Karin, as I said, "gay marriage" is not forbidden nor is it banned. You haven't shown otherwise.

Your complaint is not about prohibiting the practice. It is about society, through government, providing a special status for the relationship type that you have in mind.

Marriage is a social institution -- not a government owned institution.

Don't mistake the legal shadow for the thing that casts that shadow.

We are speaking about the foundational social institution of civil society. Civil society is not owned by government. In fact, both civil society and marriage pre-exist any form of government a society might setup.

Society, through government, may recognize marriage. But to do so, its essentials need to be identified so that lines can be drawn around it. That is how the conjugal relationship type can be made distinguishable from the broad spectrum of nonmarital relationship types.

Could you state the difference between marriage and the rest? Express that difference in legal requirements and enforcement of these requirements. Remember, if there is no identifiable core, the lines that you'd draw will be unsustainable both in principle and in practice.

What are the essentials, the core, the nature of that relatiionship type, Karin. The one that you would call marriage?

Please cite the legal requirements that identify that core. You'd reject the man-woman criterion, right? You'd reject the marriage presumption of paternity, if it treats both-sexed differently from same-sexed, right?

There is no love requirement -- whether sexualized or not -- or would there be should "gay marriage" be enacted or imposed on society? If yes, then, what kind and quantity of love? What's the government test?

You might notice that I am using the same rules of argumentation that the SSM campaign uses when it attacks the core of marriage -- especially anything to do with procreation, responsible procreation or otherwise.

Turn the table. Test your concept of "gay marriage" against the same rules of argumentation and let's see if you favor forbidding or banning some people and not others.

It is interesting to me that we have actuall deviants such as pediphiles in our community, and have never thought of taking thier right to marry away.
Then you have productive and compassionate people that happen to be BORN gay, and that is grounds for equal rights to be thrown out of the door.
Can someone explain to me what could be worse than a pediphile? If there is anyone who should lose their rights, it is those criminals, not homosexuals that just want to be counted like everyone else.
If it is religion, then that is hypocritical to say the least. How many church going people have known people to be having an affair or fornicating, and all the while turned a blind eye?
Consider for a moment that being gay is not a sin, how can it be if you are born that way? All these people want is to have what the pediphiles have given to them on a silver platter with no objection from any church. Go figure

I find it amazing that some people really think that if homosexual marriage is legalized that they won't teach it in schools. Of COURSE they are going to! Just look at the little first graders who were taken on a field trip to see the gay marriage of their teacher. This is just the start...

www.protectmarriage.com

YES on PROP 8!!!!

Jessica/ Anaheim, CA

Matt said:

Same-sex marriages were around during the Roman Empire, so to say, "Every one of those forms of marriage is built around the nucleus of a man and a woman. And it has always been that way throughout all of human history," is incorrect.

Matt,

You’re probably referring to John Boswell’s book “Same-Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe”. For an opposing viewpoint you can read a critical review of his methods of research here:

http://www.traditioninaction.org/bkreviews/A_002br_SameSex.htm

But rather than distract from the main topic of this thread by arguing about whether there are any instances at all of same-sex ‘marriages’ occurring (and being accepted as valid by society) at any time in recorded history, why don’t I just stipulate to your assertion *just for the sake of argument*. (In spite of the fact that in actuality it seems obvious enough to me that one would have to engage in a very tortured and revisionist interpretation of historical source documents to come to the ridiculous conclusion that such unions not only occurred, but were sanctioned by the Christian church as well. That claim is contradicted by all other historical records of the church from the New Testament itself, to the writings of the earliest church fathers, to the writings of their disciples... and their dispels... and their disciples... as well all secondary and tertiary references to early church doctrine in this matter.)

But even if there had been some cases where same-sex unions had occurred as Boswell claims, that would beg the question as to whether sanctioning such unions in law would be beneficial or detrimental to society. (Not to mention the individuals involved.)

That’s what we have to decide here. And for the reasons I (and others) have already given, I think doing so would have about the same affect on our culture as sub-prime mortgages have had on our economy.

Proposition 8 is Pro marriage and Children it doesn't take away any rights from gay or lesbian domestic partners. Under the California Law, they " shall have the same rights, protections and benefits" as married spouses (Family Code 297.5). Prop 8 will not change this. it just wouldn't be called marriage, and public school teachers wouldn't have to tell childten it is the same as marriage. hey nobody in the presidential race supports gay marriage. Why Iran and terrorist came into this issue? Let's talk about the issue.

Back from vacation and we're still going here. That's great.

Chairm, could you please explain (briefly, please) why this would not constitute a ban on gay marriage? Marriage is an institution of the state that confers certain responsibilities and rights on the married couple. If a marriage is not recognized by the state, it'snot a marriage. It sounds like you're saying two preschoolers can get married in the backyard with a teddy bear presiding. There's no law against it, but it's not a marriage.

Or perhaps I'm completely misconstruing your point.

John Healy said: Did barring separate but equal treatment of blacks lead to Afrocentrism?

You said that in response to something I had said earlier.

Chairm said: The imposition would gut marriage recognition but it would also innoculate a form of identity politics which happens to be gaycentric. In fact, it would insitutionalize that form of politics -- in our schools, government, legal system, and in our culture.

Identity politics, John Healy, is not something to be blaise about. I referred to the gay varfiety, but I also oppose identity politics of religion, ethnicity, and "race". Government espousal of identity politics is perhaps the worst basis for governing.

You might agree as you do suggest that "Afrocentrism" would not be a good thing in the law of marriage.

Your overall point, it seems, was to compare "seperate but equal" in terms of the old anti-miscegenation system and the alleged "seperate but equal" parrellel with the man-woman criterion of marriage. It is a very flawed analogy that the pro "gay marriage" side has been pushing with misleading rhetoric and other falsehoods.

Race is not an objective reality. Racisim, sure, but there are no objective criteria for the claim that there are subspecies of humankind.

There is one human race and its nature is two-sexed. Men and women are not different species, as per the implications of your analogy with race. But they are not indistinguishable. In fact, the differences are vital to the perpetuation of humankind.

The anti-miscegenation system was based on a racist identity filter. The pro "gay marriage" proposition is based on a gay identity filter. You might assume that the latter is more benign than the former, but identity politics should not be pressed into marriage in either case.

The system that criminalized "inter-racial" marriage corrupted the state's recognition of marriage. This was an aberration. It undermined the core of marriage which integrates the sexes. That system selectively segregated the sexes based on racism. That system was a direct affront to responsible procreation because it prohibited the legitimization of children born of "interracial" parents.

That system had more in common with "gay marriage" than the anti-Prop-8 side would admit, perhaps, but they still need to grapple with the fundamental flaws of the racial analogy and with the way their argumentation tries to sweep aside the core of the conjugal relationship.

The identity politics of the gay variety -- which obviously is gaycentric -- does not "lead to gaycentrism", as you put it, but actually is led by gaycentrism. And you would have government press that into our marriage laws.

No justification has been offerred. I asked for the core of the relationship type that you have in mind when you use the word, marriage. Perhaps it has no core? And, thus, no basis for boundaries that would include and exclude some people and not all people.

John Healy said: It's a simple rule: marriage is for two unrelated people at or above the age of consent. The only change is to drop the requirement that those people be of different genders.

Well, that is a trite response.

By that standard, the man-woman criterion is a simple rule. So is the marriage presumption of paternity.

But these legal requirements are definitive of the core of the conjugal relationship type. These requirements provide the basis for boundaries around the social institution that is recognized, not owned, by the government, on behalf of society.

Can you point to the core of "marriage" which is protected, and preferenced, in the simple rule of "marriage is for two unrelated people at or above the age of consent"?

Why two? Why unrelated? Why an age restriction?

Don't point to concerns about sex integration, for "gay marriage" is not sex-integrative.

Don't point to concerns about responsible procreation, for "gay marriage" cannot provide it.

Remember, you said earlier that because something is not mandatory, then, it is not essential nor definitive of the relationship type you have in mind. You said that despite the requirrements I have noted but wish you would brush aside to raise your own simple rule arbitrarily.

Polygamy is marriage, sure, because it does unite the sexes and it does provide contingency for responsible procreation. However, I can point to principles and human experience to demonstrate that this is a very weak form of sex integration and an inferior form of responsible procreation. In our society, in our culture, we treat husband and wife as equals and we place great importance on parental responsibility. That is directly reflected in the man-woman criterion, which is inclusive of the two sexes and does not exclude one or the other; it is directly reflected in the very strong legal tradition,a nd cultural custom, that presumes the husband to be the father of children born of his wife.

Marriage is more tradition than some doctrinaire rulemaking machine. It is organic and not a dead, atomistic, utility. But your remark emphasized the usual pro "gay marriage" non-answer regarding how to sustain boundaries that distinguish marriage from nonmarriage. If you want to provide a utilitarian answer, that's okay. If you want to depend on tradition, that's okay. But please explain how the core of the relationship type that you have in mind can form the basis for the boudaries -- the simple rule as you put it -- without arbitrarily excluding some people and over-including other people.

Is love a legal requriement of "gay marriage"? Nope. Same for same-sex sexual attraction. Same for same-sexed sexual behavior. This would strongly suggest a nonsexual type of relationship with something else at its core than love of a sexual kind.

So why would you exlcude some related people but not others? Surely you know that related people can and do marry, lawfully, wherever marriage is recognized by the state. We draw boundaries around its core and perhaps you can do so for the core of the relationship you would call marriage.

If you point to concerns about inbreeding or whatnot, then, you do not point to a reason to bar two related people of the same sex. Would you treat both-sexed arrangements differently than one-sexed? Why or why not?

A one-sexed arrangment with more than two consenting adults would fit "gay marriage" argumentation very well. The adult consent is there. Love might very well be there, too. And children might be aquired one way or another, as well. Would you take away the kids' rights? Would you deny the right of these arrangements to be treated as if they were comprised of spouses? Is the right to marry not an individual right -- as all rights are in our constitutional system?

That last question is important. I think that if you favor treating "gay marriage" as marriage, then, you lean strongly toward group rights being enshrined in the constitutional jurisprudence of California. That goes further than other kinds of modern identity politics but it would certainly ring a familiar ring -- think of the racist identity politics that was enshrined in a few of our state constitutions.

Becky said: I think the "ideal" argument is a cop out. If you are worried about kids, think about ALL kids. Would you take your kids' rights away?

Your remark is a cop out because you do strongly suggest that you propose your own "ideal" argument. You would not deny that, would you?

Proposition 8 does not take away childrens rights. Your remark is misleading. But the "gay marriage" idea is directly at odds with the marriage presumption of paternity -- and so your position amounts to an attack on the most pro-child social institution that we have.

No "gay marriage" can establish the direct child-parent legal relationship. Not without two prerequisites that are certainly not at the core of marriage.

1. Parental relinquishment.
2. State intervention to assign a replacement parent.

And if "gay marriage" is merged with marital status, then, the government would author a cultural and legal falsehood: that society has no vital interest in the unity of fatherhood and motherhood.

More, that children are fundamentally detatched from the very relationship status, achieved over and over again across the country and throughout history, the conjugal relaitonship that provides the contingency for responsible procreation.

That status, according to the pro "gay marriage" argumentation is government owned rather than intrinsic to the founding social institution of civil society. So the falsehood is multi-faceted and includes the proposition that the government has a People, not the other way around.

Remember, if you would have all unions of husband and wife treated as if they were one-sexed, and thus lacked either husbands or wives, then you would abolish the marriage presumption of paternity.

That's right. Or maybe you would treat both-sexed couples differently on this most vital aspect of marital status? That does not look like "marriage equality" but more like "seperate but equal" in the most flawed sense.

No child is created by two moms. No child is created by two dads. That is obvious but needs to be re-said every once and again to remind people that the "ideal" is based on obvious facts of life.

Thus, in your remark, Becky, you do NOT consider ALL children.

Who cares if children are taught that men can marry men and women can marry women. That's called life. There's nothing wrong with it. Being gay is not illegal in our society. Go to Iran if you want homosexuality to be illegal.

Can you believe that in the 1960s and 1970, our children were taught that a black person can marry a white person? That a Mexican can marry an American? Did you realize that California did not allow latinos to marry each other back in the days?

One way or another, gays will win their fully deserved civil rights and all of you bigots will be remembered by history for what you really are.

My most recent comment may have been lost. If so, I will try again to respond to other points raised by John Healy's remarks.

In a nutshell: the government does not make procreation compulsory but it does recognize the social institution that, at its very core, is the societal contingency for responsible procreation.

And responsible procreation is not just any kind of procreation. It is a coherent set of principles and practices. The first principle is that each father and mother is responsible to and for the children they create together. This unites fatherhood and motherhood.

It is one of the strongest legal traditions, and cultural customs, in our society.

Maybe this is so awful that we need to abolish it because it cannot apply to the all-male nor to the all-female arrangements?

John Healy said: That's effectively prohibiting gay marriage through a change in the state constitution, non?

In a word, nope.

The practice would not be banned nor forbidden by Proposition 8.

It was not banned nor forbidden under the marriage law requiring both a man and a woman for a marriage license.

To choose a nonmarital alternative (gay or otherwise) is a liberty exercised, not a right denied.

The pro "gay marriage" propaganda does not accurately describe Proposition 8. People who engage in "gay marriage" are not persecuted like, for example, the Lovings who were given prison sentences and fines for having married.

Karin's on vacation today, Chairm, so I'll chime in even though I'm not the best advocate for her position.

I don't see how county clerks could issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples if Prop. 8 were approved. That's effectively prohibiting gay marriage through a change in the state constitution, non?

Re: gaycentrism. Did barring separate but equal treatment of blacks lead to Afrocentrism? Did the Americans with Disabilities Act lead to, um, how to put this politely, disablecentrism? Do the laws against religious discrimination lead to Pentacostalcentrism?

Most important, I find nothing in marriage today that equates to "responsible procreation." There's no relationship whatsoever between being married and being a good parent, and I say that as a happily married parent of two. As many of the commenters on this board have pointed out, the ability to breed is no prerequisite to being married. Nor does being married guarantee a) parents won't divorce; b) married people won't have kids out of wedlock, or c) married people will have no more children than they can raise "responsibly."

I tend to side with the commenters who wish that marriage could be a purely religious institution, and that the state would have no part of it. But that's not the case today. As long as there is a civil or secular meaning to marriage, which manifests itself in everything from inheritance to visitation rights, we have to recognize that allowing certain non-related couples to marry but not others has disciminatory effects. And I don't think that accepting same-sex couples forces society to accept incest, pedophia, pederasty, polygamy, bestiality or the like. It's a simple rule: marriage is for two unrelated people at or above the age of consent. The only change is to drop the requirement that those people be of different genders.

By the way, if a same-sex marriage isn't OK, does it become OK if one of the partners has a sex-change operation? Or is that still wrong because the couple can't have children? And if it's wrong because they can't have children, does that mean no woman over child-bearing age should be allowed to marry? You see how flawed these arguments are?