Salt Lake City Solution
CommentsI’ve written on this blog about the Salt Lake City plan, which I think is the quickest way to help same-sex and other couples in our country gain hospital visitation, inheritance, and other rights. I have not gone into much detail, though. I wrote a piece about the plan, including an interview with Democratic SLC Mayor Ralph Becker, last summer but it didn’t find a home. Instead, I’m publishing it below, slightly updated.
While the nation has been debating same-sex marriage in Massachusetts, Connecticut, and California, we’ve paid far less attention to the constitutional amendments in 18 states including Texas, Utah, and Ohio that bar any special status whatsoever for same-sex couples. Except the most unlikely of communities - Salt Lake City - has found a creative way to constitutionally provide rights and protections to non-married couples. The Salt Lake City plan is called “mutual commitments,” and it’s a terrific model for the rest of the country.
The marriage amendments mean that same-sex couples in places like Milwaukee, New Orleans, Kalamazoo, and Louisville have pretty much zero hope for any rights for the foreseeable future. No legislative solution in Utah or Georgia specifically aimed at the distress of same-sex couples in areas like hospital visitation and inheritance could be constitutional. I remember the obstacles I faced in college when I was in a relationship with a man (before becoming religious), so I understand the problem’s dimensions.
But the leadership of Salt Lake City, led by Democratic Mayor Ralph Becker (who calls himself the “guide” of the mutual commitments program), actually avoided specifically helping same-sex couples. Instead they created a mutual commitments registry for all adult couples ineligible to marry - including roommates, parents with adult dependents, and best friends. That helps same-sex couples without violating the constitution, and helps other worthy relationships as well.
In an interview, Mayor Becker told me: “What I was looking for were ways to be able to treat people equally and give people the same basic ability to live well, together, and to acknowledge those intimate relationships. To me what became the mutual commitment registry was a core way to be able to allow two adults who are mutually dependent on each other to be able to support one another.”
Most importantly, the Salt Lake City plan can appeal to traditionalists, as it already has to the conservative Utah state legislature. Mayor Becker’s chief of staff told me their plan passed with broad consensus among Democrats and Republicans, “without anybody feeling like they got burned.”
If implemented nationally, mutual commitments could mean:
1) Relief for same-sex and other couples ineligible to marry in places like Waco and Omaha who aren’t guaranteed the right, say, to visit each other in the hospital or gain custody of children they raised together.
2) The government would continue to give no privileges or special recognition based on a couple’s having gay sex together - or any sex at all. In Salt Lake City, mutual commitment status is handed out to roommates, best friends, lesbian lovers, and others. Each time, the city doesn’t know which - and shouldn’t.
3) Opponents of same-sex marriage needn’t worry that endorsing the Salt Lake City plan could become a back door or slippery slope to same-sex marriage, since nobody has ever seriously advocated marriage rights for roommates and best friends.
Ironically, the biggest obstacle to implementing statewide mutual commitment laws - and maybe a federal one - is the screwed-up priorities of the gay community’s leadership. Right now, gays and lesbians are spending millions of dollars on a purely semantic and symbolic fight in the gay-friendly state of California over whether the exact same rights are called a “marriage” or a “domestic partnership.” I have repeatedly proposed that as little as 10 percent of that money go to securing mutual commitments in places like Virginia and the Dakotas, and gays and lesbians have rejected my idea, complaining I was insulting them by comparing a same-sex couple to two roommates or best friends. Well, I’m sorry, but in my eyes, and those of my religious tradition (Orthodox Judaism), that’s preciesely what they are, and they deserve the same recognition, which is not nothing, but not that of marriage either.
If you listen to the gay complaints about man-woman marriage, they fall into two categories: first, look at all the benefits and protections we don’t get; and second, it makes us feel bad that we can’t get married. I have sympathy for the first complaint, which can mostly be addressed with the Salt Lake City plan. The second set of concerns (”treat us equally” and “we feel like second-class citizens”) is not compelling given that same-sex marriage causes very real harms - to religious freedom, the welfare of children, and the monogamy ideal, for example. If gays and lesbians feel their self-esteem is harmed by not being allowed to marry, I’d be all for support groups and classes on gay history and culture - but I’m not about to change my policy positions.
At the very least, it’s time we spread the Salt Lake City plan to the 18 states covering one-third of the population where more traditional recognition of same-sex couples is banned by the constitution. Even if the gay community refuses to cooperate while we help them, fair-minded members of both political parties can work together to implement mutual commitments wherever we can.
DB: “1) Relief for same-sex and other couples ineligible to marry in places like Waco and Omaha who aren’t guaranteed the right, say, to visit each other in the hospital or gain custody of children they raised together.”
Sure, such a deal might be worth considering in some states. You’d have to balance getting some rights now with taking the wind out of the sails of an effort to get more rights later (civil unions, marriage).
DB: “The government would continue to give no privileges or special recognition based on a couple’s having gay sex together - or any sex at all. In Salt Lake City, mutual commitment status is handed out to roommates, best friends, lesbian lovers, and others. Each time, the city doesn’t know which - and shouldn’t.”
Shh! You’re not supposed to say that out loud. Everyone who’s paying attention knows this isn’t actually about roommates, it’s about helping gay people while giving timid centrist politicians plausible deniability of any knowledge that gay sex might be involved. If you start letting on that plausible deniability of gay sex is the point, the deniability will be even less plausible than it was to begin with, and you’ll sink the whole project.
DB: “3) Opponents of same-sex marriage needn’t worry that endorsing the Salt Lake City plan could become a back door or slippery slope to same-sex marriage, since nobody has ever seriously advocated marriage rights for roommates and best friends.”
On the contrary, they should recall what happened in California and be very worried. After all, California started with a very basic SLC-like domestic partnership, which was open to couples of both sexes and didn’t provide for much more than hospital visitation. (Originally it was to be open to opposite-sex couples of any age, but the conservatives saw perfectly well that it was going to be a de-facto recognition of sexual relationships other than regular marriage, and used what bargaining power they had to get all but the elderly excluded.) And just two years later, the upgrades started, and by four years later, domestic partnerships were close to civil unions, to the point where couples who had signed up early had to be warned and given the opportunity to opt out. Eight years later they’re civil unions in all but name, there’s no conceivable reason for opposite sex couples to be interested any more, and same-sex marriage has gotten as far as the governor’s desk.
DB: “Well, I’m sorry, but in my eyes, and those of my religious tradition (Orthodox Judaism), that’s preciesely what they are, and they deserve the same recognition, which is not nothing, but not that of marriage either.”
We get it that it’s your sincere religious belief, and we’re sorry, but we don’t think that excuses it any more than it would excuse racism, and we don’t accept your apology. In 2009, we expect you to have had a “can that be right?” moment, and if you haven’t, or if you haven’t come to the answer “no”, then it’s personal.
Speaking of racism Mark, remember that separate simply is not equal. If you want a “first-class” marriage, you’re going to have to bite the bullet and marry someone of the opposite sex. Because a same-sex “separate yet equal” marriage is decidedly second class. Sexism is no more of an excuse than racism was.
Marty: “Speaking of racism Mark, remember that separate simply is not equal. If you want a “first-class” marriage, you’re going to have to bite the bullet and marry someone of the opposite sex. Because a same-sex “separate yet equal” marriage is decidedly second class. Sexism is no more of an excuse than racism was.”
I’m not sure what your point is. “Separate but equal” describes an attempt by the government to pay lip service to equality by maintaining separate systems equal on paper but deliberately different in prestige. It’s a good analogy for civil unions which are nominally identical to marriage but intended to be less prestigious. I have no idea why you think this has anything to do with same-sex marriage, which isn’t a legal construct at all, just a shorthand way of referring to same-sex couples being allowed access to regular marriage.
Mark, is gay sex equal to heterosexual sex (that is, the kind of sex only heteros can perform)? Is this not what same-sex marriage would in fact be saying, and if not, why not? (Pleading irrelevance—e.g. “It’s not about the sex, it’s about the relationship”— will just lead to more questions). Would you like this question to be presented before the public when the same-sex marriage issue is being voted on?
RK: “Mark, is gay sex equal to heterosexual sex (that is, the kind of sex only heteros can perform)?”
I assume you mean the kind of sex only heterosexuals _like_ to perform. Then for the purposes of whether it’s a good idea to make them eligible for civil marriage, yes.
Mark, re: “Marriage equality”
Husband & Husband or Wife & Wife could no more “equal” a Husband and Wife, than “Orange & Orange” could equal “Apple & Orange”. And by pretending that Dad & Dad or Mom & Mom is equal to “Mom & Dad”, you are maintaining the illusion that when it comes to sex, separate is in fact “equal”.
Which is simply a ridiculous suggestion. It’s no accident that each and every one of us is the result of the union of one man and one woman. Mother Nature is heterosexist. Good luck trying to convince her that she’s a bigot.
Marty: “Husband & Husband or Wife & Wife could no more “equal” a Husband and Wife, than “Orange & Orange” could equal “Apple & Orange”. And by pretending that Dad & Dad or Mom & Mom is equal to “Mom & Dad”, you are maintaining the illusion that when it comes to sex, separate is in fact “equal”.”
I’m still not sure why you’re going on about separate vs equal, but whatever. I gather you’re steamed that same-sex couples aren’t the same in all respects as opposite-sex couples. In particular, duh, same-sex couples are same-sex whereas opposite-sex couples are opposite-sex. I get that - what I don’t get is why it matters, and you’re not explaining why it matters, you’re pounding the metaphorical table.
Marty: “Which is simply a ridiculous suggestion. It’s no accident that each and every one of us is the result of the union of one man and one woman. Mother Nature is heterosexist. Good luck trying to convince her that she’s a bigot.”
Nature really hates it when you anthropomorphize her.
Joking aside, of course we are all the result of the (genetic) union of one man and one woman and I’m happy to disregard scenarios that are as yet science fiction. So? You keep pounding the table about this, but its relevance is not obvious.
Mark said: “plausible deniability of gay sex is the point [of mutual commitment status] .”
If you are seeking a special relationship status based on gay sex, then, you’ll need to explain the special significance to society of gay sex.
The conjugal relationship, on the other hand, is a sexual type of relationship based on the unity of the two sexes in society. The legal marital presumption of paternity is what people consent to when they say, I do, and enter the social institution that society, through the Government, recognizes and accords a prerferential status. That status arises from sex integration and contingency for responsible procreation.
That special status is not based on “having sex”.
* * *
David, provisions for designated beneficiaries already exist and are well-utilized. A new legal status — a relationship status — is not actually needed for these protective measures.
But I see what you mean about enacting a political compromise. This ought to allow people on all sides of the marriage issue to recalibrate and turn their attention away from the rhetoric of “marriage equality” (and its litany of false equivalencies) to the practicalities of *protection equality* based on the vulnerabilities and special needs of families — especially those with children — living in nonmarital arrangements.
We do need to reinforce the core meaning of marriage — both in the law and in public policy and in the culture’s customs and traditions. That’s essential to our civilization.
But given the decline of the social institution — both in practice and in principled support — in our society, we also have a moral obligation to respond to families in need.
As I said, I don’t think the political comprimise is necessary, since we do have provisions already that apply, but the marriage issues has become over-politicized due to identity politics and so this sort of political resolution would deflate the corruptive influence of identity politics on 1) the special status of the social institution of marriage and 2) on the related significance of protections for nonmarital families.
Mark: I assume you mean the kind of sex only heterosexuals _like_ to perform. Then for the purposes of whether it’s a good idea to make them eligible for civil marriage, yes.
No, I mean the kind of sex only heterosexuals can perform. That you think it’s all about “liking” shows how much you either don’t understand the question or (more likely) are trying to evade it, because you know full well that otherwise the answer is no.
RK: “No, I mean the kind of sex only heterosexuals can perform. That you think it’s all about “liking” shows how much you either don’t understand the question or (more likely) are trying to evade it, because you know full well that otherwise the answer is no.”
No, as I’ve pointed out at length, e.g., in http://www.gaysdefendmarriage.com/2009/01/13/the-short-history-of-being-gay/ , the standard meaning of “sexual orientation” is in terms of sexual attraction, not behaviour, and the standard meanings of “gay” and “homosexual” are as sexual orientations, i.e., in terms of same-sex attraction. Those are the meanings I use and the only meanings I’ll cooperate with. You’re misusing the words, and adding serious confusion to the debate. Please stop.
That out of the way, what I said was trivially true for the standard meanings. Gay people are perfectly capable of having opposite-sex sex, they just very much prefer not to because they’re not sexually attracted to the people they would be having sex with and sometimes might have to resort to expedients like closing their eyes and thinking of Brad Pitt.
CO: “If you are seeking a special relationship status based on gay sex, then, you’ll need to explain the special significance to society of gay sex.”
First, I wasn’t seeking a special relationship status, I was seeking the same status as opposite-sex couples. Second, I wasn’t arguing for anything based on gay sex. On the contrary, I was indirectly making the point that I think politically that would be a stupid thing to get suckered into. That’s because I think most people don’t object to same-sex marriage based on any coherent thought about the way opposite-sex sex relates to marriage and about how same-sex sex supposedly falls short in the benefit or relevance department, they object because they think same-sex sex is evil and/or icky in and of itself. I think all the talk of lack of positive benefits is rationalization - I don’t suggest that anyone is necessarily insincere but I don’t believe for a moment that it’s what originally convinced anyone or that shooting it down would change anyone’s mind.
Now in the long term, gay people will make progress mainly through people getting to know gay people. Opposition to gay sex tends to fade or disappear when it’s not nameless faceless stereotypes doing it. And we’ll get gay marriage as people come to realize that we value our relationships just the way they value theirs and that’s a big part of what marriage was about for them in the first place.
But at all the stages along the way, we’ll get more concessions if we keep in mind that there are lots of wishy-washy people who hate gay sex but don’t want to think of themselves as haters. People who _want_ to believe they’re helping roommates. People who’ll remain in happy denial that they’re supporting programs that primarily help gay people and are primarily _intended_ by everyone else to help gay people, if you merely contrive that roommates might possibly be involved. People like, to all appearances, David. And I was making this point ironically by talking to David as if he was in on the scheme, instead of one of the people who seems to have fallen for it.
CO: “The conjugal relationship, on the other hand, is a sexual type of relationship based on the unity of the two sexes in society.”
Oh? That’s it? The way you lot talked, I was sure it must have been based on something substantive rather than pretentious question-begging.
CO: “The legal marital presumption of paternity is what people consent to when they say, I do, and enter the social institution that society, through the Government, recognizes and accords a prerferential status.”
Why should this prevent same-sex couples being allowed to marry? If you want to insist that if one of a lesbian couple fetches up pregnant, the other is presumed to be the second parent, I won’t argue.
CO: “That status arises from sex integration and [...]”
First, this seems to be more of the pretentious question-begging. But let’s allow that it might have some value for straight people. Do you seriously suggest that you can achieve anything positive by trying to sex-integrate gay people? Do you seriously suggest that you can influence the sex-integration of gay people by allowing or withholding marriage? Do you seriously suggest that allowing gay people to marry interferes with sex-integrating straight people? Unless some combination of these are true, I don’t see what the problem is, and they all seem like nonsense to me.
CO: “[...] contingency for responsible procreation.”
Same-sex couples don’t directly procreate, so I don’t see why this is an impediment. If you have a problem with surrogacy, or adoption or any of the other ways that same-sex couples might end up raising kids, say so, but don’t try to bullshit us that this has anything to do with marriage.
“Gay people are perfectly capable of having opposite-sex sex, they just very much prefer not to …”
So you admit that “orientation” has nothing to do with marriage “equality”? Gay people are perfectly capable of marrying “equally” just like everyone else. They just prefer not to.
Which is fine, I can live with that. What I can’t accept is attempts to redefine/neuter the institution — especially in the false name of “equality” — simply over a preferential sexual attraction.
Marty: ‘So you admit that “orientation” has nothing to do with marriage “equality”?’
Yes and no. It’s relevance is that it raises the stakes. As far as I know, racial preference in finding a mate does not normally rise to the level of an orientation. In a segregated society, white people mostly end up marrying white people, but it’s more about opportunities to meet, and cultural and economic factors than colour of skin per se. Left to mingle on equal terms, people will pair off against racial lines fairly freely. Yet even though there were plenty of same-race people that the Lovings of Loving vs Virginia probably could have loved and married, it was quite rightly found that they didn’t just have the right to marry _someone_, they had the right to marry the person they _chose_ (provided only that they were accepted). We think we’ve got at least as good a case as that. We think that the reasons advanced for continuing to ban gay marriage are just as stupid and hateful as those for banning interracial marriage, and we’re making good progress convincing people. We think therefore that if I’ve fallen in love with a guy and he’s fallen in love with me, we ought to be able to marry, _even_ _if_ there are women out there who I might well have fallen in love with if I couldn’t have my first choice, or if things had just worked out differently.
But as it happens, as well as bisexuals there are exclusively gay people who are not attracted to _any_ opposite-sex people at all. I’m one of them. Hello. They have a whole extra level of grievance: not only don’t they get to marry the particular person they may have already chosen, they don’t get to marry _anyone_ who they would be interested in. So if the government thinks it needs to inflict that inconvenience for the greater good of society it needs that much stronger a case. And as I said, we don’t think the government or the people urging it to ban same-sex marriage have even enough of a case to meet the laxer standard above.
Mark: the standard meaning of “sexual orientation” is in terms of sexual attraction, not behaviour, and the standard meanings of “gay” and “homosexual” are as sexual orientations, i.e., in terms of same-sex attraction.
I’m fully aware of that, Mark. That is not what I was asking.
You’re misusing the words, and adding serious confusion to the debate. Please stop.
No I am not, Mark. I never mentioned “sexual orientation”, did I? Please read my questions again.
Mark, is gay sex equal to heterosexual sex (that is, the kind of sex only heteros can perform? And I am talking in the whole, not just pleasure-wise). Is this not what same-sex marriage would in fact be saying, and if not, why not? (Pleading irrelevance—e.g. “It’s not about the sex, it’s about the relationship”— will just lead to more questions). Would you like this question to be presented before the public when the same-sex marriage issue is being voted on?
What do you want me to stop? “Adding confusion to the debate”, or asking questions that you don’t want asked, because you know full well the answer?
So if the government thinks it needs to inflict that inconvenience for the greater good of society it needs that much stronger a case. And as I said, we don’t think the government or the people urging it to ban same-sex marriage have even enough of a case to meet the laxer standard above.
No, really, all it needs to show is that there is a qualitative difference between same-sex and opposite-sex pairings that is of relevance in order to say that they should at least be acknowledged as being different things. The same benefits, sure, but pretending they are the same thing when they are clearly not, no.
RK: “No I am not, Mark. I never mentioned “sexual orientation”, did I? Please read my questions again. [...] Mark, is gay sex equal to heterosexual sex (that is, the kind of sex only heteros can perform? ”
I’m sorry, but my initial reading was the closest thing to sense that I could make of what you wrote. If that wasn’t it then I have no idea what you’re talking about, and you’ll need to start over.
RK: “No, really, all it needs to show is that there is a qualitative difference between same-sex and opposite-sex pairings that is of relevance in order to say that they should at least be acknowledged as being different things.”
Well sure. For example, when this sort of thing is litigated, the government legal team will typically argue that opposite-sex sex is procreative whereas same-sex sex is not. And then the lawyers for the gay plaintiffs will ask, “How is this relevant? Where is it mandated that couples getting married have to procreate? Where is it mandated that they have to be able to procreate? Where is it mandated that they even have to have sex?” And the government will have no answer.
The legal marital presumption of paternity makes of the conjugal relationship a sexual type of relationship.
The marital presumption cannot apply to the one-sexed arrangement, sexual or otherwise. The presumption is rebuttable, under certain criteria, but there would be nothing to rebut in the case of the lack of either husband or wife.
The man-woman criteiron is also a legal requirement that is directly applicable to the requirement that people consent to what marriage entails, including the presumption of paternity.
There is no legal requirement for mandatory “gay sex” anyplace where SSM has been imposed or enacted. So the relationship type that SSMers have in mind is not a sexual type of relationship. It is sex-neuteral and nonmarital.
Societal esteem and recognition and preference for marriage, via Government licensing, is not a mandate for “having sex”. It does not make procreation compulsory. But the social institution is at issue, not the dichotomy of “gay” vs “straight”. And the social institution has a core meaning around which society, through our laws, protects with boundaries. These boundaries are directly related to the essentials of the social institution — sex integration and contingency for responsible procration — as a coherent whole.
So what is the core meaning of SSM? It is not “having gay sex”, based on the pro-SSM rule that Mark just repeated.
That is: If (fill-in the blank) is not mandated by The Government, then, it is not definitive of the relationship being recognized and preferred.
David’s description of the Salt Lake City solution strongy suggests that the core meaning of that solution is protective status for nonmarital families. Not a merely tolerative status where society is indifferent to certain vulnerabilities; and not a preferential status for non-marital arrangements. The protections are not accorded based on “having sex”.
MB: “I wasn’t seeking a special relationship status, I was seeking the same status as opposite-sex couples.”
Marital status is a special relationship status based on the social institution’s core meaning. You seek the creation of a relationship status that rejects the core meaning of marriage.
What is the core meaning of the relationship status, the non-special status, that you would have society equate with marital status?
Regardless of speculation about motives, the first thing is to identify marriage and to distinguish it from other arrangements. And, in your case, to distinguish the relationship type that you have in mind from other nonmarital arrangements.
Contary to your speculation about people deluding themselves or behaving insincerely, there are millions of nonmarital families and the vast majority are defined neither by gayness nor same-sex sexual orientation.
The SSM nonsense is just about treating arrangements that self-define as gay as somehow more worthy of protections than these other arrangements. That’s the special status that needs to be justified in the context of the SSM rejection of the core meaning of marriage.
* * *
MB said: “If you want to insist that if one of a lesbian couple fetches up pregnant, the other is presumed to be the second parent, I won’t argue.”
That would be an entirely different thing from the marital presumption of paternity. No woman is presumed to have impregnated another woman — whether or not they were sexually attracted to one another or had shared same-sex sexual behavior together. What you just proposed, would not make the relationship type a sexual relationship type.
But the maritla presumption of paternity does so for the union of husband and wife.
* * *
Your list of questions offered in response to sex integration are all about gayness and not about marriage.
Marriage is not for everyone. it is not for those who’d prefer some sex-segregative arrangement. I don’t withhold marriage from people based on their self-identified gayness; they do based on their nonmarital choice of arrangement.
MB: “Do you seriously suggest that allowing gay people to marry interferes with sex-integrating straight people?”
Allow? A gay person may marry. But no one is talking about forcing a gay person to marry. But SSMers obsess about gay vs straight and wish to gut marriage of its core meaning. It is simply wrong to equate sex segregation with sex integration. Meanwhile, marriage combines sex integration with responsible procreation; marriage is a coherent whole — a social institution with societal meaning — and does not exclude anyone based on some gay criterion.
The complaint you have voiced is about is the preferential treatment of sex integration and responsible procreation.
To satisfy the complaint SSMers would have society reject the core meaning of marriage and instead embrace some vague concept of The Worthy Relationship — which will lack a core meaning of its own.
That doesn’t even measure up to the Salt Lake City solution of David’s original blogpost.
* * *
MO: “If you have a problem with surrogacy, or adoption or any of the other ways that same-sex couples might end up raising kids, say so, but don’t try to [say] that this has anything to do with marriage”
Surrogacy or adoption are not at the core of marriage nor at the core of SSM. In fact, pointing to these things is to point outside the social institution of marriage.
The marital presumption of paternity, however, points to the first principle of responsible procreation. That each of us, as part of a procreative duo, is directly responsible for and to the children we bring into this world. Responsible procreation extends both before and long after conception, gestation, and childbearing. This is about the unity of motherhood and fatherhood in the most pro-child social institution we have.
If you want to claim that the maritla presumption of paternity has nothing to do with marriage, okay, but then you demonstrate a logical inconsistency and a blantant ignorance of the very social institution that societal accords a special status.
CO: “The legal marital presumption of paternity makes of the conjugal relationship a sexual type of relationship.”
I presume you mean that the presumption of paternity serves as evidence of an official presumption that there is always sex within marriage. Then I would say that that was close to backwards: the presumption of paternity is evidence of an official presumption that there is sometimes sex outside marriage.
CO: “The marital presumption cannot apply to the one-sexed arrangement, sexual or otherwise.”
Of course it can. You can presume just about anything. The whole idea of presuming is not worrying about whether something is true or not but treating it as true anyway.
CO: “The presumption is rebuttable, under certain criteria, but there would be nothing to rebut in the case of the lack of either husband or wife.”
The presumption of paternity would be very _easy_ for a cuckolded lesbian to rebut (although in this days of DNA tests, guys have it nearly as easy), but it’s still perfectly possible to legally presume it, and she might gallantly choose not to legally rebut it.
Mark: Well sure. For example, when this sort of thing is litigated, the government legal team will typically argue that opposite-sex sex is procreative whereas same-sex sex is not. And then the lawyers for the gay plaintiffs will ask, “How is this relevant? Where is it mandated that couples getting married have to procreate? Where is it mandated that they have to be able to procreate? Where is it mandated that they even have to have sex?” And the government will have no answer.
Hold on to that last part for a minute. “Where is it mandated that they even have to have sex?” And the government will have no answer.
I ask you, Mark, do you or do you not want it to be the legally and culturally understood meaning of marriage that it involve a sexual relationship? If you don’t care, why the objection to plans which offer all the same benefits but leave them open to non-sexual relationships?
On the other hand, if you DO at least want marriage to be understood as as sexual relationship, do you want that understanding destroyed because it isn’t mandated for every individual couple? Or do you want the government to force them?
Mark: I’m sorry, but my initial reading was the closest thing to sense that I could make of what you wrote. If that wasn’t it then I have no idea what you’re talking about, and you’ll need to start over.
I don’t know whether to really believe that or not, Mark, but in either case….
Frequently, when discussing things like Reciprocal Beneficiaries, or discussing the question of why siblings, or even just good friends, might not just as well also be allowed to marry if SSM is seen as OK, you get an argument about how it should only be with “that one special person” with whom you “become one”, etc, and how sibling relations and friendship relations don’t quite fit the criteria. So they often come very close to saying that yes, sexual relations (of some kind) are a necessary ingredient in marriage.
But ask them to spell that out exactly, and they don’t want to quite say that.
The reason is obvious: Once you get outside of conjugality, just what IS the definition of “sexual contact”. Does it include kissing, holding hands, petting, etc., or not? And is it possible for people to feel in love with each other and yet decide not to have sex, and if so, why would this disqualify them, etc. Anyway, as we can see, trying to define “sex” becomes really problematic when we extend it to this extent.
But not when we narrow it down. Because there is one type of sexual act which absolutely and qualitatively, not quantitatively, differs from all the others. Only one type of sexual contact is ever capable in resulting in conception. (Putting gametes in a test tube can be called a lot of things, but it is definitely not sexual contact).
Bringing up the issue of sex and its relation to marriage is only bound to draw out this obvious fact and its implications for the argument. The argument for SSM to a large extent depends on the ability to ask of the public “so what’s the difference”. Well, logically speaking, there is a difference between true marriage and SSM which is quite qualitative and renders all others unequal to it: The sexual act performed in man/woman marriage is the only sex which can produce children (whether it does or even can in the particular couple or not). No sexual act performed in SSM can itself ever result in conception, and there is not even the slightest talk on the horizon in science about enabling it to do so (regardless of test tube talk).
I hereby contend that throughout history, marriage has been seen as society’s blessing of a couple to perform the one act which produces conception, whether it in fact does in their case or not. (And, indeed, whether they actually perform it or not). This, of course, leaves open the possibility of sibling marriage or child marriage, and these are prohibited for other reasons. But marriage between two of the same gender falls outside of this basic definition altogether.
Which partially explains why SSM proponents don’t want to bring up the question. They don’t want to expose the obvious qualitative difference; they want to keep focusing on the far less definable issue of love and commitment.
But also, they don’t want the public to see the obvious implications of SSM once it is acknowledged that sexual relations are a part of the definition of marriage: That if SSM is equal to heterosexual marriage, we are also saying that same-sex sexual relations (and by extension all that might be considered “sex”) are equal to the one act that produces children.
And they don’t want the issue to be framed in a way that brings that up to the general public.
Which is why opponents of SSM should stop pussyfooting around the issue and bring it to the public anyway. Ask the public if they believe that all other forms of “sex” are equal to the one which produces children, and point out that if SSM is legalized and seen legally as completely equal to heterosexual marriage, the answer to this question (legally and culturally) will be seen as “yes”.
Mark wrote: “When this sort of thing is litigated, the government legal team will typically argue that opposite-sex sex is procreative whereas same-sex sex is not. And then the lawyers for the gay plaintiffs will ask, “How is this relevant? Where is it mandated that couples getting married have to procreate? Where is it mandated that they have to be able to procreate? Where is it mandated that they even have to have sex?” And the government will have no answer.”
They must have sex to consummate the marriage. If they don’t, one party can ask for an annulment and the marriage never happened. This rule is related to procreation. A rule that a gay couple must consummate the marriage is quite silly. Which lesbian act counts as consummation? Must a gay couple put tab A into slot B while tab B goes in slot A? Or must any tab just go into slot C? The mind reels…
Mark wrote: “Everyone who’s paying attention knows this isn’t actually about roommates, it’s about helping gay people while giving timid centrist politicians plausible deniability of any knowledge that gay sex might be involved.” For me, it’s about finding a compromise that everyone can live with, that gives gays the protections they want/need without undermining the sanctity of marriage. I don’t think that requires any secrecy.
Mark wrote: “After all, California started with a very basic SLC-like domestic partnership” Are you sure? I remember reading it was only for same-sex couples, but I could be wrong. Certainly it wasn’t SLC-like, intended for any two people in a non-marital relationship.
Mark wrote: “We get it that it’s your sincere religious belief, and we’re sorry, but we don’t think that excuses it any more than it would excuse racism, and we don’t accept your apology. In 2009, we expect you to have had a ‘can that be right?’ moment, and if you haven’t, or if you haven’t come to the answer ‘no,’ then it’s personal.”
I”ll address this in a separate post.
DB: “They must have sex to consummate the marriage. If they don’t, one party can ask for an annulment and the marriage never happened. ”
No, actually, in most states they don’t - you’re married, period, at the end of the ceremony. Moreover, even under Catholic canon law, which the family code of a lot of western law codes evolved out of, a marriage that was unconsummated but had no other issues was valid and needed to be dissolved not annulled. (Consummation just triggered a much stricter rule for dissolution.)
DB: “A rule that a gay couple must consummate the marriage is quite silly. Which lesbian act counts as consummation? Must a gay couple put tab A into slot B while tab B goes in slot A? Or must any tab just go into slot C? The mind reels…”
So what you’re telling me is that nobody has the least idea what “lying with a man as with a woman” means?
RK: “I hereby contend that throughout history, marriage has been seen as society’s blessing of a couple to perform the one act which produces conception, whether it in fact does in their case or not.”
You say “blessing … to” which implies permission. Then I’d love to take you seriously, because if you actually mean that you’ve just shot your argument out of the water. If marriage primarily represents _permission_ to have _procreative_ sex, then there’s no reason not to admit same-sex couples. After all, giving away permission to do something impossible is free, so you might as well be magnanimous. Unfortunately that’s nonsense: what marriage has traditionally been seen as is permission to have sex, period. You’re pretty obviously conflating “blessing to have procreative sex” with something like “blessing _for_ having procreative sex” and your main concern is pretty obviously just withholding blessing and/or permission for same-sex couples to have sex. That’s your prerogative of course, but it’s then my prerogative and duty to goad you to make the case for your homophobia openly.
RK: “I ask you, Mark, do you or do you not want it to be the legally and culturally understood meaning of marriage that it involve a sexual relationship?”
I would have it understood legally and culturally that marriage _typically_ involves a sexual relationship. My attitude is totally don’t ask, don’t tell. My point is that despite your protestations, that’s your attitude too. 99.9% of the time you don’t actually care what goes on in marriage. 99.9% of the time you believe what you told me in your 5:47 post: that marriage is about _permission_, and you don’t care whether that permission is exercised or not. Only the 0.1% of the time that gay marriage comes up do you suddenly start talking about marriage as being or involving a _requirement_ to have sex or procreate or at least credibly attempt to. And because it’s so conspicuously a belief of convenience, I make an issue of the hypocrisy of it.
RK: “If you don’t care, why the objection to plans which offer all the same benefits but leave them open to non-sexual relationships?”
Depends on the details. If the benefits are actually the same, as normally implied by “civil unions”, then the objection is merely that it’s a calculated insult - deliberately choosing a less prestigious term for what is effectively the same thing to convey a message. Now moderates would have me believe that there’s no actual malice, just a different word to reflect the fact that opposite-sex sex involved in traditional marriage is more central to society. And the reason I and other gay people react so contemptuously is that we don’t believe a word of it. We think that the moderate case is just a pretty lame and desperate rationalization of the the frank homophobia of the conservatives.
Then, if it’s just an SLC-like plan, we also regard it as insultingly inadequate. (That’s not to say that we mightn’t still take it, if it looked like the best deal we could get for the moment.) After all, people in typical long-term sexual relationships of either parity have a _lot_ more entanglement of their affairs than typical platonic relationships. If you design a package for a typical pair of roommates, it’s not going to address the needs of the typical same-sex couple and vice-versa.
Mark, I wrote of the legal marital presumption of paternity. It is based on the opportunity of the husband to have impregnated his wife. It is thus a legal presumption that the conjugal relationship type, which they entered into when their consent joined that of the third party — society, is indeed a sexual type of relationship between man and woman.
It is not a social assumption nor a social presumption nor a generous nod to what might be entailed in a “don’t ask, don’t tell” indifference.
The legal presumption is vigorously enforced. And in our society, via the laws and judicial regard for this sexual type of relationship, the Government (i.e. the judiciary) is very reluctant to intrude upon the private aspect of the public relationship. This presumption, and this reluctance, protects the married couple — on a case-by-case basis — and it protects children and the social institution — both on a case-by-case basis but also in terms of the special status of both children and marriage. That special status does not arise from merely “having sex” and certainly not in the sense of shared same-sexed behavior which might as well be masturbatory for its lack of relevance to the marital presumption of paternity.
This is a presumption of paternity, not maternity, and does not apply to a wife married to a man who impregnated another woman. It does not apply to two women or a roomful of women who engage in lesbian sex. It does nto entail a presumption — legally enforced — that a man has impregnated another man or that a man has been impregnated. It does not apply to two men or a parade of men who engage in whatever an all-male scenario might entail sexually.
Now, sure, society might concoct some other legal presumption of “parentage” but it would not be based on sexual relations that excluded one or the other sex. And so such a presumption — cultural or legal — would apply to the gamut of nonsexual arrangements that met other criteria such as mutual support.
Like it or not, Mark, the conjugal relationship type is a sexual relationship type in our laws, customs, traditions, and is based on givens such as the nature of humankind (two-sexed), the nature of human generativity (both-sexed) and the nature of human community (also both-sexed).
Grounds for anulment include lack of consumation — in the vast majority of jurisdictions around the country and around the world. Same is so for lack of ability to engage in conjugal relations. The Government does not unilaterally intervene; the husband or the wife must raise the issue and these are grounds because these point to the essence of the conjugal relationship type.
Same-sex is a very broad category and is not defined by gayness. Indeed, the both-sexed category is very broad and there are arrangements that are outside the bounds of marriageability due to significant concerns about sex integration and responsible procreation.
But the Salt Lake City plan has a different core meaning and, as such, its boundaries need not be based on a convenient assumption, but ot a legal requirement nor a legal presumption, of “having sex”. And to define something is to demarcate its limits, based on its essentials. Since the plan is to provide protections for nonmarital arrangements and for vulnerable families outside of the social institution, the plan ought not to be a merger with marital status. It is not marriage by design. It serves a different purpose and contrary to SSMers, different treatment of different types of arrangements is not unjust discrimination.
You obviously seek a special status, based on gayness, among the range of nonmarital arrangements. How would such exclusion help gay arrangements?
Protection equality is far more inclusive than even SSM in Massachusetts.
* * *
David, what is the progess on this plan in Salt Lake City?
Also note the use of “typical” by Mark.
Mark, you are talking of type. You might then acknowledge the conjugal relationship type for what it actually is. The man-woman criterion stands for sex integration — and that is far more than merely “having sex”. The marital presumption of paternity stands for the contingency for responsible procreation — and that begins and extends beyond engaging in procreative sex, conception, gestation, and childbearing. These combine in the public recognition and preferential treatment of the entanglements of husband and wife.
And, for the record, there are many millions more families that combine a father and daughter, or a mother and daughter, or a father and son, or a mother and son — raising children — than there are people residing in same-sex households (with and without children resident). These are typically long-term arrangements of mutual support, love, care-giving, and financial commitment. These are typically nonsexual arrangements that merit protections.
There are also millions of households in which nonmarried people provide mutual support and become entangled in various ways that impact their finances and legal obligations. Typically these are nonsexual but some significant portion are sexualized arrangements.
Due to the decline in the participation in the social institution of marriage — culturally and legally — and the unfortunately rise in nonmarital trends regarding sexual behavior, childbearing, and divorce, there is an obligation to assist nonmarital families because of certain vulnerabilities.
Nothing about SSM points to the core meaning of marriage. But almost all of SSM argumentation (that is, the argumentation minus gay identity politics) amounts to a call for protections and equality.
Protection equality is what SSMers can legitimately demand — but not just for the homosexual segment of the population and not just for the same-sex category of arrangements (which are not typically GLBT anyway).
CO: “Mark, I wrote of the legal marital presumption of paternity. It is based on the opportunity of the husband to have impregnated his wife.”
As I’ve already said, I cheerfully admit that the presumption is more _plausible_ when the husband has had the opportunity to have impregnated his wife, but that’s not why the presumption is made and that’s not what it’s evidence of. It’s made because sometimes wives fetch up pregnant to men other than their husbands, and the least bad solution was to hold the husband responsible by default for the upbringing of the child even though it was known to be perfectly possible that he was _not_ the father. It’s perfectly possible to presume a lesbian to be the legal father, or at least second parent, of any child born to her partner, and it solves the same problem.
CO: “There are also millions of households in which nonmarried people provide mutual support and become entangled in various ways that impact their finances and legal obligations. ”
Very likely. I don’t doubt that such people exist and I’m not opposed in principle to trying to whip up something to meet their needs. I’m just not interested in allying with you to do it, because I don’t believe for a moment that you’re actually interested in roommates. I think you’re interested in looking magnanimous (publicly and in your own eyes) while giving gay people as little as possible and that this will be so distorting that if we collaborate neither typical platonic roommates nor typical gay people will get what they need.
You don’t understand the presumption, Mark. The Government does not presume that the husband is NOT the father of his wife’s children *because* the conjugal relationship is a sexual type of relationship between man and woman.
The crieria for rebuttal is what provides for the aspect you have emphasized. And that does not arise unless either the husband or the wife initiate a public dispute over paternity. Courts are relucant to intervene where a third party disputes paternity — precisely because of the esteem for marriage itself and its core meaning.
The lesbian example you offered does not solve the same problem for there is nothing to rebut and there is no presumption of paternity that can apply — not plausibly nor otherwise.
I am not interested in “roommates” as my comments have made very clear I am in favor of protective provisions based on certain vulnerabilities of families outside of marriage. Your obsession with gayness is not relevant to these protections and so should not be used to carve out a special status for gay types of relationships (however you might have the government mandate gayness) from among the rest of the nonmarital arrangements in our society.
This is not about *appearing* magnamimous — although you are far to quick to cynically discount mangnaminity on the part of others — but about meeting actual needs based on the meaning and pragmatic purpose of provision for such protective measures. “Gay people” who choose nonmarital arrangements would be “given” their due based on equality of treatment.
You still have not provided your own core meaning for these protective measures — apart from some crude political calculation about get something now and more later in the name of your emphasis on your identity politics.
You still have not provided the definitive legal requirements that would distinguish the relationship type you have in mind — chiefly characterized by gayness — from all other types of relationships in the nonmarital range. It can’t be the essentials of marriage for you openly reject it and cyncially spurn it in the name of “gay people”.
The Salt Lake City plan is very, very, very reasonable based on the differences between the basis for a preferential status for marriage and the basis for a protection status, or protective provisions, for nonmarital arrangements. In fact, as I have said, provisions for designated beneficiaries have existed and have been well-used long before the push for SSM was foisted on the country. Improvements in accessibility and affordability, where needed, serve far more than mere appearances. But there is a political element, of course, in countering the politics of gay identity obsessives such as those who have been pursuing a courtcentric aprpoach to pressing identity politics into social-policymaking, constitutional jurisprudence, and society’s regard for civil society’s most pro-child social institution. The corruptive influence of identity politics is all that you have offered and your cyncial remarks reflect that there is nothing else at the core of the SSM argumentation you present in the name gayness.
An aside here:
“the least bad solution was to hold the husband responsible by default for the upbringing of the child even though it was known to be perfectly possible that he was _not_ the father.”
Note that the husband is HELD responsible, even if we KNOW the child is not his. Meanwhile his wife has a so-called “reproductive right” to KILL the child even if we know her husband IS the father.
If we start talking about “equality” and “reproduction” in the same sentance, it becomes perfectly clear that men and women, husbands and wives are NOT equal to each other. So how in the world could we imagine that a Husband and Husband or Wife and Wife could equal “Husband & Wife”? It’s absurd.
Mark wrote: “No, actually, in most states they don’t - you’re married, period, at the end of the ceremony.” I’m not saying you’re wrong, but how do you know? My quick googling found evidence that non-consummation can be used to annul a marriage in FL and CO. By “most” states do you mean 26 or 27? If so, my point still stands.
CO wrote, “David, what is the progess on this plan in Salt Lake City?” It is law in SLC now. A few dozen couples have signed up so far, as of last summer that is. I’ve heard there is or might be a similar law in Toledo, Ohio, but I have no confirmation of that. I hope it’s true.
Mark: You say “blessing … to” which implies permission. Then I’d love to take you seriously, because if you actually mean that you’ve just shot your argument out of the water. If marriage primarily represents _permission_ to have _procreative_ sex, then there’s no reason not to admit same-sex couples. After all, giving away permission to do something impossible is free, so you might as well be magnanimous.
Not if you want to continue to convey the meaning. Good pretzel logic, though.
Unfortunately that’s nonsense: what marriage has traditionally been seen as is permission to have sex, period.
Ah, now you’re actually saying it. It’s simply not true; whatever the rules regarding consummation and annulment, has it ever been the case that a marriage has been regarded as “consummated” by performance of any sex other than the conjugal kind? Anyway, okay, now define what is and isn’t “sex”.
The difference between procreative sex and all other forms of “sex” is qualitative. It is perfectly legitimate to call A something different than B if there is a qualitative difference between A and B. You can’t logically get around that. By contrast, the line between that large group of other activities which may be called “sex” and non-”sex” becomes very blurry and impossible to draw.
…and your main concern is pretty obviously just withholding blessing and/or permission for same-sex couples to have sex. That’s your prerogative of course, but it’s then my prerogative and duty to goad you to make the case for your homophobia openly.
You keep resorting to this, Mark, and it is transparently a desperation tactic: rather than actually deal with the argument, attack your opponent’s supposed motives.
A question for you, Mark: in the hypothetical case that every heterosexual couple had their own natural children, would you then not still demand marriage to be opened to same-sex couples?
CO: “You don’t understand the presumption, Mark. The Government does not presume that the husband is NOT the father of his wife’s children *because* the conjugal relationship is a sexual type of relationship between man and woman.”
I never suggested the government did. I suggested, because it’s true, that they presume the husband to be the father whether they know it to be true or not, and they bother with the “or not” because they know that people have sex outside marriage.
DB: “I’m not saying you’re wrong, but how do you know?”
http://www.usmarriagelaws.com/search/united_states/index.shtml : “11. Consummation of the marriage by the act of sexual relations (only a few states require this).”
Marty: “Note that the husband is HELD responsible, even if we KNOW the child is not his. Meanwhile his wife has a so-called “reproductive right” to KILL the child even if we know her husband IS the father.”
Yes. And that arises from prioritizing the woman’s rights over her body over any rights of the husband throughout pregnancy, and setting the rights of the fetus at zero while it is still non-sentient, which means at least through the first trimester. And I don’t apologize for any of that.
“If we start talking about “equality” and “reproduction” in the same sentance, it becomes perfectly clear that men and women, husbands and wives are NOT equal to each other. So how in the world could we imagine that a Husband and Husband or Wife and Wife could equal “Husband & Wife”? It’s absurd.”
But I’m perfectly happy to admit that men and women are different and couples of men and women are different from couples of men and men or men and women. I just don’t admit that they’re different in ways that make it a bad idea to allow same-sex marriage, and you’re not suggesting any, you’re just pounding the table.
“…in some states non-consummation could be a basis for having the marriage annulled.”
I think that is what David is referring to, Mark. There is a difference between requiring proof that a couple has consummated before calling it marriage, and non-consumation being grounds for annulment. The latter is the case in more states than the former, but do you have a list of exactly which states either are the law in?
I googled divorce in my search for a more thorough understanding of this whole issue of consummation bull$#/+
At answerbag:
Does anyone wonder why over 50% of married people in the U.S. get divorced.
If you look at any similarly developed country, the divorce rates are similarly high. We need to first look at why divorce rates were once low.
1.) Divorce was difficult - if not impossible - to obtain.
2.) Divorce was not socially acceptable.
3.) Women were largely financially dependent and unable to dissolve a marriage.
4.) Custody of children and all marital assets remained with the male in divorce laws for hundreds of years; therefore, a woman would (and possibly could) not leave the situation.
All of these factors have been eliminated. Thus, women are now able to leave marriages. We must remember that lack of divorce does NOT equal a successful marriage. 2/3 of divorces in the United States are filed by women.
Any time you attempt anything, you must accept a failure rate. Attempting to fuse the lives of two distinct personalities is definitely a high goal. It is complicated, and requires equal respect, love, attention, and commitment from each party. Sustaining such an arrangement over a lifetime is a huge undertaking. When that doesn’t happen, the marriage now ends. It used to be that people stayed together - even through abuse.
http://www.answerbag.com/profile/?id=43922
So Chairm and RK where do you put folk like my parent’s friends. My Parent’s just celebrated 58 years of marriage. But they have two sets of friends they met on a cruise. One couple live in separate houses, both lost their first spouses, but after a couple years of living together, decided to get married, but then decided to live in separate houses. Neither of them, both in their late sixties will ever consider having more children.
The other couple were high school sweethearts, but were separated when one went off to join the armed forces. The two had separate lives, married, raised children, lost their spouses and then at a high school reunioun, their romance was sparked again. These two people have chosen to ‘live in sin’ and not get married, for it will affect their financial standings and retirement benefits.
These two couples, both Republican through and through, love hanging out with my Democratic parents, and are very supportive of gay marriage.
So, what little box do you both want to put these folk in to keep your little world order?
Also, at AnswerBag, another person put out the query: what keeps the other 50 % of the married folk together?
Rusty-
Can you give some solid evidence (scientific surveys or studies) that show the 50 percent divorce statistic? My understanding is that it’s a myth and the numbers are much lower, and the fake statistic is thrown around by people trying to weaken the bond of marriage by claiming, falsely, that it’s already weak anyway.
-David
Mark said: I suggested, because it’s true, that they presume the husband to be the father whether they know it to be true or not, and they bother with the “or not” because they know that people have sex outside marriage.
It is not about 100% perfection, Mark. Nor is it about Government turning a blind eye. The presumption has criteria for rebutal so your quoted remark does not really answer my previous comment.
* * *
Society does not empower the Government to force each and every husband to prove that he is the father of children born to his wife.
Mr Loving, of the Loving case, would have been surprised to learn that his marriage did not mean that he was the father of his children; in fact, even his prosecutors would be astonished by such a notion since the white supremacy system aimed its sites at marriage precisely because it is a sexual type of relationship presumed to be procreative. The racist system selelctively segregated the sexes and impeded the legitmization of children — by outlawing husband-wife unions. The marital presumption of paternity was deeply discounted, and virtually abolished, based on racist identity politics.
* * *
Mark, you may think your remark is true because the Government “knows that people have sex outside of marriage”, but it’s really because husband and wife unions typically (i.e. by type) have sex within marriage.
It is a sexual type of relationship, marriage. The marital presumption of paternity makes it so. Even the criteria for rebutting the presumption make it so, at law.
In practice, the presumption is a factually correct in about 85% of disputed cases — even after the knocks that marriage has taken in recent times. That’s just the disputed cases. The rate is higher overall.
There is no good reason to presume the huband is NOT the father of the children born of his wife. That would be a ridiculous default position for any Government to take, at law.
On the other hand, outside of marriage, the statutory presumption of unwed paternity is far less reliable — correct in about 70% of disputed cases.
Yet the unwed presumption is still based on the opportunity to have had coitus, to impregnate, to engage in a sexualized relationship. It remains a both-sexed presumption because it mimicks the marital presumption. But in practice, and in principle, the sexual partners of the mother are given far more leeway in asserting and denying paternity.
That the normative infuence of the social institution remains, and that it overflows even outside of marraige, speaks to the high significance of the core meaning of marriage.
Meanwhile the rate is 0% for all same-sex arrangements, gay or not, sexualized or not. In such scenarios there is nothing to rebut and no applicable presumption of paternity anyway. Registered with the government or unlicensed. There is nothing at law that would provide a presumption of paternity, or of maternity, based on same-sexed sexual relations. That is 100% applicable to SSM.
That is the virtual inverse of marriage. Treating all unions of husband and wife as if they were one-sexed would not only be an injustice to their children, it would destroy the sexual aspect by which the boundaries around the core of marriage are sustained.
Culturally, why would siblings think their arrangement was lesser than that of two men or two women who are not siblings? Why would they not merit the same treatment as those who claim the chief feature of the relationship is gayness? There is no legal presumption of gayness, of same-sex attraction, of same-sexed sexual behavior. Treat them alike. Neither would be marriage.
* * *
With respect, I’ll leave the last word in our exchange here to you Mark, if you want it.
Rusty, what is your point about the high divorce rate, whatever it is? That it’s actually a good thing because it indicates women aren’t being oppressed anymore? That it shows that heterosexuals have already messed up marriage enough so how can same-sex marriage or other changes possibly hurt it any more? That since many marriages do last still therefore the institution is resilient?
So, what little box do you both want to put these folk in to keep your little world order?
From your question, it is quite obvious that you are the one putting people in “boxes”.
I’m pleased that your parents and the couples you mentioned have remained friends despite their differences on politics and other things. Tell me, Rusty, are you able to be friends with people who disagree with you on same-sex marriage?
Hey David: you queried–Rusty-
Can you give some solid evidence (scientific surveys or studies) that show the 50 percent divorce statistic?
Haven’t really looked at those numbers. Just found the question at answerbag.com. I am sure that you can do the google thing. Looks like the divorce rates are falling based on a brief look at google.
To RK, I am just pointing out that the INSTITUTION of marriage has it’s flaws and foibles. Some folk do well when they partake in the world of marriage, others not so well.
But to belittle SS folk who are hoping to garner the 1000 plus benefits that are guaranteed to married OS folk, well, it just doesn’t seem to be fair.
CO: “It is a sexual type of relationship, marriage.”
It’s _typically_ sexual, granted, but then I don’t believe I ever suggested differently.
CO: “There is no good reason to presume the huband is NOT the father of the children born of his wife.”
I never suggested such a thing. I was pointing out a different sort of opposite: that we are forced to _presume_ that he is the father of his wife’s children because, given that there is sex outside marriage, we cannot _know_ that he is (or at least normally could not before modern DNA tests). If there were no infidelity there would be no presumption of paternity, there would be the fact of paternity.
DB: “Are you sure? I remember reading it was only for same-sex couples, but I could be wrong. Certainly it wasn’t SLC-like, intended for any two people in a non-marital relationship.”
I forgot to address this bit before and just noticed it flipping through. All the early attempts to set up state-level domestic partnerships in California were same- or opposite-sex. In 1999 when one was on the point of getting through the legislature for the first time, _conservatives_ prevailed on the governor to veto the bill unless the _opposite-sex_ bit was removed. In a compromise, it was left in for seniors only and this bizarre hybrid feature persists to the present. I interpret this to mean that the only thing typical conservatives hate more than giving government acknowledgement to very probably sexual same-sex relationships is giving government acknowledgement to very probably sexual opposite-sex relationships under any rubric except marriage.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_partnership_in_California .
Mark said: “If there were no infidelity there would be no presumption of paternity, there would be the fact of paternity.”
The marital presumption is the closest thing to “the fact of paternity”. It is a presumption only because it is rebuttable in some circumstances.
The criteria for rebutting the presumption are based on both-sexed sexual relations. In most jurisdictions, sexual infidelity is established by coitus — both-sexed sexual relations.
So even if your point is the decisive factor (which it is not), it still remains that the presumption is based on both-sexed sexual relations. This is central to the consent to marry; and as such it is integral to the core meaning of marriage. It makes of the conjugal relationship and type of sexualized relationship type.
The law distinguishes marriage from nonmarriage in this way.