The advocates of SSM promote a sex-segregative arrangement and seek to push that under the auspices of the social institution that has always integrated the sexes.

Like the segregationists which promoted white supremacy, the SSMers promote their own brand of identity politics and would press an unjust nonmarriage purpose onto a foundational social institution. They’d have the government own civil society.

The SSMers, not the defenders of sex integration, are the are the descendants of the racist segregationists whose anti-miscegenation system selectively segregated the sexes, based on a racist identity filter, and undermined responsible procreation, by obstructing the legitimization of children. Segregating fatherhood from motherhood is another thing the two would have in common.

Given the way that SSMers declare disagreement about this issue amidst their ranks to be an act of heresey and the dissenter to be a self-hating traitor, well, they have that in common with the white supremacists, as well. Hiding behind an unprincipled imitation of states rights, the SSMers pretend that there is not one single definition of marriage for the country but they have as their goal, as per SSM argumentation, the imposition of thier definition on the entire nation. That, too, they have in common with the bigotry of the hawkers of white supremacy of old.

Timothy, for the sake of honesty and integrity, and to backup your claim about what is and is not marriage, please state the essentials of SSM in California and list the definitive legal requirements.

It is necessary to distinguish marriage from non-marriage.

What is its core — by which marriage can be identified, protected, and preferred by society? Just the facts, please.

“Gays Defend Marriage is a website founded by David Benkof (formerly David Bianco), a columnist for the Dallas Voice and several other LGBT newspapers … “

The stupidity of Timothy Kincaid and his cohort is stunning. Now that I have Robert’s permission, I can sell those four columns in any newspaper I want. In case you haven’t noticed, I have a pretty good track record of placing opinion pieces in major mainstream publications – the Los Angeles Times, the New York Post, the San Francisco Chronicle, the Philadelphia Inquirer, and so on. If only one of the four installments in question is in a major publication like that, it will do far more damage to the “marriage equality” movement than if every gay newspaper in the world had run it.

This behavior is of course typical of the LGBT community, which is obsessively focused on symbolism (we can’t have a gay-press columnist who opposes gay marriage! we need the exact same rights in California to be called marriage, not domestic partnership!) and not so interested in getting results (letting Benkof waste his time on an audience he can barely reach instead of encouraging him to make a bigger splash with an audience he can, helping LGBT people who are actually suffering from real issues, not symbolic ones). It shouldn’t be surprising for such a selfish, morally confused community, but somehow whenever they behave with such cluelessness, it catches me offguard.

One can have a marriage that is recognized by the state and by one’s church and yet it should be “marriage” rather than marriage.

While at the same time, one can write articles that are NOT carried in the Dallas Voice or any other gay newspaper and can be a columnist for the Dallas Voice and several other LGBT newspapers.

But in a world in which honesty and integrity are immaterial I guess this standard would make sense. After all, Benkof is consistent. He always recognizes what he wants to recognize regardless of the inconvenience of facts or truth.

I admire your consistency.

Let me take it a step further. If an actor named Tim Cruz was declared the Messiah of some fake religion, and he really believed he was the Messiah and wanted to be referred to as the Messiah, would it be wrong to call him the “Messiah” of Scientography? Are we obligated under your system to call him the Messiah?

Or take Robert Mugabe, whose election as “President” of Zimbabwe was a complete farce. Now, Mugabe wants to be called President and believes he is President. Am I wrong to call him the “President” of Zimbabwe?

I would say the LifeSite quote is retarded, but I don’t want to insult retarded people, who are generally far more sensible than that. The fact is, Newsom very well could be referring to their entire lives, during which they have been pioneers as an out lesbian couple at a time such a thing was virtually unheard of (remember, I’m an expert at gay and lesbian history). You can tell the LifeSite people I said the Lyon-Martin couple has been pioneering long before anyone every heard of LifeSite. (By the way, when one of them, I don’t remember which one, disagreed with my retelling of an early-1960s San Francisco gay and lesbian event for which I relied on published secondary sources that didn’t comport with their memories, they called my editor and chewed his ear off.)

Thanks for your response.

I would just like to clarify that I don’t object to scare quotes. Rather, I was making an observation. Scare quotes are a way to cast suspicion on the legitimacy of someone else’s use of a word, or to indicate disagreement with the usage.

While I don’t object to scare quotes, I find them to be inaccurate when used to reference same-sex marriage when such marriages are legal. I would tend to agree with Dan that the state, actually, is the final arbiter of what constitutes marriage as the state is the institution doling out marriage licenses. At the same time, I can see how you feel otherwise if you do not believe the state is the final arbiter of what constitutes marriage.

In the case of the LifeSite article I was quoting from, the only surprising use of scare quotes was on the word “pioneer” here :

“Participants could hardly hold back the tears for Lyon and Martin, whom Newsom lauded as ‘pioneers’”

Does LifeSite disagree that the first women legally married in CA are pioneers? LOL!