Good questions as always. As for the Yemeni Jews, I simply do not know how the law is structured. My assumption is that at least one of the marriages of a man who has three wives would be recognized. But I have no idea who gets to determine which marriage is recognized by the state and which are ignored. If I knew that I’d be better qualified to answer your question.

I respect your opinion that society will decide what a marriage is. I just want you to respect my opinion that there is already a clear and definitive definition, that the laws and social custom have no right to change. There has been a trend toward having girls celebrate bat mitzvah at age 13 instead of age 12 to be “equal.” But according to Judaism a girl automatically becomes bat mitzvah at age 12, whether she waits a year for her ceremony or not. Even though in America society (the law is irrelevant) has started to wait a year to call a girl bat mitzvah does not change my opinion that a girl who is 12 and a half is already bat mitzvah, by definiton.

Is my opinion about bat mizvahs stubborn or unreasonable? If not, what’s the difference from marriage?

Respectfully, Tom, I believe you’re the one confused about the concept of libel. I have heard from several attorneys including Lara Schwartz, the top attorney at the Human Rights Campaign, who have said things like “On your questions regarding reporters, the First Amendment of the United States Constitution prohibits the government from punishing speech or opinion, and any employment, family, or public accommodations statute or regulation that attempted to do so would be unconstitutional.”

I have never heard from an attorney who felt a reporter could be sued for libel for saying a same-sex marriage is not a marriage. If you know one who does feel that way, I’d like to hear from him or her.

My point is not that people are going to lose libel suits. It’s that they may have to defend themselves against them (which costs time and money) because the “marriage equality” movement doesn’t believe in equality, it believes in supremacy. If the CMPA passes, everyone will still be able to live their lives using the definition of marriage they believe in – which has always been the case. If it loses, only people who agree with you will be able to use the definition of marriage consistent with their values without fearing the government will punish them for it. Therefore, even someone who loves gay rights but loves freedom even more needs to vote for the CMPA.

The first case concerns me describing my own business. The second case concerns traditionally religious people wanting to control the discourse about my life. It’s telling that you mistook those two cases to be parallel examples.

You wrote:
It’s interesting that you write “I married my husband seven years ago” which, legally speaking, is a completely false statement. Yet nobody is about to sue you for libel. Nonetheless, several major gay activists have told me they thiing traditionally religious people should be sued if we dare to write in a newspaper in a marriage-equality state that a married gay man is a bachelor.

My statement is completely true, and I can produce 180 witnesses to prove it. I did indeed marry my husband seven years ago (well, strictly, six years, 11 months, and a few days ago). I have nowhere made the misrepresentation that we had a marriage license, or that our marriage is legally recognized here in California. I stand by the claim that marriage exists independently of the state recognition of it. Consider a different case: On another thread someone mentioned those Yemeni Jews who are polygamous. If some of them moved to America, would you say that they make a false claim to say that they are married? Or would you say that they are married, but their marriage is not recognized by the state?

My point about language is that neither you nor I get to decide how society will use the word “marriage”. Society will “decide” that, not through any deliberate process, but through a kind of Hayekian spontaneous order. You may personally refuse to call my marriage a marriage (or put it in “sneer quotes”), and that’s certainly your right, just as a devout Catholic might refuse to recognize the marriage of a divorcee. Common usage of the word “marriage” may accept SSM sooner than the law does, if society finds it a useful application. On the other hand, even if the law declares SSM legal, if society finds it useful to draw a distinction, it will, and terms like “gay marriage” or “Massachusetts marriage” or “one-sex-short marriage” may take hold, just as people once used to talk about “Nevada divorces” (you know, those disreputable ones). As I said, dictionaries don’t dictate, they just report.

I would like to thank the academy…

As usual, you make a very good point. The blog post as written does not really focus on what I’m trying to say, and given the title of the blog, it would be easy to read it as “Linguistics shows why gay marriage is bad.” That is far from my main point.

What I’m trying to say is that if we’re going to have same-sex marriage, how should we treat the “old” opinion that a child needs both a mother and a father when possible? In Massachusetts, that opinion is considered bigotry, and anyone who tries to run his adoption agency with those values is shut down.

My point is that linguistics teaches us that those values were apparently shared by every single culture on the face of the Earth until the 21st century. It is unbelievable arrogance, even if you believe strongly in SSM and consider two lesbian moms to be completely equal to a mother-father family, to say nobody in the entire state with the values that every culture in history has ever had may continue to operate using those values. Are we really so sure that those old values are definitely, definitely wrong that we cannot let some people still apply them in how they run their businesses?

Rusty-

I have never said anything like “the downfall of traditional marriage.” Feel free to stick around and see what arguments I actually make. I know there are a lot (perhaps most) of people on my side of the debate making really lame arguments. A lot of time people at this debate are surprised when I don’t babble like a complete idiot. But the fact is there are real, solid reasons to keep marriage between a man and a woman, and I can respect that you see overriding reasons that mean we nonetheless should implement gay marriage. But anyone who thinks that there is nothing legitimate or even interesting to say on this side of the argument usually changes his or her tune after a few days at GDM.

You mention single parent households. I was part of one when I was in high school. I am not looking to insult them. But it is crystal clear to me and even some SSM proponents that whenever possible, it is better for children to have two parents rather than one – even if we don’t agree what gender the parents have to be. I will not respond to your comments about my opinion about “family” since you obviously have much to read at this blog. Read the post about why I’m anti-”pro-family” and then tell me if you think it’s OK to claim someone else’s household is not a family.

For everything else you say, I simply do not follow how it realtes to same-sex marriage.

Andrea-

I think a lesbian who says “I don’t like the ability of an adoption agency to give preference to mother-father families, but I don’t want to live in a country that forces it to follow the government’s values instead of its own values” (my words, not a paraphrase of yours) deserves a lesbian-of-the-day award.

I think your comments on the Catholic Church are blaming the victim; I know nothing about Catholic theology but I want Catholic adoption agencies to be run on Catholic values, not my values, and certainly not the state’s values.

Well, if it were up to me… I wouldn’t have messed around with their ability to do that. I mean, it’s not as if they’re -refusing- to give children to gay and lesbian couples, but if a child is looking at the option of being adopted by a heterosexual couple or a gay couple, and the agency wants to give preference to the heterosexual couple, let them. It’s not as if the child’s life is going to be irreparably screwed up because they have heterosexual parents.

That said, however, I think the adoption agency, having been forbid to go about that course of action, is behaving childishly and irresponsibly. They can’t give -preference- to heterosexuals, and so they’re not letting -anyone- adopt? The same goes for counties of California denying marriage licenses to -anyone- so that they can avoid giving them to gays and lesbians, with the exception that those counties are additionally showing a great deal of cowardice by making excuses such as the inability to handle the inflow of so many marriage requests. It’s an irritating phenomenon, ‘we can’t pick favorites so we’re just going to screw -everyone- over’.

In any case. I would support the adoption agency’s right to give preferential support to a heterosexual couple, -if- as you said in a different post, it was to be used solely as a ‘tie-breaker’. I’d still get ticked off if they chose a heterosexual couple over a lesbian couple, if the heterosexual couple was obviously much less able to adequately care for the child.

So that’d be my opinion on the adoption policy in Mass.

Andrea

but first here are some interesting, yet dated facts based on the 2000 census
Facts About Single Parent Familiesnn By PWP, International
http://www.parentswithoutpartners.org/Support1.htm
——————————————————————————–

· As of 2000 an estimated 13.5 million single parents had custody of 21.7 million children under 21 years of age whose other parent lived somewhere else.
· The proportion of the population made up by married couples with children decreased from 40% in 1970 to 24% in 2000.
· One parent families numbered over 12 million in 2000.
· Single parent households increased from 9% in 1990 to %16 of all households by 2000.

David, you are arguing that Gay marriage will be the downfall of traditional marriage. Two loving people coming together to profess their love and set in legal terms to garner the benefits of making such a committment is not going to strike down the world of Traditional Marriage.

With your continued arguements about ‘mother and father’ families, it seems to me that you are doing a great disservice to all those single parent households who have successfully completed raising their children on their own. When a parent dies, leaves or just neglects parental responsibilities and the other parent takes on the duties of parenthood, the children still come from a ‘family’. You are trying to define ‘family’. Take some time and do some research on family dynamics pre-WWII. Most families came together and raised children in pods/litters. Families supported each other. And sometimes ‘family’ members were not connected by blood or marriage.

Yes we live in a world where males are refered to as fathers and females are referred to as mothers. But we also live in a world where many children may not celebrate mother’s day or father’s day because of circumstances beyond their control. Children are now living with grandparent(s), neighbors, single moms, two moms, two dads, one dad, a dad and a mom, step-parents, siblings, aunts, uncles. . .it is hoped that whereever a child lives and grows up, he or she is wanted and loved, cared for, and is encouraged to fullfill dreams.

Families are not limited to one design or a specific set of criteria. They never have been and never will. And when you, David, try to define family, and there are children that come from families don’t fit your definition, tell me how they might feel.

I honor the product that has come about the process you have created through your blog. It is making people think. But again, it is disturbing: your continual rants seem very dismissive and demeaning to many people, not just LGBT folk, but straight folk who don’t fall into your little, very little controlling box and are also very disrespectful. Not positive traits for such a devout Jew.

Language is interesting. This line of reasoning with regard to a debate about marriage equality is not.

You give an example where one English word has many Japanese variants. That’s not a great analogy to an English concept that uses two words (“mother” and “father”) that I was wondering (and I didn’t know before I asked) whether there was a language that used only one word to describe. My theory (and I’m not a linguist) is that a culture that really didn’t see a difference between mothers and fathers (like the Estonians don’t get that mountains and hills aren’t the same thing, at least to us) would just have a word “parent.” Lesbian couples actually do this sometimes.

Little boy: my parents are called “Mommy Gertrude” and “Mommy Alice.”

There isn’t a different word for “tall mommy” and “short mommy” or “butch mommy” and “femme momy.” They’re just both called mommy, with a modifier to explain who’s who. There could very well be a culture that thinks mothers and fathers basically do the same, in which children refer to “Parent Ozzie” and “Parent Harriet.” But such a language appears to never have existed.

You write: “I’m not of the opinion that both are necessary when raising a child to be the best human being” which is fine. I am of that opinion. But if you read my blog post my main argument is not that linguistics should convince everyone that gay marriage is bad; it’s that linguistics should convince everyone that we don’t have such a preponderance of evidence about whether children don’t need both a mother and a father that we should treat people who like the older, universal definition as bigots whose businesses should be shut down. (that comment applies to Mark’s post, too)

How do you feel about the Massachusetts adoption law, Andrea?

Tom-

I do not base my definition of what something important to me is based on dictionaries. I have never been consulted by a dictionary as to what a word means, so I don’t see why I have to accept a definition in the dictionary.

You write, “The vote in November is only about whether California will acknowledge gay marriages. The marriages already exist.” Perhaps I can show you the error in your logic with reductio ad absurdum. The example is not mine, it was posted by a gay man who supports SSM and was at least half serious, if not more. He said he would support the rights of dogs to marry. And I’m sure at some point in history a dog-lover held a wedding for two of his dogs. Can I write “The vote in November is only about whether California will acknowledge gay marriages. The marriages already exist.”

Of course dog marriages don’t exist. They never will, no matter how many states recognize them. Neither the dictionary nor a state government has any right to declare that dogs can get married. The basic understanding among people about marriage is that it is only for humans.

It’s interesting that you write “I married my husband seven years ago” which, legally speaking, is a completely false statement. Yet nobody is about to sue you for libel. Nonetheless, several major gay activists have told me they thiing traditionally religious people should be sued if we dare to write in a newspaper in a marriage-equality state that a married gay man is a bachelor.

I am willing to say you had a wedding. But that was not a marriage because marriage is between a man and a woman, and are highly unlikely to change my mind about that.