Objectively, the much higher rates of dissolution — especially among the all-female arrangements — may be a product, at least in part, of the tendency for divorced people to have higher rates of divorce in subsequent marriages. About half of those who SSM’d had been previously married; and women were disporportionately representative in the participation and in the dissolution statistics. This raises concerns about children because we know, indirectly, that the all-female SSMs are much more likely to have children residing at home.

Now, one could propose ways by which the culture — or the government (!) — might promote higher participation and lower dissolution. Apart from relying on the magic of an SSM-merger, SSMers generally do not wish to promote preferential treatment of participation so they kinda handcuff themselves when it comes to defending their claims about promoting stable relationships.

I put it in quotes because I don’t believe it’s a marriage. The quotes are another way of saying so-called marriage. It’s called marriage by the government and some citizens but it’s not a marriage so I’m not going to call it one. Some Democrats still refer to “President” Bush because he didn’t get the most votes. I don’t agree with them but I’m not offended when they do that. They’re wrong but they’re entitled to their opinion.

I am sorry I rarely speak so strongly but it is just stupid to say more straight people get divorced than gay people. Gay people have only been married for a few years. Do you have statistics that show how many gays vs. straights get divorced in the first two years of their marriage? That would be a fair comparison. But comparing gays who have been married for just a few years with married couples who have been married for decades is completely apples and oranges.

Come to think of it, I’m not going to waste any more time arguing with silly points like that. You’ve declared you’ve left the blog. I’m moving on. If anyone wants to know my answer to any more if his questions, they can post a new comment repeating it.

Marriage is a civil contract between two persons.

Traditionally, and still in 48 states + DC, this is for opposite gender couples. But when the hysteria of the ballot box has not overridden common sense, the courts are understanding that marriage is going to happen. The courts in Vermont and New Jersey deferred to the legislature, who passed “Civil Unions”. The courts in Maryland, New York and Washington determined that the decision belonged to the legislature, which is where the debate is now occurring. Expect these five states to enact marriage equality by statute in the next 5 years. Expect another dozen states to do this in the following 10, and the remaining opponents of fairness will be dealt the same hand by SCOTUS as was done in Brown v Board and Loving v Virginia within 25 years.

This will DEFINITELY be the last post since you directed it specifically to me. There were some other stats about Sweden or the Scandinavian Countries about marriage and divorce I read about a couple years ago. At first glance, they seemed very straight forward but there was MUCH more to the story. There almost always is.

Bottom line, in a free society people get to make choices. If all the Gay people in America got married tomorrow and had kids, it would be a drop in the proverbial bucket percentage-wise compared to what straight people are doing with divorce, non payment of child support – all those negative things.

So while I understand your concern, I will compare – Gay marriage etc. is like a birthday candle and straight marriage/divorce/living together is the barn burning down. It is hard to see that people are genuinely concerned about the “children” in a Gay situation or whatever when there are exponentially greater issues in the straight community.

Peace and blessings – signing out – Jaroslaw

So the indicators, to-date suggest lower participation and higher dissolution — by far — in same-sex arrangements than in marriage.

I missed this when reading your last response above – How dare you say Gays mock marriage and why would you? You doubt their love and committment to each other? Their passion for justice to get equal benefits? To be considered equal in society (whether you agree or not)? No way could any of this be considered mocking.

You, Mr. Benkof are a scam and I definitely will not post anymore.

I re-read my post, and I see no wild assertions – I even acknowledged my facts may not be 100% and even co-workers supporting me agree with you. But you are splitting hairs if you have to say things like “even SNOPES.com has disproven the 50% divorce rate in the straight community.” the fact is no matter how you slice the numbers, straight people get divorced at a far higher rate than Gay people – whether the SS be civil union or marriage in Massachusetts. This would be logical even without statistics. No marginalized group works hard for a certain thing only to fall in with the mainstream, at least immediately. Over time, who knows. Next, Is the main point the Nazi’s hated Gays and killed them or that they were killed in a certain place? Either way, I don’t see how this changes the main concept of the argument. The fact is people were led by the nose by society, church whoever to hate Gays (and Jews etc.) and that is one of the main reasons things like that were allowed to occur. Further, several sources I looked at about the Gay issue said for those who were going to be killed immediately (at the gas chambers) no records were kept.

Back to the wild assertions – women’s suffrage – I have to quote sources to prove it was a wildly contentious issue in the late 1800′s and early 1900′s? Heavens, they even talked about Suffragettes risking arrest in Mary Poppins – which was a common occurrence in the fight for civil rights for women. My grandmother told me she couldn’t even get a credit card in her own name until the late 60′s even though she always worked. I’ve read many articles asserting the same things.

Facts that are 90 or 95% on the mark which clearly illustrate the principle are not “partially true” things, as demonstrated by the “snopes” divorce comment above.

I have a lot of material in most of my posts and you continue to pick out the few things that are mildly contentious, ignore any kind of explanatory additions or caveats I include so I will discontinue the dialogue as well.

Since I do not believe that a man can marry a man, I sometimes but not always put gay “marriage” in quotes. In a free society, you cannot demand that I adopt lingo that reflects your worldview. I’m going to use lingo that reflects my worldview. As for mocking, I think it’s same-sex couples who are mocking the institution of marriage by calling their unions “marriages.” If same-sex couples will stop mocking the institution of marriage, I will gladly stop mocking their “marriages.”

I simply don’t know how to react to your wild assertions that “Gay people have always existed” (!) and “Everyone predicted the family and society as we know it would disappear when women got the right to vote” – which you follow up by saying “even if my facts aren’t 100%, the principle is clearly in the post.” So I guess you want me to let you get away with unsupported generalizations about gay people always existed (which no scholar with a Ph.D. in gay history at an American university believes) and how “everyone” thought suffrage would destroy society… because it’s the principle that counts? I’m sorry, I’ve enjoyed talking with you but under your new approach I just don’t see how I can dialogue with you. I almost never make assertions I cannot back up. If you’re saying you want the right to say things that are only partially true or in some cases completely false without my pointing that out because you say I’m a better writer than you, that’s just not going to work. Sorry. If you change your approach, I’d be happy to resume the dialogue.

The main thing in error above is that our system is set up so that the minority IS protected and that majority can’t vote away the basic rights of the minority.

Also, as I and others have said repeatedly – give marriage to the Church and let civil unions be for everyone. What could be more fair and equal than that? As for the ‘tradition’ of marriage being this or that, are you going to ignore that most laws are written in most societies are written with the predomninant religion in mind, up until the very recent past?

Paragraph 1 – comparing personal life choices such as whom to marry does not compare with drug policies. A case can be made that a population hopped on drugs impacts other people’s lives (drunk driving, losing one’s job due to being high etc.) which cannot be made with SSM. Just because the right wing keeps saying families are going to disintegrate over and over and over because of SSM doesn’t make it true.

Paragraph 2 & 4 – the fact that you are putting “wedding” in quote marks and your other dare I say mocking? comments illustrate exactly why domestic partnerships are not equal to marriage.

Paragraph 3 – are you saying you are unaware that Gay people have always existed? This is what I mean by saying you deliberately twist things and miss points. I have posted more than enough on here for you to be perfectly clear that I and the rest of planet earth who has watched 4 hours worth of TV news in the last 3 months knows SSM has not always existed in the USA and that SSM was NOT what I was referring to when I said “things which have always existed.”

Paragraph 5 – everyone on this post refuses to answer point blank what to do about single parenting. I have said repeatedly 50,000 unwed births occur in Michigan alone, annually. Why this is not a much bigger threat to the family than SSM and does not need a Constitutional amendment but that amending the Constitution to prohibit SSM did is beyond my comprehension.

Paragraph 6 and overall – of course you have the right to push for measures you believe in and write editorials. Unfortunately I happen to disagree with pursuing these things by providing misinformation which the Constitutional Amendment folks did here in Michigan. The dissenting Supremes said ignoring this amounts to condoning campaign mischief. Nor do I condone fear tactics. Everyone predicted the family and society as we know it would disappear when women got the right to vote. Abolishing slavery was supposed to end society as we know it. And few things have a longer history and are more “traditional” than slavery. But your responses imply act you are unaware that our system is set up so that the majority can vote on anything and everything without regard to the minority.

I do not condone Gay activists who misrepresent – but from reading literature from HRC, Triangle Foundation, and many many others, I don’t feel the majority do. On the other hand, huge organizations like Focus on the Family and Concerned Women for America have repeatedly demonstrated disregard for the truth by citing long debunked psychologists like Paul Cameron and others in their work.

I wish I had the time to clarify my writing or perhaps I’m not as good a writer as you – but I know that even if my facts aren’t 100%, the principle is clearly in the post. I’ve asked several people here at work if it mattered precisely how many Gays were killed at Oswieciem or if they were killed mostly by the Nazi machine – 4 people said they understood what I was driving at. And while they said my facts should be in order, it doesn’t change the point. Perhaps if these “protect marriage” drives were truly to protect something instead of driven out of a hateful agenda or manipulative agenda (by the leaders anyway) – and don’t pretend fear of the unknown hasn’t been used in spades – (example – what if you have to explain to your children about two men holding hands in the park – oh. I see. Two men in love is a danger but the fact the average child watches 600 murders a year on TV is not a problem. – and please don’t write back it is only 400, however many it is other than less than 10 is TOO MANY.