marriage for everyone?
Jesurgislac,
ReplyDeleteYou have a strong affinity for speaking in conclusions that are unsupported by reason.
How can you say that legalizing same-sex marriage will have no effect on marriage, but that legalizing polygamy will? What's the distinction? You could posture that gay marriage is, at the very least, still between two consenting adults, but then how do you, in good conscience, say to another three (or more) consenting adults, "No, marriage can only be redefined once?" Essentially, you're saying, "We got what we wanted, so we're happy, but you can't have what you want because your relationship is much more extreme than gay marriage." The first redefinition sets precedent for further redefinition. When research and experience have shown the traditional family unit to be the ideal environment for the raising up of America's future (and the world's future for that matter), who are we to be so blythe about revising and redefining that environment?
People who are pro-traditional marriage are anti-GAY marriage, not anti-marriage. We are not afraid that gay marriage will negatively affect our marriages, but rather our society through the redefinition of marriage and, subsequently, the breakdown of the family.
How can you say that legalizing same-sex marriage will have no effect on marriage, but that legalizing polygamy will?
ReplyDeleteWhen your neighbour Bob can marry Dennis, his partner of 40 years, this clearly has no effect on your marriage: the people it chiefly affects are Bob and Dennis, and their three adopted children, who now have married parents. (How does adopted children having parents who are married and not living together cause society to break down?)
When your colleague at work Elaine can marry Carol, her partner for 10 years, this clearly has no effect on anyone's marriage: it affects Elaine, Carol, and the children Elaine and Carol have by donor who call both Elaine and Carol "mom" now have married parents. (How does the marriage of parents who have children conceived using AID cause "the breakdown of the family"?)
When research and experience have shown the traditional family unit to be the ideal environment for the raising up of America's future
Your argument is slightly backwards. One, research and experience have shown no difference between a same-sex couple raising children and a mixed-sex couple raising children. Two, your argument that same-sex couples raising children ought to be denied marriage because this is not an "ideal environment" amounts to arguing that because you see these children as disadvantaged already by the gender of their parents, they ought to be further disadvantaged by denying their parents marriage. How does this work for you?
People who are pro-traditional marriage are anti-GAY marriage, not anti-marriage
Plainly, if you believe marriage ought to be denied to some couples, and the benefits of married parents denied to the children of those couples, you are defining yourself as an opponent of marriage and the family, are you not? Because you either do not regard having married parents as having any benefit for children, or you think that some children ought to be further discriminated against because you think their parents are "less than ideal".
jesurgislac--
ReplyDeletehow will polygamy affect my marriage?
One, research and experience have shown no difference between a same-sex couple raising children and a mixed-sex couple raising children.
ReplyDeleteWrong. There is not enough research to show that same-gender parents are the same as opposite gender parents. The study that you are probably referring to compares single parent straight moms to single parent lesbian moms. There are huge problems with the other research.
There is not enough sample size, and there hasn't been enough time.
You can read this article:
mothers and fathers matter
whether you agree with the conclusions or not, you can't say that studies show there is no difference between opposite sex parents and same sex parents.
there simply isn't evidence.
Jesurgislac,
ReplyDeleteYou still have not answered the question. And so it will be posed again: "How can you say that legalizing same-sex marriage will have no effect on marriage, but that legalizing polygamy will?"
The very act of redefining marriage affects heterosexual marriage. With redefinition comes interpretation and subjection to the whim of popular culture. When marriage is redefined once, it can be redefined again, which removes its sense of permanence, its unique and sacred nature, its staying power. Furthermore, when marriage is redefined by the selfish desire to include a deviated sexual orientation based on adult consensus, marital unions are then formed out of self-gratification, love, and fancy rather than committed selflessness, love, and dedication. This is detrimental to society in the sense that children are then reared in families that have no staying power, under unions that have no staying power. These new families are disadvantageously built upon the ideology that self-gratification is more noble and more important than personal sacrifice for the greater good of society. And, they are disadvantageously and selfishly built without the crucial contribution of one father and one mother.
In short, Jesurgislac, Ruby is correct in asserting that with thousands upon thousands of years supporting the ideal of marriage between one man and one woman and the success of society based on that intact forumla, and only seven short years since same-sex marriage was first legalized in the Netherlands, there is not enough evidence (nor has there been enough time to accumulate enough evidence) to support any assumption that same-sex marriage is just as good as, safe, healthy, or positive for the couple, their children, or society as a whole. Indeed, what we do have an abundance of is research illuminating the detrimental, negative, and unhealthy nature of homosexuality in general. And to allow that detrimental, negative, and unhealthy nature to legally marry and raise children is not sound governmental practice.
While traditional heterosexual marriage has suffered blows of late due to increased divorce rates, this should not ever mean that society should then cease to strive for perfection of the ideal and allow a non-ideal equal legislative and societal status.
"How can you say that legalizing same-sex marriage will have no effect on marriage, but that legalizing polygamy will?"
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry I wasn't sufficiently clear. When Bob and Frank, your next-door neighbors, can get married, this plainly has no effect on your marriage or anyone else's. Does it?
However, if you (and your spouse) are made legally able to marry as many people as you like, this plainly does have an effect on your marriage - even if you both pledge never to exercise that legal right.
There is not enough research to show that same-gender parents are the same as opposite gender parents.
There is thirty years of research, including research into the adult children of same-sex parents who now are married and raising children of their own.
But neither you nor KingFisher have responded to my point: even if you believe that same-sex couples are inferior parents to mixed-sex parents how does this justify in your mind legally discriminating against the children of same-sex parents by denying them married parents?
Jes,
ReplyDeleteWait, if i choose not to ever have a polygamous family, how exactly does that affect my marriage?
To address your other question:
Is it discrimination for a single grandma taking care of her grandchildren?
Is it discrimination for a couple who simply chooses not to be married but does have children?
Marriage is designed to be exclusive. It's the same gender parents who deny their children of a marriage relationship by choosing an alternative lifestyle.
What are children exactly missing out on if their parents aren't married (besides the things their same-gender parents inherently deny them in the first place: a mom and a dad).
Can you provide some links to the 36 years of research that don't fit into the problematic category in the article ruby posted above?
This is a seriously funny post. Thanks Kingfisher!
ReplyDeleteWait, if i choose not to ever have a polygamous family, how exactly does that affect my marriage?
ReplyDeleteIf you are married, it would have to be both you and your spouse who would both commit to never marrying a third/fourth/fifth person. The option would legally always be open to both of you. Wouldn't this affect your marriage?
Whereas how could your neighbors being able to marry rather than live together affect your marriage?
What are children exactly missing out on if their parents aren't married
Well, I think that married parents are good for children because I think marriage promotes stability by providing a legal and social framework in which two people make a permanent committment to each other. If you feel that this is irrelevant, plainly you either do not believe that marriage promotes stability, or else believe that having parents in a stable and committed relationship is not beneficial to children. Which is it?
Jesurgislac--
ReplyDeleteYou said:
"If polygamous marriage were allowed in the US, it would be discriminatory to deny Muslim men access to it. As polygamous marriage is not allowed in the US, regardless of any person's religious views, it is not discriminatory: it is simply not allowed."
This is funny because:
"If [homosexual] marriage were allowed in the US, it would be discriminatory to deny [homosexuals] access to it. As [homosexual] marriage is not allowed in the US, regardless of any person's [sexual orientation], it is not discriminatory: it is simply not allowed."
Rollin' Dough's somewhat inaccurate frivolity (same-sex couples can marry in the US, though DOMA denies them their right to have their marriage recognized in all states) ignores my last question, though it may just have fallen out of sight, so I put it again to the anti-marriage movement here: Do you oppose marriage for same-sex couples because you believe it's not beneficial for children to have married parents; or because you believe that the children of same-sex couples don't deserve the benefits of having married parents?
ReplyDeleteya, I think this one is on the verge of irrelevant Jesurgisliac. Honey don't worry, it's late, it happens to the best of us.
ReplyDeleteSo if rollin in dough is an inaccurate frivolity, then I hope the price of onions stays down. Seriously.
Jesurgislac,
ReplyDeleteThe basis for your assertion that legalized polygamy would affect heterosexual marriages is that regardless of a couple's level of commitment to each other, the option for a third or fourth "spouse" would suddenly be a legal reality, whether or not they choose to pursue that.
This is a faulty line of "reasoning" upon which to build an argument that:
Same-sex couples marrying affects marriage for no mixed-sex couple. That's just a fact. No one is forcing anyone to marry someone of the same sex unless they want to.
But, altering marriage law so that one man could marry more than one woman if he wanted to, would fairly obviously alter marriage law for everyone, whether or not they wanted a multiple marriage.
Based on your assertion, legalized same-sex marriage would also affect heterosexual marriages in that the option to choose a new sexual orientation and marry someone of the same-sex would suddenly be a legal reality (after divorce, of course), "even if you both pledge never to exercise that legal right" and "whether or not they wanted a [homosexual] marriage."
You have also issued a challenge for an answer to a question you posed that was neglected. Apologies for missing it. Here is your question followed by an answer:
"Even if you believe that same-sex couples are inferior parents to mixed-sex parents how does this justify in your mind legally discriminating against the children of same-sex parents by denying them married parents?"
As you have so eloquently stated and "Rollin'inDough" so aptly spotlighted, voting against ("denying access to") homosexual marriage is not discriminatory, "[homosexual marriage] is simply not allowed." [Addendum: Just because you have personally dismissed the DOMA as unconstitutional does not mean that it is, nor that it has been invalidated. It is still the law that the federal government of the United States of America only recognizes marriage between one man and one woman. In those states where homosexual marriage has been legalized, it would be discriminatory to deny access to it, but in those states where it has not been legalized, it is not, then, discriminatory (i.e. California).]
The problem with claiming children raised by homosexual partners as the victims of a heterosexual "plot" to deny them parents is that it is the homosexual partners who placed them in that victim role in the first place. As a result of an impulsive desire for self-gratification and complete societal acceptance, the children of these unions are being unfairly denied their own right to be raised by a loving and committed mother and father.
If homosexuals truly had the best interest of the children in mind, they would not be trying to procure the word marriage to define a deviant union that is clearly not included in the definition of marriage, all the while pretending that their union can provide just as good an environment for raising children as an intact and committed heterosexual marriage has been proven to provide.
Furthermore, you stated:
"I think that married parents are good for children because I think marriage promotes stability by providing a legal and social framework in which two people make a permanent committment to each other."
Registered Dometic Partnerships are just such "a legal and social framework in which two people make a permanent committment to each other," and homosexual couples have already been granted the right to raise children under this title. You assert that heterosexuals would teach inferiority and instill doubt in children. But what of the teaching, by a society that legalizes same-sex marriage, that the homosexual sexual orientation is so superior as to receive special recognition and rights over other sexual orientations such as polygamists and polyamorists? And so superior as to warrant the redefinition of an institution that is not only thousands of years old, but ideally successful to the present day?
What is it about the word marriage that makes the homosexual culture so strongly desire to usurp it and translate its meaning to accomodate their sexual identity? It's like Americans stealing the word kamikaze and deciding it will now mean "beautiful." It won't work. It will never mean beautiful. In its native language the true definition is so contrary to the contrived definition that the desired result would fall short and language itself would suffer for the comical and offensive attempt because someone else will come along and try to redefine it again and again and again until its original, unadulterated meaning is lost to the world and it is loosely translated to mean any number of things.
wow. this is a great discussion thread.
ReplyDeleteThe problem with claiming children raised by homosexual partners as the victims of a heterosexual "plot" to deny them parents is that it is the homosexual partners who placed them in that victim role in the first place. As a result of an impulsive desire for self-gratification and complete societal acceptance, the children of these unions are being unfairly denied their own right to be raised by a loving and committed mother and father.
I could not have said it better. Thank you kingfisher.
Why would society treat all unions of husband and wife as if they lacked either husbands or wives?
ReplyDeleteTo do so would be a denial of marriage recognition.
SSM is the specious *substitution* of marriage. It is a merger of nonmarriage with marriage such that the core meaning of the conjugal relationship is jettisoned.
This is not a *redefinition* based on sexual orientation. The man-woman criterion is not defined by a sexual orientation; nor does it exclude based on homosexuality.
DOMA applies to marriage recognition in the obvious way. Marriage is both-sexed. It is not sex-segregative, but sex-integrative. It is not governed by the sectarianism of identity politics; it is pluralistic and cuts across religious and irreligious lines.
The localized merger in Massachusetts no longer is recognition of the social institution of marriage. That state's supreme court has declared that marriage is no longer a foundational social institution of civil society but is, instead, a government creation and a government-owned institution. Even in that state no same-sex combo can make two men husbands to one another, but rather Party A and Party B. Likewise two women cannot become two wives -- not without husbands.
The point of DOMA was directly attacked by the high court in Massachusetts in a case regarding SSM formed in that state by nonresidents living in New Jersey. The high court claimed -- rather than reasoned -- that unless other states had specifically and expressly responded to the high court's pro-SSM Goodridge opinion -- by "banning" SSM in law, then, the SSM-merger was also in effect for nonresidents, such as those in New Jersey. Trouble is, of course, that the New Jersey residents who SSM'd in Massachusetts deliberately crossed state lines to do in that state what they could not do in their homestate. They knew they could not because their marriage laws were virtually identical to those in Massachusetts prior to Goodridge. And the Massachusetts high court had deemed the marriage laws to be a "ban" on SSM. See, that's how DOMA protects against the mischielf of errant judges like those in the 4-3 majority in Massachusetts' high court. But without a Federal Marriage Amendment, such judges will openly undermine federal law and the US Constitution. They do so in the name of identity politics of the gay variety.
* * *
Sexually attracted to marriage amendments that reaffirm and reinforce the fact that marriage is both-sexed? Heh. Clever satire, that, Kingfisher. Good work.