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.

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 .

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

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?

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?

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.