Psalm 139:13-16, the Albert Mohler translation

For you created my inmost being;
you knit me together in my mother's womb.
I suppose you could consider yourself largely responsible
for the way I would've turned out
had no one intervened.

I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
your basic blueprint, plus a little medical tinkering.
Your works are wonderful,
mostly.

My frame was not hidden from you
when I was woven together in the secret place.
After I was stitched up in the operating room,
your eyes saw my reformed body.

All the days ordained for me
were written in your book
before one of them came to be--

but I guess my parents tore out a few pages.






[Inspired by Jason Kuznicki. For those lacking the satire gene, Albert Mohler did not write this. He wrote something else.]

in bad faith: more Sonics fallout

The Seattle Times' report on the latest findings from Howard Schultz's "Save the Sonics" lawsuit, among other things, shows a strange confluence of geography, sports, politics, and gay marriage:

While no major revelations emerged during his deposition, McClendon was asked about two e-mails that previously have not been disclosed in court filings.

The first e-mail came early last year, after controversy erupted in Seattle over large political contributions made in 2004 by McClendon and Ward to an anti-gay marriage political committee. News of the pair's political leanings didn't sit well in the Democrat-controlled Washington Legislature, which was then considering whether to fund the Sonics' Renton arena proposal.

Jim Roth, an openly gay politician in Oklahoma, offered to contact Seattle media to defend McClendon against accusations of being anti-gay.

McClendon encouraged that effort, but told Roth in an e-mail: "The reality is it just improves OKC's chances of getting them [the Sonics] here year after next."

Roth responded: "Yes, and then we all win."

"We," of course, not including "you," if you're a Seattle fan.

The article, must reading for anyone who cares about the Sonics, includes links covering the whole shameless debacle, a textbook example of disingenuousness, double dealing, and outright lying.

marriage, history, government, society

I first noticed Coontz's article about the purported "privatization of marriage" a couple weeks ago. Since then, I've read my brother's critique of its historicizing, confirmed by an extended (and, I think, compelling) critique by Michael Fragoso. Fragoso's analysis, as my brother later notes, shows the nuances and "public character" of the tradition of marriage in the West, and, as I noted before, its continual evolution within a basic framework. Just before summing up, Fragoso, who is hostile to the prospect of gay marriage, writes,

As a rule, the more marriage was enshrined in law, the more freedom under the law was given to men and women who sought marriage. This was often the case in the ancient world, and emphatically the case in the medieval world...

Not only do these laws ensure the continuation of society through the rearing of subsequent generations; they also aimed to protect the rights of men and women. For example, laws in favor of free consent as well as those proscribing consanguinity and affinity protect individuals from being forced into marriage for the sake of dynastic concerns. Likewise, public marriage banns protect women from being two-timed by bigamist rakes.

This, to my mind, is why extending the right--the rite--to gay couples is good for society. Combined with adoption, it would promote stable families for children in need of loving parents. It would protect all parties involved from unscrupulous advantage-taking. Most important, it would recognize and elevate the cultural significance of devotion for all couples, gay or straight. A state truly serious about the institution should shore it up by legitimizing gay marriage.

how the state coopted marriage

Stephanie Coontz, a local scholar, Evergreen prof, and perhaps the country's leading marriage (history) expert, explains:

WHY do people — gay or straight — need the state’s permission to marry? For most of Western history, they didn’t, because marriage was a private contract between two families. The parents’ agreement to the match, not the approval of church or state, was what confirmed its validity.

For 16 centuries, Christianity also defined the validity of a marriage on the basis of a couple’s wishes. If two people claimed they had exchanged marital vows — even out alone by the haystack — the Catholic Church accepted that they were validly married.

In 1215, the church decreed that a “licit” marriage must take place in church. But people who married illicitly had the same rights and obligations as a couple married in church: their children were legitimate; the wife had the same inheritance rights; the couple was subject to the same prohibitions against divorce.

Not until the 16th century did European states begin to require that marriages be performed under legal auspices.

The entire essay is a fascinating rundown of the social and political forces that conspired to turn marriage from a publicly recognized private contract to a state-sanctioned joint benefit agreement. All this is to argue:

Possession of a marriage license is no longer the chief determinant of which obligations a couple must keep, either to their children or to each other. But it still determines which obligations a couple can keep — who gets hospital visitation rights, family leave, health care and survivor’s benefits. This may serve the purpose of some moralists. But it doesn’t serve the public interest of helping individuals meet their care-giving commitments.

It's a point others have raised before. Gay marriage allows benefits to gay couples without cost to heterosexuals. It simply doesn't undermine traditional marriage, since traditional marriage is nothing like it used to be--and it's always been that way. Or, to borrow a phrase from one of the U.S.'s most astute cultural critics: "Modern marriage. It's been like that all down through the ages."

Update: My brother finds fault with Coontz's analysis and recommendations.


[via Jesse Walker]

plus ça change: is sexual orientation malleable?

My brother's miniblog makes it sound so simple:

Can Homosexuals Change?

APA: Absolutely not. New research: yup.

But it's just not that simple. From the research in question:

"Most of the individuals who reported that they were heterosexual at Time 3 did not report themselves to be without experience of homosexual arousal, and did not report heterosexual orientation to be unequivocal and uncomplicated. Sexual orientation for the individuals in this study (and indeed for most of us) may be considerably more complicated than commonly conceived, involving a complex interplay of what we are instinctively attracted to, what we can be attracted to with proper attention and focus, what we choose to be attracted to based on how we structure our interpersonal environments, our emotional attachments, our broader psychological functioning, (of course) our religious and moral beliefs and values, and many more factors. We believe the individuals who presented themselves as heterosexual success stories at Time 3 are heterosexual in some meaningful but complicated sense of the term."

"Meaningful but complicated" after four years of therapy and concerted effort--and only in about a third of the small, self-selected group.

In fact, that's the problem with the research: reader Lynn David points to a particularly troublesome passage in the study's first chapter [pdf].

"Of the ministries that agreed to participate, some referred all of their participants to us (as described later) while others clearly referred only a sample, again introducing unknown variation in our sample. Some of the most influential studies ever conducted on homosexuality (e.g., the iconic studies by Evelyn Hooker, Alfred Kinsey, Bell and Weinberg, and Bailey and Pillard) have presented conclusions based on convenience samples, samples of no known representativeness. We believe that our sample is a fair representation of religiously motivated individuals seeking sexual orientation change, but of completely unknown representativeness of all homosexually oriented persons."

So people who really, really, really want to change can change--somewhat.

Maybe.

To borrow the phrase, sexuality is indeed "meaningful and complicated." Dogmatism about its biological nature, its ethical import, and its psychological malleability isn't warranted on any side. Fundamentally, though, the moral question comes first. Even if we could, through patience and therapy, make gays turn straight--or straights turn gay--it wouldn't make it right.

domestic partnerships for same-sex couples in Washington state

It took a year and some change after the last equal rights measure, but it's finally here. If Gregoire signs the bill, same sex couples will gain rights via domestic partnerships, one step closer to full marriage rights.

Substitute Senate Bill 5336 creates a registry in the Office of the Secretary of State, letting same-sex couples who share a residence share in some medical and end-of-life rights enjoyed by married heterosexuals — including visitation rights in health-care facilities, rights to get health-care information and to obtain rights to cemetery plots and interment.

The rights also would be open to unmarried heterosexual couples if one person is 62 or older.

Gay rights advocates are justifiably triumphant, while opposition groups are still beating the end-of-the-world drum.

“I think the Christian people are pretty much going to sleep and letting the culture collapse around them,” said Bob Higley, lobbyist for the Positive Christian Agenda. “I think the pastors are letting the churches ignore the political environment. They are not speaking up on social issues like they should.”

That's exactly why the opposition is doomed to fail:allowing gay couples to share in important end-of-life decisions or to have more stable relationships won't cause civilization to collapse. Such claims just aren't credible.

taking rational basis to its rational conclusion

A while back I mentioned how the Washington State Supreme Court used "rational basis review" to uphold Washington's law limiting marriage to one man and one woman. Their reasoning: the state has a fundamental interest in procreation. After all, how else is it going to sustain its tax structure? Though I thought the Court's ruling was a bunch of bunk, I was roundly smacked down in the comments by a later anonymous interloper, who wrote,

Well, obviously you and Ms. Fairhurst are feeling rather smug about your superior talents in logic. Can you imagine? That entire legislature, along with five WSSC Justices, are nothing but morons! Irrational. In the words of Samuel Alito, in his criterion for the rational basis test, “stark raving mad.”

Oops… you should know better! “…there is no logical way…?” Big red flag there! Haven’t you ever worked a book of logic puzzles? A sucker bet to be sure.

A bisexual man is in love with another man. They want to settle down, get married. But they can’t get legal recognition for their marriage! Dreams smashed, they drift apart. Before long, the strapping young man meets a woman… love, marriage, sex, baby. The established definition of marriage has created a baby that otherwise wouldn’t have been.

A bittersweet outcome to be sure, but I think it is a decent logical refutation. Remember that the rational basis test does not require the legislators to be smart, it only requires them to have SOME RATIONAL BASIS for their belief that the legislation will advance a [state interest].

So maybe you aren’t such an exceptional logician? Maybe, just possibly, some of the legislators thought of other scenarios? That is why the rational basis claim is very, very rarely successful in overturning legislation. The legislature doesn’t need to have a GOOD plan, or a smart plan, they simply need a plan that is not 100% refutable by pure logic. Once you get past that, it is all a matter of opinion, and justices are forbidden from holding their opinions above those of the legislature.

Can't fight "pure logic." All would appear lost for the opponents of the Defense of Marriage Act.

Enter Gregory Gladow.

Proponents of same-sex marriage have introduced an initiative that would put a whole new twist on traditional unions between men and women: It would require heterosexual couples to have kids within three years or else have their marriages annulled.

Initiative 957 was filed by the Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance, which was formed last summer after the state Supreme Court upheld Washington's ban on same-sex marriage. In that 5-4 ruling, the court found that state lawmakers were justified in passing the 1998 Defense of Marriage Act, which restricts marriage to unions between a man and woman.

Under I-957, marriage would be limited to men and women who are able to have children. Couples would be required to prove they can have children to get a marriage license, and if they did not have children within three years, their marriages would be subject to annulment.

All other marriages would be defined as "unrecognized" and people in them would be ineligible to receive any marriage benefits.

"Absurd? Very," the group says on its Web site, which adds it is planning two more initiatives involving marriage and procreation. "But there is a rational basis for this absurdity. By floating the initiatives, we hope to prompt discussion about the many misguided assumptions" underlying the Supreme Court's ruling....

Cheryl Haskins, executive director of Allies for Marriage & Children, agreed with Gadow's group on at least one point about the initiative: "It's absurd," she said.

Haskins said opponents of same-sex marriage "have never said that the sole purpose of marriage is procreation."

"When we talk about defending the institution of marriage, we're talking about the union of a man and a woman," she said. "Some of those unions produce children and some of them don't."

With I-957, "you're dictating people's choices in a way that is utterly ridiculous," she said.

However, Gadow noted that the Supreme Court's majority decision specifically mentioned procreation throughout.

The opinion written by Justice Barbara Madsen concluded that "limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples furthers the state's interests in procreation and encouraging families with a mother and father and children biologically related to both."

To their credit, two of the staunchest supporters of gay rights in the Washington state legislature aren't backing the initiative, taking the polite and political way out and deferring to the rule of the legislature. But you've got to hand it to Gadow and crew for their Swiftian deconstruction of rational basis review.

All right, straight folks. Get procreatin'.


Update: As Ed finds, some people just don't appreciate irony.

gay marriage ban upheld in California

Apparently, the only way to get something done in California is if you have a little initiative. As in, a voter initiative. Why?

[The court said,] ""The time may come when California chooses to expand the definition of marriage to encompass same-sex unions. That change must come from democratic processes, however, not by judicial fiat."

...[T]he Legislature last year became the first lawmaking body in the nation to legalize gay marriage. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed the bill, saying it was up to voters or the courts, not lawmakers, to settle the contentious issue.

So much for "democratic processes" including the legislature. Or the courts, for that matter.

last-ditch legal effort to revive gay marriage

Says KOMO news:

Gay and lesbian couples on Tuesday asked the state Supreme Court to reconsider its endorsement of Washington's gay marriage ban, saying the court's flawed reasoning ignored legal protections against sex discrimination.

Such requests to the high court rarely are granted, but attorneys in the case said the stakes were too high to let the opportunity pass.

"We felt that we had to use every option available to us to show the justices the logic behind our arguments and how their decision, as it is currently reasoned, falls short," said Nancy Sapiro of the Northwest Women's Law Center, a plaintiffs' attorney.

I'd put it at 90% that the Court says no. It's time for gay marriage proponents to rework their strategy and head to the legislative arena.

state law, intent, and the Defense of Marriage Act

If you're not convinced that the purpose of Washington state's DOMA is exclusionary, not inclusive, read the RCW it created:

RCW 26.04.010
Marriage contract -- Void marriages.
(1) Marriage is a civil contract between a male and a female who have each attained the age of eighteen years, and who are otherwise capable.

(2) Every marriage entered into in which either the husband or the wife has not attained the age of seventeen years is void except where this section has been waived by a superior court judge of the county in which one of the parties resides on a showing of necessity.


[1998 c 1 § 3; 1973 1st ex.s. c 154 § 26; 1970 ex.s. c 17 § 2; 1963 c 230 § 1; Code 1881 § 2380; 1866 p 81 § 1; 1854 p 404 §§ 1, 5; RRS § 8437.]

NOTES:


Finding -- 1998 c 1: "(1) In P.L. 104-199; 110 Stat. 219, the Defense of Marriage Act, Congress granted authority to the individual states to either grant or deny recognition of same-sex marriages recognized as valid in another state. The Defense of Marriage Act defines marriage for purposes of federal law as a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife and provides that a state shall not be required to give effect to any public act or judicial proceeding of any other state respecting marriage between persons of the same sex if the state has determined that it will not recognize same-sex marriages.

(2) The legislature and the people of the state of Washington find that matters pertaining to marriage are matters reserved to the sovereign states and, therefore, such matters should be determined by the people within each individual state and not by the people or courts of a different state." [1998 c 1 § 1.]


Intent -- 1998 c 1: "(1) It is a compelling interest of the state of Washington to reaffirm its historical commitment to the institution of marriage as a union between a man and a woman as husband and wife and to protect that institution.

(2) The court in Singer v. Hara, 11 Wn. App. 247 (1974) held that the Washington state marriage statute does not allow marriage between persons of the same sex. It is the intent of the legislature by this act to codify the Singer opinion and to fully exercise the authority granted the individual states by Congress in P.L. 104-199; 110 Stat. 219, the Defense of Marriage Act, to establish public policy against same-sex marriage in statutory law that clearly and definitively declares same-sex marriages will not be recognized in Washington, even if they are made legal in other states." [1998 c 1 § 2.]


Severability -- 1973 1st ex.s. c 154: See note following RCW 2.12.030. [emphasis added]

Dale Carpenter on the DOMA decision

[following up on on a previous post; link via Ed Brayton]

Dale Carpenter's nuanced (and more learned) take on Washington's DOMA decision is worth reading. I have one major dispute with his interpretation, though, that aligns with the Court's claims. Carpenter writes,

The court explains – unlike the New York court — that the issue is not whether excluding gay couples from marriage advances these interests in any way (the exclusion of gay couples does not plausibly advance them) but whether including straight couples in marriage advances these interests (it clearly does) [emphasis in original].

This is undermined by the intent and purpose of the law, as even the title attests. The Defense of Marriage Act was never intended to include heterosexuals, but to exclude homosexuals by definition. It baffles me that the Court and reasonable readers like Carpenter missed that obvious point.

rational basis review: the key to the Washington State DOMA decision

From the decision [pdf]:

DOMA does not grant a privilege or immunity to a favored minority class, and we accordingly apply the federal analysis. The plaintiffs have not established that they are members of a suspect class or that they have a fundamental right to marriage that includes the right to marry a person of the same sex. Therefore, we apply the highly deferential rational basis standard of review to the legislature’s decision that only opposite-sex couples are entitled to civil marriage in this state.

Let's assume for the moment that the court is correct on its grounds for relying on the rational basis standard. The decision continues:

Under this standard, DOMA is constitutional because the legislature was entitled to believe that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples furthers procreation, essential to survival of the human race, and furthers the well-being of children by encouraging families where children are reared in homes headed by the children’s biological parents. Allowing same-sex couples to marry does not, in the legislature’s view, further these purposes. Accordingly, there is no violation of the privileges and immunities clause.

As the decision explains later,

Moreover, the correct inquiry under rational basis review is whether allowing opposite-sex couples to marry furthers legitimate governmental interests.... Granting the right to marry to opposite-sex couples clearly furthers the governmental interests advanced by the State.

Notice the missing word: "only." Clearly, allowing heterosexual couples to marry advances state interests. But consider an analogy: a "Defense of Voting Act." The State decides to ban gays from voting, claiming that "allowing heterosexuals to vote furthers legitimate governmental interests." Certainly true--but would it then follow that disallowing homosexuals from voting would also further the State's interests? No. The chain of reasoning is a non sequitur.

Nonetheless, in its deference to the Legislature, the Court claims to sit under a massive burden of proof. To defeat the rational basis, the Court would have to show that there is no "conceivable set of facts" to support a legislative decision, even if it is contradicted by empirical evidence presented at the time the bill passes. The Court, by its own reasoning, is not allowed to review the evidence or testimony presented.

According to the Court, the mere existence of an argument--no matter how flawed, fallacious, or unsupported--that gay marriage somehow dilutes heterosexual marriage is enough to say "hands off."

Fairhurst, in her dissent, repudiates this gutless view of rational basis testing [pdf].

Despite the deference afforded to the legislature, the rational basis standard is not without teeth--“the court’s role is to assure that even under this deferential standard of review the challenged legislation is constitutional.” [DeYoung, 136] Moreover, this court tends to afford more deference to the legislature when considering economic statutes than it does when considering regulations curtailing personal civil liberties....

Thus armed, Fairhurst continues, echoing my logical critique:

First, the plurality identifies encouraging procreation as a legitimate state interest.... But there is no logical way that denying the right to marry to same-sex couples will encourage heterosexual couples to procreate with greater frequency. Second, the plurality points to encouraging marriage for relationships that result in children as a valid state interest.... But denying same-sex couples the right to marry also will not encourage couples who have children to marry or to stay married for the benefit of their children. Finally, the plurality declares that DOMA may be rationally related to the State’s interest in encouraging the raising of children in homes headed by opposite-sex couples.... Even if such a goal is valid, which seems unlikely, denying same-sex couples the right to marry has no hope of increasing such child rearing. The denial of the right to marry to an entire class of persons is completely unrelated to the proffered state interests. Thus, DOMA is not merely underinclusive and/or overinclusive, it is wholly irrational.

gay marriage makes everything better

Based on these numbers (and let's not forget these numbers), we have a moral imperative to support gay marriage.

(I never knew just how much fun it is to hyperbolize. Thanks, Bill Frist, you've opened up a whole new world of wonder and discovery.)

what a world, what a world

In Nebraska, Judicial activism falls flat again.

In the Nebraska case, U.S. District Judge Joseph Bataillon had ruled that the ban was too broad and deprived gays and lesbians of participation in the political process, among other things.

The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed, saying in its ruling Friday that the amendment "and other laws limiting the state-recognized institution of marriage to heterosexual couples are rationally related to legitimate state interests and therefore do not violate the Constitution of the United States."

Legitimate state interests indeed. In the absence of any other empirical harms, we must assume that gay marriage is delaying the new theater on the west side of Olympia, and thus deserves legal prohibition because of its deleterious effect on revenue gathering. In a post-Kelo legal climate, we can expect more rulings along these lines.

What, you think my legal analysis stinks? It's okay. At least I'm not a senator.

judges run amok

Not exactly.

In New York and Georgia, they upheld gay marriage bans. In Florida, they struck down a $145 billion (!) class action lawsuit against Big Tobacco. (Coincidentally, both cases involved Rosenblatts--the New York justice who recused himself, Albert, and the husband and wife suing the tobacco companies, Stanley and Susan. They don't appear to be related.)

Regardless of whether you find the verdicts fair or unfair, welcome or distasteful, it's clear that the heady days of judicial activism are done--because they never existed. (Sorry, Bill Frist.)

maybe gay marriage really is destroying marriage

After all, it's making grown heterosexual men run naked in the streets to prove they're ready for commitment.

[link via Obscure Store]

Cal Thomas: gay marriage will ruin society

This is going to be a long post. Click "read more" if you wish to...

Cal Thomas, as usual, is on a rhetorical rampage. This time, he's tearing up the advocates of gay marriage, with a shortsighted view of history, loaded assumptions, and all the bluster he can summon. (As an aside, the title--not chosen by Thomas--is "Moral sense lost when personal choice guides decisions." Was it meant to tick off libertarians?) Thomas's words are italicized. Mine are straight.

WASHINGTON - "Dearly beloved, we are gathered together in the sight of God and before these witnesses to join this man and this woman in holy matrimony."

So begins most "traditional" marriage ceremonies in Western culture for as long as anyone can remember.

"For as long as anyone can remember" means "for the past hem-n-haw years," because if you skip back to the time of Moses--you know, Mr. Ten Commandments, source of all Western social righteousness--all of a sudden it's culturally acceptable to have multiple wives. Thomas also limits his moral scope to the West because Right and True are confined geographically....

Now we are told such exclusivity of preserving marriage for men and women "discriminates" against people of the same sex who wish to "marry" each other. Some forms of discrimination are good, because they send a signal and provide an example that certain behavior is to be preferred over other behaviors for the betterment of society.

Finger-quotin' Margo Thomas is admirably frank: being gay is Wrong, ergo allowing gays to be openly gay is Wrong. More on this later.

That a president of the United States would feel compelled, for whatever reason, to make a public statement that marriage should be reserved for men and women is a leading indicator of the moral state of the union.

That Cal Thomas argues in the entire absence of evidence that gay marriage will ruin society is a leading indicator of the moral and intellectual state of Cal Thomas.

Today, right and wrong, an objective concept rooted in unchanging truth, has been dismissed in favor of the imposed rulings of federal judges guided by their own whims and opinion polls (various polls show the country equally split between those who oppose same-sex marriage and those who would allow it). We are now adrift to sort out our choices based on a weather vane principle: whichever way the wind blows is where we'll go.

Thomas dismisses any complex constitutional questions with a wave of the hand, and conflates objective morality with (one particular strand of) Christian morality.

When nothing is either true or false and all decisions about life and morals are based on personal choices and whatever new "trend" happens to capture our attention, we lose our moral sense, which, like an immune system, was established to protect us from cultural as well as biological viruses.

You see, gay marriage is somehow less moral than willy-nilly relationships, gay or straight. People who make a public commitment to remain loyal to the death somehow don't believe in "true or false." Oh, and they're putting us at risk of biological viruses, the only remotely empirical argument Thomas can muster as to why being gay is wrong.

The charge is made that President Bush is "again" using the issue of same-sex marriage to rally his base. But it is not the president who has made this a political issue. Those who would melt the glue of marriage, which has held societies together for millennia, are using the legal and political system for their own ends. In every state where same-sex marriage has been on the ballot, it has been decisively defeated. But like the war in Iraq, the "insurgents" in the culture wars believe all they must do is hang on long enough and the majority will surrender because protracted warfare interferes with our pursuit of pleasure and material consumption.

How will gay marriage "melt the glue of marriage?" We await the argument. (Thomas also forgets himself here, saying that marriage has held "societies together for millennia." Watch out--polygamy is at the back door.)

Some claim that heterosexuals ought to tend to their own marriages before they prohibit people of the same sex from marrying. While it is true that too many heterosexuals divorce (and too many others live together without becoming married), using this as a wedge to undermine a "norm," which, when practiced, serves children and society well, is not a sufficient reason for broadening - and therefore undermining - the traditional definition of what it means to be married.

Ah, so adding people to the club undermines the club. How, Mr. Thomas? How?

Allowing same-sex marriage would be the ultimate in social engineering on a scale even grander than the judicial fiat that brought us abortion on demand. And it won't stop there. People whose beliefs about marriage are founded on religious doctrines can expect lawsuits accusing them of "discrimination" should they refuse to hire someone who is "married" to a person of the same sex. Some countries have enacted or are considering laws that prohibit anyone, including ministers, from publicly stating that homosexual practice is wrong, or a "sin." Remember sin? Sinful is what we were before we became "dysfunctional."

When there is no "no" to any behavior, then there must be "yes" to every behavior. If same-sex "marriage" is allowed, no one will ever be able to say "no" to anything again.

At long last, we have a pseudo-argument. Gay marriage is social engineering, which is inherently bad. Gay marriage will lead to lawsuits against homophobes. Gay marriage is a slippery slope away from legitimizing every possible immoral behavior. Being gay is wrong, something to do with viruses and sin, and discriminating against gays is good social policy. Oh, and the definition of marriage will be undermined in a mysterious and inexplicable way if gays are allowed to marry.

That's the best Thomas can do, and, quite frankly, it stinks.

more on gay marriage

The hot-button issue of the moment is discussed coolly and rationally by Peter Wall on his brother Adam's blog. Highlight (by Peter):

Words and categories can only keep their meaning if they're allowed to change with the culture that uses them. Once you nail something down and say "Legally, This Is What It Is," then you've destroyed the potential for flexibility. When that happens, society just say, "Okay, then we won't use that word or category anymore, but we'll keep doing what we want to do."

Any time someone says "Marriage is defined as..." reach for your gun Webster's. Watch out for politically loaded Definition 1 a (2)!

ban nixed

The Senate couldn't rally the votes. Bill Frist:

“For thousands of years, marriage — the union between a man and a woman — has been recognized as an essential cornerstone of society. Forty-five states across the country, both red and blue, have acted to protect traditional marriage, but that hasn’t stopped same-sex marriage activists from taking their campaigns to the courts, where overreaching liberal judges have consistently set aside the will of the people.

"We must continue fighting to ensure the Constitution is amended by the will of the people rather than by judicial activism.”

No word on whether Frist would support the other form of marriage recognized as a social cornerstone for thousands of years.

gay marriage: threat to marriage?

Says George W. Bush:

"Ages of experience have taught us that the commitment of a husband and wife to love and to serve one another promotes the welfare of children and the stability of society," Bush said in his weekly radio address. "Government, by recognizing and protecting marriage, serves the interests of all."

My immediate debate instinct is to cry, "Non-unique." Everything Bush says--with the exception of "ages of experience"*--could also be equally applied to a marriage between two men or two women. But I'm willing to consider the arguments behind the assertions.

Empirically, how does gay marriage jeopardize the institution of marriage? How would banning it protect marriage? Explain in detail.

Added: Ed Brayton links to William Eskridge and Darren Spedale's take on Stanley Kurtz's claim that

[a]ll indications are that the Dutch case is a causal smoking gun for gay marriage’s negative effects. Although the matter is fair game for continued debate, no one has yet offered a convincing alternative explanation, or even fully confronted the arguments already on the table. At a bare minimum, the rapid and ongoing deterioration of Dutch marriage shows that the “conservative case” for same-sex marriage has been proven wrong in the Netherlands. Convince the public that marriage is not about parenthood, and increasingly parents simply stop getting married.

To which Eskridge and Spedale respond,

...an event does not 'cause' a trend if the trend pre-existed the event. If your income rises at a steady rate of 5% a year, you get married, and then your income continues to rise at a rate of 5% per year, you cannot conclude that your marriage “caused” those subsequent wage increases. Your marriage presumably did not hurt, but there is every reason to believe that it didn’t help either.

The nonmarital birth rate in the Netherlands has been increasing exponentially since the 1970s. It galloped up in the 1980s, and continued that gallop in the 1990s and the new millennium. The rate doubled between 1982 and 1988, doubled again between 1988 and 1997, and is on the way to another doubling. These are significant increases, but registered partnerships, not to mention same-sex marriage, came right in the middle of this demographic trend. Neither institution seems to have exacerbated the trend.

Still searching for a good argument.